Exodus22-28NWT(2013 Edition)

22 “If a man steals a bull or a sheep and he slaughters or sells it, he is to compensate with five bulls for the bull and four sheep for the sheep.+

2 (“If a thief+ is found in the act of breaking in and he gets struck and dies, there is no bloodguilt for him. 3 But if it happens after sunrise, there is bloodguilt for him.)

“He must make compensation. If he has nothing, then he must be sold for the things he stole. 4 If what he stole is found alive in his possession, whether it is a bull or a donkey or a sheep, he is to make double compensation.

5 “If anyone puts his animals out to graze in a field or a vineyard and lets them graze in someone else’s field, he is to make compensation with the best of his own field or with the best of his own vineyard.

6 “If a fire starts and spreads to thornbushes and it causes sheaves or standing grain or a field to be consumed, the one who started the fire must make compensation for what was burned.

7 “If a man gives his fellow man money or articles to keep and these are stolen from the fellow man’s house, if the thief is found, he must make double compensation.+ 8 If the thief is not found, the owner of the house must be brought before the true God+ in order to determine whether he put his hand on the goods of his fellow man. 9 In all cases of illegal possession of goods, concerning a bull, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or anything lost of which he may say, ‘This is mine!’ both parties will present their case before the true God.+ The one whom God pronounces guilty is to make double compensation to his fellow man.+

10 “If a man gives his fellow man a donkey or a bull or a sheep or any domestic animal to keep and it dies or gets maimed or gets led away while nobody is looking, 11 there should be an oath made between them before Jehovah, that he did not lay his hand on the goods of his fellow man; and the owner must accept it. The other man is not to make compensation.+ 12 But if the animal has been stolen from him, he is to make compensation to its owner. 13 If it was torn by a wild animal, he is to bring it as evidence. He is not to make compensation for something torn by a wild animal.

14 “But if anybody asks to borrow an animal from his fellow man and it gets maimed or it dies while its owner is not with it, the man who borrowed it must make compensation. 15 If its owner is with it, he is not to make compensation. If it was hired, the money paid for the hire is the compensation.

16 “Now if a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged and he lies down with her, he must pay the bride-price for her to become his wife.+ 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he is to pay the money at the rate of the bride-price.

18 “You must not allow a sorceress to live.+

19 “Anyone lying down with an animal must surely be put to death.+

20 “Whoever sacrifices to any gods but Jehovah alone is to be devoted to destruction.+

21 “You must not mistreat a foreign resident or oppress him,+ for you were foreign residents in the land of Egypt.+

22 “You must not afflict any widow or fatherless child.*+ 23 If you afflict him at all, so that he cries out to me, I will unfailingly hear his outcry;+ 24 and my anger will blaze, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives will become widows, and your children will be fatherless.

25 “If you lend money to anyone poor* of my people, someone who is dwelling with you, you must not become like a moneylender* to him. You must not charge him interest.+

26 “If you seize the garment of your fellow man as security for a loan,*+ you are to return it to him by sunset. 27 For it is his only covering, his clothing to cover his body;* in what will he lie down to sleep?+ When he cries out to me, I will certainly hear, for I am compassionate.*+

28 “You must not curse* God+ nor curse a chieftain* among your people.+

29 “You must not hesitate to make offerings from your abundant produce and the overflow of your presses.*+ The firstborn of your sons you are to give to me.+30 This is what you should do with your bull and your sheep:+ Seven days it will continue with its mother. On the eighth day, you are to give it to me.+

31 “You should prove yourselves holy people to me,+ and you must not eat the flesh of anything in the field that has been torn by a wild animal.+ You should throw it to the dogs.

23 “You must not spread* a report that is not true.+ Do not cooperate with a wicked one by becoming a malicious witness.+ 2 You must not follow after the crowd to do evil, and you must not pervert justice by giving testimony to go along with the crowd.* 3 You must show impartiality in the dispute of a poor person.+

4 “If you come upon your enemy’s bull or his donkey straying, you must return it to him.+ 5 If you see that the donkey of someone who hates you has fallen under its load, you must not ignore it and leave. You must help him release the animal.+

6 “You are not to pervert the judgment of the poor one among you in his legal case.+

7 “Have nothing to do with a false accusation,* and do not kill the innocent and the righteous, for I will not declare the wicked one righteous.*+

8 “You must not accept a bribe, for the bribe blinds clear-sighted men and can distort the words of righteous men.+

9 “You must not oppress a foreign resident. You know how it feels to be a foreigner,* because you were foreign residents in the land of Egypt.+

10 “You are to sow your land with seed and gather its produce for six years.+11 But the seventh year you should leave it uncultivated and let it lie fallow, and the poor among your people will eat of it, and what they leave, the wild animals of the field will eat. That is what you should do with your vineyard and your olive grove.

12 “Six days you are to do your work; but on the seventh day, you are to cease from your labor, in order that your bull and your donkey may rest and the son of your slave girl and the foreign resident may refresh themselves.+

13 “You must be careful to do all that I have said to you,+ and you must not mention the names of other gods; they should not be heard on your lips.*+

14 “Three times a year you are to celebrate a festival to me.+ 15 You will observe the Festival of Unleavened Bread.+ You will eat unleavened bread for seven days, just as I have commanded you, at the appointed time in the month of Aʹbib,*+ for at that time you came out of Egypt. No one is to appear before me empty-handed.+ 16 Also, you are to observe the Festival of Harvest* of the first ripe fruits of your labors, of what you sow in the field;+ and the Festival of Ingathering* at the end of the year, when you gather in from the field the results of your labors.+ 17 Three times a year all your men* are to appear before the true Lord, Jehovah.+

18 “You must not offer the blood of my sacrifice with anything leavened. And the sacrifices of fat offered at my festivals should not stay overnight until the morning.

