Why the God of peace must wage War.

God’s View of War in the Ancient Past
The waters of the Red Sea begin to cover Pharaoh and his army
The people were being oppressed. They repeatedly prayed to God for relief, but none came—at least not right away. The people were the Israelites, God’s people in ancient times. The oppressor was the mighty nation of Egypt. (Exodus 1:13, 14) For years, the Israelites waited for God to bring an end to the Egyptian tyranny. Eventually, God’s due time for action arrived. (Exodus 3:7-10) The Bible reports that God personally waged war against the Egyptians. He beset Egypt with a series of devastating plagues, and then he destroyed Egypt’s king and his army in the Red Sea. (Psalm 136:15) Jehovah God proved to be “a powerful warrior” in behalf of his people.—Exodus 15:3, 4.
The fact that God himself waged war against the Egyptians shows that he is not against all warfare. On other occasions, he authorized his people Israel to wage war. For example, he commanded them to wage war against the Canaanites, who were exceedingly wicked. (Deuteronomy 9:5; 20:17, 18) He directed Israel’s King David to war against the oppressive Philistines. God even provided David with a battle strategy that ensured victory.—2 Samuel 5:17-25.

Those Bible accounts reveal that when certain forms of wickedness and oppression threatened the Israelites, God authorized warfare for the protection of his people and the preservation of true worship. But note the following three key points about such God-ordained warfare.

GOD ALONE DETERMINED WHO WOULD ENGAGE IN WARFARE. On one occasion, God told the Israelites: “You will not need to fight this battle.” The reason? God himself would wage war in their behalf. (2 Chronicles 20:17; 32:7, 8) He did so many times, such as on the occasion mentioned at the outset of this article. At other times, God commanded his people in ancient Israel to fight in wars that he approved, namely, those that involved securing and defending their Promised Land.—Deuteronomy 7:1, 2; Joshua 10:40.

GOD ALONE DETERMINED WHEN SUCH WARFARE WOULD TAKE PLACE. God’s servants were to wait patiently for God’s appointed time to war against the oppression and wickedness that surrounded them. Until then, they were not to take it upon themselves to engage in war. When they did, they lost divine approval. In fact, the Bible shows that when the Israelites presumed to engage in warfare that God had not authorized, the results were often disastrous.*

Rahab and her family stand amidst the ruins of Jericho
Though God waged war against the Canaanites, he spared some, such as Rahab and her family
GOD TAKES NO PLEASURE IN THE DEATH OF HUMANS, INCLUDING THE WICKED. Jehovah God is the Source of life and the Creator of humankind. (Psalm 36:9) Therefore, he does not desire to see people die. Sadly, though, there are people who wickedly scheme to oppress and even kill others. (Psalm 37:12, 14) To halt such evil, God has at times authorized warfare against the wicked. And yet, throughout the years that he had the Israelites engage in such wars, he was still “merciful” and “slow to anger” toward Israel’s oppressors. (Psalm 86:15) For example, he decreed that before the Israelites warred against a city, they were to “announce to it terms of peace,” in order to give the inhabitants an opportunity to change their ways and avoid war. (Deuteronomy 20:10-13) In this way, God showed that he takes “no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that someone wicked changes his way and keeps living.”—Ezekiel 33:11, 14-16.*

From the foregoing we see that in the ancient past, God viewed warfare as a legitimate means of bringing an end to various forms of oppression and wickedness. But it was God—not humans—who rightfully determined when such warfare was to take place and who was to be involved. And did God wage war eagerly, in a bloodthirsty way? Quite the contrary. He actually hates violence. (Psalm 11:5) Did God’s view of war change when his Son, Jesus Christ, began his ministry in the first century?

*For example, on one occasion, the Israelites suffered defeat when they engaged in war with the Amalekites and Canaanites after God had ordered them not to do so. (Numbers 14:41-45) Many years later, faithful King Josiah engaged in a battle without divine approval, and this rash action cost him his life.—2 Chronicles 35:20-24.

*The Israelites did not announce terms of peace before warring against the Canaanites. Why not? Because the Canaanites had been given 400 years to correct their wicked ways. By the time the Israelites came to war against them, the Canaanites, as a group, were incorrigibly wicked. (Genesis 15:13-16) Thus, they were to be completely annihilated. However, individual Canaanites who changed their ways were spared.—Joshua 6:25; 9:3-27.

God’s View of War in the First Century
The people were being oppressed. Like their ancestors, first-century Jews no doubt prayed repeatedly to God for relief, this time from the oppressive yoke of the Roman Empire. Then they heard of Jesus. Would he prove to be the foretold Messiah? Not surprisingly, many “were hoping that this man was the one who was going to deliver Israel” from their Roman oppressors. (Luke 24:21) But no relief came. Instead, in 70 C.E., Roman armies came and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple.
What happened? Why did God not fight for the Jews, as he had in the past? Or why did he not authorize them to engage in warfare to free themselves from oppression? Had God’s view of war changed? No. But something had drastically changed regarding the Jews. They had rejected God’s Son, Jesus, as the Messiah. (Acts 2:36) Therefore, as a nation, they lost their special relationship with God.—Matthew 23:37, 38.

