Saturday 8 October 2016
An oversimplification examined.
The Position on Organ Transplants
"Agreeing to an organ transplant or organ donation is a personal decision." http://jw-media.org/aboutjw/article02.htm#organ
In an effort to discredit Jehovah's Witnesses and portray them negatively, some religious opposers advance an accusation regarding the position of Jehovah's Witnesses on organ transplants between the years 1967 and 1980.
Did Jehovah's Witnesses zigzag on the acceptability of organ transplant therapy during 1961, 1967 and 1980? As we shall see after an honest examination, the choice was always ultimately left to the conscience. Also, there was never a danger of being disfellowshipped, and while this case became similar to the case of blood transfusions, it falls far short of being equivalent.
Included also is a consideration of what other faiths believed at the time, and how and when organ transplantation improved into the relatively safe therapy that it is today.
What was the position over time?
In the 1950's there was no mention of any transplant procedures in Jehovah's Witnesses' publications, as transplant procedures were still in their infancy. It was in 1961 however, that brief mention of the subject was first made in their doctrinal magazine The Watchtower of August 1, in its Questions From Readers section. The question was:
Did Jehovah's Witnesses zigzag on the acceptability of organ transplant therapy during 1961, 1967 and 1980? As we shall see after an honest examination, the choice was always ultimately left to the conscience. Also, there was never a danger of being disfellowshipped, and while this case became similar to the case of blood transfusions, it falls far short of being equivalent.
Included also is a consideration of what other faiths believed at the time, and how and when organ transplantation improved into the relatively safe therapy that it is today.
What was the position over time?
In the 1950's there was no mention of any transplant procedures in Jehovah's Witnesses' publications, as transplant procedures were still in their infancy. It was in 1961 however, that brief mention of the subject was first made in their doctrinal magazine The Watchtower of August 1, in its Questions From Readers section. The question was:
"Is there anything in the Bible against giving one's eyes (after death) to be transplanted to some living person?"
The answer, being a single paragraph, was:
"The question of placing one's body or parts of one's body at the disposal of men of science or doctors at one's death for purposes of scientific experimentation or replacement in others is frowned upon by certain religious bodies. However, it does not seem that any Scriptural principle or law is involved. It therefore is something that each individual must decide for himself. If he is satisfied in his own mind and conscience that this is a proper thing to do, then he can make such provision, and no one else should criticize him for doing so. On the other hand, no one should be criticized for refusing to enter into any such agreement." (italics added)
As we can see, no objection to organ transplants is presented here, and the decision is left to the person's conscience to accept or refuse.
During the 1960's, the subject for debate was the question of giving transplants to living persons for experimental purposes. In fact, the University Professor of Anesthesiology at Harvard's Medical Faculty published his famous June 16, 1966 article denouncing an extensive series of ethically-questionable medical experiments (Henry K. Beecher, "Ethics and Clinical Research." New England Journal of Medicine, 1966; 274: 1354-60). Soon after, in 1967 there appeared another famous work in the same vein: Human Guinea Pigs, by the British doctor M. H. Pappworth.
It was at this time that The Watchtower of November 15, 1967 commented on organ donation in its Questions From Readers section, in response to the following:
During the 1960's, the subject for debate was the question of giving transplants to living persons for experimental purposes. In fact, the University Professor of Anesthesiology at Harvard's Medical Faculty published his famous June 16, 1966 article denouncing an extensive series of ethically-questionable medical experiments (Henry K. Beecher, "Ethics and Clinical Research." New England Journal of Medicine, 1966; 274: 1354-60). Soon after, in 1967 there appeared another famous work in the same vein: Human Guinea Pigs, by the British doctor M. H. Pappworth.
It was at this time that The Watchtower of November 15, 1967 commented on organ donation in its Questions From Readers section, in response to the following:
"Is there any Scriptural objection to donating one's body for use in medical research or to accepting organs for transplant from such a source?"
Rather than present a single paragraph leaving the matter to the conscience, commendably the article attempted to ascertain God's view of the matter by considering scriptures and principles. However, it also compared accepting a transplanted organ to cannibalism. On that it stated:
"Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others."
Granted, this opinion was taken from the article "Medical cannibalism" appearing in the Encyclopœdia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings (Volume 3, page 199), which it referred to and quoted from in its next paragraph. While the response included this comparison in an attempt to be balanced and informative, it also had the potential to offend and distract from the deciding power of the conscience also presented in the same Questions From Readers. Therefore the comparison to cannibalism proved to be unfortunate.
However, even with the unfortunate caution expressed above, the same Questions From Readers article did in fact leave the decision up to the person, as it later stated:
However, even with the unfortunate caution expressed above, the same Questions From Readers article did in fact leave the decision up to the person, as it later stated:
"Baptized Christians have dedicated their lives, bodies included, to do the will of Jehovah their Creator. In view of this, can such a person donate his body or part of it for unrestricted use by doctors or others? Does a human have a God-given right to dedicate his body organs to scientific experimentation? Is it proper for him to allow such to be done with the body of a loved one? These are questions worthy of serious consideration."
Further highlighting the role of the individual's conscience, it closed with these comments:
"[T]he Christian can decide in such a way as to avoid unnecessary mutilation and any possible misuse of the body. Thus he will be able to have a clear conscience before God.—1 Pet. 3:16.
It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God's Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.—Prov. 3:5, 6; Ps. 119:105."
Thus, it is important to note that the same article also left much to the person's conscience.
Shortly thereafter in the medical world, in December 1967, the first successful human-to-human heart transplant was performed by Professor Christiaan Barnard at Groote Schuur Hospital in South Africa (the patient lived 18 days, which was considered successful for a high-risk experimental surgery, as such transplants were at the time).ftn1
During the following years from 1968 to 1975, there were some occasional and brief mentioning of organ transplants in Jehovah's Witnesses' magazines, The Watchtower and Awake!, all of them expressing medical concerns like inherent transplant risks and the side effects of immunosuppressive drugs, and generally referenced non-Witness works and authors (the last of such appeared in the September 1, 1975 issue of The Watchtower, page 519 under "Insight on the News" which noted documented cases of post-operation emotional trauma and upheaval).
Around the same time, the immunosuppressive effect of a substance called cyclosporin (alternatively spelled cyclosporine and ciclosporin) was discovered at the earliest in 1972 and at the latest in 1976. This was followed by a series of experiments attempting to overcome the primary practical problem organ transplants were facing: tissue rejection. These experiments went well and this substance was officially approved for medical use in 1983.ftn2 It was also during the late 1970's and early 1980's that a satisfactory answer had been reached on the exact moment of death. It is no coincidence that the laws and regulations for transplants began to appear around 1980 (for example, the Spanish law on organ extraction and transplant of 1979 and the corresponding 1984 law in the United States). Thus, it was in the early 1980's, and especially from 1983, that organ transplants stopped being experimental procedures and became accepted medical therapy.ftn3 In fact, from that year and even into the 1990's, many churches of Christendom and other religions began releasing official resolutions in favor of organ transplantation.
Today it is an accepted medical treatment.
After the above mentioned September 1, 1975 issue of The Watchtower, there was no reference to the practice of transplants in Jehovah's Witnesses' publications. It was not until The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 that a Questions From Readers article was again published on transplants, which had this exchange:
Shortly thereafter in the medical world, in December 1967, the first successful human-to-human heart transplant was performed by Professor Christiaan Barnard at Groote Schuur Hospital in South Africa (the patient lived 18 days, which was considered successful for a high-risk experimental surgery, as such transplants were at the time).ftn1
During the following years from 1968 to 1975, there were some occasional and brief mentioning of organ transplants in Jehovah's Witnesses' magazines, The Watchtower and Awake!, all of them expressing medical concerns like inherent transplant risks and the side effects of immunosuppressive drugs, and generally referenced non-Witness works and authors (the last of such appeared in the September 1, 1975 issue of The Watchtower, page 519 under "Insight on the News" which noted documented cases of post-operation emotional trauma and upheaval).
Around the same time, the immunosuppressive effect of a substance called cyclosporin (alternatively spelled cyclosporine and ciclosporin) was discovered at the earliest in 1972 and at the latest in 1976. This was followed by a series of experiments attempting to overcome the primary practical problem organ transplants were facing: tissue rejection. These experiments went well and this substance was officially approved for medical use in 1983.ftn2 It was also during the late 1970's and early 1980's that a satisfactory answer had been reached on the exact moment of death. It is no coincidence that the laws and regulations for transplants began to appear around 1980 (for example, the Spanish law on organ extraction and transplant of 1979 and the corresponding 1984 law in the United States). Thus, it was in the early 1980's, and especially from 1983, that organ transplants stopped being experimental procedures and became accepted medical therapy.ftn3 In fact, from that year and even into the 1990's, many churches of Christendom and other religions began releasing official resolutions in favor of organ transplantation.
Today it is an accepted medical treatment.
After the above mentioned September 1, 1975 issue of The Watchtower, there was no reference to the practice of transplants in Jehovah's Witnesses' publications. It was not until The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 that a Questions From Readers article was again published on transplants, which had this exchange:
"Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney?"
The answer began with:
"Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah's Witnesses."
This article is clearly more focused on the role of the Christian conscience, specifying that each one must make a personal decision. Some Christians, it stated, may view transplants as cannibalistic and unacceptable, while others may view them as acceptable. This position continues to be the one that Jehovah's Witnesses have today. The same article concluded:
"Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. ... While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant."
Thus, after considering what was said in 1961, 1967 and 1980, it can be seen that the conscience played the ultimate deciding factor. It was up to the individual to decide, with no disciplinary sword of Damocles dangling above. Interestingly, as pointed out above, organ transplant therapy experienced a turning point shortly thereafter in 1983, when cyclosporin was approved for medical use.
No threat of expulsion
Even though the 1967 Questions From Readers included the unfortunate comparison to cannibalism, it specified that transplants are a matter of personal decision, with no mention of disciplinary measures.
To see this matter more clearly, contrast it with the question of blood transfusion. The idea was expressed for the first time in 1945 that blood transfusions violated divine law on the sanctity of blood; nevertheless, it was not until 1961 that it was specified that the matter was of sufficient gravity so as to disfellowship from the congregations any who disregarded this divine requirement and displayed an unrepentant attitude.ftn4
Has the same thing happened with organ transplants? After the 1967 article, did a subsequent publication state that to accept a transplant was a matter of sufficient gravity to disfellowship unrepentant members?
In 1968 the book The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life was published which was a study guide that explained the fundamental teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses to interested ones. This book considered the sanctity of blood in depth, but did not even mention the matter of organ transplants.
Besides, the candidates for baptism then, as today, examine the fundamental Biblical doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses before accepting them, for which they had the books Your Word Is a Lamp to My Foot (1967) and Organization for Kingdom-Preaching and Disciple-Making (1972). Among these questions on the moral norms of Jehovah's Witnesses were covered, included the position on blood transfusions. Nevertheless, nothing in those books mentioned anything about organ transplants.
Therefore, despite what was expressed in the 1967 Questions From Readers and the medical concerns expressed in the Witnesses' magazines on organ transplants from 1968 to 1975, it itself was not grounds for disfellowshipping and therefore no one was disfellowshipped over it.
