Problem solving like a Titan.

Wannabe Titans?

A clash of Titans. LXXI

Scientists routinely employ design filters.

Yes, Intelligent Design Is Detectable by Science

Stephen C. Meyer

Editor’s note: The online journal Sapientia recently posed a good question to several participants in a forum: “Is Intelligent Design Detectable by Science?” This is one key issue on which proponents of ID and of theistic evolution differ. Stephen Meyer, philosopher of science and director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, gave the following reply.

Biologists have long recognized that many organized structures in living organisms — the elegant form and protective covering of the coiled nautilus; the interdependent parts of the vertebrate eye; the interlocking bones, muscles, and feathers of a bird wing — “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”1

Before Darwin, biologists attributed the beauty, integrated complexity, and adaptation of organisms to their environments to a powerful designing intelligence. Consequently, they also thought the study of life rendered the activity of a designing intelligence detectable in the natural world.

Yet Darwin argued that this appearance of design could be more simply explained as the product of a purely undirected mechanism, namely, natural selection and random variation. Modern neo-Darwinists have similarly asserted that the undirected process of natural selection and random mutation produced the intricate designed-like structures in living systems. They affirm that natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence without itself being guided by an intelligent agent. Thus, living organisms may look designed, but on this view, that appearance is illusory and, consequently, the study of life does not render the activity of a designing intelligence detectable in the natural world. As Darwin himself insisted, “There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course in which the wind blows.”2 Or as the eminent evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala has argued, Darwin accounted for “design without a designer” and showed “that the directive organization of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process, natural selection, without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent.”3

But did Darwin explain away all evidence of apparent design in biology? Darwin attempted to explain the origin of new living forms starting from simpler pre-existing forms of life, but his theory of evolution by natural selection did not even attempt to explain the origin of life — the simplest living cell — in the first place. Yet there is now compelling evidence of intelligent design in the inner recesses of even the simplest living one-celled organisms. Moreover, there is a key feature of living cells — one that makes the intelligent design of life detectable — that Darwin didn’t know about and that contemporary evolutionary theorists have not explained away.

The Information Enigma

In 1953 when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions — the information — for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive.

Francis Crick later developed this idea with his famous “sequence hypothesis” according to which the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. Just as English letters may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do certain sequences of chemical bases along the spine of a DNA molecule convey precise instructions for building proteins. The arrangement of the chemical characters determines the function of the sequence as a whole. Thus, the DNA molecule has the same property of “sequence specificity” that characterizes codes and language.

Moreover, DNA sequences do not just possess “information” in the strictly mathematical sense described by pioneering information theorist Claude Shannon. Shannon related the amount of information in a sequence of symbols to the improbability of the sequence (and the reduction of uncertainty associated with it). But DNA base sequences do not just exhibit a mathematically measurable degree of improbability. Instead, DNA contains information in the richer and more ordinary dictionary sense of “alternative sequences or arrangements of characters that produce a specific effect.” DNA base sequences convey instructions. They perform functions and produce specific effects. Thus, they not only possess “Shannon information,” but also what has been called “specified” or “functional information.”

Like the precisely arranged zeros and ones in a computer program, the chemical bases in DNA convey instructions by virtue of their specific arrangement — and in accord with an independent symbol convention known as the “genetic code.” Thus, biologist Richard Dawkins notes that “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.”4 Similarly, Bill Gates observes that “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”5 Similarly, biotechnologist Leroy Hood describes the information in DNA as “digital code.”6

After the early 1960s, further discoveries revealed that the digital information in DNA and RNA is only part of a complex information processing system — an advanced form of nanotechnology that both mirrors and exceeds our own in its complexity, design logic, and information storage density.

Where did the information in the cell come from? And how did the cell’s complex information processing system arise? These questions lie at the heart of contemporary origin-of-life research. Clearly, the informational features of the cell at least appear designed. And, as I show in extensive detail in my book Signature in the Cell, no theory of undirected chemical evolution explains the origin of the information needed to build the first living cell.7

Why? There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone. And attempts to explain the origin of information as the consequence of pre-biotic natural selection acting on random changes inevitably presuppose precisely what needs explaining, namely, reams of pre-existing genetic information. The information in DNA also defies explanation by reference to the laws of chemistry. Saying otherwise is like saying a newspaper headline might arise from the chemical attraction between ink and paper. Clearly something more is at work.

Yet, the scientists who infer intelligent design do not do so merely because natural processes — chance, laws, or their combination — have failed to explain the origin of the information and information processing systems in cells. Instead, we think intelligent design is detectable in living systems because we know from experience that systems possessing large amounts of such information invariably arise from intelligent causes. The information on a computer screen can be traced back to a user or programmer. The information in a newspaper ultimately came from a writer — from a mind. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler observed, “Information habitually arises from conscious activity.”8

This connection between information and prior intelligence enables us to detect or infer intelligent activity even from unobservable sources in the distant past. Archeologists infer ancient scribes from hieroglyphic inscriptions. SETI’s search for extraterrestrial intelligence presupposes that information imbedded in electromagnetic signals from space would indicate an intelligent source. Radio astronomers have not found any such signal from distant star systems; but closer to home, molecular biologists have discovered information in the cell, suggesting — by the same logic that underwrites the SETI program and ordinary scientific reasoning about other informational artifacts — an intelligent source.

DNA functions like a software program and contains specified information just as software does. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that specified information — whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, or encoded in a radio signal — always arises from an intelligent source. So the discovery of such information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring (or detecting) that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA, even if we weren’t there to observe the system coming into existence.

The Logic of Design Detection

In The Design Inference, mathematician William Dembski explicates the logic of design detection. His work reinforces the conclusion that the specified information present in DNA points to a designing mind.