The Jewish nation and its Promised Land no longer enjoyed divine protection, nor could the Jews ever again rightly claim to engage in warfare that had God’s approval or backing. As Jesus foretold, the blessings associated with having God’s favor had been transferred from the fleshly nation of Israel to a new nation, a spiritual nation, later referred to in the Bible as “the Israel of God.” (Galatians 6:16; Matthew 21:43) The congregation of spirit-anointed Christians proved to be the spiritual Israel of God. Pointedly, in the first century, they were told: “Now you are God’s people.”—1 Peter 2:9, 10.

Since first-century Christians were now “God’s people,” did God fight in their behalf, so as to free them from Roman oppression? Or did he authorize them to wage war against their oppressors? No, he did not. Why not? When it comes to God-ordained warfare, God alone determines when such warfare is to take place, as the preceding article showed. God did not fight battles for first-century Christians, nor did he authorize them to engage in secular warfare. Clearly, the first century was not God’s time to war against wickedness and oppression.

Thus, like God’s servants of the ancient past, those first-century Christians were to wait until God’s time to bring an end to wickedness and oppression. In the meantime, they were not authorized by God to take it upon themselves to engage in warfare against their enemies. Jesus Christ made this clear in his teachings. For example, he did not direct his followers to engage in warfare, but instead he told them: “Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44) Foretelling the time when first-century Jerusalem would be attacked by Roman armies, Jesus instructed his disciples, not to stay and fight, but to flee—which they did.—Luke 21:20, 21.

Additionally, under inspiration the apostle Paul wrote: “Do not avenge yourselves, . . . for it is written: ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” (Romans 12:19) Paul was quoting what God had stated centuries earlier as recorded at Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 32:35. As seen in the preceding article, one way God avenged his people in ancient times was by aiding them in waging war against their enemies. Thus Paul’s words show that God’s view of warfare had not changed. In the first century, God still viewed war as a legitimate way to avenge his servants and bring an end to various forms of oppression and wickedness. However, as was true in the past, God alone determined when such warfare was to take place and who was to be involved.

Clearly, God did not authorize Christians in the first century to fight in wars. But what about today? Has God authorized any group of people today to engage in warfare? Or is now the time for God to step in and wage war in behalf of his servants? Just how does God view war today? The final article in this series will answer those questions.
 God’s View of War Today
Today people are being oppressed. Many repeatedly cry out to God for relief and wonder if relief will ever come. Does God hear their cries for help? And what about those who resort to warfare to bring an end to their oppression? Does God support their efforts, viewing their warfare as justifiable?

First, take comfort in this truth: God sees the suffering in the world today, and he intends to do something about it. (Psalm 72:13, 14) In his Word, the Bible, God promises that those “who suffer tribulation will be given relief.” When? “At the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels . . . as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7, 8) This revelation of Jesus will take place in the future in what the Bible calls “the war of the great day of God the Almighty,” also known as Armageddon.—Revelation 16:14, 16.

In that future war, God will use, not humans, but his Son, Jesus Christ, along with other powerful spirit creatures to wage war against the wicked. The heavenly forces will bring an end to all oppression.—Isaiah 11:4; Revelation 19:11-16.

To this day, God’s view of war has not changed. He still views war as a legitimate means of bringing an end to oppression and wickedness. But as has been true throughout history, it is God alone who rightly determines when such warfare is to take place and who is to be involved. As we have seen, God has already determined that the war to end wickedness and to avenge the oppressed is a future war and that it will be fought by his Son, Jesus Christ. This means that the wars being fought in the earth today do not have God’s approval, no matter how noble the cause may appear to be.

To illustrate: Imagine two siblings who begin fighting while their father is away. They temporarily stop fighting and call their father on the telephone. One sibling claims that the other started the fight, while the other claims that he was being mistreated. Both appeal to their father, each hoping for his support in the dispute. However, after hearing both sides, the father tells them to stop fighting and to wait for him to settle the matter when he gets home. For a while the two siblings wait. Soon, though, they are fighting again. When the father gets home, he is not pleased with either child and punishes them both for not obeying him.

Today, warring nations often appeal to God for support. But God does not take sides in today’s wars. Instead, in his Word, the Bible, he clearly states: “Return evil for evil to no one,” and, “Do not avenge yourselves.” (Romans 12:17, 19) Moreover, he has made known that mankind should “wait patiently for him” to take action, which he will do at Armageddon. (Psalm 37:7, footnote) When the nations fail to wait for God to act and instead resort to warfare, he views such wars as presumptuous acts of aggression that bring his displeasure. Thus, at Armageddon, God will express his indignation and settle the nations’ disputes once and for all by “bringing an end to wars throughout the earth.” (Psalm 46:9; Isaiah 34:2) Indeed, Armageddon will be the war to end all wars.