19 “You are to bring the best of the first ripe fruits of your ground to the house of Jehovah your God.+

“You must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.+

20 “I am sending an angel ahead of you+ to guard you on the way and to bring you into the place that I have prepared.+ 21 Pay attention to him, and obey his voice. Do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions,+because my name is in him. 22 However, if you strictly obey his voice and do all that I say, I will show hostility to your enemies and oppose those who oppose you.23 For my angel will go ahead of you and will bring you to the Amʹor·ites, the Hitʹtites, the Perʹiz·zites, the Caʹnaan·ites, the Hiʹvites, and the Jebʹu·sites, and I will annihilate them.+ 24 You must not bow down to their gods or be persuaded to serve them, and you must not imitate their practices.+ Instead, you must demolish them and smash their sacred pillars.+ 25 You must serve Jehovah your God,+ and he will bless your bread and your water.+ I will remove sickness from among you.+ 26 The women in your land will not suffer a miscarriage or be barren,+ and I will give you a full life span.*

27 “I will send the fear of me ahead of you,+ and I will throw into confusion all the people you encounter, and I will cause all your enemies to flee from you in defeat.*+ 28 I will send the feeling of dejection* ahead of you,+ and it will drive the Hiʹvites, the Caʹnaan·ites, and the Hitʹtites out from before you.+ 29 I will not drive them out from before you in one year, so that the land does not become desolate and the wild animals of the field multiply against you.+ 30 Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you become fruitful and take possession of the land.+

31 “I will set your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Phi·lisʹtines and from the wilderness to the River;*+ for I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out from before you.+ 32 You must not make a covenant with them or their gods.+ 33 They should not dwell in your land, so that they may not cause you to sin against me. If you should serve their gods, it would surely become a snare to you.”+

24 Then he said to Moses: “Go up to Jehovah, you and Aaron, Naʹdab and A·biʹhu,+ and 70 of the elders of Israel, and bow down from a distance. 2 Moses should approach Jehovah by himself; but the others should not approach, and the people should not go up with him.”+

3 Then Moses came and related to the people all the words of Jehovah and all the judicial decisions,+ and all the people answered with one voice: “All the words that Jehovah has spoken, we are willing to do.”+ 4 So Moses wrote down all the words of Jehovah.+ Then he got up early in the morning and built at the foot of the mountain an altar and 12 pillars corresponding to the 12 tribes of Israel. 5 After that he sent young Israelite men, and they offered up burnt offerings and sacrificed bulls as communion sacrifices+ to Jehovah. 6 Then Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the book of the covenant and read it aloud to the people.+ And they said: “All that Jehovah has spoken we are willing to do, and we will be obedient.”+ 8 So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people+and said: “This is the blood of the covenant that Jehovah has made with you in harmony with all these words.”+

9 Moses and Aaron, Naʹdab and A·biʹhu, and 70 of the elders of Israel went up,10 and they saw the God of Israel.+ Under his feet was what seemed like a sapphire pavement, and it was as pure as the heavens themselves.+ 11 He did not harm the distinguished men of Israel,+ and they saw a vision of the true God and ate and drank.

12 Jehovah now said to Moses: “Come up to me on the mountain and stay there. I will give you the stone tablets with the law and the commandment that I will write for their instruction.”+ 13 So Moses got up with his attendant Joshua,+ and Moses went up the mountain of the true God.+ 14 But to the elders he had said: “Wait here for us until we return to you.+ You have Aaron and Hur+with you. Whoever has a legal case may go to them.”+ 15 Then Moses went up the mountain while the cloud was covering it.+

16 Jehovah’s glory+ remained on Mount Siʹnai,+ and the cloud covered it for six days. On the seventh day he called to Moses from the midst of the cloud.17 To the Israelites who were watching, the appearance of Jehovah’s glory was like a consuming fire on the mountaintop. 18 Moses then entered into the cloud and went up the mountain.+ And Moses stayed on the mountain 40 days and 40 nights.+

25 Jehovah then said to Moses: 2 “Tell the people of Israel to take up a contribution for me; from every person whose heart moves him, you are to take up my contribution.+ 3 This is the contribution that you are to accept from them: gold,+ silver,+ copper,+ 4 blue thread, purple wool,* scarlet material,* fine linen, goat hair, 5 ram skins dyed red, sealskins, acacia wood,+ 6 oil for the lamps,+ balsam for the anointing oil+ and the perfumed incense,+ 7 and onyx stones and other stones to be set in the ephʹod+ and the breastpiece.+ 8 They are to make a sanctuary for me, and I will reside* among them.+ 9 You are to make it, the tabernacle and all its furnishings, following exactly the pattern* that I am showing you.+

10 “They are to make an ark* of acacia wood, two and a half cubits* long and a cubit and a half wide and a cubit and a half high.+ 11 Then you will overlay it with pure gold.+ Inside and outside you are to overlay it, and you will make a border* of gold all around it.+ 12 And you will cast four rings of gold for it and attach them above its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other side. 13 And you will make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold.+ 14 You will put the poles through the rings on the sides of the Ark in order to carry the Ark with them. 15 The poles will stay in the rings of the Ark; they are not to be removed from it.+ 16 You will place in the Ark the Testimony that I will give you.+

17 “You will make a cover of pure gold, two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide.+ 18 You are to make two cherubs of gold; you will make them of hammered work on the two ends of the cover.+ 19 Make the cherubs on the two ends, one cherub on each end of the cover. 20 The cherubs are to spread out their two wings upward, overshadowing the cover with their wings,+ and they will face each other. The faces of the cherubs will be turned toward the cover.21 You will put the cover+ on the Ark, and in the Ark you will place the Testimony that I will give you. 22 I will present myself to you there and speak with you from above the cover.+ From between the two cherubs that are on the ark of the Testimony, I will make known to you all that I will command you for the Israelites.

23 “You will also make a table+ of acacia wood, two cubits long and a cubit wide and a cubit and a half high.+ 24 You will overlay it with pure gold and make a golden border* around it. 25 You will make a rim around it a handbreadth*wide and a border* of gold to go around the rim. 26 You will make for it four rings of gold and place the rings on the four corners, where the four legs are attached. 27 The rings are to be close to the rim as holders for the poles for carrying the table. 28 You will make the poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold and carry the table with them.

