Yet more iconoclasm II

Lee Spetner on Darwin’s iconic finches

Published on October 9th, 2015

Written by: News

Further to What’s happened since Icons of Evolution (2002)? Well, for one thing, Darwin’s textbook finches took a beating (no speciation)

From The Evolution Revolution by physicist Lee Spetner:

The proximate biochemical signal evoking the change in beak shape [of Galapagos finches] has been discovered to be a protein growth factor Bmp4. The more Bmp4 that is made, the broader and deeper is the bird’s beak. This protein acts as a signal to the development of the craniofacial bones which determines the beak’s shape. If my suggestion is correct that the hormones triggered by environmental inputs affect embryonic development, then those hormones induce these growth factors to form the finch beak….The built-in mechanism of the NREH [Non Random Evolutionary Hypothesis] enables the bird population to adapt to a new environment quickly and efficiently without having to call upon the slow and wasteful neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection. p. 76

Note from reader:

Spetner’s Non Random Evolutionary Hypothesis proposes that certain genetic traits lie dormant within the genomes of various living things until environmental cues turn them on and they appear in the next generation. In other words, living things are front loaded with a host of options which allow for rapid and specified adaptations for various enviroments. There is neither chance nor selection in this process. Moreover, it also accounts for the rapid return of smaller finch beaks when the drought ceases. It points towards exquisite design and accounts for the variability of Darwin’s finches without invoking the confusions of natural selection. If mutations are random, why is it that thicker, larger beaks appear reliably with every drought on the Galapagos Islands? Why don’t longer tail feathers or unusual colors appear? If natural selection works slowly and imperfectly, why are the changes in beak size so rapid? If the mutations are embedded in the genomes of the birds, why do they disappear so quickly when conditions change?

Here for more on Spetner’s The Evolution Revolution.

It's design all the way down V

Gate-Crashing the Nuclear Pore Complex

Evolution News & Views October 8, 2015 10:14 AM

ho would have thought a hundred years ago that a simple fungus contains high-tech security gates guarded by agents that authenticate cargo before letting it through? That's what advances in imaging are allowing scientists to observe. We must be among the most privileged in history to witness the foundations of biological life coming into focus in all their glory!

You got a simplified glimpse of this gate 13 years ago in the filmUnlocking the Mystery of Life. It's that circular portal that allows the messenger RNA out into the cytoplasm. We've learned a lot since then. We know now that the nuclear pore complex (NPC) is one of the largest and most complex molecular machines in the cell. Each eukaryotic nucleus is studded with NPCs. They resemble portholes with nets, like basketball hoops, but much more sophisticated. They are the gateways for traffic in and out of the nucleus, but not just any molecule can pass through. Each macromolecule needs a ticket and an escort, represented by tags and accessory proteins that first authenticate the cargo then accompany it in or out.

New details of the NPC architecture came to light in a couple of papers in Science this month. Regarding these papers, Katharine S. Ullman and Maureen A. Powers state:

Nuclear pore complexes (NPCs), first observed by electron microscopy 65 years ago, mediate selective transport of macromolecules between the nucleus and cytoplasm of eukaryotic cells. Although the exact size and protein composition of NPCs can vary between species, these massive and complex machines are highly conserved in their overall organization, which consists of multiple copies of ∼30 nuclear pore proteins, or nucleoporins (Nups), in asymmetrical eightfold radial arrangement. Deciphering the structure of this immense complex has required ongoing multifaceted approaches. On page 106 and 56 in this issue, Chug et al. and Stuwe et al., respectively, have employed parallel approaches in very distant species and arrived at remarkably similar and informative structures of an essential subcomplex of the NPC.

What were the "very distant species" with conserved structures? The Chug team used a frog; the Stuwe team studied a thermophilic (heat-loving) fungus. Both teams looked at one element of the eight-fold radial structure at the central inner ring of the pore. They found that this domain has coils of protein that extend out into the pore and make contact with coils from the opposite side. These coils form a net that blocks entry unless the cargo has the right password, consisting of an "usher" of sorts called a nuclear transport receptor (NTR).

What's emerging is a different model from the previously-held vision of pores that dilate and constrict to allow passage. "Instead they suggest arigid pore in which flexible domains called FG repeats fill the channel and form a barrier that can be traversed by receptors that carry cargos across," Valda Vinson explains in a brief summary of the papers inScience. FG repeats are so named for the phenylalanine-glycine amino acid patterns. "Interactions between NTRs and FG repeats are essential for facilitated translocation," Chug's team says.

NPCs grant free passage to small molecules but becomeincreasingly restrictive as the size of the diffusing species approaches or exceeds a limit of ≈30 kD in mass or 5 nm in diameter. This property is critical for keeping nuclear and cytoplasmic contents separate. NTRs, however, are not bound by this size limit. They mediate facilitated NPC passage and ferry cargoes up to the size of newly assembled ribosomal subunits (≈25 nm in diameter) between the two compartments.