Dembski shows that rational agents often detect the prior activity of other designing minds by the character of the effects they leave behind. Archaeologists assume that rational agents produced the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone. Insurance fraud investigators detect certain “cheating patterns” that suggest intentional manipulation of circumstances rather than a natural disaster. Cryptographers distinguish between random signals and those carrying encoded messages, the latter indicating an intelligent source. Recognizing the activity of intelligent agents constitutes a common and fully rational mode of inference.

More importantly, Dembski explicates criteria by which rational agents recognize or detect the effects of other rational agents, and distinguish them from the effects of natural causes. He demonstrates that systems or sequences with the joint properties of “high complexity” (or small probability) and “specification” invariably result from intelligent causes, not chance or physical-chemical laws.9 Dembski noted that complex sequences exhibit an irregular and improbable arrangement that defies expression by a simple rule or algorithm, whereas specification involves a match or correspondence between a physical system or sequence and an independently recognizable pattern or set of functional requirements.

By way of illustration, consider the following three sets of symbols:

nehya53nslbyw1`jejns7eopslanm46/J

TIME AND TIDE WAIT FOR NO MAN

ABABABABABABABABABABAB

The first two sequences are complex because both defy reduction to a simple rule. Each represents a highly irregular, aperiodic, improbable sequence. The third sequence is not complex, but is instead highly ordered and repetitive. Of the two complex sequences, only the second, however, exemplifies a set of independent functional requirements — i.e., is specified.

English has many such functional requirements. For example, to convey meaning in English one must employ existing conventions of vocabulary (associations of symbol sequences with particular objects, concepts, or ideas) and existing conventions of syntax and grammar. When symbol arrangements “match” existing vocabulary and grammatical conventions (i.e., functional requirements), communication can occur. Such arrangements exhibit “specification.” The sequence “Time and tide waits for no man” clearly exhibits such a match, and thus performs a communication function.

Thus, of the three sequences only the second manifests both necessary indicators of a designed system. The third sequence lacks complexity, though it does exhibit a simple periodic pattern, a specification of sorts. The first sequence is complex, but not specified. Only the second sequence exhibits both complexity and specification. Thus, according to Dembski’s theory of design detection, only the second sequence implicates an intelligent cause — as our uniform experience affirms.

In my book Signature in the Cell, I show that Dembski’s joint criteria of complexity and specification are equivalent to “functional” or “specified information.” I also show that the coding regions of DNA exemplify both high complexity and specification and, thus not surprisingly, also contain “specified information.” Consequently, Dembski’s scientific method of design detection reinforces the conclusion that the digital information in DNA indicates prior intelligent activity.

So, contrary to media reports, the theory of intelligent design is not based upon ignorance or “gaps” in our knowledge, but on scientific discoveries about DNA and on established scientific methods of reasoning in which our uniform experience of cause and effect guides our inferences about the kinds of causes that produce (or best explain) different types of events or sequences.

Anthropic Fine Tuning

The evidence of design in living cells is not the only such evidence in nature. Modern physics now reveals evidence of intelligent design in the very fabric of the universe. Since the 1960s physicists have recognized that the initial conditions and the laws and constants of physics are finely tuned, against all odds, to make life possible. Even extremely slight alterations in the values of many independent factors — such as the expansion rate of the universe, the speed of light, and the precise strength of gravitational or electromagnetic attraction — would render life impossible. Physicists refer to these factors as “anthropic coincidences” and to the fortunate convergence of all these coincidences as the “fine-tuning of the universe.”

Many have noted that this fine-tuning strongly suggests design by a pre-existent intelligence. Physicist Paul Davies has said that “the impression of design is overwhelming.”10 Fred Hoyle argued that, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology.”11 Many physicists now concur. They would argue that — in effect — the dials in the cosmic control room appear finely-tuned because someone carefully fine-tuned them.

To explain the vast improbabilities associated with these fine-tuning parameters, some physicists have postulated not a “fine-tuner” or intelligent designer, but the existence of a vast number of other parallel universes. This “multiverse” concept also necessarily posits various mechanisms for producing these universes. On this view, having some mechanism for generating new universes would increase the number of opportunities for a life-friendly universe such as our own to arise — making ours something like a lucky winner of a cosmic lottery.

But advocates of these multiverse proposals have overlooked an obvious problem. The speculative cosmologies (such as inflationary cosmology and string theory) they propose for generating alternative universes invariably invoke mechanisms that themselves require fine-tuning, thus begging the question as to the origin of that prior fine-tuning. Indeed, all the various materialistic explanations for the origin of the fine-tuning — i.e., the explanations that attempt to explain the fine-tuning without invoking intelligent design — invariably invoke prior unexplained fine-tuning.

Moreover, as Jay Richards has shown,12 the fine-tuning of the universe exhibits precisely those features — extreme improbability and functional specification — that invariably trigger an awareness of, and justify an inference to, intelligent design. Since the multiverse theory cannot explain fine-tuning without invoking prior fine-tuning, and since the fine-tuning of a physical system to accomplish a propitious end is exactly the kind of thing we know intelligent agents do, it follows that intelligent design stands as the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe.

And that makes intelligent design detectable in both the physical parameters of the universe and the information-bearing properties of life.

Notes:

Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York, NY: Norton, 1986), 1.

Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin, vol. 1 (New York: Appleton, 1887), 278–279.

Francisco J. Ayala, “Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design without Designer,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104 (May 15, 2007): 8567–8573.

Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic, 1995), 17.

Bill Gates, The Road Ahead (New York: Viking, 1995), 188.

Leroy Hood and David Galas, “The Digital Code of DNA.” Nature 421 (2003), 444-448.

Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2009), 173-323.

Henry Quastler, The Emergence of Biological Organization (New Haven: Yale UP, 1964), 16.

William Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 36-66.

Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988), 203.

Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 20 (1982): 16.

Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2004), 293-311.

Photosynthesis v. Darwin.

New Ideas on the Evolution of Photosynthesis Reaction Centers
Cornelius Hunter

Evolutionists do not have a clear understanding of how photosynthesis arose, as evidenced by a new paper  from Kevin Redding’s laboratory at Arizona State University which states:

After the Type I/II split, an ancestor to photosystem I fixed its quinone sites and then heterodimerized to bind PsaC as a new subunit, as responses to rising O2 after the appearance of the oxygen-evolving complex in an ancestor of photosystem II. These pivotal events thus gave rise to the diversity that we observe today.

That may sound like hard science to the uninitiated, but it isn’t.

The Type I/II split is a hypothetical event for which the main evidence is the belief that evolution is true. In fact, according to the science, it is astronomically unlikely that photosynthesis evolved, period.

And so, in typical fashion, the paper presents a teleological (“and then structure X evolved to achieve Y”) narrative to cover over the absurdity:

and then heterodimerized to bind PsaC as a new subunit, as responses to rising O2 …

First, let’s reword that so it is a little clearer: The atmospheric oxygen levels rose and so therefore the reaction center of an early photosynthesis system heterodimerized in order to bind a new protein (which helps with electron transfer).

This is a good example of the Aristotelianism that pervades evolutionary thought. This is not science, at least in the modern sense. And as usual, the infinitive form (“to bind”) provides the telltale sign. In other words, a new structure evolved as a response to X (i.e., as a response to the rising oxygen levels) in order to achieve Y (i.e., to achieve the binding of a new protein, PsaC).

But it gets worse. Note the term: “heterodimerized.” A protein machine that consists of two identical proteins mated together is referred to as a “homodimer.” If two different proteins are mated together it is a “heterodimer.” In some photosynthesis systems, at the core of the reaction center is a homodimer. More typically, it is a heterodimer.

The Redding paper states that the ancient photosynthesis system “heterodimerized.” In other words, it switched, or converted, the protein machine from a homodimer to a heterodimer (in order to bind PsaC). The suffix “ize,” in this case, means to cause to be or to become. The ancient photosynthesis system caused the protein machine to become a heterodimer.

Such teleology reflects evolutionary thought and let’s be clear — this is junk science. From a scientific perspective there is nothing redeeming here. It is pure junk.

But it gets even worse.

These pivotal events thus gave rise to the diversity that we observe today.

Or as the press release described it:

Their [reaction centers’] first appearance and subsequent diversification has allowed photosynthesis to power the biosphere for over 3 billion years, in the process supporting the evolution of more complex life forms.

So evolution created photosynthesis which then, “gave rise to” the evolution of incredibly more advanced life forms. In other words, evolution climbed an astronomical entropic barrier and created incredibly unlikely structures which were crucial for the amazing evolutionary history to follow.

The serendipity is deafening.

A whale of a problem for Darwinism? II

The Biggest Sea Animals: Whaling for Evolution
Evolution News | @DiscoveryCSC

You don’t just grow a whale by adding cells to a cow or wolf. The cells needed to support a massive animal, besides being increased by orders of magnitude, must be precisely organized. Entire body systems must be redesigned for life in the water. Let’s consider very large sea creatures, some living and some extinct, and see how Darwinians try to explain them.

Whales justly excite our admiration. Recently, a passenger was enjoying a ride on Captain Dave’s Dolphin and Whale Watching Safari (featured in Illustra’s film Living Waters), and snapped a great photo: a rainbow produced by a humpback whale as it sent a fountain of spray out its blowhole.Live Science published the photo, titling the occasion, “Whale Sneezes Rainbow, Proving Nature is Beautiful and Weird.” As we look at news about some of the largest sea creatures that ever lived, we might justify changing that headline to “Nature is Beautiful; Evolution Is Weird.”

Baleen Evolution

Humpbacks are baleen whales, using fibrous strands to filter their food instead of teeth. Jeremy Jackson starts our evolutionary whale hunt in Science Magazine with a Darwinesque article, “On the evolution of baleen whales.”

 Baleen whales include the largest animals that have ever lived, but their evolutionary history has been difficult to decipher because of conflicting evidence from genes and morphology. Árnason et al. conducted whole-genome sequencing of the blue whale and five other baleen species to reconstruct their evolutionary history in detail. All existing species originated within the past 10 million years as global climates progressively cooled toward the poles. Taxonomic relationships are complicated by evidence of gene flow and hybridization among species facilitated by the absence of geographic barriers. Speciation occurred within an interwoven network of co-occurring lineages, rather than the classical Darwinian pattern of bifurcating trees that is characteristic of most animals.

Conflicting evidence, complicated relationships, gene flow and hybridization: this is not the story Darwin told. We’ll leave it to the reader’s imagination whether global climates, cooling toward the poles, caused the “origination” of anything, let alone whales.

Jazz Evolution

Humpbacks are not the only singers.  National Geographic reported recently on the “amazing, wild sounds” made by bowhead whales, which reporter Carrie Arnold calls the “jazz musicians of the sea.” These 60-footer baleen whales that live in the Arctic sing up a storm. Their songs are to humpbacks what jazz is to Bach, she writes. 

Recordings made by marine biologists led by Kate Stafford at the University of Washington show rapid changes and improvisations that change in one season. We know that Bach’s music is intelligently designed. Can Darwin explain the jazzy songs of the bowhead whale? “Stafford still doesn’t know why these songs are so diverse, nor what purpose the song serves.” Maybe Stafford should look into W. Ford Doolittle’s mechanism for evolution: “It’s the song, not the singer.”