Contemporary Religious Views
On the other hand, were Jehovah's Witnesses an exception by expressing a negative viewpoint on organ transplants? Leaving aside some medical opinions against transplants since religion deals with ethical issues and frequently questions scientific advances (a current example is the case of utilizing stem-cells or not), the experiments on transplants provoked great controversy, especially at the end of the 1960's, and the religious sector played a noticeable role.
The Catholic Church, for example, presented serious objections in the past to homotransplant, or transplants among creatures of the same species (E. Chiavacci, Morale della vita fisica, EDB, Bologna. 1976: 64-81). In the Catholic book Problems of Sanitary Ethics (Problemi Di Etica Sanitaria, 1992; Ancora, Milano: 189), the Jesuit Giacomo Perico recognized that not too long ago transplants still presented "serious reservations of moral character" for Catholics. (italics original) The same thing can be said of other religions. For example, it was not until 1987-88 that Judaism had officially expressed a favorable opinion regarding transplants (see, for example, Alfredo Mordechai Rabello, "Donazione di organi. Comunicato dell'Assemblea dei Rabbini d'Italia," Ha Keillah, June 2000: 12-13; Riccardo Di Segni, "Il punto di vista dell'ebraismo," in "La donazione e il trapianto di organi e di tessuti," Punto Omega, December 2000 [anno II, n. 4]: 34).
The Muslim Religious Counsel rejected organ donation as late as 1983, although it later completely changed its position and now accepts the procedure, with some conditions.
The Gypsy community does not have its own religion, but its traditional beliefs tend to be opposed to organ donation, for they think that the body should remain intact during a year after death.
In Shintoism, the traditional religion of Japan, it used to be considered a serious crime to mutilate a dead body, according to E. Narnihira in his article "Shinto Concept Concerning the Dead Human Body." Additionally, he reports that: "To this day it is difficult to obtain consent from bereaved families for donation or dissection for medical education or pathological anatomy . . . the Japanese regard them all in the sense of injuring a dead body." Families are concerned that they not injure the itai, the relationship between the dead and the bereaved.ftn5
Therefore, a number of religious groups have opposed organ transplants at some time, and a number with time have changed their viewpoint. Similarly, while Jehovah's Witnesses always believed the conscience was the ultimate determining factor, the concerns about cannibalism were first presented in 1967 and were later reduced in significance in 1980. Although, as we have also seen, Jehovah's Witnesses were never forced to accept that opinion on cannibalism under threat of expulsion. The main concern was always about having "a clear conscience before God."
The Difference between Organ Transplants and Blood Transfusions
Highlighting this is a case of a youth whose experience was published in The Watchtower of November 15, 1969, "Appreciating Jehovah's Protection," pages 700-2. This is not a case of someone passing away, but of someone relating an experience after recovering from surgery. The question this person was faced with was not one of organ transplants but of blood transfusions, although at one point his doctor asked him if he would be willing to donate a kidney. Pointedly, his reaction is a good example of the difference between the position of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood transfusions and that regarding organ transplants. When his doctor offered him two possible procedures, one that included blood transfusions and another that did not include them, he chose the later. But when asked if he would give his consent to donate a kidney, this was his reaction:
No threat of expulsion
Even though the 1967 Questions From Readers included the unfortunate comparison to cannibalism, it specified that transplants are a matter of personal decision, with no mention of disciplinary measures.
To see this matter more clearly, contrast it with the question of blood transfusion. The idea was expressed for the first time in 1945 that blood transfusions violated divine law on the sanctity of blood; nevertheless, it was not until 1961 that it was specified that the matter was of sufficient gravity so as to disfellowship from the congregations any who disregarded this divine requirement and displayed an unrepentant attitude.ftn4
Has the same thing happened with organ transplants? After the 1967 article, did a subsequent publication state that to accept a transplant was a matter of sufficient gravity to disfellowship unrepentant members?
In 1968 the book The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life was published which was a study guide that explained the fundamental teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses to interested ones. This book considered the sanctity of blood in depth, but did not even mention the matter of organ transplants.
Besides, the candidates for baptism then, as today, examine the fundamental Biblical doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses before accepting them, for which they had the books Your Word Is a Lamp to My Foot (1967) and Organization for Kingdom-Preaching and Disciple-Making (1972). Among these questions on the moral norms of Jehovah's Witnesses were covered, included the position on blood transfusions. Nevertheless, nothing in those books mentioned anything about organ transplants.
Therefore, despite what was expressed in the 1967 Questions From Readers and the medical concerns expressed in the Witnesses' magazines on organ transplants from 1968 to 1975, it itself was not grounds for disfellowshipping and therefore no one was disfellowshipped over it.
Contemporary Religious Views
On the other hand, were Jehovah's Witnesses an exception by expressing a negative viewpoint on organ transplants? Leaving aside some medical opinions against transplants since religion deals with ethical issues and frequently questions scientific advances (a current example is the case of utilizing stem-cells or not), the experiments on transplants provoked great controversy, especially at the end of the 1960's, and the religious sector played a noticeable role.
The Catholic Church, for example, presented serious objections in the past to homotransplant, or transplants among creatures of the same species (E. Chiavacci, Morale della vita fisica, EDB, Bologna. 1976: 64-81). In the Catholic book Problems of Sanitary Ethics (Problemi Di Etica Sanitaria, 1992; Ancora, Milano: 189), the Jesuit Giacomo Perico recognized that not too long ago transplants still presented "serious reservations of moral character" for Catholics. (italics original) The same thing can be said of other religions. For example, it was not until 1987-88 that Judaism had officially expressed a favorable opinion regarding transplants (see, for example, Alfredo Mordechai Rabello, "Donazione di organi. Comunicato dell'Assemblea dei Rabbini d'Italia," Ha Keillah, June 2000: 12-13; Riccardo Di Segni, "Il punto di vista dell'ebraismo," in "La donazione e il trapianto di organi e di tessuti," Punto Omega, December 2000 [anno II, n. 4]: 34).
The Muslim Religious Counsel rejected organ donation as late as 1983, although it later completely changed its position and now accepts the procedure, with some conditions.
The Gypsy community does not have its own religion, but its traditional beliefs tend to be opposed to organ donation, for they think that the body should remain intact during a year after death.
In Shintoism, the traditional religion of Japan, it used to be considered a serious crime to mutilate a dead body, according to E. Narnihira in his article "Shinto Concept Concerning the Dead Human Body." Additionally, he reports that: "To this day it is difficult to obtain consent from bereaved families for donation or dissection for medical education or pathological anatomy . . . the Japanese regard them all in the sense of injuring a dead body." Families are concerned that they not injure the itai, the relationship between the dead and the bereaved.ftn5
Therefore, a number of religious groups have opposed organ transplants at some time, and a number with time have changed their viewpoint. Similarly, while Jehovah's Witnesses always believed the conscience was the ultimate determining factor, the concerns about cannibalism were first presented in 1967 and were later reduced in significance in 1980. Although, as we have also seen, Jehovah's Witnesses were never forced to accept that opinion on cannibalism under threat of expulsion. The main concern was always about having "a clear conscience before God."
The Difference between Organ Transplants and Blood Transfusions
Highlighting this is a case of a youth whose experience was published in The Watchtower of November 15, 1969, "Appreciating Jehovah's Protection," pages 700-2. This is not a case of someone passing away, but of someone relating an experience after recovering from surgery. The question this person was faced with was not one of organ transplants but of blood transfusions, although at one point his doctor asked him if he would be willing to donate a kidney. Pointedly, his reaction is a good example of the difference between the position of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood transfusions and that regarding organ transplants. When his doctor offered him two possible procedures, one that included blood transfusions and another that did not include them, he chose the later. But when asked if he would give his consent to donate a kidney, this was his reaction:
"I told him he would get a frank and thorough answer to his inquiry after we had had a family discussion of God's Word on the issue." (page 701)
It was not until the following day that he gave his response, which was negative. This clearly illustrates that the question of organ transplants was not comparable to that of blood transfusions for this reason: The donation option was not categorically prohibited (like the blood transfusion option), but one left to personal decision (or consulting with one's family, as in the case of this youth).
In Summary
The role of the individual's conscience has always been held as the deciding factor on the acceptability of organ transplants. Unlike with blood transfusions, there was never a disfellowshipping or disciplinary consequence for accepting them. While orally ingesting blood as well as blood transfusion is unacceptable, it is not so with organs.
Thus, critics should be careful not to use this issue to promote hysteria, misunderstanding, or intolerance.Footnotes1. "Heart transplantation." Wikipedia.(September 10, 2008) ( back)
In Summary
The role of the individual's conscience has always been held as the deciding factor on the acceptability of organ transplants. Unlike with blood transfusions, there was never a disfellowshipping or disciplinary consequence for accepting them. While orally ingesting blood as well as blood transfusion is unacceptable, it is not so with organs.
Thus, critics should be careful not to use this issue to promote hysteria, misunderstanding, or intolerance.Footnotes1. "Heart transplantation." Wikipedia.
2. Upton, Harriet. "Origin of drugs in current use: the cyclosporin story." 2001. The Mostly Medical Part of the World of Fungi. (September 8, 2008). "Ciclosporin." Wikipedia. (September 8, 2008) ( back)
4. "Immovable For The Right Worship." July 1, 1945: 199-201. "Questions From Readers." January 15, 1961: 63-4. (back)
On the authority of the Holy Spirit
Acts 5:3, 4 Lied to the Holy Spirit...lied to God?; Matthew 12:32 "whoever says something against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven"; 2 Cor. 3:17 "The Lord is the Spirit."
Another bit of eclectic "evidence" some trinitarians resort to for the "personality" and "Godhood" of the spirit is found at Acts 5:3, 4. Here we find a baptized Christian, one who has, therefore, received holy spirit, selling his property and giving some of the money from that sale to the Apostles. Now this man was under no obligation to sell his land or give any of that money to the Apostles. That he did so would have been a fine thing. But this man, Ananias, wanted honor more than he wanted to give charity. So he gave only part of the money from his property to the Apostles. This, too, would have been a fine thing. but he lied to the Apostles, because he wanted even more recognition, and told them he had given them all the money from the sale of his property!
So Peter said,
"Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to [or 'cheat' - Mo (or 'to deceive' or 'to play false' - Thayer, #5574; cf. #5574, Strong's and Thayer, in Heb. 6:18 as rendered in RSV, NEB, CBW, and The Amplified Bible)] the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? .... How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to ['played false to' ('defrauded' - Mo)] men but to God." - RSV.
The "evidence" here is supposed to be that Peter first says that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. Then he turns around and says that Ananias lied to God. The supposition being, evidently, that the one lie [or deception] could only be directed to one person. Therefore the Holy Spirit "must" be God!
This type of reasoning is painfully ridiculous at best! Ananias actually lied directly to the Apostles! So this type of "reasoning" applies even more strongly to the Apostles than it does to the Holy Spirit! By using this "evidence" we could say with equal credibility that Peter is saying the Apostles are God when he says "you have not lied to men but to God"!
We can see a similar idea at Mark 9:37 -
"Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me [so trinitarian-type 'evidence' proves this child is Jesus!]; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me." - RSV.
So receiving the child is actually receiving the Son and the Father! The child, then, "must" be God Himself (by trinitarian standards of evidence)!