29 “You will also make its dishes, its cups, its pitchers, and its bowls from which they will pour drink offerings. You are to make them out of pure gold.+30 And you will put the showbread on the table before me constantly.+

31 “You will make a lampstand+ of pure gold. The lampstand is to be made of hammered work. Its base, its stem, its branches, its cups, its knobs, and its blossoms will be one piece.+ 32 And six branches will extend out from the sides of the lampstand, three branches from one side and three branches from the other side. 33 Three cups shaped like almond flowers will be on the one set of branches, with knobs and blossoms alternating, and three cups shaped like almond flowers on the other set of branches, with knobs and blossoms alternating. This is how the six branches will extend out from the stem of the lampstand. 34 On the stem of the lampstand are four cups shaped like almond flowers, with its knobs and its blossoms alternating. 35 A knob will be under the first two branches that extend out of the stem and a knob under the next two branches and a knob under the next two branches, for the six branches extending out from the stem. 36 The knobs and the branches and the whole lampstand are to be one piece of pure, hammered gold.+ 37 You will make seven lamps for it, and when the lamps are lit, they will shine on the area in front of it.+38 Its snuffers* and its fire holders are to be of pure gold.+ 39 It should be made, along with these utensils, from a talent* of pure gold. 40 See that you make them after their pattern* that was shown to you on the mountain.+

26 “You are to make the tabernacle+ with ten tent cloths of fine twisted linen, blue thread, purple wool, and scarlet material. You are to make them with embroidered cherub+ designs.+ 2 Each tent cloth will be 28 cubits* long and 4 cubits wide. All the tent cloths are to be the same size.+ 3 Five tent cloths are to be joined one to another to form a series, and the other five tent cloths will be joined in a series. 4 You will make loops of blue thread on the edge of the one tent cloth at the end of the series, and you are to do the same on the outermost edge of the other set where it will join. 5 You will make 50 loops on the one tent cloth and 50 loops on the edge of the other tent cloth so that they will be opposite each other where they join. 6 You are to make 50 gold clasps and join the tent cloths together with the clasps, and the tabernacle will form one unit.+

7 “You will also make cloths of goat hair+ for the tent over the tabernacle. You will make 11 tent cloths.+ 8 Each tent cloth will be 30 cubits long and 4 cubits wide. All 11 tent cloths are to be the same size. 9 You are to join five of the tent cloths together and join the other six tent cloths together, and you are to fold over the sixth tent cloth at the front of the tent. 10 And you are to make 50 loops on the edge of the one tent cloth, the outermost one in the series, and 50 loops on the edge of the tent cloth at the other place where they join. 11 You are to make 50 copper clasps and put the clasps in the loops and join the tent together, and it will become one unit. 12 The remaining part of the tent cloths will serve as an overhanging. Half of the tent cloth that remains will hang over the back of the tabernacle. 13 The remaining length of the cloths of the tent will serve as an overhanging for the tabernacle by one cubit on each side, in order to cover it.

14 “You will also make a covering for the tent of ram skins dyed red and over that a covering of sealskins.+

15 “You will make the panel frames+ for the tabernacle out of acacia wood standing upright.+ 16 Each panel frame is to be ten cubits high and a cubit and a half wide. 17 Each panel frame has two tenons* joined to each other. That is how you should make all the panel frames of the tabernacle. 18 You are to make 20 panel frames for the south side of the tabernacle, facing south.

19 “You will make 40 silver socket pedestals+ under the 20 panel frames: two socket pedestals under the one panel frame for its two tenons and two socket pedestals under each following panel frame for its two tenons.+ 20 For the other side of the tabernacle, the northern side, make 20 panel frames 21 and their 40 silver socket pedestals, two socket pedestals under one panel frame and two socket pedestals under each following panel frame. 22 For the rear section of the tabernacle to the west, you will make six panel frames.+ 23 You will make two panel frames to serve as the two rear corner posts of the tabernacle.24 They should be doubled from the bottom to the top, up to the first ring. This should be done for both of them, and they will form the two corner posts.25 And there will be eight panel frames and their 16 silver socket pedestals, two socket pedestals under the one panel frame and two socket pedestals under each following panel frame.

26 “You will make bars of acacia wood, five for the panel frames of the one side of the tabernacle,+ 27 and five bars for the panel frames of the other side of the tabernacle, and five bars for the panel frames of the side of the tabernacle to the west, for the rear section. 28 The middle bar that runs along the center of the panel frames should extend from end to end.

29 “You will overlay the panel frames with gold,+ and you will make their rings of gold as holders for the bars, and you will overlay the bars with gold.30 You must set up the tabernacle according to its plan that you were shown in the mountain.+

31 “You are to make a curtain+ of blue thread, purple wool, scarlet material, and fine twisted linen. It will be made with cherubs embroidered on it. 32 You will hang it on four pillars of acacia overlaid with gold. Their hooks are to be of gold. The pillars are set on four socket pedestals of silver. 33 You will hang the curtain under the clasps and bring the ark of the Testimony+ there within the curtain. The curtain will make a division for you between the Holy+ and the Most Holy.+ 34 You must put the cover on the ark of the Testimony in the Most Holy.

35 “You will place the table outside the curtain, with the lampstand+ opposite the table on the south side of the tabernacle; and the table you will put on the north side. 36 You will make a screen* for the entrance of the tent out of blue thread, purple wool, scarlet material, and fine twisted linen woven together.+37 You will make five pillars of acacia for the screen* and overlay them with gold. Their hooks are to be of gold, and you will cast five socket pedestals of copper for them.

27 “You will make the altar of acacia wood;+ it will be five cubits* long and five cubits wide. The altar should be square and three cubits high.+ 2 You will make horns+ on its four corners; the horns will be part of the altar, and you will overlay the altar with copper.+ 3 You will make buckets for clearing away its ashes,* along with shovels, bowls, forks, and fire holders, and you will make all its utensils of copper.+ 4 You will make a grating for the altar, a network of copper, and on the network four rings of copper at its four corners. 5 You will set it down below the rim of the altar, and the network will extend partway down into the altar. 6 You will make poles of acacia wood for the altar and overlay them with copper. 7 The poles will be inserted into the rings so that the poles are on the two sides of the altar when it is carried.+ 8 You will make the altar in the form of a hollow chest of planks. It should be made just as He showed you on the mountain.+

9 “You will make the courtyard+ of the tabernacle. For the south side, facing south, the courtyard will have hanging curtains of fine twisted linen, 100 cubits long for the one side.+ 10 It will have 20 pillars with 20 copper socket pedestals. The hooks of the pillars and their connectors* are of silver. 11 The hanging curtains for the north side will also be 100 cubits long, along with its 20 pillars and their 20 copper socket pedestals, with silver hooks and connectors* for the pillars. 12 There are to be hanging curtains on the west side for 50 cubits across the width of the courtyard, with ten pillars and ten socket pedestals. 13 The width of the courtyard on the east side toward the sunrise is 50 cubits. 14 There will be 15 cubits of hanging curtains on the one side, with three pillars and three socket pedestals.+ 15 And for the other side, there will be 15 cubits of hanging curtains, with three pillars and three socket pedestals.