The end of warfare is one of the many blessings of God’s Kingdom. Jesus spoke of that government in this well-known prayer: “Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth.” (Matthew 6:10) Not only will God’s Kingdom eliminate all war but it will eliminate the root cause of war, wickedness.* (Psalm 37:9, 10, 14, 15) Little wonder that Jesus’ followers eagerly look forward to the blessings of God’s Kingdom.—2 Peter 3:13.

How long, though, must we wait for God’s Kingdom to bring an end to all suffering, oppression, and wickedness? The fulfillment of Bible prophecies indicates that we are living in “the last days” of this system of things. (2 Timothy 3:1-5)* Soon, God’s Kingdom will bring an end to these last days with the war of Armageddon.

As noted earlier, those who perish in this final war will be those who refuse to “obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.” (2 Thessalonians 1:8) But recall, God takes no pleasure in the death of anyone, including the wicked. (Ezekiel 33:11) Because “he does not desire anyone to be destroyed” in this final war, he is now seeing to it that the good news about our Lord Jesus is being “preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations” before the end comes. (2 Peter 3:8, 9; Matthew 24:14; 1 Timothy 2:3, 4) Yes, by means of the global preaching work of Jehovah’s Witnesses, people today have an opportunity to get to know God, to obey the good news about Jesus, and to live to see the day when war will be no more.

God’s Kingdom will also eliminate mankind’s enemy death. As noted in the article “Bible Questions Answered” in this issue, God will resurrect countless people, including many throughout history who have been victims of war.

For more information on the last days, see chapter 9 of the book What Does the Bible Really Teach? published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

On The founder of Western History:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

Herodotus:
WHAT was life like thousands of years ago? What customs did people observe? Archaeology can provide some answers—but not all. To understand the thinking of ancient peoples, it would help to have the writings of a man who recorded the history of the known world of his day. Such a man lived some 2,400 years ago. His name was Herodotus, and he was a Greek historian of the fifth century B.C.E. The title of his work? The Histories.:

Herodotus set out to document the causes of wars fought by the Greeks and particularly the causes of the Persian invasions of 490 and 480 B.C.E., the latter occurring while Herodotus was still a boy. To that basic theme, he added extensive digressions, recording all that he could find out about each nation touched by the Persian advance.

MORE THAN HISTORY:

Herodotus was a gifted narrator. He was passionately thorough in his writings, including every detail he felt was needed to complete the story. Herodotus’ achievement is remarkable in that he could not base his work on official State records written to preserve a continuous history of events, for such records rarely existed.


Back then, few bothered to record history, unless it was to boast of glorious deeds in inscriptions on monuments. Herodotus had to rely on observation, traditional lore, and the testimony of others regarding the events he wished to document. To collect his information, Herodotus traveled widely. He grew up in the Greek colony of Halicarnassus (now Bodrum, southern Turkey) and visited much of Greece.
He ventured north to the Black Sea and Scythia, in the area of present-day Ukraine, and south to Palestine and Upper Egypt. To the east, he seems to have reached Babylon, and he probably finished his days in the west, at a Greek colony in what is now southern Italy. Wherever he went, he observed and inquired and thereby collected information from those who seemed to him to be the most trustworthy sources.

HERODOTUS’ ACCURACY:

How accurate is the information Herodotus recorded? Regarding the lands he visited and the things he saw with his own eyes, his knowledge is considered accurate. His descriptions of practices unknown in Greece—such as those used in Scythian royal burials or Egyptian mummification—correspond somewhat to what archaeologists have discovered. It has been said that the wealth of information he preserved concerning Egypt “surpasses in importance everything that was written in ancient times upon that country.”

Often, though, Herodotus had no choice but to rely upon doubtful testimony. Further, the people of his day fully believed in the intervention of pagan gods in human affairs. So not all that he wrote meets the standards of modern historians. Still, Herodotus did attempt to separate fact from legend. He sensibly declared that he did not believe all that he had been told. He arrived at his conclusions after sifting his sources and comparing them.


The Histories likely constitutes Herodotus’ life’s work. Given the resources he had at his disposal, it was an outstanding achievement.

QUICK FACTS:
Likely because The Histories was the widest-ranging attempt to document past events that had been undertaken up to that time, the Latin writer Cicero (106-43 B.C.E.) called Herodotus the Father of History.
The Histories is “a timeless masterpiece,” says one modern writer. “In it dwells not only history but anthropology, geography, theology, philosophy, political science, and tragic drama.”

In a critical period of world history, Herodotus preserved firsthand information on Greece, Western Asia, and Egypt.