I'm sure the truth of this matter must be apparent to all objective persons. But, for good measure, you might examine such scriptures as Matt. 25:40 and Luke 10:16 and compare them with Acts 5:4. We can also see a similar usage in the rest of Acts 5:3, 4. In 5:3 we see that Satan filled Ananias' heart to lie. But in 5:4 we find that Ananias himself conceived this thing in his heart. So this trinitarian-type evidence "reveals" another essential "mystery": Satan is Ananias! Also analyze 1 Thess. 4:2, 6, 8; 1 Cor. 8:12; and James 4:11.
One of Christendom's favorite trinitarians (and one of the humblest men found in history), St. Francis of Assisi, made an interesting statement that should be compared with Peter's statement at Acts 5:3, 4. St. Francis said after receiving some clothing from a friend:
"Nothing could be better for me than these. I take them thankfully as your alms. You have given them to God." - p. 66, Richest of the Poor - The Life of St. Francis of Assisi, Theodore Maynard, 1949.
Isn't it obvious that, by willfully rebelling against the holy spirit (the motivating force sent by God) by lying to the Apostles, Ananias was also lying to God?
(Another similar statement of this concept is admitted even in the footnote for Acts 5:3 in a highly trinitarian publication of the RSV, the ecumenical study Bible, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977, Oxford University Press: "The apostles, or perhaps the church, represent the Holy Spirit."
Obviously, the Apostles receive their authority to represent God on earth through the power of the holy spirit ("in the name of the holy spirit"), so they "represent" not only that authorizing power but also God Himself. Therefore, the attempted deception of the Apostles by Ananias also equals an attempted deception of the Holy Spirit and an attempted deception of God.)
So, since the holy spirit (this impersonal power/force/direction) comes directly (and perfectly) from God himself, then, no matter what one does against that holy spirit, it is always equivalent to doing that very thing against God himself. For example, if I spit in disgust on the letter (the impersonal thing providing direction to me) from the king, it will always be understood as equivalent to my spitting on the king himself. If, on the other hand, I spit on a messenger from the king, it might not be considered such a serious offense if I were merely expressing a dislike for the person of the messenger himself, not his message from the king.
That is why Matthew 12:32 is so important to our understanding of God, Jesus, and the holy spirit. There Jesus says to his disciples, "Anyone who says something against the Son of Man [the heavenly, glorified Jesus] can be forgiven; but whoever says something against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven - now or ever." - Good News Bible (and TEV), cf. Living Bible; also see Luke 12:10. Now if the Son of Man were actually a person who is God himself, this scripture would make no sense. In fact, the highly-esteemed trinitarian reference work The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology admits: "The saying about blasphemy and the Son of man (Matt. 12:31 f.; Lk 12:10) is particularly difficult to understand." - p. 628, Vol. 3, Zondervan Publ., 1986. This is a powerful understatement!
Anything we spoke against the person of the Son of Man (if he were truly God as trinitarians insist) would have to be against the person of God himself and would have to be equivalent (at least) to speaking against the holy spirit! But if Jesus were not God himself but a different person, someone might speak against him (for something he said or did or the way he looks, etc.) as a person subordinate to God and not be speaking against God.
Therefore, this scripture (and Luke 12:10) shows Jesus is not equal to God and explains that the Father alone (who produces or sends the non-personal force/communication/motivation: holy spirit) is the God we dare not blaspheme. If this were not the proper interpretation, not only would the statement about blasphemies against Christ (equally "God") being forgiven be nonsensical but the Most High and Only True God, the Father, would be completely ignored and the worst blasphemy would be only that against "God, the Holy Spirit"! This would be completely inconsistent with Jesus' continual glorification of the Father alone!
One thing we agree with Trinitarians about: The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Father. They are different persons. Now if the Holy Spirit is a person, as they say, then the HS is not the Father, and the HS is not the Son!
Nevertheless, occasionally we find 2 Cor. 3:17 used as evidence that the Holy Spirit is a person who is God: "The Lord is the Spirit."
Now it is provable that the Lord Jehovah is the Father, and it is provable that the Lord Jesus is the Son. Therefore, IF the HS is a person, "he" cannot be either Jehovah or Jesus! That is why the noted trinitarian scholar E. F. Scott (in his The Spirit in the N.T.) can understand
"Kurios ["Lord"] here [in 2 Cor. 3:17] to be Christ and interpret Paul as denying the personality of the Holy Spirit." - Word Pictures in the New Testament, A. T. Robertson, Vol. IV, p. 223.
Also the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing, 1986, tells us:
"It is important to realize that for Paul too the Spirit is a divine power whose impact upon or entrance into a life is discernible by its effects." and, "It is important for Paul that the Spirit is a shared gift; it is a centripedal force [not a person!] drawing believers together into the one body of Christ. .... They are constituted the one body of Christ by their common participation in the one Spirit." - Vol. 3, pp. 701, 702.
Therefore to be 'one' with the Spirit results in being one with the Lord (whether it refers to Jehovah here, as I believe, or to Jesus as in most trinitarian interpretations. Having the active force of God, the Spirit, figuratively means having the Lord. Or as CBW, AT, and Moffatt translate 2 Cor. 3:17 "The Lord means the Spirit." Or, as the extremely trinitarian The New American Bible, St. Joseph ed. tells us in a footnote for 2 Cor. 3:13-18 -
"The apostle knows that his work is to result in the permanent presence of Christ among men through the power of the Holy Spirit."
And Thayer, also tells us:
"But in the truest and highest sense it is said ['the Lord is the spirit'], he in whom the entire fulness of the Spirit dwells, and from whom that fulness is diffused through the body of Christian believers, 2 Co. iii. 17.... to be filled with the same spirit as Christ and by the bond of that spirit to be intimately united to Christ, 1 Co. vi. 17...." - pp. 522, 523, Baker Book House, 1984 printing.
So we can see that even many trinitarians believe this particular scripture is saying that Jesus is figuratively the Spirit because union with that Spirit means union with Jesus.
Another possibility is shown by this trinitarian translation:
"the Lord [whether Jehovah or Jesus] no doubt is a spirit .... but we ... are changed unto the same similitude, from glory to glory, even of the spirit of the Lord [or 'just as the spirit comes from the Lord' - Lamsa]." - 2 Cor. 3:17, 18, Tyndale's New Testament, 1989, Yale University Press.
Not only do we never find anything approaching a clear statement of the trinity in the entire Bible, but in all the dreams, visions, etc. where we "see" God we never see a three-in-one God represented in any manner, nor do we ever see the "person" of the holy spirit (even though we often see the real spirit persons, the angels and Jesus, in association with that one true God). We nearly always "see" the heavenly spirit persons (God, Christ, angels) represented in human-like form. (E.g., Ezek. 1:5, 26; Acts 7:55.)
"The name ['angel'] does not denote their nature, but their office as messengers" - p. 38. "As to their nature, they are spirits.... whenever angels appeared to man it was always in a human form." - p. 39. And, "In...2 Cor. 3:17; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 Pet. 3:18, it ['spirit'] designates the divine nature." - p. 593, Today's Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publ., written by mainstream trinitarian scholars.
So we see God (who is a spirit person) always represented in human form and always as a single person, e.g., Ezek. 1:26 (Ezekiel could have easily represented him as three persons or even one person with three faces-compare Ezek. 1:10 -- but no Bible writer ever does such a thing! (Compare Dan. 7:9, 13) We nearly always see the spirit person of the resurrected Jesus in human form and always as a single person. We always see the individual spirit persons who are messengers (angels) of God as individual persons (and, incidentally, always with masculine, not neuter or feminine, personal names). But we never see the holy spirit as a person (and it is frequently represented as something that can be dealt out in multiple portions) - Acts 2:3, 4.
It is more than just odd that we "see" God (the Father only, Jehovah), we see Christ (the Son only, Jesus) with God, sent from God praying to God, etc., but we never see the neuter "person" of the nameless holy spirit in heaven with God or with the Son!
This could not be if the trinity doctrine were true. The inspired Bible writers simply could not so completely ignore as they have in the Holy Scriptures a person who is God!
There is no proper evidence (let alone proof) for the concept of the holy spirit being a person who is God!
This certainly should come as no surprise when we understand that the Bible writers all considered the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force sent by God - (see pp. 1-4). When a person rejects that force which God himself has produced and sent, then, of course, he is also rejecting the Most High God. This is why Jesus can equate the Holy Spirit with God and, at the same time (since Jesus is not God), show the superiority of God to himself:
"whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven" - Matt. 12:32, RSV
So Peter said,
"Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to [or 'cheat' - Mo (or 'to deceive' or 'to play false' - Thayer, #5574; cf. #5574, Strong's and Thayer, in Heb. 6:18 as rendered in RSV, NEB, CBW, and The Amplified Bible)] the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? .... How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to ['played false to' ('defrauded' - Mo)] men but to God." - RSV.
The "evidence" here is supposed to be that Peter first says that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. Then he turns around and says that Ananias lied to God. The supposition being, evidently, that the one lie [or deception] could only be directed to one person. Therefore the Holy Spirit "must" be God!
This type of reasoning is painfully ridiculous at best! Ananias actually lied directly to the Apostles! So this type of "reasoning" applies even more strongly to the Apostles than it does to the Holy Spirit! By using this "evidence" we could say with equal credibility that Peter is saying the Apostles are God when he says "you have not lied to men but to God"!
We can see a similar idea at Mark 9:37 -
"Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me [so trinitarian-type 'evidence' proves this child is Jesus!]; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me." - RSV.
So receiving the child is actually receiving the Son and the Father! The child, then, "must" be God Himself (by trinitarian standards of evidence)!
I'm sure the truth of this matter must be apparent to all objective persons. But, for good measure, you might examine such scriptures as Matt. 25:40 and Luke 10:16 and compare them with Acts 5:4. We can also see a similar usage in the rest of Acts 5:3, 4. In 5:3 we see that Satan filled Ananias' heart to lie. But in 5:4 we find that Ananias himself conceived this thing in his heart. So this trinitarian-type evidence "reveals" another essential "mystery": Satan is Ananias! Also analyze 1 Thess. 4:2, 6, 8; 1 Cor. 8:12; and James 4:11.
One of Christendom's favorite trinitarians (and one of the humblest men found in history), St. Francis of Assisi, made an interesting statement that should be compared with Peter's statement at Acts 5:3, 4. St. Francis said after receiving some clothing from a friend:
"Nothing could be better for me than these. I take them thankfully as your alms. You have given them to God." - p. 66, Richest of the Poor - The Life of St. Francis of Assisi, Theodore Maynard, 1949.
Isn't it obvious that, by willfully rebelling against the holy spirit (the motivating force sent by God) by lying to the Apostles, Ananias was also lying to God?
(Another similar statement of this concept is admitted even in the footnote for Acts 5:3 in a highly trinitarian publication of the RSV, the ecumenical study Bible, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977, Oxford University Press: "The apostles, or perhaps the church, represent the Holy Spirit."
Obviously, the Apostles receive their authority to represent God on earth through the power of the holy spirit ("in the name of the holy spirit"), so they "represent" not only that authorizing power but also God Himself. Therefore, the attempted deception of the Apostles by Ananias also equals an attempted deception of the Holy Spirit and an attempted deception of God.)