16 “The entrance of the courtyard should have a screen* 20 cubits long made of blue thread, purple wool, scarlet material, and fine twisted linen woven together,+ with four pillars and their four socket pedestals.+ 17 All the pillars surrounding the courtyard will have silver fasteners and silver hooks, but their socket pedestals will be of copper.+ 18 The courtyard is to be 100 cubits long,+50 cubits wide, and 5 cubits high, made from fine twisted linen, and it should have copper socket pedestals. 19 All the utensils and the items used in the service of the tabernacle, as well as its tent pins and all the pins of the courtyard, are to be of copper.+

20 “You are to command the Israelites to bring you pure, beaten olive oil for the lighting, in order to keep the lamps burning constantly.+ 21 In the tent of meeting, outside the curtain that is near the Testimony,+ Aaron and his sons will arrange to keep the lamps lit from evening until morning before Jehovah.+ It is a lasting statute for all their generations to be carried out by the Israelites.+

28 “You are to summon from the Israelites your brother Aaron, along with his sons, so that he may serve as priest to me+—Aaron,+ along with Naʹdab and A·biʹhu,+ El·e·aʹzar and Ithʹa·mar,+ the sons of Aaron.+ 2 You are to make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and beauty.+ 3 You are to speak to all those who are skillful,* those whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom,+and they will make Aaron’s garments for his sanctification, so that he may serve as priest to me.

4 “These are the garments that they will make: a breastpiece,+ an ephʹod,+ a sleeveless coat,+ a checkered robe, a turban,+ and a sash;+ they will make these holy garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so that he may serve as priest to me. 5 The skilled workers will use the gold, the blue thread, the purple wool, the scarlet material, and the fine linen.

6 “They are to make the ephʹod of gold, blue thread, purple wool, scarlet material, and fine twisted linen, and it should be embroidered.+ 7 It is to have two attached shoulder pieces that join it at its two edges. 8 The woven belt,*+which is attached to the ephʹod for tying it securely in position, should be of the same materials: gold, blue thread, purple wool, scarlet material, and fine twisted linen.

9 “You are to take two onyx stones+ and engrave on them the names of the sons of Israel,+ 10 six names on the one stone and the six remaining names on the other stone, in the order of their births. 11 A stone engraver will engrave the names of the sons of Israel on the two stones as he would engrave a seal.+ Then you are to have them mounted in gold settings. 12 You are to put the two stones on the shoulder pieces of the ephʹod as memorial stones for the sons of Israel,+and Aaron must carry their names before Jehovah on his two shoulder pieces as a memorial. 13 You are to make settings of gold 14 and two chains of pure gold twisted like a cord,+ and you must attach the corded chains to the settings.+

15 “You are to have an embroiderer make the breastpiece of judgment.+ It should be made like the ephʹod, out of gold, blue thread, purple wool, scarlet material, and fine twisted linen.+ 16 It should be square when doubled, a span*long and a span wide. 17 You should set in it mounted stones, four rows of stones. The first row is ruby, topaz, and emerald. 18 The second row is turquoise, sapphire, and jasper. 19 The third row is leshʹem stone,* agate, and amethyst. 20 The fourth row is chrysʹo·lite, onyx, and jade. They should be mounted in settings of gold. 21 The stones will correspond to the names of the 12 sons of Israel. Each one should be engraved like a seal, each name representing one of the 12 tribes.

22 “You are to make wreathed chains on the breastpiece, like cords of pure gold.+ 23 You are to make two rings of gold for the breastpiece and attach the two rings to the two ends of the breastpiece. 24 You are to put the two cords of gold through the two rings at the ends of the breastpiece. 25 You will put the two ends of the two cords through the two settings, and you must attach them to the shoulder pieces of the ephʹod, at the front. 26 You are to make two rings of gold and set them at the two ends on the inside edge of the breastpiece, facing the ephʹod.+ 27 You should make two more rings of gold on the front of the ephʹod, below the two shoulder pieces, close to where it is joined, above the woven belt* of the ephʹod.+ 28 The breastpiece should be held in place by a blue cord, tying its rings to the rings of the ephʹod. This will keep the breastpiece in place on the ephʹod, above the woven belt.*

29 “Aaron must carry the names of the sons of Israel on the breastpiece of judgment over his heart when he comes into the Holy as a constant memorial before Jehovah. 30 You will put the Uʹrim and the Thumʹmim*+ into the breastpiece of judgment, and they must be over Aaron’s heart when he comes in before Jehovah, and Aaron must carry the means for making judgments of the Israelites over his heart before Jehovah constantly.

31 “You are to make the sleeveless coat of the ephʹod entirely of blue thread.+32 There will be an opening at the top* in the middle of it. Its opening should have a border woven all around it by a loom worker. It should be like the opening of a coat of mail, so that it will not be torn. 33 You should make pomegranates of blue thread, purple wool, and scarlet material all around its hem, along with bells of gold in between them. 34 You should alternate a bell of gold and a pomegranate, a bell of gold and a pomegranate, all around the hem of the sleeveless coat. 35 It must be worn by Aaron so that he may minister, and the sound from it must be heard when he goes into the sanctuary before Jehovah and when he comes out, so that he will not die.+

36 “You are to make a shining plate of pure gold and engrave on it as one would engrave a seal: ‘Holiness belongs to Jehovah.’+ 37 You must fasten it to the turban+ with a blue cord; it is to remain on the front of the turban. 38 It will be on Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron will bear responsibility when someone commits an error against the holy things,+ which the Israelites sanctify when they offer them as holy gifts. It must always remain on his forehead, so that they may gain approval before Jehovah.