A Verdict on Herodotus:

“We have now collected enough evidence to be able to say that [Herodotus] can be trusted,” wrote the classical historiographer Arnaldo Momigliano. “Orientalists have scrutinized Herodotus with the help of archaeology and with the knowledge of languages that he could not understand. They have ascertained that he described truthfully what he saw and reported honestly what he heard. Where he went wrong, either his informants misled him or he had misunderstood in good faith what he was told.”

On Financing our ministry

How Is Our Ministry Financed?:
Each year, we print and distribute hundreds of millions of Bibles and pieces of Bible literature. We build and operate branch offices and printeries around the world. Tens of thousands of congregations meet in modest yet attractive places of worship called Kingdom Halls. Who pays for all of this?

Our work is supported entirely by voluntary donations. (2 Corinthians 9:7) In 1879, the second issue of this magazine stated: “‘Zion’s Watch Tower’ [as this magazine was then called] has, we believe JEHOVAH for its backer, and while this is the case it will never beg nor petition men for support.” We have not wavered from that policy.


Donations are sent directly to one of our branch offices or placed in a contribution box that is located in each Kingdom Hall. But we never tithe, take up collections, or charge a fee for our services or publications. We are not paid to preach, to teach in the congregation, or to help build places of worship. After all, Jesus said: “You received free, give free.” (Matthew 10:8) All ministers at our branch offices and at our world headquarters, including those making up the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, are unsalaried members of a religious order.

                                                                             “As is the case with all the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses, religious funding is handled on a voluntary basis, each one personally determining the amount and frequency of his religious ‘donations.’”—European Court of Human Rights, 2011

Donated funds are also used for disaster relief. The early Christians were pleased to share in relief measures for victims of adversity. (Romans 15:26) We likewise assist the afflicted by rebuilding their homes and places of worship and by providing food, clothing, and medical treatment.

File under 'Well said' X

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
Abraham Lincoln

Psalms15-21 New Jerusalem Bible

15)1 [Psalm Of David] Yahweh, who can find a home in your tent, who can dwell on your holy mountain?

2 Whoever lives blamelessly, who acts uprightly, who speaks the truth from the heart,

3 who keeps the tongue under control, who does not wrong a comrade, who casts no discredit on a neighbour,

4 who looks with scorn on the vile, but honours those who fear Yahweh, who stands by an oath at any cost,

5 who asks no interest on loans, who takes no bribe to harm the innocent. No one who so acts can ever be shaken.
16)1 [In a quiet voice Of David] Protect me, O God, in you is my refuge.

2 To Yahweh I say, 'You are my Lord, my happiness is in none

3 of the sacred spirits of the earth.' They only take advantage of all who love them.

4 People flock to their teeming idols. Never shall I pour libations to them! Never take their names on my lips.

5 My birthright, my cup is Yahweh; you, you alone, hold my lot secure.

6 The measuring-line marks out for me a delightful place, my birthright is all I could wish.

7 I bless Yahweh who is my counsellor, even at night my heart instructs me.

8 I keep Yahweh before me always, for with him at my right hand, nothing can shake me.

9 So my heart rejoices, my soul delights, my body too will rest secure,

10 for you will not abandon me to Sheol, you cannot allow your faithful servant to see the abyss.

11 You will teach me the path of life, unbounded joy in your presence, at your right hand delight for ever.
17)1 [Prayer Of David] Listen, Yahweh, to an upright cause, pay attention to my cry, lend an ear to my prayer, my lips free from deceit.

2 From your presence will issue my vindication, your eyes fixed on what is right.

3 You probe my heart, examine me at night, you test me by fire and find no evil. I have not sinned with my mouth

4 as most people do. I have treasured the word from your lips,

5 my steps never stray from the paths you lay down, from your tracks; so my feet never stumble.

6 I call upon you, God, for you answer me; turn your ear to me, hear what I say.

7 Show the evidence of your faithful love, saviour of those who hope in your strength against attack.

8 Guard me as the pupil of an eye, shelter me in the shadow of your wings

9 from the presence of the wicked who would maltreat me; deadly enemies are closing in on me.

10 Engrossed in themselves they are mouthing arrogant words.

11 They are advancing against me, now they are closing in, watching for the chance to hurl me to the ground,

12 like a lion preparing to pounce, like a young lion crouching in ambush.

13 Arise, Yahweh, confront him and bring him down, with your sword save my life from the wicked,

14 Yahweh, from mortals, by your hand, from mortals whose part in life is in this world. You fill their bellies from your store, their children will have all they desire, and leave their surplus to their children.

15 But I in my uprightness will see your face, and when I awake I shall be filled with the vision of you.
18)1 [For the choirmaster Of David, the servant of Yahweh, who addressed the words of this song to Yahweh when Yahweh had delivered him from all his enemies and from the clutches of Saul. He said:] I love you, Yahweh, my strength (my Saviour, you have saved me from violence).