So, since the holy spirit (this impersonal power/force/direction) comes directly (and perfectly) from God himself, then, no matter what one does against that holy spirit, it is always equivalent to doing that very thing against God himself. For example, if I spit in disgust on the letter (the impersonal thing providing direction to me) from the king, it will always be understood as equivalent to my spitting on the king himself. If, on the other hand, I spit on a messenger from the king, it might not be considered such a serious offense if I were merely expressing a dislike for the person of the messenger himself, not his message from the king.
That is why Matthew 12:32 is so important to our understanding of God, Jesus, and the holy spirit. There Jesus says to his disciples, "Anyone who says something against the Son of Man [the heavenly, glorified Jesus] can be forgiven; but whoever says something against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven - now or ever." - Good News Bible (and TEV), cf. Living Bible; also see Luke 12:10. Now if the Son of Man were actually a person who is God himself, this scripture would make no sense. In fact, the highly-esteemed trinitarian reference work The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology admits: "The saying about blasphemy and the Son of man (Matt. 12:31 f.; Lk 12:10) is particularly difficult to understand." - p. 628, Vol. 3, Zondervan Publ., 1986. This is a powerful understatement!
Anything we spoke against the person of the Son of Man (if he were truly God as trinitarians insist) would have to be against the person of God himself and would have to be equivalent (at least) to speaking against the holy spirit! But if Jesus were not God himself but a different person, someone might speak against him (for something he said or did or the way he looks, etc.) as a person subordinate to God and not be speaking against God.
Therefore, this scripture (and Luke 12:10) shows Jesus is not equal to God and explains that the Father alone (who produces or sends the non-personal force/communication/motivation: holy spirit) is the God we dare not blaspheme. If this were not the proper interpretation, not only would the statement about blasphemies against Christ (equally "God") being forgiven be nonsensical but the Most High and Only True God, the Father, would be completely ignored and the worst blasphemy would be only that against "God, the Holy Spirit"! This would be completely inconsistent with Jesus' continual glorification of the Father alone!
One thing we agree with Trinitarians about: The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Father. They are different persons. Now if the Holy Spirit is a person, as they say, then the HS is not the Father, and the HS is not the Son!
Nevertheless, occasionally we find 2 Cor. 3:17 used as evidence that the Holy Spirit is a person who is God: "The Lord is the Spirit."
Now it is provable that the Lord Jehovah is the Father, and it is provable that the Lord Jesus is the Son. Therefore, IF the HS is a person, "he" cannot be either Jehovah or Jesus! That is why the noted trinitarian scholar E. F. Scott (in his The Spirit in the N.T.) can understand
"Kurios ["Lord"] here [in 2 Cor. 3:17] to be Christ and interpret Paul as denying the personality of the Holy Spirit." - Word Pictures in the New Testament, A. T. Robertson, Vol. IV, p. 223.
Also the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing, 1986, tells us:
"It is important to realize that for Paul too the Spirit is a divine power whose impact upon or entrance into a life is discernible by its effects." and, "It is important for Paul that the Spirit is a shared gift; it is a centripedal force [not a person!] drawing believers together into the one body of Christ. .... They are constituted the one body of Christ by their common participation in the one Spirit." - Vol. 3, pp. 701, 702.
Therefore to be 'one' with the Spirit results in being one with the Lord (whether it refers to Jehovah here, as I believe, or to Jesus as in most trinitarian interpretations. Having the active force of God, the Spirit, figuratively means having the Lord. Or as CBW, AT, and Moffatt translate 2 Cor. 3:17 "The Lord means the Spirit." Or, as the extremely trinitarian The New American Bible, St. Joseph ed. tells us in a footnote for 2 Cor. 3:13-18 -
"The apostle knows that his work is to result in the permanent presence of Christ among men through the power of the Holy Spirit."
And Thayer, also tells us:
"But in the truest and highest sense it is said ['the Lord is the spirit'], he in whom the entire fulness of the Spirit dwells, and from whom that fulness is diffused through the body of Christian believers, 2 Co. iii. 17.... to be filled with the same spirit as Christ and by the bond of that spirit to be intimately united to Christ, 1 Co. vi. 17...." - pp. 522, 523, Baker Book House, 1984 printing.
So we can see that even many trinitarians believe this particular scripture is saying that Jesus is figuratively the Spirit because union with that Spirit means union with Jesus.
Another possibility is shown by this trinitarian translation:
"the Lord [whether Jehovah or Jesus] no doubt is a spirit .... but we ... are changed unto the same similitude, from glory to glory, even of the spirit of the Lord [or 'just as the spirit comes from the Lord' - Lamsa]." - 2 Cor. 3:17, 18, Tyndale's New Testament, 1989, Yale University Press.
Not only do we never find anything approaching a clear statement of the trinity in the entire Bible, but in all the dreams, visions, etc. where we "see" God we never see a three-in-one God represented in any manner, nor do we ever see the "person" of the holy spirit (even though we often see the real spirit persons, the angels and Jesus, in association with that one true God). We nearly always "see" the heavenly spirit persons (God, Christ, angels) represented in human-like form. (E.g., Ezek. 1:5, 26; Acts 7:55.)
"The name ['angel'] does not denote their nature, but their office as messengers" - p. 38. "As to their nature, they are spirits.... whenever angels appeared to man it was always in a human form." - p. 39. And, "In...2 Cor. 3:17; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 Pet. 3:18, it ['spirit'] designates the divine nature." - p. 593, Today's Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publ., written by mainstream trinitarian scholars.
So we see God (who is a spirit person) always represented in human form and always as a single person, e.g., Ezek. 1:26 (Ezekiel could have easily represented him as three persons or even one person with three faces-compare Ezek. 1:10 -- but no Bible writer ever does such a thing! (Compare Dan. 7:9, 13) We nearly always see the spirit person of the resurrected Jesus in human form and always as a single person. We always see the individual spirit persons who are messengers (angels) of God as individual persons (and, incidentally, always with masculine, not neuter or feminine, personal names). But we never see the holy spirit as a person (and it is frequently represented as something that can be dealt out in multiple portions) - Acts 2:3, 4.
It is more than just odd that we "see" God (the Father only, Jehovah), we see Christ (the Son only, Jesus) with God, sent from God praying to God, etc., but we never see the neuter "person" of the nameless holy spirit in heaven with God or with the Son!
This could not be if the trinity doctrine were true. The inspired Bible writers simply could not so completely ignore as they have in the Holy Scriptures a person who is God!
There is no proper evidence (let alone proof) for the concept of the holy spirit being a person who is God!
This certainly should come as no surprise when we understand that the Bible writers all considered the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force sent by God - (see pp. 1-4). When a person rejects that force which God himself has produced and sent, then, of course, he is also rejecting the Most High God. This is why Jesus can equate the Holy Spirit with God and, at the same time (since Jesus is not God), show the superiority of God to himself:
"whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven" - Matt. 12:32, RSV
On being willing to consider the obvious.
Evolutionists Could Learn a Thing from Dark Matter Physics.
Jonathan Witt
"When you don't know what something is, you have to consider everything," Johns Hopkins physicist Simeon Bird told Nature magazine recently. He was talking about dark matter, the invisible stuff physicists now believe makes up most of the mass of the universe. They haven't been able to detect the mysterious stuff directly, but they're convinced it's out there due to telltale clues in the way, for instance, galaxies behave.
Their challenge now is to figure out what exactly dark matter is. Bird's point is that since ordinary explanations have failed, physicists need to be free to consider some pretty wild ideas in an all-out pursuit of the truth. Some of those wild ideas:
Big black holes
Baby black holes
Electromagnetically neutral particles so tiny they normally sail right through the empty spaces in atoms like a space ship sailing through our mostly empty solar system
Ultra-tiny particles tucked away in roly-poly dimensions that curve around themselves.
Now, when I saw Bird's comment about dark matter and how physicists need to feel free "to consider everything," my first thought was, If only more biologists took that approach in the search for how genetic information arose in the history of life. Instead, they refuse to consider intelligent design.
That was my first reaction. Then it struck me that the analogy gets one thing exactly backwards.
The Ordinary Cause of Information
A crucial thing that needs explaining is the origin of the novel information found in genes and proteins in the history of life. Neo-Darwinists are the ones insisting on an extraordinary and highly speculative explanation for the origin of such information, while design proponents are the ones insisting on the ordinary, demonstrated cause of new information.
I don't mean to say the intelligence who designed the first organism or the variety of living things around us is an ordinary, run-of-the-mill intelligence. What I mean is that ID theorists are proposing an ordinary type of cause, one we can witness generating new information all the time. That type of cause is intelligent design, the intentional work of a creative intellect. It's this type of cause that gives us books and bikes, cars, cakes, computer programs, and a million other artifacts of the mind.
Neo-Darwinists, in contrast, cast their votes for a cause that has never been observed to generate any significant amount of new information.
Smokescreens
To defend that vote they often point to examples of microevolution, but those instances are just nature tinkering around the margins of existing biological structures. They're not natural processes creating the new information necessary for generating fundamentally new biological forms.
Or if they pivot to the origin of life, they'll point to the famous Miller-Urey experiment as evidence that nature could have generated the first single-celled organism. But the Miller-Urey experiment was a meticulously designed experiment. Also, it turns out it didn't effectively mimic the conditions of the early Earth. And its designers managed only to create a few very primitive building blocks of life, not life itself. So the experiment fails in three crucial ways as an example of blind, material processes generating new biological form and information.
These smokescreen examples notwithstanding, no one has observed purely material causes generating even a tiny fraction of the information needed to create even the simplest self-reproducing single-celled organism. "Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth," says Harvard chemist George Whitesides. "How? I have no idea."
And that failure to find a purely material how isn't for lack of trying. It's been the Holy Grail of well-funded scientism for more than 150 years.
At the same time, there is exactly one type of cause we have repeatedly observed in the present generating reams of novel information: intelligent agents.
Presently Acting Causes
This matters because the uniformitarian principle in the historical sciences urges investigators to identify a type of cause active in the present with the demonstrated ability to explain a given feature of the natural world. So, for instance, if a geologist encountered a layer of ash several feet below the surface in, say, a big patch of Oregon, he might posit an ancient volcanic eruption as the source of the ash layer, since volcanoes have demonstrated to us the ability to lay down ash layers over a wide area.
This abductive form of reasoning involves reasoning to the best explanation. The cleanest and strongest of such explanations occur when, after a long and careful investigation of the evidence, all competitor causes prove inadequate, while one type of cause remains standing, having been shown to be up to the job.
This is the situation with the origin of information in the history of life. Various materialist explanations have proved utterly inadequate, and intelligent design is the one type of cause still standing, the one cause with the demonstrated ability to generate new information.
Yes, any mind responsible for the origin of biological life accomplished feats of intellect far beyond anything we have witnessed from human designers. But surely that's no argument for concluding that the real cause for the origin of biological information is something with no intellectual capacity at all.
Allow for a Lion
A little boy who has learned nothing of the animal kingdom beyond the dogs, cats, and mice in his village, upon encountering animal tracks far larger than any he has ever encountered before, would be misguided to insist that these big tracks must be something other than animal tracks. No, the reasonable thing is for the boy to remain open to the evidence of an animal larger than any he has ever seen before.
Nature has written on it the signature of design -- the fingerprints of an artificer greater than any human intelligence. What is the reasonable response?
Jonathan Witt
"When you don't know what something is, you have to consider everything," Johns Hopkins physicist Simeon Bird told Nature magazine recently. He was talking about dark matter, the invisible stuff physicists now believe makes up most of the mass of the universe. They haven't been able to detect the mysterious stuff directly, but they're convinced it's out there due to telltale clues in the way, for instance, galaxies behave.