For size comparison, consider that the inner ring complex is 425 kilodaltons (kD) compared to the 30kD mass limit of unescorted cargo (one Dalton = one atomic mass unit). The specific order of amino acids in each Nup protein is critical to its structure and function. Nup62, for instance, requires "kinks" that fold it into the pore-traversing domain.

"The kink is stabilized by a network of highly conserved hydrophobic and hydrophilic contacts," the researchers say. Indeed, many of the residues show "extreme evolutionary conservation" in animals as diverse as amoebas, fungi, and higher animals. That's the only context in which Chug et al. mention evolution -- the lack of it.

Stuwe's team also mentioned evolution only in the context of conservation, except for a nonspecific comment in the opening paragraph:

One of the hallmarks of eukaryotic evolution is the enclosure of genetic information in the nucleus. The spatial segregationof replication and transcription in the nucleus from translation in the cytoplasm imposes the requirement of transporting thousands of macromolecules between these two compartments. Nuclear pore complexes (NPCs) aremassive transport channels that allow bidirectional macromolecular exchange across the nuclear envelope (NE) and thus function as key regulators of the flow of genetic information from DNA to RNA to protein.

You can find the word conserved or conservation 16 times in the paper. In one case, structural conservation was found despite low sequence conservation. Mutation experiments, however, usually broke the function or reduced it dramatically; some cases were lethal.

The nuclear pore complex, therefore, is a highly selective filter for macromolecules. Why does that matter? Chug et al. explain:

For transport selectivity, preventing the passage of unwanted material is as important as allowing NTR•cargo species to pass. This is straightforward to explain by an adaptive barrier that seals around a translocating species, particularly because cohesive FG domains readily assemble such self-sealing barriers in the form of FG hydrogels.

But if anything and everything can attach NTRs to let it pass through, selectivity is also lost. "A 'general gate' would therefore stand open at all times and consequently fail as a barrier," they realize. How do the NTRs know which cargo is legitimate? This point is not clear from the papers and probably will require more analysis. It appears that multiple interactions with other nucleoporins (Nups) take part in discrimination against unwanted molecules. But the mechanism is general enough to allow the FG domains to rapidly facilitate passage of a wide range of cargo sizes.

In a news item from Rockefeller University, Professor Michael P. Rout sheds some light on the tradeoff between selectivity and speed:

"Usually, binding between traditionally folded proteins is a time consuming, cumbersome process, but because the FG Nups are unfolded, they are moving very quickly, very much like small molecules. This means their interaction is very quick," explains Rout.

The disordered structure of the FG regions is critical to the speed of transport, allowing for quick loading and unloading of cargo-carrying transport factors. At the same time, because transport factors have multiple binding sites for FG Nups, they are the only proteins that can specifically interactwith them -- making transport both fast and specific.

So in this case, "fuzzy" interactions are an asset. Rout thinks that this is "the first case where the 'fuzzy' property of an interaction is a key part of its actual biological function."

How fast are the NPCs? Chug et al. provide some details about the diffusion rate of large molecules through the pore:

Facilitated translocation is usually completed within 10ms[milliseconds].. NPCs can conduct ≈1000 facilitated translocation events or a mass flow of ≈100 MD [megadaltons] per pore per second, which further implies that NPCs can translocate numerous species in parallel.

With some 2,000 NPCs in a typical vertebrate cell (Wikipedia), that provides a huge capacity for facilitated, authenticated transport.

Not sufficiently impressed yet? Consider that the entire nuclear envelope breaks down at cell division, all the parts are duplicated (including all the genetic information, which is also error-checked), and the entire nucleus, NPCs and all, is reassembled in both daughter cells, ready to go sometimes in just minutes. That's intelligent design!

On the incomprehensible comprehensibility of the cosmos

Putting Scientism in Its Place

David Klinghoffer October 7, 2015 3:38 AM 

Nautilus has a brief and elegant essay, "Why Science Needs Metaphysics," extracted from a forthcoming book by Oxford philosopher Roger Trigg.

He concludes:

There is such a thing as scientific progress, and it happens through systematic trial and error or, in Karl Popper's terminology, conjecture and refutation. A "scientific realist" has to be wary, though, about how such realism is defined. A realism that makes reality what contemporary science says it is links reality logically to the human minds of the present day. Science is then just a human product, rooted in time and place. Bringing in future science -- or ideal science -- may sound more plausible, but even then there is a distinction between science reflecting (or corresponding to) the nature of reality and it being simply a human construction. Once the logical independence of reality from science is accepted, the question is why reality has a character that enables it to be understood scientifically. The intelligibility and intrinsic rationality of reality cannot be taken for granted. Even the greatest scientists, such as Einstein, have seen that the intelligibility of the world is a mystery. He famously remarked that "the eternally incomprehensible thing about the world is its comprehensibility."⁴ Like the way in which mathematics seems to map the intrinsic rational structure of the physical world, this is presupposed within science and cannot be given a scientific explanation. It appears to be a metaphysical fact, and the explanation for which, if there can be one, must come from beyond science.