2 Yahweh is my rock and my fortress, my deliverer is my God. I take refuge in him, my rock, my shield, my saving strength, my stronghold, my place of refuge.

3 I call to Yahweh who is worthy of praise, and I am saved from my foes.

4 With Death's breakers closing in on me, Belial's torrents ready to swallow me,

5 Sheol's snares every side of me, Death's traps lying ahead of me,

6 I called to Yahweh in my anguish, I cried for help to my God; from his Temple he heard my voice, my cry came to his ears.

7 Then the earth quaked and rocked, the mountains' foundations shuddered, they quaked at his blazing anger.

8 Smoke rose from his nostrils, from his mouth devouring fire (coals were kindled at it).

9 He parted the heavens and came down, a storm-cloud underneath his feet;

10 riding one of the winged creatures, he flew, soaring on the wings of the wind.

11 His covering he made the darkness, his pavilion dark waters and dense cloud.

12 A brightness lit up before him, hail and blazing fire.

13 Yahweh thundered from the heavens, the Most High made his voice heard.

14 He shot his arrows and scattered them, he hurled his lightning and routed them.

15 The very springs of ocean were exposed, the world's foundations were laid bare, at your roaring, Yahweh, at the blast of breath from your nostrils!

16 He reached down from on high, snatched me up, pulled me from the watery depths,

17 rescued me from my mighty foe, from my enemies who were stronger than I.

18 They assailed me on my day of disaster but Yahweh was there to support me;

19 he freed me, set me at large, he rescued me because he loves me.

20 Yahweh rewards me for my uprightness, as my hands are pure, so he repays me,

21 since I have kept the ways of Yahweh, and not fallen away from my God.

22 His judgements are all before me, his statutes I have not put away from me.

23 I am blameless before him, I keep myself clear of evil.

24 So Yahweh repaid me for acting uprightly because he could see I was pure.

25 You are faithful to the faithful, blameless with the blameless,

26 sincere to the sincere, but cunning to the crafty,

27 you save a people that is humble and humiliate those with haughty looks.

28 Yahweh, you yourself are my lamp, my God lights up my darkness;

29 with you I storm the rampart, with my God I can scale any wall.

30 This God, his way is blameless; the word of Yahweh is refined in the furnace, for he alone is the shield of all who take refuge in him.

31 For who is God but Yahweh, who is a rock but our God?

32 This God who girds me with strength, who makes my way free from blame,

33 who makes me as swift as a deer and sets me firmly on the heights,

34 who trains my hands for battle, my arms to bend a bow of bronze.

35 You give me your invincible shield (your right hand upholds me) you never cease to listen to me,

36 you give me the strides of a giant, give me ankles that never weaken.

37 I pursue my enemies and overtake them, not turning back till they are annihilated;

38 I strike them down and they cannot rise, they fall, they are under my feet.

39 You have girded me with strength for the fight, bent down my assailants beneath me,

40 made my enemies retreat before me; and those who hate me I destroy.

41 They cry out, there is no one to save; to Yahweh, but no answer comes.

42 I crumble them like dust before the wind, trample them like the mud of the streets.

43 You free me from the quarrels of my people, you place me at the head of the nations, a people I did not know are now my servants;

44 foreigners come wooing my favour, no sooner do they hear than they obey me;

45 foreigners grow faint of heart, they come trembling out of their fastnesses.

46 Life to Yahweh! Blessed be my rock! Exalted be the God of my salvation,

47 the God who gives me vengeance, and subjects whole peoples to me,

48 who rescues me from my raging enemies. You lift me high above those who attack me, you deliver me from the man of violence.

49 For this I will praise you, Yahweh, among the nations, and sing praise to your name.

50 He saves his king time after time, displays his faithful love for his anointed, for David and his heirs for ever.
19)1 [For the choirmaster Psalm Of David] The heavens declare the glory of God, the vault of heaven proclaims his handiwork,

2 day discourses of it to day, night to night hands on the knowledge.

3 No utterance at all, no speech, not a sound to be heard,

4 but from the entire earth the design stands out, this message reaches the whole world. High above, he pitched a tent for the sun,

5 who comes forth from his pavilion like a bridegroom, delights like a champion in the course to be run.

6 Rising on the one horizon he runs his circuit to the other, and nothing can escape his heat.

7 The Law of Yahweh is perfect, refreshment to the soul; the decree of Yahweh is trustworthy, wisdom for the simple.

8 The precepts of Yahweh are honest, joy for the heart; the commandment of Yahweh is pure, light for the eyes.

9 The fear of Yahweh is pure, lasting for ever; the judgements of Yahweh are true, upright, every one,

10 more desirable than gold, even than the finest gold; his words are sweeter than honey, that drips from the comb.