Blue Whale Evolution

Now, we should get some evolution data! Recently, Science Daily reports, European teams sequenced the genome of the blue whale (the largest animal that ever lived, in the 100-foot range). They compared it to the genes of other rorquals (the largest group of baleen whales, including the humpback and right whales). Did they find a Darwinian pattern?

Surprisingly, the genomes show that rorquals have been hybridizing during their evolutionary history. In addition, rorquals seem to have separated into different species in the absence of geographical barriers. This phenomenon, called sympatric speciation, is very rare in animals….


Now new research highlights that the evolution of these extraordinary animals and other rorquals was also anything but ordinary.

We also read in the open-access paper in Science Advances that “Reconstructing the evolution of baleen whales (Mysticeti) has been problematic because morphological and genetic analyses have produced different scenarios.” As we saw earlier, hybridization and “interwoven network of co-occurring lineages” are the norm, not the “classical Darwinian pattern” of branching trees.

Ichthyosaur Evolution

Some extinct marine reptiles competed with the blue whale in size. Bones from a massive ichthyosaur, an estimated 85 feet long, have been found in southwestern England, National Geographic says. Reporter John Pickrell doesn’t mention evolution at all. He points out, though, a remarkable case of convergence: these giants have “body shapes superficially similar to dolphins.”


At The Conversation, Dean Lomax from the University of Manchester describes “How we found a giant ichthyosaur almost as big as a blue whale.” Maybe he can tell us how this creature evolved. No, again; no mention of evolution, just details about how the found the bones and identified them.

 Mosasaur Evolution

Maybe a Darwinian pattern will turn up in mosasaurs, another family of extinct marine reptiles with body shapes similar to sharks. They were powerful swimmers and gave birth to live young, becoming predominant in the Cretaceous after many of the ichthyosaurs went extinct. They perished along with the last of the dinosaurs. An international expert on mosasaurs, Takuya Konishi, will surely be able to tell us about their evolution, won’t he? We search the article on  Phys.org with desperate hope:

Mosasaurs are more closely related to snakes and lizards than dinosaurs. While mosasaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, other marine reptiles from that time, such as sea turtles, persisted. By learning more about mosasaurs, we can understand evolutionary processes such as extinction that influence species today, Konishi said.

Is extinction an “evolutionary process”? Is persistence an evolutionary process? Darwin won’t get very far building giant swimmers from bacteria at that rate. The main thing Konishi is able to talk about is their diet. They probably ate fish, he says.

“There are still many things from basic taxonomy to physiology to paleobiological questions we have about mosasaurs,” Konishi said.

One of those questions must surely be about how they originated by a blind, Darwinian process.

Wikipedia of all places, should be a reliable defender of evolution. Under “evolutionary history” on mosasaurs, however, they put forth a theory that mosasaurs share a common ancestor with marine snakes. Then they shoot it down. After evolutionists believed that for over a century, we read that new fossils “cast doubt on the marine origin hypothesis.” We challenge anyone willing to read the lengthy, jargon-rich, three-paragraph explanation to find anything solid. It’s a maybe-this, maybe-that search for the common ancestor, with incredible diversions into convergence or parallel evolution. Everything is disputed.

The meatiest statement is, “The exact phylogenetic position of the clade containing mosasaurids and their closest relatives … remains uncertain.” The elephant in the room is the big question: how does one turn a snake or monitor lizard into a mosasaur? 

On the holy scriptures: The Watchtower society's commentary.

BIBLE

The Holy Scriptures, the inspired Word of Jehovah, acknowledged as the greatest book of all times because of its antiquity, its total circulation, the number of languages into which it has been translated, its surpassing greatness as a literary masterpiece, and its overwhelming importance to all mankind. Independent of all other books, it imitates no other. It stands on its own merits, giving credit to its unique Author. The Bible is also distinguished as having survived more violent controversy than any other book, hated as it is by many enemies.

Name. The English word “Bible” comes through the Latin from the Greek word bi·bliʹa, meaning “little books.” This, in turn, is derived from biʹblos, a word that describes the inner part of the papyrus plant out of which a primitive form of paper was made. The Phoenician city of Gebal, famous for its papyrus trade, was called by the Greeks “Byblos.” (See Jos 13:5, ftn.) In time bi·bliʹa came to describe various writings, scrolls, books, and eventually the collection of little books that make up the Bible. Jerome called this collection Bibliotheca Divina, the Divine Library.

Jesus and writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures referred to the collection of sacred writings as “the Scriptures,” or “the holy Scriptures,” “the holy writings.” (Mt 21:42; Mr 14:49; Lu 24:32; Joh 5:39; Ac 18:24; Ro 1:2; 15:4; 2Ti 3:15, 16) The collection is the written expression of a communicating God, the Word of God, and this is acknowledged in phrases such as “expression of Jehovah’s mouth” (De 8:3), “sayings of Jehovah” (Jos 24:27), “commandments of Jehovah” (Ezr 7:11), “law of Jehovah,” “reminder of Jehovah,” “orders from Jehovah” (Ps 19:7, 8), “word of Jehovah” (Isa 38:4), ‘utterance of Jehovah’ (Mt 4:4), “Jehovah’s word” (1Th 4:15). Repeatedly these writings are spoken of as “sacred pronouncements of God.”​—Ro 3:2; Ac 7:38; Heb 5:12; 1Pe 4:11.