39 “You are to weave the checkered robe of fine linen, make a turban of fine linen, and make a woven sash.+

40 “You will also make robes, sashes, and headgear for Aaron’s sons,+ for glory and beauty.+ 41 You will clothe your brother Aaron and his sons with him, and you are to anoint them+ and install them*+ and sanctify them, and they will serve as priests to me. 42 Also make linen shorts* for them to cover their naked flesh.+ These are to extend from the hips to the thighs. 43 These must be worn by Aaron and his sons when they come into the tent of meeting or when they approach the altar to minister in the holy place, so that they may not incur guilt and die. It is a permanent statute for him and his offspring* after him.

At the gates of lilliput.

Does Intelligent Design Deserve Academic Freedom?

Casey Luskin June 19, 2015 4:37 AM

Over at The Conversation, Peter Ellerton rightly points out that "How a debate is framed can change the point at issue." Ellerton, who is Lecturer in Critical Thinking at the University of Queensland, uses intelligent design as an example of how framing can affect the outcome of an argument:

Realise, for example, that the point of not teaching Intelligent Design in science classes is one of quality control, not of academic freedom.

Now Professor Ellerton is himself an expert in framing issues so he can win a debate. Thus, he has tried to frame the intelligent design issue in a way that makes it look like ID proponents don't care about establishing the "quality" of our arguments, and that we argue that ID may be taught only on the basis of "academic freedom." This makes us unreasonable and unconcerned about academic concerns. But he created this framing so he could win the debate; his framing is not accurate at all.

Before going further, let's note that leading groups like Discovery Institute aren't trying to push ID into public schools, and in fact we oppose attempts to do so. That isn't because we think ID lacks "quality" but rather because critics are so intolerant of ID that when it gets promoted in public schools, it results in politicization that impedes ID proponents from making their case in the academy. It's that scientific dialogue that takes priority.

That brings us to Ellerton's argument. When you're trying to decide whether to teach a concept, both academic freedom and quality control come into play. Despite Ellerton's simplistic and self-serving framing, it's not just one or the other.

Now there's always freedom to teach views that everyone agrees with. Thus, academic freedom basically means freedom to teach unpopular or controversial viewpoints that are also academically rigorous. Here's how the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) puts it:

Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. ...

The intent of this statement is not to discourage what is "controversial." Controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed to foster. The passage serves to underscore the need for teachers to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject. [Emphasis added.]

Further elaborating on the meaning of academic freedom, the AAUP has stated:

It is not indoctrination when, as a result of their research and study, instructors assert to their students that in their view particular propositions are true, even if these propositions are controversial within a discipline. It is not indoctrination for an economist to say to his students that in his view the creation of markets is the most effective means for promoting growth in underdeveloped nations, or for a biologist to assert her belief that evolution occurs through punctuated equilibriums rather than through continuous processes. ...

Indoctrination occurs only when instructors dogmatically insist on the truth of such propositions by refusing to accord their students the opportunity to contest them. Vigorously to assert a proposition or a viewpoint, however controversial, is to engage in argumentation and discussion-an engagement that lies at the core of academic freedom. Such engagement is essential if students are to acquire skills of critical independence. The essence of higher education does not lie in the passive transmission of knowledge but in the inculcation of a mature independence of mind.

"Freedom in the classroom" is ultimately connected to freedom of research and publication. Freedom of research and publication is grounded in the exercise of professional expertise. Investigators are held to professional standards so that the modern university can serve as "an intellectual experiment station, where new ideas may germinate and where their fruit, though still distasteful to the community as a whole, may be allowed to ripen until finally, perchance, it may become part of the accepted intellectual food of the nation or of the world." Academic freedom therefore includes the freedom to publish research results on controversial questions of public policy. A faculty committee at the University of Montana put it well in 1918:

If professors of economics and politics can discuss none of these questions, their departments should not be permitted to continue in the University, for the very fact that we have men employed in these subjects implies that they must make a study of them and give the result of their investigations to the people of the state. It does not follow that their conclusions must be accepted, for the opinions of members of the faculty are worthy of consideration only so far as they are supported by indisputable facts and sound logic. In case their arguments are weak, the weakness can be detected and exposed.

It follows that if an instructor has formed an opinion on a controversial question in adherence to scholarly standards of professional care, it is as much an exercise of academic freedom to test those opinions before students as it is to present them to the public at large. [Emphasis added; internal citations omitted.]

The last sentence is a crucial example of balancing the issues of academic freedom and quality control. It's not appropriate to insert just any old idea into the classroom. But when an idea meets scholarly standards of professional care, it's acceptable to discuss even if it is controversial. That's academic freedom.

So what happens when a professor wants to discuss a highly controversial scientific idea that:

• Uses the scientific method to make its claims,
• Is backed by credible scientists,
• Is supported by credible peer-reviewed scientific publications,
• And uses arguments that stand up to scrutiny, and are backed by evidence?

Such an idea meets scholarly standards of professional care, and deserves academic freedom. Then what about ID? The theory of intelligent design:

• Uses the scientific method to make its claims,
• Is backed by credible scientists,
• Is supported by credible peer-reviewed scientific publications,
• And uses arguments that stand up to scrutiny, and are backed by evidence.

Though controversial, ID meets scholarly standards of professional care and thus deserves academic freedom. It's really quite simple.

Yet we have scholars like Dr. Ellerton asserting that ID fails the test of "quality control" and does not deserve academic freedom. Where exactly is the refutation of ID or the demonstration that it doesn't use the scientific method, that it isn't backed by credible scientists, that it isn't supported in peer-reviewed publications, or that its arguments don't stand up to scrutiny? Ellerton doesn't tell us.

He's not alone. On the contrary, some of the most prominent critics of intelligent design in the scientific and academic community take the same approach: they declare ID devoid of evidential backing without any serious examination of the evidence.

For example, in 2008, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a statement declaring that ID "is not supported by scientific evidence" and "[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution," because evolution is "so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter" it. But the NAS's critique misrepresented the meaning of ID, and included a highly inaccurate discussion of the scientific evidence.

In 2002, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) adopted a resolution and issued a press release declaring that the "ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim." But they offered no discussion of the actual evidence for ID and why it supposedly isn't "credible." John West found that AAAS "board members voted to brand intelligent design as unscientific without actually reading for themselves the academic books and articles by scientists proposing the theory."