11 Thus your servant is formed by them; observing them brings great reward.

12 But who can detect his own failings? Wash away my hidden faults.

13 And from pride preserve your servant, never let it be my master. So shall I be above reproach, free from grave sin.

14 May the words of my mouth always find favour, and the whispering of my heart, in your presence, Yahweh, my rock, my redeemer.
20)1 [For the choirmaster Psalm Of David] May Yahweh answer you in time of trouble, may the name of the God of Jacob protect you!

2 May he send you help from the sanctuary, give you support from Zion!

3 May he remember all your sacrifices and delight in your burnt offerings! Pause

4 May he grant you your heart's desire and crown all your plans with success!

5 So that with joy we can hail your victory and draw up our ranks in the name of our God. May Yahweh grant all your petitions.

6 Now I know that Yahweh gives victory to his anointed. He will respond from his holy heavens with great deeds of victory from his right hand.

7 Some call on chariots, some on horses, but we on the name of Yahweh our God.

8 They will crumple and fall, while we stand upright and firm.

9 Yahweh, save the king, answer us when we call.
21)1 [For the choirmaster Psalm Of David] Yahweh, the king rejoices in your power; How your saving help fills him with joy!

2 You have granted him his heart's desire, not denied him the prayer of his lips.Pause

3 For you come to meet him with blessings of prosperity, put a crown of pure gold on his head.

4 He has asked for life, you have given it him, length of days for ever and ever.

5 Great his glory through your saving help; you invest him with splendour and majesty.

6 You confer on him everlasting blessings, you gladden him with the joy of your presence.

7 For the king puts his trust in Yahweh; the faithful love of the Most High will keep him from falling.

8 Your hand will reach all your enemies, your right hand all who hate you.

9 You will hurl them into a blazing furnace on the day when you appear; Yahweh will engulf them in his anger, and fire will devour them.

10 You will purge the earth of their descendants, the human race of their posterity.

11 They have devised evil against you but, plot as they may, they will not succeed,

12 since you will make them turn tail, by shooting your arrows in their faces.

13 Rise, Yahweh, in your power! We will sing and make music in honour of your strength.

Separating science from scientism.

Rules for Discounting Scientific Pretensions

Evolution News & Views November 27, 2013 5:04 AM

An unusual article appeared recently in Nature. Three scientists -- a biologist, a mathematician, and a biosecurity expert -- offered twenty reasons why politicians should be wary of scientific claims.

William J. Sutherland, David Spiegelhalter and Mark A. Burgman, in "Policy: Twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims," acknowledged that scientists are often too busy to get involved in politics. Politicians, on the other hand, are usually too busy to learn the evidence and methods behind the claims of scientists. Yet the decisions politicians make often affect science. How can scientists help them make more informed decisions?

In this context, we suggest that the immediate priority is toimprove policy-makers' understanding of the imperfect nature of science. The essential skills are to be able to intelligently interrogate experts and advisers, and to understand the quality, limitations and biases of evidence.We term these interpretive scientific skills. These skills are more accessible than those required to understand the fundamental science itself, and can form part of the broad skill set of most politicians. (Emphasis added.)

Realizing that "others will have slightly different lists," they offered their twenty best tips for politicians. We won't list all of them, but some have relevance to the debate on origins. Skipping the ones dealing with lab technique, error rates and significance tests, let's look at a few that are important for evaluating Darwinian claims and considering the validity of intelligent design.

3. Bias is rife. "Confirmation bias arises when scientists find evidence for a favored theory and then become insufficiently critical of their own results, or cease searching for contrary evidence," they say, providing examples. Do we not see Darwinists doing this all the time? Because they approach data with the presumption that Darwinian theory is a fact, every observation becomes a confirmation of Darwinism, no matter how counter-intuitive.

5. Correlation does not imply causation. One commenter recalled the old chestnut that a rooster always crows before sunrise, therefore the rooster causes the sunrise. The authors point out that coincidence or hidden variables can be responsible for a pattern. We've seen origin-of-life researchers conclude that a change in oxygen levels allowed life to emerge, or that some catastrophe cleared the way for a rapid diversification of life in the Cambrian explosion.

7. Extrapolation beyond the data is risky. "Patterns found within a given range do not necessarily apply outside that range." Darwinians are notorious extrapolators. They will stretch an inch into a mile: extrapolating millimeter-size changes in finch beaks into the origin of finches, or hardly-observable differences in cichlid fish as vindication of Darwin's theory of universal common descent. All macroevolutionary claims are extrapolations of microevolutionary changes.

9. Controls are important. As a historical investigation, Darwinism is essentially an uncontrolled science. There's only been one history of the world. We can't replay the tape of evolution to see what would happen a second time, let alone provide two worlds, one unconstrained and the other using a placebo of some sort. The same complaint might be made against intelligent design; in that case, though, we have many examples of how intelligent agents work.