Divisions. Sixty-six individual books from Genesis to Revelation make up the Bible canon. The choice of these particular books, and the rejection of many others, is evidence that the Divine Author not only inspired their writing but also carefully guarded their collection and preservation within the sacred catalog. (See APOCRYPHA; CANON.) Thirty-nine of the 66 books, making up three quarters of the Bible’s contents, are known as the Hebrew Scriptures, all having been initially written in that language with the exception of a few small sections written in Aramaic. (Ezr 4:8–6:18; 7:12-26; Jer 10:11; Da 2:4b–7:28) By combining some of these books, the Jews had a total of only 22 or 24 books, yet these embraced the same material. It also appears to have been their custom to subdivide the Scriptures into three parts​—‘the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.’ (Lu 24:44; see HEBREW SCRIPTURES.) The last quarter of the Bible is known as the Christian Greek Scriptures, so designated because the 27 books comprising this section were written in Greek. The writing, collecting, and arrangement of these books within the Bible’s canon also demonstrate Jehovah’s supervision from start to finish.​—See CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES.

Subdividing the Bible into chapters and verses (KJ has 1,189 chapters and 31,102 verses) was not done by the original writers, but it was a very useful device added centuries later. The Masoretes divided the Hebrew Scriptures into verses; then in the 13th century of our Common Era chapter divisions were added. Finally, in 1553 Robert Estienne’s edition of the French Bible was published as the first complete Bible with the present chapter and verse divisions.

The 66 Bible books all together form but a single work, a complete whole. As the chapter and verse marks are only convenient aids for Bible study and are not intended to detract from the unity of the whole, so also is the sectioning of the Bible, which is done according to the predominant language in which the manuscripts have come down to us. We, therefore, have both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, with “Christian” added to the latter to distinguish them from the Greek Septuagint, which is the Hebrew portion of the Scriptures translated into Greek.

“Old Testament” and “New Testament.” Today it is a common practice to refer to the Scriptures written in Hebrew and Aramaic as the “Old Testament.” This is based on the reading in 2 Corinthians 3:14 in the Latin Vulgate and the King James Version. However, the rendering “old testament” in this text is incorrect. The Greek word di·a·theʹkes here means “covenant,” as it does in the other 32 places where it occurs in the Greek text. Many modern translations correctly read “old covenant.” (NE, RS, JB) The apostle Paul is not referring to the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures in their entirety. Neither does he mean that the inspired Christian writings constitute a “new testament (or, covenant).” The apostle is speaking of the old Law covenant, which was recorded by Moses in the Pentateuch and which makes up only a part of the pre-Christian Scriptures. For this reason he says in the next verse, “whenever Moses is read.”

Hence, there is no valid basis for the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures to be called the “Old Testament” and for the Christian Greek Scriptures to be called the “New Testament.” Jesus Christ himself referred to the collection of sacred writings as “the Scriptures.” (Mt 21:42; Mr 14:49; Joh 5:39) The apostle Paul referred to them as “the holy Scriptures,” “the Scriptures,” and “the holy writings.”​—Ro 1:2; 15:4; 2Ti 3:15.

Authorship. The accompanying table shows that about 40 human secretaries or scribes were used by the one Author to record the inspired Word of Jehovah. “All Scripture is inspired of God,” and this includes the writings in the Christian Greek Scriptures along with “the rest of the Scriptures.” (2Ti 3:16; 2Pe 3:15, 16) This expression “inspired of God” translated the Greek phrase the·oʹpneu·stos, meaning “God-breathed.” By ‘breathing’ on faithful men, God caused his spirit, or active force, to become operative upon them and directed what he wanted recorded, for, as it is written, “prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.”​—2Pe 1:21; Joh 20:21, 22; see INSPIRATION.

This unseen holy spirit of God is his symbolic “finger.” Therefore, when men saw Moses perform supernatural feats they exclaimed: “It is the finger of God!” (Ex 8:18, 19; compare with Jesus’ words at Mt 12:22, 28; Lu 11:20.) In a similar display of divine power “God’s finger” began the writing of the Bible by carving out the Ten Commandments on stone tablets. (Ex 31:18; De 9:10) It would, therefore, be a simple matter for Jehovah to use men as his scribes even though some were “unlettered and ordinary” in scholastic training (Ac 4:13), and regardless of whether the individual was by trade a shepherd, farmer, tentmaker, fisherman, tax collector, physician, priest, prophet, or king. Jehovah’s active force put the thoughts into the writer’s mind and, in certain instances, allowed him to express the divine thought in his own words, thus permitting personality and individual traits to show through the writing, yet at the same time maintaining a superb oneness in theme and in purpose throughout. In this way the resultant Bible, reflecting as it does the mind and will of Jehovah, exceeded in wealth and in scope the writings of mere men. The Almighty God saw to it that his written Word of truth was in language easily understood and easily translated into practically any tongue.

No other book took so long to complete as the Bible. In 1513 B.C.E. Moses began Bible writing. Other sacred writings were added to the inspired Scriptures until sometime after 443 B.C.E. when Nehemiah and Malachi completed their books. Then there was a gap in Bible writing for almost 500 years, until the apostle Matthew penned his historic account. Nearly 60 years later John, the last of the apostles, contributed his Gospel and three letters to complete the Bible’s canon. So, all together, a period of some 1,610 years was involved in producing the Bible. All the cowriters were Hebrews and, hence, part of that people “entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God.”​—Ro 3:2.

The Bible is not an unrelated assortment or collection of heterogeneous fragments from Jewish and Christian literature. Rather, it is an organizational book, highly unified and interconnected in its various segments, which indeed reflect the systematic orderliness of the Creator-Author himself. God’s dealings with Israel in giving them a comprehensive law code as well as regulations governing matters even down to small details of camp life​—things that were later mirrored in the Davidic kingdom as well as in the congregational arrangement among first-century Christians—​reflect and magnify this organizational aspect of the Bible.