Their challenge now is to figure out what exactly dark matter is. Bird's point is that since ordinary explanations have failed, physicists need to be free to consider some pretty wild ideas in an all-out pursuit of the truth. Some of those wild ideas:
Big black holes
Baby black holes
Electromagnetically neutral particles so tiny they normally sail right through the empty spaces in atoms like a space ship sailing through our mostly empty solar system
Ultra-tiny particles tucked away in roly-poly dimensions that curve around themselves.
Now, when I saw Bird's comment about dark matter and how physicists need to feel free "to consider everything," my first thought was, If only more biologists took that approach in the search for how genetic information arose in the history of life. Instead, they refuse to consider intelligent design.
That was my first reaction. Then it struck me that the analogy gets one thing exactly backwards.
The Ordinary Cause of Information
A crucial thing that needs explaining is the origin of the novel information found in genes and proteins in the history of life. Neo-Darwinists are the ones insisting on an extraordinary and highly speculative explanation for the origin of such information, while design proponents are the ones insisting on the ordinary, demonstrated cause of new information.
I don't mean to say the intelligence who designed the first organism or the variety of living things around us is an ordinary, run-of-the-mill intelligence. What I mean is that ID theorists are proposing an ordinary type of cause, one we can witness generating new information all the time. That type of cause is intelligent design, the intentional work of a creative intellect. It's this type of cause that gives us books and bikes, cars, cakes, computer programs, and a million other artifacts of the mind.
Neo-Darwinists, in contrast, cast their votes for a cause that has never been observed to generate any significant amount of new information.
Smokescreens
To defend that vote they often point to examples of microevolution, but those instances are just nature tinkering around the margins of existing biological structures. They're not natural processes creating the new information necessary for generating fundamentally new biological forms.
Or if they pivot to the origin of life, they'll point to the famous Miller-Urey experiment as evidence that nature could have generated the first single-celled organism. But the Miller-Urey experiment was a meticulously designed experiment. Also, it turns out it didn't effectively mimic the conditions of the early Earth. And its designers managed only to create a few very primitive building blocks of life, not life itself. So the experiment fails in three crucial ways as an example of blind, material processes generating new biological form and information.
These smokescreen examples notwithstanding, no one has observed purely material causes generating even a tiny fraction of the information needed to create even the simplest self-reproducing single-celled organism. "Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth," says Harvard chemist George Whitesides. "How? I have no idea."
And that failure to find a purely material how isn't for lack of trying. It's been the Holy Grail of well-funded scientism for more than 150 years.
At the same time, there is exactly one type of cause we have repeatedly observed in the present generating reams of novel information: intelligent agents.
Presently Acting Causes
This matters because the uniformitarian principle in the historical sciences urges investigators to identify a type of cause active in the present with the demonstrated ability to explain a given feature of the natural world. So, for instance, if a geologist encountered a layer of ash several feet below the surface in, say, a big patch of Oregon, he might posit an ancient volcanic eruption as the source of the ash layer, since volcanoes have demonstrated to us the ability to lay down ash layers over a wide area.
This abductive form of reasoning involves reasoning to the best explanation. The cleanest and strongest of such explanations occur when, after a long and careful investigation of the evidence, all competitor causes prove inadequate, while one type of cause remains standing, having been shown to be up to the job.
This is the situation with the origin of information in the history of life. Various materialist explanations have proved utterly inadequate, and intelligent design is the one type of cause still standing, the one cause with the demonstrated ability to generate new information.
Yes, any mind responsible for the origin of biological life accomplished feats of intellect far beyond anything we have witnessed from human designers. But surely that's no argument for concluding that the real cause for the origin of biological information is something with no intellectual capacity at all.
Allow for a Lion
A little boy who has learned nothing of the animal kingdom beyond the dogs, cats, and mice in his village, upon encountering animal tracks far larger than any he has ever encountered before, would be misguided to insist that these big tracks must be something other than animal tracks. No, the reasonable thing is for the boy to remain open to the evidence of an animal larger than any he has ever seen before.
Nature has written on it the signature of design -- the fingerprints of an artificer greater than any human intelligence. What is the reasonable response?
On proteomics
Imagine: 60 Million Proteins in One Cell Working Together
Evolution News & Views
Scientific nomenclature follows a quirky path. First we had the gene. Then, scientists thought it would be convenient to lump all genes of an organism into a category called the genome (for gene + soma, L. body from chromosome). When epigenetics entered the discussion, we now had the epigenome, along with derivative terms genomics and epigenomics. Don't forget proteins -- though, they needed a term for the set of all proteins in a cell: the proteome.
The study of that is called proteomics. These days you can read about the lipidome (the totality of lipids in a cell), the metabolome (the metabolic players in a cell), and even the interactome (all the interactions in a cell). All these subjects merge into a higher-level category called -omics. The interaction of all omics categories is called economics (not really; that part is a joke).
Now that the genome is familiar, the study of proteomics is coming of age. Two recent papers show why proteomics is attracting so much attention. In a Nature review, Ruedi Aebersold and Matthias Mann show how "Powerful mass-spectrometry-based technologies now provide unprecedented insights into the composition, structure, function and control of the proteome, shedding light on complex biological processes and phenotypes." What can we expect with this new knowledge? Without referring to evolution once in their article, they list design-based benefits of proteomics:
The integration of various omics approaches and many perturbations will generate exponential flows of disparate data types. This will necessitate commensurate advances in bioinformatics and computational proteomics, which will be powered increasingly by machine-learning technologies while retaining their ability to generate biological insights. In this regard, the journey from single-protein analysis to a true understanding of the proteome and the importance of proteotypes will be long, challenging and exciting. [Emphasis added.]
Their first paragraph shows some of that excitement. Here are some "wow" facts they share about the proteins in a tiny yeast cell:
Collectively, proteins catalyse and control essentially all cellular processes. They form a highly structured entity known as the proteome, the constituent proteins of which carry out their functions at specific times and locations in the cell, in physical or functional association with other proteins or biomolecules. A proliferating Schizosaccharomyces pombe cell contains about 60 million protein molecules, which have abundances that range from a few copies to 1.1 million copies per expressed gene. Across the species, proteins constitute about 50% of the dry mass of a cell and reach a remarkable total concentration of 2-4 million proteins per cubic micrometre or 100-300 mg per ml (ref. 2). The extensive proteome network of the cell adapts dynamically to external or internal (that is, genetic) perturbations and thereby defines the cell's functional state and determines its phenotypes. Describing and understanding the complete and quantitative proteome as well as its structure, function and dynamics is a central and fundamental challenge of biology.
Aebersold and Mann take a "systems biology" view of the proteome, an inherently design-friendly perspective. Instead of viewing each protein molecule separately, they look at the proteome as an "integrated system." All these millions of proteins cooperate to contribute to the life and health of the cell, responding dynamically to perturbations, each playing its role to provide energy from nutrients, deliver cargo, translate and maintain genetic information, remove waste, and replicate. One surprising result comes from the systems biology view:
Present technology already enables analysis of the complete protein inventory of biological systems, including cell-type-specific proteomes of mammalian organs. One outcome of in-depth proteomics studies has been a demonstration of the extent to which diverse cellular systems have similar proteomes, with few proteins being uniquely detectable in specific situations. This surprising finding is supported by the Human Protein Atlas, a large-scale antibody-based study that also reports ubiquitous expression. The identity of cells and tissues therefore seems to be determined primarily by the abundance at which they express their constituent proteins, and perhaps by the manner in which the proteins are organized in the proteome, rather than the presence or absence of certain proteins.
Organization by Chance?
The ID-friendly findings of the "top down" systems approach contrast with statements in a second paper in Nature about "bottom up" protein design. Huang, Boyken, and Baker discuss "The coming of age of de novo protein design" wherein researchers hope to not only tinker with existing proteins, but develop brand new ones from first principles. To do that, they need to understand how an amino acid sequence determines folding patterns.
This paper is interesting because it relates to the work of Douglas Axe that resulted in a paper in the Journal of Molecular Biology in 2004. Axe answered questions about this paper earlier this year, and also mentioned it in his recent book Undeniable (p. 54). In the paper, Axe estimated the prevalence of sequences that could fold into a functional shape by random combinations. It was already known that the functional space was a small fraction of sequence space, but Axe put a number on it based on his experience with random changes to an enzyme. He estimated that one in 1074 sequences of 150 amino acids could fold and thereby perform some function -- any function.
The new paper in Nature seems to point to a much smaller functional space. The authors say,
It is useful to begin by considering the fraction of protein sequence space that is occupied by naturally occurring proteins (Fig. 1a). The number of distinct sequences that are possible for a protein of typical length is 20200 sequences (because each of the protein's 200 residues can be one of 20 amino acids), and the number of distinct proteins that are produced by extant organisms is on the order of 1012. Evidently, evolution has explored only a tiny region of the sequence space that is accessible to proteins. And because evolution proceeds by incremental mutation and selection, naturally occurring proteins are not spread uniformly across the full sequence space; instead, they are clustered tightly into families. The huge space that is unlikely to be sampled during evolution is the arena for de novo protein design. Consequently, evolutionary processes are not a good guide for its exploration -- as discussed already, they proceed incrementally and at random. Functional folded proteins have been retrieved from random-sequence libraries, but this is a laborious (and non-systematic) process. Instead, it should be possible to generate new proteins from scratch on the basis of our understanding of the principles of protein biophysics.
Since 20200 is about 10260, and the space actually sampled by living organisms is 1012, the numbers differ by at least 240 orders of magnitude for proteins of length 200, or about 183 orders of magnitude the 150-amino-acid chains Axe used. No wonder the authors say that "the natural evolutionary process has sampled only an infinitesimal subset" of sequence space.
The authors have nothing but their imagination to suggest that evolution restricted its search to functional clusters. Any random search has no possible chance, using all the atoms in the universe for the entire age of the universe, of finding a functional cluster in such a vast space. Dembski said that any search for a target that has less than 1 chance in 10150 exceeds the universal probability bound; it will never happen anywhere in the entire history of the universe.
Axe's estimate of one in 1074, one must note, referred to mutations to existing proteins in the universal proteome of all organisms. When considering random chains of amino acids in a primordial soup, however, Steve Meyer noted in Signature in the Cell (pp. 210-212) two other requirements. The amino acids must be one-handed, and they must form only peptide bonds. Applying generous probabilities of 0.5 for handedness and 0.5 for peptide bonds, Meyer reduced the probability for a lucky functional protein chain of 150 amino acids to one in 10164, far beyond the universal probability bound (p. 212).
With these numbers in mind, note the incredible faith that Huang, Boyken, and Baker invest in blind chance. We end with this quote:
Proteins mediate the fundamental processes of life, and the beautiful and varied ways in which they do this have been the focus of much biomedical research for the past 50 years. Protein-based materials have the potential to solve a vast array of technical challenges. Functions that naturally occurring proteins mediate include: the use of solar energy to manufacture complex molecules; the ultrasensitive detection of small molecules (olfactory receptors) and of light (rhodopsin); the conversion of pH gradients into chemical bonds (ATP synthase); and the transformation of chemical energy into work (actin and myosin). Not only are these functions remarkable but they are encoded in sequences of amino acids with extreme economy. Such sequences specify the three-dimensional structure of the proteins, and the spontaneous folding of extended polypeptide chains into these structures is the simplest case of biological self-organization. Despite the advances in technology of the past 100 years, human-made machines cannot compete with the precision of function of proteins at the nanoscale and they cannot be produced by self-assembly. The properties of naturally occurring proteins are even more remarkable when considering that they are essentially accidents of evolution. Instead of a well-thought-out plan to develop a machine to use proton flow to convert ADP to ATP, selective pressure operated on randomly arising variants of primordial proteins, and there were also hundreds of millions of years in which to get it right.