Opponents of ID like Ellerton may rely on blanket statements like this as if they demonstrate that ID has been rejected by the scientific community. However, what these statements actually document is that much opposition to ID is not scientific in nature but political, and is based upon fundamental misunderstandings and misrepresentations of ID. After all, since when do leading scientific organizations issue press releases and edicts against an idea?

Additionally, consider the NAS's statement that ID "is not supported by scientific evidence" and "[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution." Or consider the AAAS's statement that its members should "understand the inappropriateness of 'intelligent design theory.'" Now imagine you are a biologist who supports ID and holds fundamental doubts about Darwinism, but you see the two most influential science organizations in the U.S. asserting that your views are not only wrong, but beyond consideration. Does that make you feel you have the freedom to express your views in the laboratory, the classroom, or in scientific journals, even if those views meet scholarly standards of professional care? Certainly not.

Indeed, even groups like the AAUP -- which are supposed to defend academic freedom -- go on witch hunts against ID proponents, wrongly implying that particular ID proponents are teaching ID in the classroom and preemptively declaring that ID doesn't deserve academic freedom.

Given that ID does meet scholarly standards of professional care, the issuereally is about academic freedom. Why do elite intellectual guardians of academic freedom and scientific truth declare the debate about ID to be over, when they haven't even engaged what ID proponents actually say? We still await serious critics who will successfully tell us in detail how our arguments and evidence go wrong. Instead, we typically see critics who just declare ID is wrong, and tell us to be silent.

The halo slips

Unprecedented Rash of Retractions in Science Journals Is Excellent News

David Klinghoffer June 18, 2015 3:27 AM

If I'm right that "science abuse" is the correct metaphor for what you see across a spectrum of areas of controversy -- that is, the unjustified use of science as a shortcut to advance a favored non-scientific agenda -- then the encouraging flip side of the phenomenon is the unprecedented rash of retractions in science journals.

Science is in the process of being stripped of an illusion that once clothed it. It turns out to be a normal field of human intellectual endeavor, rather than a source of private revelation to an elite professional guild and their media worshippers.

A New York Times story summarizes:

The crimes and misdemeanors of science used to be handled mostly in-house, with a private word at the faculty club, barbed questions at a conference, maybe a quiet dismissal. On the rare occasion when a journal publicly retracted a study, it typically did so in a cryptic footnote. Few were the wiser; many retracted studies have been cited as legitimate evidence by others years after the fact.

But that gentlemen's world has all but evaporated, as a remarkable series of events last month demonstrated. In mid-May, after two graduate students raised questions about a widely reported study on how political canvassing affects opinions ofsame-sex marriage, editors at the journal Science, where the study was published, began to investigate. What followed was a frenzy of second-guessing, accusations and commentary from all corners of the Internet: "Retraction" as serial drama, rather than footnote. Science officially pulled the paper, by Michael LaCour of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Donald Green of Columbia, on May 28, because of concerns about Mr. LaCour's data.

"Until recently it was unusual for us to report on studies that were not yet retracted," said Dr. Ivan Oransky, an editor of the blogRetraction Watch, the first news media outlet to report that the study had been challenged. But new technology and a push for transparency from younger scientists have changed that, he said. "We have more tips than we can handle."

The case has played out against an increase in retractions that has alarmed many journal editors and authors. Scientists in fields as diverse as neurobiology, anesthesia and economics are debating how to reduce misconduct, without creating a police-state mentality that undermines creativity and collaboration.

Scientists used to be regarded in the same awed, somewhat precious light that physicians and clergy also once were. What happened with doctors is the Internet, so that everyone now feels entitled verging obliged to second guess your medical treatment -- the patient as perpetual backseat driver. What happened with clergy is, of course, the plague of sexual abuse and other leadership scandals across the spectrum of faiths and denominations.

Much the same is happening with science, encouraging the skepticism (on evolution and climate, notably) that predated the drumbeat of retractions. Scientists, it turns out, are not reverend priests in a secular church. Or no, strike that, they are very much like priests, pastors, and rabbis, and doctors, lawyers, accountants, and engineers -- bright men and women with a gift that's of value in their field, but otherwise subject to all the temptations that the rest of us are. In other words, not special.

It's been our goal to see neo-Darwinian theory treated as a normal scientific idea, which is to say a normal human idea, subject to doubt, criticism, and question, not walled off from it. The seething agitation in science journals is helping to advance that aim. It's excellent news!

A line in the sand XII

Southern Baptists: Supreme Court is not final authority on gay marriage

The president of the Southern Baptist Convention has a message regarding the looming Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage: We will not obey.

“The Supreme Court of the United States is not the final authority nor is the culture itself,” declared Ronnie Floyd, the elected leader of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination. “The Bible is God’s final authority about marriage and on this book we stand.”

Dr. Floyd’s powerful and provocative comments were met with thunderous applause and standing ovations from thousands of Southern Baptist messengers meeting in Columbus, Ohio.

While some evangelicals may be bowing down to the deception of the inclusiveness of same-sex marriage, we will not bow down nor will we be silent,” Floyd declared in a fiery speech on Tuesday. “We do not need to redefine what God Himself has defined already.”

And from there Dr. Floyd went to where few prominent pastors have gone before – a Supreme Court showdown.

The issue facing Southern Baptists is one that will face every person of faith in the United States – do you follow God or the government?

“America – we stand believing that marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime,” he said in a thundering speech. “We have believed this and do believe this and will continue to believe this as a convention of churches. We stand for biblical and traditional marriage.”

Dr. Floyd reminded the gathering of something German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer once said: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

“This is a Bonhoeffer moment for every pastor in the United States,” Floyd said, warning ministers that the time has come for every minister to stand strongly and clearly – regardless of the cost.

“That’s what Bonhoeffer did,” he said.

The pending decision over gay marriage weighed heavily on the minds of many Southern Baptists and messengers will consider a resolution calling on all Christians to stand firm on the biblical definition of marriage.