12. Scientists are human. This truism bears quoting the authors' elaboration:

Scientists have a vested interest in promoting their work, often for status and further research funding, although sometimes for direct financial gain. This can lead to selective reporting of results and occasionally, exaggeration. Peer review is not infallible: journal editors might favor positive findings and newsworthiness. Multiple, independent sources of evidence and replication are much more convincing.

16. Study relevance limits generalizations. "The relevance of a study depends on how much the conditions under which it is done resemble the conditions of the issue under consideration." Intelligent design advocates need to establish the resemblance of biological codes to human-generated codes, not assume it. Darwinists, on the other hand, need to show how "evolutionary algorithms" relate to the origin of life or to natural selection, when the latter have no guiding hand selecting the target and ensuring a desired outcome.

19. Data can be dredged or cherry-picked. "Evidence can be arranged to support one point of view." In a sense, any argument arranges evidence to support a viewpoint. A good argument, though, takes due consideration of all contrary evidence and alternative explanations. That's what Stephen Meyer did in his books Signature in the Cell andDarwin's Doubt; though defending the case for intelligent design, he exercised diligence to fairly consider all the leading arguments against it. Darwinians, by contrast, mention intelligent design only in the context of snarky insults or misrepresentations when not ignoring it altogether.

Sutherland, Spiegelhalter and Burgman are to be commended for bringing this reality check to readers of Nature. Their list is far from exhaustive; about ten more were added by readers in the comments. One reader said that this list did not "weight" each entry in a practical way to render it useful for measurement. Additionally, an introductory course in philosophy of science could expand the list substantially. Even basic questions such as the definition of science, demarcation criteria between science and pseudoscience, the nature of evidence, the validity of induction, and the role of explanation prove to be highly inscrutable.

With this partial list, though, we can see useful ways to scrutinize evolutionary claims, and to render research into intelligent design more robust. One hopes the article makes the rounds and helps policy makers and politicians -- not least school board members -- improve their interpretive skills when confronted with the all-too-common bombastic slogans, "Scientists now know," and "All scientists believe."

Family resemblance?

Why We Don't Look Like Chimps

Ann Gauger October 2, 2015 3:30 AM

Pictures showing the gradual transition of an ape-like creature to a human one are part of the cultural Gestalt. They are so ubiquitous that people use the idea for jokes. You've probably seen the picture describing the evolution of man from a bent-over ape to a bent-over office worker on the computer. But do such pictures represent the truth about our history?

Let's consider just one part of the transition that would be required -- to go from an ape-like face to a human one. The portraits of our supposed ancestors are in museums everywhere, and on the web pages ofNational Geographic -- the latest one, H. naledi, can be found there now. But whether or not that reconstructed face is a part of our history, the question remains: Is there enough time for us to have acquired by purely, Darwinian natural processes the differences that make us look human as opposed to ape-like?

A recent paper purports to tell us how it happened, at least from a genetic perspective. Prescott et al. report the regulatory changes that might have caused the change in morphology (the overall shape) of our faces. On the whole it's an interesting paper with a lot of hard work involved.

The title, "Enhancer Divergence and cis-Regulatory Evolution in the Human and Chimp Neural Crest," may sound a little cryptic to the uninitiated. Let me provide some background and define some terms. Enhancers are regulatory sequences found in the DNA near the gene(s) they regulate. They act by "enhancing" the expression of those nearby genes. They are also called cis-regulatory elements, hence the "Enhancer Divergence and cis-Regulatory Evolution" part of the title.

Neural crest cells come from a particular part of the early-developing brain, and they migrate out into the embryo to form the face and other structures in the body. Thus they have a major role to play in embryonic development of the face. Mutations that affect neural crest cells can cause major cranio-facial abnormalities.

The popular model is that changing enhancers is the way new morphological features evolved, changes such as from an ape-like face to a human one.

Now for the paper. Prescott et al. began by inducing stem cells of both chimp and human lineages to develop into neural crest cells. (They mostly used in vitro pluripotent stems cells (IPSCs), which are not of embryonic origin. Unfortunately, they did use some human embryo-derived cells to verify that their IPSCs were behaving normally.) From the IPSCs they identified enhancer-like sequences specific to neural crest cells. They then checked for patterns of gene expression driven by those enhancers that differed between chimp and human cells. Having identified those, they then used several methods to examine whether those enhancers did in fact act in a species-specific way in the neural crest. They also checked whether or not the genes they had identified caused human cranio-facial abnormalities when mutated. Some did.

Essentially, they looked for differences between humans and chimps in their enhancer sequences upstream of genes involved in neural crest development, and found them.

How convinced am I that their results are valid? They say they identified at least 208 enhancers that work together cooperatively to regulate neural crest gene expression. That I accept, though some of the details may be wrong. 208 is a reasonable number of enhancers to be involved in neural crest specification and behavior. They say that there are probably other enhancers they didn't identify, and the enhancers they did identify will no doubt have effects in other tissues. Fine. They also report having found multiple enhancer elements upstream of the same gene, each with a positive or negative effect on gene expression that work together. None of this is a surprise -- it confirms the idea that gene regulatory networks are complex and cooperative, and that changing nucleotides in an enhancer (a cis-regulatory element) can change its effect on nearby genes.