Now ponder that. They are duly impressed by the intricate molecular machines that proteins make in the cell, yet their worldview does not allow them to consider this as evidence for design.
Evolution News & Views
Scientific nomenclature follows a quirky path. First we had the gene. Then, scientists thought it would be convenient to lump all genes of an organism into a category called the genome (for gene + soma, L. body from chromosome). When epigenetics entered the discussion, we now had the epigenome, along with derivative terms genomics and epigenomics. Don't forget proteins -- though, they needed a term for the set of all proteins in a cell: the proteome.
The study of that is called proteomics. These days you can read about the lipidome (the totality of lipids in a cell), the metabolome (the metabolic players in a cell), and even the interactome (all the interactions in a cell). All these subjects merge into a higher-level category called -omics. The interaction of all omics categories is called economics (not really; that part is a joke).
Now that the genome is familiar, the study of proteomics is coming of age. Two recent papers show why proteomics is attracting so much attention. In a Nature review, Ruedi Aebersold and Matthias Mann show how "Powerful mass-spectrometry-based technologies now provide unprecedented insights into the composition, structure, function and control of the proteome, shedding light on complex biological processes and phenotypes." What can we expect with this new knowledge? Without referring to evolution once in their article, they list design-based benefits of proteomics:
The integration of various omics approaches and many perturbations will generate exponential flows of disparate data types. This will necessitate commensurate advances in bioinformatics and computational proteomics, which will be powered increasingly by machine-learning technologies while retaining their ability to generate biological insights. In this regard, the journey from single-protein analysis to a true understanding of the proteome and the importance of proteotypes will be long, challenging and exciting. [Emphasis added.]
Their first paragraph shows some of that excitement. Here are some "wow" facts they share about the proteins in a tiny yeast cell:
Collectively, proteins catalyse and control essentially all cellular processes. They form a highly structured entity known as the proteome, the constituent proteins of which carry out their functions at specific times and locations in the cell, in physical or functional association with other proteins or biomolecules. A proliferating Schizosaccharomyces pombe cell contains about 60 million protein molecules, which have abundances that range from a few copies to 1.1 million copies per expressed gene. Across the species, proteins constitute about 50% of the dry mass of a cell and reach a remarkable total concentration of 2-4 million proteins per cubic micrometre or 100-300 mg per ml (ref. 2). The extensive proteome network of the cell adapts dynamically to external or internal (that is, genetic) perturbations and thereby defines the cell's functional state and determines its phenotypes. Describing and understanding the complete and quantitative proteome as well as its structure, function and dynamics is a central and fundamental challenge of biology.
Aebersold and Mann take a "systems biology" view of the proteome, an inherently design-friendly perspective. Instead of viewing each protein molecule separately, they look at the proteome as an "integrated system." All these millions of proteins cooperate to contribute to the life and health of the cell, responding dynamically to perturbations, each playing its role to provide energy from nutrients, deliver cargo, translate and maintain genetic information, remove waste, and replicate. One surprising result comes from the systems biology view:
Present technology already enables analysis of the complete protein inventory of biological systems, including cell-type-specific proteomes of mammalian organs. One outcome of in-depth proteomics studies has been a demonstration of the extent to which diverse cellular systems have similar proteomes, with few proteins being uniquely detectable in specific situations. This surprising finding is supported by the Human Protein Atlas, a large-scale antibody-based study that also reports ubiquitous expression. The identity of cells and tissues therefore seems to be determined primarily by the abundance at which they express their constituent proteins, and perhaps by the manner in which the proteins are organized in the proteome, rather than the presence or absence of certain proteins.
Organization by Chance?
The ID-friendly findings of the "top down" systems approach contrast with statements in a second paper in Nature about "bottom up" protein design. Huang, Boyken, and Baker discuss "The coming of age of de novo protein design" wherein researchers hope to not only tinker with existing proteins, but develop brand new ones from first principles. To do that, they need to understand how an amino acid sequence determines folding patterns.
This paper is interesting because it relates to the work of Douglas Axe that resulted in a paper in the Journal of Molecular Biology in 2004. Axe answered questions about this paper earlier this year, and also mentioned it in his recent book Undeniable (p. 54). In the paper, Axe estimated the prevalence of sequences that could fold into a functional shape by random combinations. It was already known that the functional space was a small fraction of sequence space, but Axe put a number on it based on his experience with random changes to an enzyme. He estimated that one in 1074 sequences of 150 amino acids could fold and thereby perform some function -- any function.
The new paper in Nature seems to point to a much smaller functional space. The authors say,
It is useful to begin by considering the fraction of protein sequence space that is occupied by naturally occurring proteins (Fig. 1a). The number of distinct sequences that are possible for a protein of typical length is 20200 sequences (because each of the protein's 200 residues can be one of 20 amino acids), and the number of distinct proteins that are produced by extant organisms is on the order of 1012. Evidently, evolution has explored only a tiny region of the sequence space that is accessible to proteins. And because evolution proceeds by incremental mutation and selection, naturally occurring proteins are not spread uniformly across the full sequence space; instead, they are clustered tightly into families. The huge space that is unlikely to be sampled during evolution is the arena for de novo protein design. Consequently, evolutionary processes are not a good guide for its exploration -- as discussed already, they proceed incrementally and at random. Functional folded proteins have been retrieved from random-sequence libraries, but this is a laborious (and non-systematic) process. Instead, it should be possible to generate new proteins from scratch on the basis of our understanding of the principles of protein biophysics.
Since 20200 is about 10260, and the space actually sampled by living organisms is 1012, the numbers differ by at least 240 orders of magnitude for proteins of length 200, or about 183 orders of magnitude the 150-amino-acid chains Axe used. No wonder the authors say that "the natural evolutionary process has sampled only an infinitesimal subset" of sequence space.
The authors have nothing but their imagination to suggest that evolution restricted its search to functional clusters. Any random search has no possible chance, using all the atoms in the universe for the entire age of the universe, of finding a functional cluster in such a vast space. Dembski said that any search for a target that has less than 1 chance in 10150 exceeds the universal probability bound; it will never happen anywhere in the entire history of the universe.
Axe's estimate of one in 1074, one must note, referred to mutations to existing proteins in the universal proteome of all organisms. When considering random chains of amino acids in a primordial soup, however, Steve Meyer noted in Signature in the Cell (pp. 210-212) two other requirements. The amino acids must be one-handed, and they must form only peptide bonds. Applying generous probabilities of 0.5 for handedness and 0.5 for peptide bonds, Meyer reduced the probability for a lucky functional protein chain of 150 amino acids to one in 10164, far beyond the universal probability bound (p. 212).
With these numbers in mind, note the incredible faith that Huang, Boyken, and Baker invest in blind chance. We end with this quote:
Proteins mediate the fundamental processes of life, and the beautiful and varied ways in which they do this have been the focus of much biomedical research for the past 50 years. Protein-based materials have the potential to solve a vast array of technical challenges. Functions that naturally occurring proteins mediate include: the use of solar energy to manufacture complex molecules; the ultrasensitive detection of small molecules (olfactory receptors) and of light (rhodopsin); the conversion of pH gradients into chemical bonds (ATP synthase); and the transformation of chemical energy into work (actin and myosin). Not only are these functions remarkable but they are encoded in sequences of amino acids with extreme economy. Such sequences specify the three-dimensional structure of the proteins, and the spontaneous folding of extended polypeptide chains into these structures is the simplest case of biological self-organization. Despite the advances in technology of the past 100 years, human-made machines cannot compete with the precision of function of proteins at the nanoscale and they cannot be produced by self-assembly. The properties of naturally occurring proteins are even more remarkable when considering that they are essentially accidents of evolution. Instead of a well-thought-out plan to develop a machine to use proton flow to convert ADP to ATP, selective pressure operated on randomly arising variants of primordial proteins, and there were also hundreds of millions of years in which to get it right.
Now ponder that. They are duly impressed by the intricate molecular machines that proteins make in the cell, yet their worldview does not allow them to consider this as evidence for design.
A Nobel for the original technologist?
How About a Nobel Prize for the Intelligent Designer?
Evolution News & Views
There's a simple logic about the Nobel Prize for Chemistry awarded this week, noted already here by David Klinghoffer: human attempts at engineering molecules to perform work are feeble imitations of what living cells have done perfectly since life first appeared on earth.
The Royal Swedish Academy of Science awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Jean-Pierre Sauvage (University of Strasbourg, France), Sir J. Fraser Stoddart (Northwestern University, Illinois), and Bernard L. Feringa (University of Groningen, the Netherlands) for their work in creating artificial molecular machines. All the news media have been talking about it, congratulating them on their well-deserved recognition. But think about how simple their designs are to date:
Sauvage in 1983 linked two molecular rings together.
Stoddart in 1991 "threaded a molecular ring onto a thin molecular axle and demonstrated that the ring was able to move along the axle."
Feringa in 1999 "got a molecular rotor blade to spin continually in the same direction."
The work, of course, didn't stop there. Stoddart used his little wheel and axle to design a tiny lift, an "artificial muscle" and a molecule-based computer chip. Feringa built a "nanocar" of sorts. It's pretty remarkable to be able to construct and direct a device that's 1,000 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. Even though nobody has come up with the "killer app" yet, the Nobel Committee sees a lot of potential in these initial steps:
2016's Nobel Laureates in Chemistry have taken molecular systems out of equilibrium's stalemate and into energy-filled states in which their movements can be controlled. In terms of development, the molecular motor is at the same stage as the electric motor was in the 1830s, when scientists displayed various spinning cranks and wheels, unaware that they would lead to electric trains, washing machines, fans and food processors. Molecular machines will most likely be used in the development of things such as new materials, sensors and energy storage systems. [Emphasis added.]
Designers of these devices will undoubtedly use intelligence to get them to work properly. So then how did life's molecular machines originate? Nothing created by the winners even approaches the complexity and efficiency of life's molecular machines, which continue to challenge and fascinate the best minds in science.
The Nobel Prize Committee asked Bernard Feringa what inspired him to work on molecular machines. In the transcript from the phone call, interviewer Adam Smith asked him:
AS: So you describe your work as being inspired by nature?
BF: Ja, of course. If you look at the cells in our body or the functioning of the organism, it is flabbergasting. It is fantastic to see how this intricate machinery works. And when I'm taking about motors, as we focus on motors, if you look at the essential functions in the cell, like cell division, like transport, like making your muscles move, bacteria that go to food or [unclear ...] it's all controlled by molecular motors, and so the biological motors, and the biological machinery, is so crucial to all these functions. And of course we get great inspiration from that, while we as chemists are extremely good in building all kinds of materials, and that is what intrigued me.