Contents. In contents this Book of Books reveals the past, explains the present, and foretells the future. These are matters that only He who knows the end from the beginning could author. (Isa 46:10) Starting at the beginning by telling of the creation of heaven and earth, the Bible next gives a sweeping account of the events that prepared the earth for man’s habitation. Then the truly scientific explanation of the origin of man is revealed​—how life comes only from a Life-Giver—​facts that only the Creator now in the role of Author could explain. (Ge 1:26-28; 2:7) With the account of why men die, the overriding theme that permeates the whole Bible was introduced. This theme, the vindication of Jehovah’s sovereignty and the ultimate fulfillment of his purpose for the earth, by means of his Kingdom under Christ, the promised Seed, was wrapped up in the first prophecy concerning ‘the seed of the woman.’ (Ge 3:15) More than 2,000 years passed before this promise of a “seed” was again mentioned, God telling Abraham: “By means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves.” (Ge 22:18) Over 800 years later, renewed assurance was given to Abraham’s descendant King David, and with the passing of more time Jehovah’s prophets kept this flame of hope burning brightly. (2Sa 7:12, 16; Isa 9:6, 7) More than 1,000 years after David and 4,000 years after the original prophecy in Eden, the Promised Seed himself appeared, Jesus Christ, the legal heir to “the throne of David his father.” (Lu 1:31-33; Ga 3:16) Bruised in death by the earthly seed of the “serpent,” this “Son of the Most High” provided the ransom purchase price for the life rights lost to Adam’s offspring, thus providing the only means whereby mankind can get everlasting life. He was then raised on high, there to await the appointed time to hurl “the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan,” down to the earth, finally to be destroyed forever. Thus the magnificent theme announced in Genesis and developed and enlarged upon throughout the balance of the Bible is, in the closing chapters of Revelation, brought to a glorious climax as Jehovah’s grand purpose by means of his Kingdom is made apparent.​—Re 11:15; 12:1-12, 17; 19:11-16; 20:1-3, 7-10; 21:1-5; 22:3-5.

Through this Kingdom under Christ the Promised Seed, Jehovah’s sovereignty will be vindicated and his name will be sanctified. Following through on this theme, the Bible magnifies God’s personal name to a greater extent than any other book; the name occurs 6,973 times in the Hebrew Scripture portion of the New World Translation. That is in addition to the use of the shorter form “Jah” and the scores of instances where it combines to form other names like “Jehoshua,” meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation.” (See JEHOVAH [Importance of the Name].) We would not know the Creator’s name, the great issue involving his sovereignty raised by the Edenic rebellion, or God’s purpose to sanctify his name and vindicate his sovereignty before all creation if these things were not revealed in the Bible.

In this library of 66 little books the theme of the Kingdom and Jehovah’s name are closely interwoven with information on many subjects. Its reference to fields of knowledge such as agriculture, architecture, astronomy, chemistry, commerce, engineering, ethnology, government, hygiene, music, poetry, philology, and tactical warfare is only incidental to development of the theme; not as a treatise. Nevertheless, it contains a veritable treasure-house of information for the archaeologists and paleographers.

As an accurate historical work and one that penetrates the past to great depths, the Bible far surpasses all other books. However, it is of much greater value in the field of prophecy, foretelling as it does the future that only the King of Eternity can reveal with accuracy. The march of world powers down through the centuries, even to the rise and ultimate demise of present-day institutions, was prophetically related in the Bible’s long-range prophecies.

God’s Word of truth in a very practical way sets men free from ignorance, superstitions, human philosophies, and senseless traditions of men. (Joh 8:32) “The word of God is alive and exerts power.” (Heb 4:12) Without the Bible we would not know Jehovah, would not know the wonderful benefits resulting from Christ’s ransom sacrifice, and would not understand the requirements that must be met in order to get everlasting life in or under God’s righteous Kingdom.

The Bible is a most practical book in other ways too, for it gives sound counsel to Christians on how to live now, how to carry on their ministry, and how to survive this anti-God, pleasure-seeking system of things. Christians are told to “quit being fashioned after this system of things” by making their minds over from worldly thinking, and this they can do by having the same mental attitude of humility “that was also in Christ Jesus” and by stripping off the old personality and putting on the new one. (Ro 12:2; Php 2:5-8; Eph 4:23, 24; Col 3:5-10) This means displaying the fruitage of God’s spirit, “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control”​—subjects on which so much is written throughout the Bible.​—Ga 5:22, 23; Col 3:12-14.

Authenticity. The veracity of the Bible has been assailed from many quarters, but none of these efforts has undermined or weakened its position in the least.

Bible history. Sir Isaac Newton once said: “I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.” (Two Apologies, by R. Watson, London, 1820, p. 57) Its integrity to truth proves sound on any point that might be tested. Its history is accurate and can be relied upon. For example, what it says about the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians cannot be successfully contradicted (Jer 51:11, 12, 28; Da 5:28), neither can what it says about people like Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 27:20; Da 1:1); Egyptian King Shishak (1Ki 14:25; 2Ch 12:2); Assyrians Tiglath-pileser III and Sennacherib (2Ki 15:29; 16:7; 18:13); the Roman emperors Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius (Lu 2:1; 3:1; Ac 18:2); Romans such as Pilate, Felix, and Festus (Ac 4:27; 23:26; 24:27); nor what it says about the temple of Artemis at Ephesus and the Areopagus at Athens (Ac 19:35; 17:19-34). What the Bible says about these or any other places, people, or events is historically accurate in every detail.​—See ARCHAEOLOGY.