The comment from Einstein is a keeper.

Trigg splendidly puts scientism in its place. We take it for granted that nature is a book that is not only decipherable but eager to be read, as if written to be so. The remarkable mystery of why we can even begin to understand the universe, topped by the enigmatic fact of our physical situation on earth being so extremely convenient for scientific discovery, has of course been a frequent theme of intelligent design advocates.

Darwinism Vs. the real world XV

Low Blood Pressure and Evolutionary Biology

Howard Glicksman October 6, 2015 3:39 AM 

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.

The body is made up of trillions of cells which must each receive what they need to live. The cardiovascular system circulates blood throughout the body to accomplish this task. However, being made of matter, the body must follow the laws of nature. These laws demand that there be enough power to move the blood against natural forces such as inertia, vascular resistance, and gravity.

The blood pressure is the force the blood applies against the arterial walls as it flows by, and represents the energy that moves the blood where it needs to go. It's like how a city must supply its residents with enough water to meet their hygienic needs. If the pressure in the city's water system isn't high enough, then customers won't be serviced properly. The same thing applies to the blood pressure and the body. If there isn't enough blood pressure in the systemic arteries, the organs of the body won't be serviced properly and they'll malfunction or die because their metabolic needs aren't being met.

The three main things that affect arterial blood pressure are how well the heart pumps blood, how much blood is in the arteries, and the vascular resistance applied to blood flow by the downstream arterioles. The body controls its blood pressure mainly through systems which involve the brain, the heart, the kidneys and the blood vessels. Evolutionary biologists only show how these systems look and then imagine how they may have come about without considering how they actually work within the laws of nature to keep the body functioning properly. The last article in this series showed what it takes for the body to be able to stand up to gravity, something that would have been absolutely necessary for the survival of our earliest ancestors. But sometimes circumstances can still overwhelm the body's control mechanisms to allow the blood pressure to go too low.

It is important to understand that the lower limit of blood pressure resulting in blood flow is directly related to the metabolic needs of the organs. It's the same as having enough gas and air entering a car's engine so it has enough energy to perform properly. Without enough blood pressure to provide enough blood flow to the organs, they are as good as dead.

My previous article showed that vital organs like the brain use autoregulation to maintain a constant blood flow. They do this by changing the vascular resistance in their arterioles to adjust to constant changes in blood pressure. The normal range of the mean arterial pressure (MAP) that results in proper blood flow in the brain, without the need for autoregulation, is 70-100 mmHg. This translates into a BP of 90/60-140/80.

However, when it comes to significantly low blood pressure, there are limits to how low the vascular resistance in the arterioles can go in an attempt to maintain adequate blood flow. For critical organs like the brain, this lower limit of MAP is about 50 mmHg, which is equal to a blood pressure of only 70/40.

People who have a blood pressure less than 90/60 mmHg are said to have hypotension. Many of them have to live relatively sedentary lives because they suffer from fatigue, weakness and dizziness on standing up. Since cardiac performance is a major determinant of blood pressure, it is not surprising that many people with heart failure, valvular disorders and arrhythmias commonly suffer from hypotension. People with disorders of the sympathetic nervous system, as seen in diabetics and people with neurological conditions like Parkinson's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis, are particularly prone to severe drops in blood pressure when standing up, sometimes to the point of passing out (syncope). This condition is called orthostatic hypotension and takes place because the body cannot compensate fast enough through the sympathetic nervous system to the sudden drop in blood pressure brought on by the force of gravity.

Recall, from the last article, that when the MAP drops below 70 mmHg, the baroreceptors in the main arteries supplying blood to the brain trigger the sympathetic nervous system to increase the cardiac output and peripheral vascular resistance to keep the MAP where it is supposed to be. However, sometimes circumstances arise that overwhelm the body's ability to maintain an MAP above 50 mmHg. When this happens, the body is unable to adequately perfuse its organs and tissues and it is said to be in circulatory shock (as opposed to emotional shock).

Without aggressive resuscitation, irreversible cellular dysfunction and multi-organ failure is likely, often leading to death. Since blood pressure is largely dependent on three factors, blood volume, cardiac performance, and vascular resistance, shock is generally divided into three categories that reflect this reality.