“Resolved, that Southern Baptists recognize that no governing institution has the authority to negate or usurp God’s definition of marriage; and be it further resolved no matter how the Supreme Court rules, the Southern Baptist Convention reaffirms its unwavering commitment to its doctrinal and public beliefs concerning marriage,” the resolution reads in part.

Evangelical Christians across America fear that a decision legalizing same-sex marriage will have a devastating impact on religious liberty.

A growing number of Christians have already faced persecution because of their objections to gay marriage. Public workers have lost their jobs, private business owners have been slapped with lawsuits and complaints and private citizens have been bullied and harassed for signing pro-traditional marriage petitions.

It’s not exactly clear how the Southern Baptist Convention’s defiance will manifest itself --- but Floyd revealed his personal plan.

“I declare to everyone today as a minister of the Gospel – I will not officiate over any same-sex unions or same-sex marriage ceremonies,” he said. “I completely refuse.”

Dr. Floyd stood resolute – ready to face of what I am sure will be national attacks from intolerant bullies and the radical speech police. There is no doubt he will be called a homophobic bigot. I’m sure some will label his remarks as hate speech.

I urge you to ignore them and truly listen to this brave man of God’s words – his call to “love and respect those who do not agree with us.”

“And while we affirm our love for all people, including those struggling with same-sex attraction, we cannot and will not affirm any behavior that deviates from God’s design for marriage,” he said.

The issue facing Southern Baptists is one that will face every person of faith in the United States – do you follow God or the government?

“Our first commitment is to God and His Word – nothing else and no one else,” Dr. Floyd said matter-of-factly.

Amen, sir. Amen.

Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. His latest book is "God Less America: Real Stories From the Front Lines of the Attack on Traditional Values." Follow Todd on Twitter@ToddStarnes and find him on Facebook. 

Darwinism vs. the real world.

Cardiovascular Function: Sodium's Real Life Consequences

Howard Glicksman June 16, 2015 12:51 PM

Editor's note: Physicians have a special place among the thinkers who have elaborated the argument for intelligent design. Perhaps that's because, more than evolutionary biologists, they are familiar with the challenges of maintaining a functioning complex system, the human body. With that in mind, Evolution News & Views is delighted to present this series, "The Designed Body." Dr. Glicksman practices palliative medicine for a hospice organization.

My last two articles in this series showed that when it comes to sodium and the laws of nature, the body has to take control to follow the rules. It uses sensors to detect wall motion in the blood vessels of the kidneys and the atria of the heart, which reflect the blood volume and sodium content of the body. In response to what they detect, these sensory cells send out hormones called renin and ANP (Atrial Natriuretic Peptide) respectively. The more wall motion, indicating more blood volume, the less renin and the more ANP is released. This, in turn, decreases wall motion, indicating less blood volume, releasing more renin and less ANP.

Renin eventually causes the formation of angiotensin II, which tells the body to take in salt and, through an adrenal hormone called aldosterone, tells the kidneys to hold onto more sodium. In contrast, ANP reduces the desire for salt, blocks the release of renin and aldosterone, and tells the kidneys to release more sodium into the urine. The effects of renin and ANP counter each other to help the body control its sodium content. How does all of this work in real life?

Evolutionary biologists hypothesize about how such irreducibly complex systems could have come about. But anyone who deals with keeping people alive must consider in very practical terms how the laws of nature affect the functional capacity of these systems. It's like trying to imagine how the Saturn V rocket may have come into being without accounting for the energy its propellants would have needed to generate to overcome the gravitational pull of the earth and launch Apollo 11 into space. When it comes to a functional capacity that allows for life, real numbers have real consequences.

Since the body is always losing sodium through the gastrointestinal system, perspiration, and urine formation, one way for it to try to control its sodium content is to take in sodium (table salt). The gastrointestinal system readily absorbs all of the sodium it receives independent of the body's actual needs. But how much sodium is enough and what happens if you don't take in enough or you take in too much? Do you think our earliest ancestors were able to make these determinations and do what was needed to stay alive? Did they perhaps read the sodium content off the nutrition facts label of their favorite packaged foods?

The minimum daily amount of sodium needed is about 500 mg but most people take in about 3,000 to 4,000 mg per day. So how the does the body deal with the excess?

In reality, it is the kidneys that control the body's sodium content. Every hour, they filter 7.5 liters of fluid out of the bloodstream, which represents about one-sixth of the body's total water content. But because the plasma has such a high Na⁺ ion concentration, in that hour it also filters out about one-half of the body's total sodium content. I noted in a previous article that if the kidneys couldn't take back any of the water they filter, the body would die in about 90 minutes. But if they couldn't take back any of the sodium they filter, it would die in just 30 minutes.

The tubules in the kidneys automatically take back about 85 percent of the sodium they filter. But that still leaves the remaining 15 percent to deal with. Without aldosterone to tell them to bring most of it back into the body, it would only take four hours for sodium to reach critical levels.

In fact, clinical experience shows that the total absence of aldosterone is incompatible with life. The combined effects of aldosterone and ANP tell the kidneys to bring back about 99.5 percent of the sodium they filter so life can continue. The kidneys' control of the water and sodium content of the body results in a normal Na⁺ ion level in the blood of about 135-145 units. It appears that the system in the body that uses sensors and hormones with their specific receptors to control its sodium really knows what it's doing.

Na⁺ ion level in the blood above 170 units or below 100 units is fatal. However, it's important to keep in mind that, since water follows Na⁺ ions in the body, the Na⁺ ion concentration is directly related to the total water content. Independent of the body's total sodium, if the total water content drops too much, then the Na⁺ ion concentration will rise. If the total water content rises too much, the Na⁺ ion concentration will fall.

This means that the body could have too much sodium, but if it also has too much water, the Na⁺ ion concentration will often drop. Likewise, the body could have too little sodium, but if the body has also lost too much water, the Na⁺ ion concentration can actually rise. Although rare conditions of too little or too much aldosterone can lead to life-threatening chemical imbalances, the more common causes of serious changes in the Na⁺ ion concentration are usually related to the total water content of the body, not the sodium content.

Life-threateningly high Na⁺ ion levels, usually above 170 units, are often due to dehydration. When dehydration occurs, the body has lost too much water and the cells don't have enough to maintain their proper chemical concentration and volume. There is usually a serious drop in blood volume and blood pressure which leads to poor blood flow to the tissues and cell death.