Races and languages. What the Bible says about races and languages of mankind is also true. All peoples, regardless of stature, culture, color, or language, are members of one human family. The threefold division of the human family into the Japhetic, Hamitic, and Semitic races, all descending from Adam through Noah, cannot be successfully disputed. (Ge 9:18, 19; Ac 17:26) Says Sir Henry Rawlinson: “If we were to be guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the Scriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar, as the focus from which the various lines had radiated.”​—The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records, by G. Rawlinson, 1862, p. 287; Ge 11:2-9.

Practicality. The Bible’s teachings, examples, and doctrines are most practical for modern man. The righteous principles and high moral standards contained in this book set it apart as far above all other books. Not only does the Bible answer important questions but it also provides many practical suggestions which, if followed, would do much to raise the physical and mental health of earth’s population. The Bible lays down principles of right and wrong that serve as a straightedge for just business dealings (Mt 7:12; Le 19:35, 36; Pr 20:10; 22:22, 23), industriousness (Eph 4:28; Col 3:23; 1Th 4:11, 12; 2Th 3:10-12), clean moral conduct (Ga 5:19-23; 1Th 4:3-8; Ex 20:14-17; Le 20:10-16), upbuilding associations (1Co 15:33; Heb 10:24, 25; Pr 5:3-11; 13:20), good family relationships (Eph 5:21-33; 6:1-4; Col 3:18-21; De 6:4-9; Pr 13:24). As the famous educator William Lyon Phelps once said: “I believe a knowledge of the Bible without a college course is more valuable than a college course without a Bible.” (The New Dictionary of Thoughts, p. 46) Regarding the Bible, John Quincy Adams wrote: “It is of all books in the world, that which contributes most to make men good, wise, and happy.”​—Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son, 1849, p. 9.

Scientific accuracy. When it comes to scientific accuracy the Bible is not lacking. Whether describing the progressive order of earth’s preparation for human habitation (Ge 1:1-31), speaking of the earth as being spherical and hung on “nothing” (Job 26:7; Isa 40:22), classifying the hare as a cud chewer (Le 11:6), or declaring, “the soul of the flesh is in the blood” (Le 17:11-14), the Bible is scientifically sound.

Cultures and customs. On points relating to cultures and customs, in no regard is the Bible found to be wrong. In political matters, the Bible always speaks of a ruler by the proper title that he bore at the time of the writing. For example, Herod Antipas and Lysanias are referred to as district rulers (tetrarchs), Herod Agrippa (II) as king, and Gallio as proconsul. (Lu 3:1; Ac 25:13; 18:12) Triumphal marches of victorious armies, together with their captives, were common during Roman times. (2Co 2:14) The hospitality shown to strangers, the Oriental way of life, the manner of purchasing property, legal procedures in making contracts, and the practice of circumcision among the Hebrews and other peoples are referred to in the Bible, and in all these details the Bible is accurate.​—Ge 18:1-8; 23:7-18; 17:10-14; Jer 9:25, 26.

Candor. Bible writers displayed a candor that is not found among other ancient writers. From the very outset, Moses frankly reported his own sins as well as the sins and errors of his people, a policy followed by the other Hebrew writers. (Ex 14:11, 12; 32:1-6; Nu 14:1-9; 20:9-12; 27:12-14; De 4:21) The sins of great ones such as David and Solomon were not covered over but were reported. (2Sa 11:2-27; 1Ki 11:1-13) Jonah told of his own disobedience. (Jon 1:1-3; 4:1) The other prophets likewise displayed this same straightforward, candid quality. Writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures showed the same regard for truthful reporting as that displayed in the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul tells of his former sinful course in life; Mark’s failure to stick to the missionary work; and also the apostle Peter’s errors are related. (Ac 22:19, 20; 15:37-39; Ga 2:11-14) Such frank, open reporting builds confidence in the Bible’s claim to honesty and truthfulness.

Integrity. Facts testify to the integrity of the Bible. The Bible narrative is inseparably interwoven with the history of the times. It gives straightforward, truthful instruction in the simplest manner. The guileless earnestness and fidelity of its writers, their burning zeal for truth, and their painstaking effort to attain accuracy in details are what we would expect in God’s Word of truth.​—Joh 17:17.

Prophecy. If there is a single point that alone proves the Bible to be the inspired Word of Jehovah it is the matter of prophecy. There are scores of long-range prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled. For a partial listing, see the book “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial,” pp. 343-346.

Preservation. Today none of the original writings of the Holy Scriptures are known to exist. Jehovah, however, saw to it that copies were made to replace the aging originals. Also, from and after the Babylonian exile, with the growth of many Jewish communities outside Palestine, there was an increasing demand for more copies of the Scriptures. This demand was met by professional copyists who made extraordinary efforts to see that accuracy was attained in their handwritten manuscripts. Ezra was just such a man, “a skilled copyist in the law of Moses, which Jehovah the God of Israel had given.”​—Ezr 7:6.

For hundreds of years handwritten copies of the Scriptures continued to be made, during which period the Bible was expanded with the addition of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Translations or versions of these Holy Writings also appeared in other languages. Indeed, the Hebrew Scriptures are honored as the first book of note to be translated into another language. Extant today are thousands of these Bible manuscripts and versions.​—See MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE; VERSIONS.

The first printed Bible, the Gutenberg Bible, came off the press in 1456. Today distribution of the Bible (the whole or in part) has reached over four billion copies in upwards of 2,000 languages. But this has not been accomplished without great opposition from many quarters. Indeed, the Bible has had more enemies than any other book; popes and councils even prohibited the reading of the Bible under penalty of excommunication. Thousands of Bible lovers lost their lives, and thousands of copies of the Bible were committed to the flames. One of the victims in the Bible’s fight to live was translator William Tyndale, who once declared in a discussion with a cleric: “If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scripture than thou doest.”​—Actes and Monuments, by John Foxe, London, 1563, p. 514.