My difficulty is with their claim that anything like this evolved. There is plenty of use of the word evolution in the introduction and discussion sections of this paper. It's actually not surprising that they use evolution so often as an explanatory concept. Evolution is the dominant explanation right now for how things got to be the way they are, so of course these differences in enhancer sequences are explained by evolution...right?

Let's check the logic. Premise: evolution happens by changing enhancer sequences in a species-specific way. Observation: there are species-specific differences in enhancers. Conclusion: evolution is responsible for these species-specific changes.

See the problem? That's called circular reasoning. If you accept the premise, then the conclusion is automatic because the two statements are actually saying the same thing. If you don't accept the premise, of course, you will be unconvinced by this argument. Thus the paper assumes Darwinian evolution without demonstrating that it had anything to do with it.

So let's ask the question. Could naturalistic processes guided only by natural selection have accomplished any of this? Changes to the expression of one gene or another can affect morphology -- changing the expression of the gene ALX1 affects the size and shape of finch beaks, for example. Getting one regulatory change to an enhancer is notimpossible. But there are multiple enhancers controlling multiple genes involved in facial morphology (see the paper in Nature by Lamichhaneyet al.), and to get coordinated regulation of multiple genes, multipleenhancers must have changed in a coordinated fashion.

Is that possible? Durrett and Schmidt published a paper examining how long it would take to have two coordinated mutations (one inactivating and the other activating) take place in an evolving hominin population. They found it would require in excess of 100 million years. Obviously, the hominin population did not have that long to wait for regulatory change. We supposedly diverged from chimps six million years ago.

Nowhere in this paper is it demonstrated that anything like this regulatory network could have evolved step by step in the time available. All it establishes is that our faces are different from chimps because we have different regulatory sequences. In fact, I don't know of anywhere it has been demonstrated that regulatory changes on this scale could bethe product of evolution.

In the meantime, we do know something that can coordinate change on this scale. It's called intelligence.

Darwinists continue to major in minors.

Rapid" Evolution Observed in Guppies? As Always, It Depends on What You Mean by Evolution

David Klinghoffer October 1, 2015 3:31 PM 

Reporting in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, researchers have rigorously demonstrated something totally unsurprising -- only to turn around and offer it as evidence for something quite different and quite surprising. The technical term for that is bait-and-switch.

A team showed that if you take guppies and move them from an environment rich in predators to one that's largely predator-free, this can have an effect on a superficial trait like coloration. Who would have thought otherwise? Given (a) characteristics that vary from generation to generation, (b) heritability, and (c) an environment or other factors that favor one over another, it would be startling if selection didn't result in small-scale change over time, even over rather short periods -- microevolution, in other words, at its finest.

From the Abstract ("Selection analysis on the rapid evolution of a secondary sexual trait"):

Here, we present a study of experimental evolution of male colour in Trinidadian guppies where we tracked both evolutionary change and individual-based measures of selection. Guppies were translocated from a predator-rich to a low-predation environment within the same stream system. We used a combination of common garden experiments and monthly sampling of individuals to measure the phenotypic and genetic divergence of male coloration between ancestral and derived fish. Results show rapid evolutionary increases in orange coloration in both populations (1 year or three generations), replicating the results of previous studies. Unlike previous studies, we linked this evolution to an individual-based analysis of selection. By quantifying individual reproductive success and survival, we show, for the first time, that males with more orange and black pigment have higher reproductive success, but males with more black pigment also have higher risk of mortality. The net effect of selection is thus an advantage of orange but not black coloration, as reflected in the evolutionary response. This highlights the importance of considering all components of fitness when understanding the evolution of sexually selected traits in the wild.

Commenting in Science Daily ("Evolution shown in real time"), an author of the study, UC Riverside biologist David Reznick, points out the relevance to the evolution debate as he sees it:

"People think of evolution as historical. They don't think of it as something that's happening under our nose. It is a contemporary process. People are skeptical; they don't believe in evolution because they can't see it. Here, we see it. We can see if something makes you better able to make babies and live longer," Reznick said. [Emphasis added.]

But the kind of evolution Dr. Reznick and his colleagues observed is not the same thing -- unguided macroevolution, novel biological information fortuitously generating new animals -- that is subject to skepticism by those who "don't believe in evolution because they can't see it." Set aside the gratuitous swipe at skeptics. Show me the most devout creationist and I will show you someone perfectly happy to accept every word of David Reznick's results, and completely untroubled by them.

Don't Darwinists know this? I understand wanting to draw attention to your work by highlighting how it casts light on a hot debate. But first find out what both sides in the debate say, what they're arguing about, andthen tell us how your work ought to figure into the discussion.