Conversely, life-threateningly low Na⁺ ion levels, usually below 100 units, are due to the body having too much water. As I have noted before, this not uncommon condition is usually due to excessive ADH activity, which makes the body hold on to too much water. In this setting, the excess water will naturally move, by osmosis, from the extracellular fluid into the cells. If this takes place too rapidly in the brain, it causes confusion, coma, and even death.

When it comes to explaining how human life came into being, it's important to remember that it would have been impossible without the presence of all of the parts needed to control sodium. As Michael Behe would say, the system the body uses to control its sodium is irreducibly complex. So, to begin with, evolutionary biology first needs to explain how all of these parts came together as a functioning system.

However, as we've seen, when it comes to life and death, real numbers have real consequences. The mere presence of sensory receptors in the kidneys and atria, and the production of hormones like angiotensin II, aldosterone, and ADH, with their specific receptors, is not enough to explain how the body controls its sodium. Each component has to do the right thing well enough to keep the Na⁺ ion concentration in the blood within the right range.

Irreducible complexity is a good indicator of intelligent design, but when it comes to life and death and the laws of nature, there must also be natural survival capacity. By this I mean that the system must know what is needed to survive, given the laws of nature, and then do it naturally. Any theory that tries to explain how life came into being must address not only how it looks, which is all that evolutionary biology tries to do, but also how it works to stay alive.

Now that you understand how the body controls its water and sodium content, it's time to look at another very important chemical for cardiovascular function. When the blood level of potassium rises too high or drops too low it can cause serious neuromuscular and heart problems. That's what we'll discuss next time.

Darwinism,uniformitarianism's fair weather friend.

Is Evolution True? Laying Out the Logic

Ann Gauger December 5, 2014 3:32 AM |

Monday we published a paper in the journal BIO-Complexity demonstrating that enzymes can't evolve genuinely new functions by unguided means. We argue that design by a very sophisticated intelligent agent is the best explanation for their origin. I want to take some time to lay out our argument against Darwinian evolution and for intelligent design. It's important, because it reveals the logical fallacy in most evolutionary thinking.

Just to give an example of the thinking of ID critics, here is a passage from one of the references in our paper (Kherhonsky et al. (2006) Enzyme promiscuity: Evolutionary and mechanistic aspects. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 10:498-508):

An oft-forgotten essence of Darwinian processes is that they occur gradually, while maintaining organism fitness throughout. Consequently, a reasonable assumption is that, ever since the emergence of the primordial living forms, very little novelty has evolved at the molecular level. Rather, existing genes were modified, or tinkered with', to generate new protein structures and functions that are related to those of their ancestors. Unlike 'out of the blue' scenarios advocated by the 'intelligent design' school, 'tinkering' scenaoirios depend on the availability of evolutionary starting points. The hypothesis that the broad specificity, or promiscuous functions, of existing enzymes provide these starting points was first formalized by Jensen in a review that has inspired many. Jensen proposed that, in contrast to modern enzymes, primitive enzymes possessed very broad specificities. This catalytic versatility enabled fewer enzymes to perform the multitude of functions that was necessary to maintain ancestral organisms. Duplication of genes and divergence led to specialized genes and increased metabolic efficiency. Since Jensen, the structures of >30,000 proteins, and the sequences of hundreds of thousands, have taught us that these processes led to the creation of enzyme families and superfamilies. The vestiges of these divergence processes are the scaffold and active site architecture shared by all family members [6].

To summarize, the key points of that evolutionary argument are:

1. Evolution is true. That is, enzymes have evolved new functions by a process of random mutation and natural selection.
2. Modern enzymes can't evolve genuinely new functions by random mutation and natural selection but can only tinker with existing functions.
3. Therefore, ancient enzymes must have been different, capable of carrying out a broad range of enzyme activities.
4. Those enzymes underwent duplication and diverged from one another, becoming specialized.
5. How do we know this happened? Because we now see a broad array of specialized enzymes. Evolution is the explanation.

This begs the question of whether evolution is true. It is a circular argument unsubstantiated by the evidence and unfalsifiable. No one can know what ancient enzymes actually looked like, and whether they really had such broad catalytic specificities.

In contrast, our argument is as follows:

1. Is evolution true? Test case: Do enzymes evolve by a process of natural selection and random mutation?
2. Modern enzymes are the only thing we can test.
3. No one knows if ancient enzymes were different. They are lost in the deep past, so claims with regard to their promiscuity or ability to evolve are hypothetical and unfalsifiable.
4. Modern enzymes can't evolve new functions, based on our own experiments. 
5. We haven't tested the universe of modern enzymes, so our result is qualified, but the nine most similar enzymes did not change function.
6. Our estimate for the likely waiting time for an enzyme to evolve a new function is at least 10¹⁵ years.
7. Therefore evolution of enzymes is likely to be impossible.
8. Given the sophistication of enzymes and the way they work together, intelligent design is the best explanation for the origin and current diversity of modern enzymes.

You can read the argument in more detail in our paper.

Notice both arguments agree that modern enzymes can't evolve genuinely new functions. The difference is in the conclusion reached. The evolutionary argument assumes what it concludes -- it's a snake swallowing its tail, and goes nowhere.

In contrast, our argument relies on the uniformitarian principle that underlies all science. What is true for modern enzymes was true for ancient ones as well.

From Wikipedia:

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates. Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science.

Gradualism has since been discarded in geology and paleontology, and it is not part of our argument. But the part about processes having always operated in the same way does apply: the evolutionary mechanism has always functioned in the same way, with the same limits, and enzymes have always functioned in the same way, with specific, not promiscuous, catalytic activities.

Now here's the point: anyone who wants to make a special case for the non-uniformitarian origin of enzymes (or animal groups) has created a special category to protect the idea that evolution is true. That idea is apparently untouchable. Any hypothesis about the deep past is accepted if it allows an evolutionary explanation for current diversity, and avoids problems with difficult facts. As a consequence, papers on the origin of life, protein evolution, the origin of animal form, and human origins are full of speculation masked as supporting argument, or even as statements of fact.

But the problem remains. If you start with the assumption that evolution is true, and view all evidence through those glasses, you won't even notice that your argument chases its tail.