The comparison is clear: three human designers of artificial machines were inspired by the "fantastic" and "flabbergasting" and "intricate" machinery going on inside the cells of their own bodies. They get to split a million dollars for their simple Lego-like constructions. What does the designer of the cell get?
In a word, insults. How would you like it if your best work was called a product of blind chance? That's essentially what two papers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) do when considering the origin of ATP synthase -- possibly the most efficient machine in the universe (see our animation).
In the first PNAS paper, "Biophysical comparison of ATP synthesis mechanisms shows a kinetic advantage for the rotary process," four researchers from the University of Pittsburgh basically say that ATP synthase evolved because rotation was more efficient.
The ATP synthase (F-ATPase) is a highly complex rotary machine that synthesizes ATP, powered by a proton electrochemical gradient. Why did evolution select such an elaborate mechanism over arguably simpler alternating-access processes that can be reversed to perform ATP synthesis? We studied a systematic enumeration of alternative mechanisms, using numerical and theoretical means. When the alternative models are optimized subject to fundamental thermodynamic constraints, they fail to match the kinetic ability of the rotary mechanism over a wide range of conditions, particularly under low-energy conditions. We used a physically interpretable, closed-form solution for the steady-state rate for an arbitrary chemical cycle, which clarifies kinetic effects of complex free-energy landscapes. Our analysis also yields insights into the debated "kinetic equivalence" of ATP synthesis driven by transmembrane pH and potential difference. Overall, our study suggests that the complexity of the F-ATPase may have resulted from positive selection for its kinetic advantage.
This is like saying that cars evolved wheels, tires, and shock absorbers because it makes them run better. Their "systematic enumeration of alternative mechanisms" sure didn't include intelligent causes.
The second paper, "Rotation of artificial rotor axles in rotary molecular motors," is even more flagrant in its design denial. Nine authors from universities in Tokyo think it was easy for a simple rotary engine to become an efficient rotary engine by chance.
F1/V1-ATPases are sophisticated molecular machines that convert the motion of a stator cylinder driven by sequential ATP hydrolysis to rotation of a central rotor protein. Here, we reveal the rotation of artificial rotor proteins composed of exogenous rod proteins that show no apparent sequence similarity with the native axles. The estimated torque by the artificial rotor in the stator ring of V1 was almost identical to that by the native axle protein. These results demonstrate that the principle of rotational motion by these molecular motors relies solely upon the coarse-grained interaction between the rotor and stator. These findings imply that the ancient F1 or V1 motor domain has evolved from a poorly designed motor protein more readily than initially assumed.
It implies no such thing. All their lab work was intelligently designed; on what basis can they conclude that some "ancient... poorly designed" motor got better by chance? They provide no mechanism by which that could happen, not even natural selection. Instead, they say, "the current consensus view of the field is that the interfaces of molecular motor systems have sophisticated designs at an atomic level through molecular evolution."
Yet the design principles are the same. Notice what Nature's congratulatory article says:
The Nobel winners' work -- and other chemists' nanomachines -- have also had an impact on researchers' understanding of nature, Astumian says. In particular, the artificial systems have helped to demonstrate that all chemically-powered molecular machines, whether synthetic or biological, work according to the same principles: by selectively harvesting the random jiggles of Brownian motion, rather than pushing against them.
Intelligent design theory, we repeat, cannot speak to the identity or nature of the designer. Our purpose here is to unmask the inconsistency in thinking by materialists. They will congratulate human designers of simple machines and give them millions of dollars for their highly gifted and intelligent work. But when it comes to awarding credit for molecular machines of far greater sophistication, they give the prize to "molecular evolution."
Evolution News & Views
There's a simple logic about the Nobel Prize for Chemistry awarded this week, noted already here by David Klinghoffer: human attempts at engineering molecules to perform work are feeble imitations of what living cells have done perfectly since life first appeared on earth.
The Royal Swedish Academy of Science awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Jean-Pierre Sauvage (University of Strasbourg, France), Sir J. Fraser Stoddart (Northwestern University, Illinois), and Bernard L. Feringa (University of Groningen, the Netherlands) for their work in creating artificial molecular machines. All the news media have been talking about it, congratulating them on their well-deserved recognition. But think about how simple their designs are to date:
Sauvage in 1983 linked two molecular rings together.
Stoddart in 1991 "threaded a molecular ring onto a thin molecular axle and demonstrated that the ring was able to move along the axle."
Feringa in 1999 "got a molecular rotor blade to spin continually in the same direction."
The work, of course, didn't stop there. Stoddart used his little wheel and axle to design a tiny lift, an "artificial muscle" and a molecule-based computer chip. Feringa built a "nanocar" of sorts. It's pretty remarkable to be able to construct and direct a device that's 1,000 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. Even though nobody has come up with the "killer app" yet, the Nobel Committee sees a lot of potential in these initial steps:
2016's Nobel Laureates in Chemistry have taken molecular systems out of equilibrium's stalemate and into energy-filled states in which their movements can be controlled. In terms of development, the molecular motor is at the same stage as the electric motor was in the 1830s, when scientists displayed various spinning cranks and wheels, unaware that they would lead to electric trains, washing machines, fans and food processors. Molecular machines will most likely be used in the development of things such as new materials, sensors and energy storage systems. [Emphasis added.]
Designers of these devices will undoubtedly use intelligence to get them to work properly. So then how did life's molecular machines originate? Nothing created by the winners even approaches the complexity and efficiency of life's molecular machines, which continue to challenge and fascinate the best minds in science.
The Nobel Prize Committee asked Bernard Feringa what inspired him to work on molecular machines. In the transcript from the phone call, interviewer Adam Smith asked him:
AS: So you describe your work as being inspired by nature?
BF: Ja, of course. If you look at the cells in our body or the functioning of the organism, it is flabbergasting. It is fantastic to see how this intricate machinery works. And when I'm taking about motors, as we focus on motors, if you look at the essential functions in the cell, like cell division, like transport, like making your muscles move, bacteria that go to food or [unclear ...] it's all controlled by molecular motors, and so the biological motors, and the biological machinery, is so crucial to all these functions. And of course we get great inspiration from that, while we as chemists are extremely good in building all kinds of materials, and that is what intrigued me.
The comparison is clear: three human designers of artificial machines were inspired by the "fantastic" and "flabbergasting" and "intricate" machinery going on inside the cells of their own bodies. They get to split a million dollars for their simple Lego-like constructions. What does the designer of the cell get?
In a word, insults. How would you like it if your best work was called a product of blind chance? That's essentially what two papers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) do when considering the origin of ATP synthase -- possibly the most efficient machine in the universe (see our animation).
In the first PNAS paper, "Biophysical comparison of ATP synthesis mechanisms shows a kinetic advantage for the rotary process," four researchers from the University of Pittsburgh basically say that ATP synthase evolved because rotation was more efficient.
The ATP synthase (F-ATPase) is a highly complex rotary machine that synthesizes ATP, powered by a proton electrochemical gradient. Why did evolution select such an elaborate mechanism over arguably simpler alternating-access processes that can be reversed to perform ATP synthesis? We studied a systematic enumeration of alternative mechanisms, using numerical and theoretical means. When the alternative models are optimized subject to fundamental thermodynamic constraints, they fail to match the kinetic ability of the rotary mechanism over a wide range of conditions, particularly under low-energy conditions. We used a physically interpretable, closed-form solution for the steady-state rate for an arbitrary chemical cycle, which clarifies kinetic effects of complex free-energy landscapes. Our analysis also yields insights into the debated "kinetic equivalence" of ATP synthesis driven by transmembrane pH and potential difference. Overall, our study suggests that the complexity of the F-ATPase may have resulted from positive selection for its kinetic advantage.
This is like saying that cars evolved wheels, tires, and shock absorbers because it makes them run better. Their "systematic enumeration of alternative mechanisms" sure didn't include intelligent causes.
The second paper, "Rotation of artificial rotor axles in rotary molecular motors," is even more flagrant in its design denial. Nine authors from universities in Tokyo think it was easy for a simple rotary engine to become an efficient rotary engine by chance.
F1/V1-ATPases are sophisticated molecular machines that convert the motion of a stator cylinder driven by sequential ATP hydrolysis to rotation of a central rotor protein. Here, we reveal the rotation of artificial rotor proteins composed of exogenous rod proteins that show no apparent sequence similarity with the native axles. The estimated torque by the artificial rotor in the stator ring of V1 was almost identical to that by the native axle protein. These results demonstrate that the principle of rotational motion by these molecular motors relies solely upon the coarse-grained interaction between the rotor and stator. These findings imply that the ancient F1 or V1 motor domain has evolved from a poorly designed motor protein more readily than initially assumed.
It implies no such thing. All their lab work was intelligently designed; on what basis can they conclude that some "ancient... poorly designed" motor got better by chance? They provide no mechanism by which that could happen, not even natural selection. Instead, they say, "the current consensus view of the field is that the interfaces of molecular motor systems have sophisticated designs at an atomic level through molecular evolution."
Yet the design principles are the same. Notice what Nature's congratulatory article says:
The Nobel winners' work -- and other chemists' nanomachines -- have also had an impact on researchers' understanding of nature, Astumian says. In particular, the artificial systems have helped to demonstrate that all chemically-powered molecular machines, whether synthetic or biological, work according to the same principles: by selectively harvesting the random jiggles of Brownian motion, rather than pushing against them.
Intelligent design theory, we repeat, cannot speak to the identity or nature of the designer. Our purpose here is to unmask the inconsistency in thinking by materialists. They will congratulate human designers of simple machines and give them millions of dollars for their highly gifted and intelligent work. But when it comes to awarding credit for molecular machines of far greater sophistication, they give the prize to "molecular evolution."
On the Nobel committee's design inference.
Intelligent Design: Nobel Prize for Chemists who Synthesized Molecular Machines
David Klinghoffer
On this year's Nobel Prize winners in chemistry, pioneers in nanotechnology, thoughtful reader Eric beats us to the punch:
You've likely noticed that the chemistry Nobel Prize has been awarded to three chemists for the contributions to the study of molecular machines. They made impressive progress in being able to carefully arrange molecules so as to make machines that work.
As I read some of the articles about their work, I notice statements about how it required exceptional insight, great skill, and much intentional work to devise ways to arrange molecules so that they will function usefully.
Yet we are expected to believe on faith that uninterested and unthinking natural processes accidentally produced cells filled with coordinated functioning molecular machinery.
Right. We've called irreducibly complex molecular machines "prima facie evidence for intelligent design," posing a mystery addressed by the revolutionary thinking of Michael Behe. See our upcoming documentary Revolutionary: Michael Behe & The Mystery of Molecular Machines. For doing things nature is supposed to have done by a series of fortunate accidents, meanwhile, these synthetic chemists -- Jean-Pierre Sauvage, J. Fraser Stoddart and Bernard L. Feringa -- received the highest honor that science has to offer.
From the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which recognizes the trio for their "design and synthesis of molecular machines":
The first step towards a molecular machine was taken by Jean-Pierre Sauvage in 1983, when he succeeded in linking two ring-shaped molecules together to form a chain, called a catenane. Normally, molecules are joined by strong covalent bonds in which the atoms share electrons, but in the chain they were instead linked by a freer mechanical bond. For a machine to be able to perform a task it must consist of parts that can move relative to each other. The two interlocked rings fulfilled exactly this requirement.