All credit and thanksgiving for the Bible’s survival in view of such violent opposition is due Jehovah, the Preserver of his Word. This fact gives added meaning to the apostle Peter’s quotation from the prophet Isaiah: “All flesh is like grass, and all its glory is like a blossom of grass; the grass becomes withered, and the flower falls off, but the saying of Jehovah endures forever.” (1Pe 1:24, 25; Isa 40:6-8) We, therefore, do well to pay “attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place” in this 21st century. (2Pe 1:19; Ps 119:105) The man whose “delight is in the law of Jehovah, and in his law he reads in an undertone day and night” and who puts in practice the things he reads is the one who prospers and is happy. (Ps 1:1, 2; Jos 1:8) To him Jehovah’s laws, reminders, orders, commandments, and judicial decisions contained in the Bible are “sweeter than honey,” and the wisdom derived therefrom is “more to be desired than gold, yes, than much refined gold,” for it means his very life.​—Ps 19:7-10; Pr 3:13, 16-18; see CANON.

[Chart on page 309]

TABLE OF BIBLE BOOKS IN ORDER COMPLETED

(The order in which the Bible books were written and where each stands in relation to the others is approximate; some dates [and places written] are uncertain. The symbol a. means “after”; b., “before”; and c., “circa” or “about.”)

Hebrew Scriptures (B.C.E.)

Book Writer Date Time Place Written

Completed Covered

Genesis Moses 1513 “In the Wilderness

beginning”

to 1657

Exodus Moses 1512 1657-1512 Wilderness

Leviticus Moses 1512 1 month Wilderness

(1512)

Job Moses c. 1473 Over 140 Wilderness

years

between

1657 and

1473

Numbers Moses 1473 1512-1473 Wilderness/

Plains of Moab

Deuteronomy Moses 1473 2 months Plains of Moab

(1473)

Joshua Joshua c. 1450 1473– Canaan

c. 1450

Judges Samuel c. 1100 c. 1450– Israel

c. 1120

Ruth Samuel c. 1090 11 years Israel

of Judges’

rule

1 Samuel Samuel; c. 1078 c. 1180-1078 Israel

Gad;

Nathan

2 Samuel Gad; c. 1040 1077–c. 1040 Israel

Nathan

Song of Solomon c. 1020 Jerusalem

Solomon

Ecclesiastes Solomon b. 1000 Jerusalem

Jonah Jonah c. 844

Joel Joel c. 820 (?)  Judah

Amos Amos c. 804 Judah

Hosea Hosea a. 745 b. 804– Samaria

a. 745 (District)

Isaiah Isaiah a. 732 c. 778– Jerusalem

a. 732

Micah Micah b. 717 c. 777-717 Judah

Proverbs Solomon; c. 717 Jerusalem

Agur;

Lemuel

Zephaniah Zephaniah b. 648 Judah

Nahum Nahum b. 632 Judah

Habakkuk Habakkuk c. 628 (?)  Judah

Lamentations Jeremiah 607 Nr. Jerusalem

Obadiah Obadiah c. 607

Ezekiel Ezekiel c. 591 613–c. 591 Babylon

1 and 2 Jeremiah 580 c. 1040-580 Judah/​Egypt

Kings

Jeremiah Jeremiah 580 647-580 Judah/​Egypt

Daniel Daniel c. 536 618–c. 536 Babylon

Haggai Haggai 520 112 days Jerusalem

(520)

Zechariah Zechariah 518 520-518 Jerusalem

Esther Mordecai c. 475 493–c. 475 Shushan, Elam

1 and 2 Ezra c. 460 After Jerusalem (?)

Chronicles 1 Chronicles 9:44,

1077-537

Ezra Ezra c. 460 537–c. 467 Jerusalem

Psalms David c. 460

and others

Nehemiah Nehemiah a. 443 456–a. 443 Jerusalem

Malachi Malachi a. 443 Jerusalem

[Chart on page 310]

Christian Greek Scriptures (C.E.)

Book Writer Date Time Place Written

Completed Covered

Matthew Matthew c. 41 2 B.C.E.– Palestine

33 C.E.

1 Thessalonians

Paul c. 50 Corinth

2 Thessalonians

Paul c. 51 Corinth

Galatians Paul c. 50-52 Corinth or

Syr. Antioch

1 Corinthians

Paul c. 55 Ephesus

2 Corinthians

Paul c. 55 Macedonia

Romans Paul c. 56 Corinth

Luke Luke c. 56-58 3 B.C.E.– Caesarea

33 C.E.

Ephesians Paul c. 60-61 Rome

Colossians Paul c. 60-61 Rome

Philemon Paul c. 60-61 Rome

Philippians Paul c. 60-61 Rome

Hebrews Paul c. 61 Rome

Acts Luke c. 61 33–c. Rome

61 C.E.

James James b. 62 Jerusalem

Mark Mark c. 60-65 29-33 C.E. Rome

1 Timothy Paul c. 61-64 Macedonia

Titus Paul c. 61-64 Macedonia (?)

1 Peter Peter c. 62-64 Babylon

2 Peter Peter c. 64 Babylon (?)

2 Timothy Paul c. 65 Rome

Jude Jude c. 65 Palestine (?)

Revelation John c. 96 Patmos

John John c. 98 After Ephesus, or near

prologue,

29-33 C.E.

1 John John c. 98 Ephesus, or near

2 John John c. 98 Ephesus, or near

3 John John c. 98 Ephesus, or near