The second step was taken by Fraser Stoddart in 1991, when he developed a rotaxane. He threaded a molecular ring onto a thin molecular axle and demonstrated that the ring was able to move along the axle. Among his developments based on rotaxanes are a molecular lift, a molecular muscle and a molecule-based computer chip.
Bernard Feringa was the first person to develop a molecular motor; in 1999 he got a molecular rotor blade to spin continually in the same direction. Using molecular motors, he has rotated a glass cylinder that is 10,000 times bigger than the motor and also designed a nanocar.
The New York Times talked with famed synthetic chemist James Tour, who has advanced this work with his own nanocar design ("3 Makers of World's Smallest Machines Awarded Nobel Prize in Chemistry"). Tour is a signer of our "Dissent from Darwinism" list, but of course they don't mention that:
James M. Tour, a professor of chemistry at Rice University in Houston, said the Nobel would bestow legitimacy on the field and help convince people that nanomachines are not just fantastical science fiction of the far future.
"No one is making money on these right now, but it will come," he said. "These men have established and built up the field in a remarkable way."
Dr. Tour predicted that the first profitable use of the technology might be machines that open up cell membranes in the body to deliver drugs. "It's really going to be quite extraordinary," he said.
That is exciting. Tour has also observed that his experience of this new technology underlines the enigma of life's origin. On chemical evolution, he has written in an admirably slashing style:
Life requires carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins. What is the chemistry behind their origin? Biologists seem to think that there are well-understood prebiotic molecular mechanisms for their synthesis. They have been grossly misinformed. And no wonder: few biologists have ever synthesized a complex molecule ab initio. If they need a molecule, they purchase molecular synthesis kits, which are, of course, designed by synthetic chemists, and which feature simplistic protocols.
Polysaccharides? Their origin?
The synthetic chemists do not have a pathway.
The biologists do not have a clue.
He calls for exposing students to this fact:
Those who think scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed. Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will. But that day is far from today. It would be far more helpful (and hopeful) to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer -- and possibly a radically different -- scientific theory.
The basis upon which we as scientists are relying is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: it is a mystery.
The origin of life is a "mystery," yet among faithful materialists, stating that plainly is akin to a thought crime, a concession to the deplorable "creationists." Not an advocate of intelligent design, Tour nevertheless acknowledges that what nature accomplished by synthesizing life puts what he does in the laboratory in the shade:
Designing nanoncars is child's play in comparison to the complexity involved in the synthesis of proteins, enzymes, DNA, RNA, and polysaccharides, let alone their assembly into complex functional macroscopic systems.
Meaning no disrespect, what these three newly minted Nobel winners did is also child's play compared to whatever succeeded in minting the first life. The implications of that are profound, but naturally ignored by the popular science media.
David Klinghoffer
On this year's Nobel Prize winners in chemistry, pioneers in nanotechnology, thoughtful reader Eric beats us to the punch:
You've likely noticed that the chemistry Nobel Prize has been awarded to three chemists for the contributions to the study of molecular machines. They made impressive progress in being able to carefully arrange molecules so as to make machines that work.
As I read some of the articles about their work, I notice statements about how it required exceptional insight, great skill, and much intentional work to devise ways to arrange molecules so that they will function usefully.
Yet we are expected to believe on faith that uninterested and unthinking natural processes accidentally produced cells filled with coordinated functioning molecular machinery.
Right. We've called irreducibly complex molecular machines "prima facie evidence for intelligent design," posing a mystery addressed by the revolutionary thinking of Michael Behe. See our upcoming documentary Revolutionary: Michael Behe & The Mystery of Molecular Machines. For doing things nature is supposed to have done by a series of fortunate accidents, meanwhile, these synthetic chemists -- Jean-Pierre Sauvage, J. Fraser Stoddart and Bernard L. Feringa -- received the highest honor that science has to offer.
From the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which recognizes the trio for their "design and synthesis of molecular machines":
The first step towards a molecular machine was taken by Jean-Pierre Sauvage in 1983, when he succeeded in linking two ring-shaped molecules together to form a chain, called a catenane. Normally, molecules are joined by strong covalent bonds in which the atoms share electrons, but in the chain they were instead linked by a freer mechanical bond. For a machine to be able to perform a task it must consist of parts that can move relative to each other. The two interlocked rings fulfilled exactly this requirement.
The second step was taken by Fraser Stoddart in 1991, when he developed a rotaxane. He threaded a molecular ring onto a thin molecular axle and demonstrated that the ring was able to move along the axle. Among his developments based on rotaxanes are a molecular lift, a molecular muscle and a molecule-based computer chip.
Bernard Feringa was the first person to develop a molecular motor; in 1999 he got a molecular rotor blade to spin continually in the same direction. Using molecular motors, he has rotated a glass cylinder that is 10,000 times bigger than the motor and also designed a nanocar.
The New York Times talked with famed synthetic chemist James Tour, who has advanced this work with his own nanocar design ("3 Makers of World's Smallest Machines Awarded Nobel Prize in Chemistry"). Tour is a signer of our "Dissent from Darwinism" list, but of course they don't mention that:
James M. Tour, a professor of chemistry at Rice University in Houston, said the Nobel would bestow legitimacy on the field and help convince people that nanomachines are not just fantastical science fiction of the far future.
"No one is making money on these right now, but it will come," he said. "These men have established and built up the field in a remarkable way."
Dr. Tour predicted that the first profitable use of the technology might be machines that open up cell membranes in the body to deliver drugs. "It's really going to be quite extraordinary," he said.
That is exciting. Tour has also observed that his experience of this new technology underlines the enigma of life's origin. On chemical evolution, he has written in an admirably slashing style:
Life requires carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins. What is the chemistry behind their origin? Biologists seem to think that there are well-understood prebiotic molecular mechanisms for their synthesis. They have been grossly misinformed. And no wonder: few biologists have ever synthesized a complex molecule ab initio. If they need a molecule, they purchase molecular synthesis kits, which are, of course, designed by synthetic chemists, and which feature simplistic protocols.
Polysaccharides? Their origin?
The synthetic chemists do not have a pathway.
The biologists do not have a clue.
He calls for exposing students to this fact:
Those who think scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed. Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will. But that day is far from today. It would be far more helpful (and hopeful) to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer -- and possibly a radically different -- scientific theory.
The basis upon which we as scientists are relying is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: it is a mystery.
The origin of life is a "mystery," yet among faithful materialists, stating that plainly is akin to a thought crime, a concession to the deplorable "creationists." Not an advocate of intelligent design, Tour nevertheless acknowledges that what nature accomplished by synthesizing life puts what he does in the laboratory in the shade:
Designing nanoncars is child's play in comparison to the complexity involved in the synthesis of proteins, enzymes, DNA, RNA, and polysaccharides, let alone their assembly into complex functional macroscopic systems.
Meaning no disrespect, what these three newly minted Nobel winners did is also child's play compared to whatever succeeded in minting the first life. The implications of that are profound, but naturally ignored by the popular science media.
Broken scales?
Judges Struggle With Their Own Conscience When Required to Ignore Conscience of Others
The presiding judge of the Suwon District Court wept as she read the prison sentence for 21-year-old Chang-jo Im, a conscientious objector to military service. Although the judge had handed down verdicts that day in five other criminal cases without any signs of distress, the injustice of this case moved her to tears. Having no other option, she sentenced this young man, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, to 18 months’ imprisonment.
Every month, judges in South Korea face the same scenario. A young man identifies himself in court as a conscientious objector, and regardless of his personal circumstances, the judge pronounces the expected sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. In his decision regarding one conscientious objector, Judge Young-sik Kim states: “The justices hardly believe that they are ‘punishing criminals’ when they deal with conscientious objectors.” The conflict he felt caused him to question the validity of the draft evasion statute as a sentencing guideline for conscientious objectors.
South Korea refuses to recognize the right of conscientious objection to military service and has made no provision for alternative civilian service. Judges in South Korea cannot avoid this recurring dilemma and must convict conscientious objectors as criminals. Judges are also aware that the UN Human Rights Committee has ruled in several cases—involving 501 young men—that South Korea is violating its international commitments to respect fundamental human rights by prosecuting and imprisoning conscientious objectors. As a result, a growing number of judges grapple with their own conscience as they impose prison sentences on young Christian men whose conscience does not allow them to engage in military service.
At this time, six district court judges have referred conscientious objection cases to the Constitutional Court of South Korea, though the Constitutional Court ruled as recently as 2011 that the military service law is constitutional. The judges’ decisions also address practical concerns.
What some judges have said about . . .
- The morality of imprisoning a person who objects to war for reasons of conscience“The ultimate goal of protecting freedom of conscience by the Constitution as a fundamental right is to protect individuals’ conscience, which form the basis for human worth and dignity. . . . Though their decision to reject military service does not harmonize with the majority’s idea, it would be difficult to argue that their decision amounts to a serious antisocial or antinational crime that deserves strict sanction by directly invoking the criminal punishment.”–Judge Hye-won Lim, Suwon District Court, February 21, 2013, 2012Chogi2381.“Deciding the relationship between oneself and others . . . [and] giving serious consideration to the ‘value of human existence’ is an integral process of forming one’s character. It also embraces the decision not to deprive anyone of his or her life, even under an armed conflict. If those [who have made] such decisions are forced to perform the military duty or compelled to take up arms and are invariably subjected to punishment if they refuse to perform such a duty, it would amount to denying their rights and their identity. Surely it violates human dignity.”–Judge Young-hoon Kang, Seoul North District Court, January 14, 2013, 2012Chogi1554.
- Whether recognizing the right of conscientious objection weakens national security“There is no substantial and specific evidence or data available that the adoption of the system of alternative service would undermine national security and equality of imposing the burden of military duty.”–Judge Gwan-gu Kim, Changwon Masan District Court, August 9, 2012, 2012Chogi8.“There is no sufficient reason to claim that national security will be severely endangered to an extent that it would be impossible to protect human dignity and [the] value of all citizens when a minority, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, . . . refuses to take up arms and perform military training. In fact, the defendant . . . has already refused to perform military duty despite punishment. If the claim [were] sufficiently grounded, national security and human dignity and the value of all citizens would already be in serious danger.”–Judge Seung-yeop Lee, Ulsan District Court, August 27, 2013, 2013Godan601.
- How this issue can be resolved“The administrative branch and the National Assembly are capable and able, when the Constitutional Court holds that the provision of this case is against the Constitution, to take into consideration both national security and freedom of conscience and legislate laws that recognize conscientious objection to military service and at the same time strengthen national security.”–Judge Young-sik Kim, Seoul South District Court, July 9, 2013, 2013Chogi641.“There will be neither loss of military force nor significant effect on national security as long as the alternative service system is carefully designed and implemented to avoid draft evasion under the pretext of conscientious objection.”–Judge Seong-bok Lee, Seoul East District Court, February 20, 2014, 2014Chogi30.
How will the Constitutional Court respond?
These judges ask the Constitutional Court to provide an answer for their troubling dilemma on the issue of conscientious objection. At present, the Court has granted admissibility in 29 cases, including two that involve 433 men.
What will the Constitutional Court determine in these cases? Will South Korea’s highest court recognize the right of conscientious objection to military service, opening the way for new legislation? If it does, it will honor its international commitments, its own Constitution, and dignify the consciences of many—bringing relief to hundreds of young men unjustly imprisoned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)