A significant and quick drop in total blood volume can lead to what is called hypovolemic shock. Severe and rapid blood loss from traumatic rupture of a large blood vessel or a major organ or severe bleeding from the gastrointestinal tract are some of the more common causes. Non-hemorrhagic fluid loss, such as severe and persistent vomiting and diarrhea, or extensive third degree burns, can cause hypovolemic shock as well.

Conditions of the heart resulting in a marked reduction in cardiac output can quickly lead to what is called cardiogenic shock. A sudden heart attack causing severe damage to the left ventricle and a marked reduction in contractility and stroke volume or the sudden rupture of the mitral valve, are common causes of cardiogenic shock. Additionally, an already damaged and failing heart that suddenly starts beating too slowly or too quickly can lead to a quick drop in cardiac output and cardiogenic shock as well.

In my last article I showed that the relationship between blood pressure, blood flow and vascular resistance can be expressed as P = Q x R. Blood pressure (P) is directly related to total blood flow (Q) and the vascular resistance (R) in the tissues. As noted above, hypovolemic and cardiogenic shock are caused by a significant reduction in cardiac output (Q) due to reduced total blood volume and inefficient cardiac function, respectively. The body's natural response to both hypovolemic and cardiogenic shock is to increase the vascular resistance through the sympathetic nervous system and other hormones in an attempt to bring the blood pressure back towards normal.

In contrast to both hypovolemic and cardiogenic shock, the third type of shock involves a significant reduction in the peripheral vascular resistance. Since P = Q x R, a major drop in R can also lead to severe hypotension in what is called distributive shock. In this setting, the muscles surrounding the arterioles throughout the body relax and allow too much blood to enter the capillaries which results in excessive loss of fluid into the tissues.

One of the commonest causes of distributive shock is severe infection, often in the bloodstream. Another name for it is septic shock, or SIRS (systemic inflammatory response syndrome). Not only do the bacteria release toxins that cause the muscles surrounding the arterioles to relax too much causing a catastrophic drop in the vascular resistance, but the body's immune system in trying to fight the infection does the same thing as well.

The body has many different mechanisms in place to overcome the laws of nature and thus survive in the world. The fact that we die indicates that eventually these mechanisms become overwhelmed, resulting in cardiopulmonary arrest and brain death.

As is common with many of the chemical and physiological parameters the body must control to stay alive, blood pressure must follow theGoldilocks principle. Everything has to be just right for the body to be able to function well enough to survive. The current theory of evolution does not even begin to explain how any of this works in real life. Real numbers have real consequences and clinical experience bears this out by showing that not only is low blood pressure hazardous to your health, but so is high blood pressure. That's what we'll consider next time.

Self-Correcting huh?

The right to die?Pros and Cons

Survival of the heroic?

Could We All Get Together and Evolve as a Group?
Denyse O'Leary October 5, 2015 3:21 AM 

In our quest to understand how evolution happens, we have looked at horizontal gene transfer and epigenetics, each of which gives a small amount of genuine, though generally unheralded, change.

Talk to the Fossils.jpgNatural selection and sexual selection are widely publicized theories, developed in detail by Darwin. They became iconic, in part one must think, because of the instant media recognition. The subtle self-flattery that comes of thinking that one is naturally or sexually selected to survive.
The evidence is sparse.

But what if it is not individuals, but groups that are selected to somehow survive?

No subject apart from religion has vexed Darwin's followers more than why people sacrifice themselves for others. They have embraced the ambiguous term "altruism" because it does not clearly mean "compassion" or "heroism." Rather, it is to be seen as the same natural force that causes worker ants to pass on their genes by serving their queen, who lays lots of eggs, instead of reproducing themselves (kin selection). Maybe this force creates the change we are looking for.

Altruism has been described as "an anomalous thorn in Darwin's side" and a "conundrum that Darwinians would need to solve, given their view of the ruthless struggle among living beings for survival." One outcome has been the curious recent paper war between Darwinian evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson and those Darwinists who had espoused his earlier theories.

Wilson deserves an introduction. He is widely hailed as the founder of sociobiology (about 1975), which morphed into evolutionary psychology.

Christians have long been encouraged to look up to Wilson (once an evangelical Christian) as the gentlemanly author of The Creation (2006), which begins "Dear Pastor, We have not met, yet I feel I know you well enough to call you friend." (The fact that Wilson attempted to undermine everything the pastors believe was, apparently, irrelevant.)

His group selection theory has a history. It stretches back to 1955 when British geneticist J. B. S. Haldane said, we are told, that he would risk his life for two brothers or eight cousins, to preserve enough of his own genes to justify his death (kin selection). Evolutionist William Hamilton described the idea mathematically, calling it inclusive fitness. His calculations have been used ever since, and were a key inspiration for Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.

But then Wilson dramatically abandoned kin selection in 2010 in a Nature paper, "The evolution of eusociality," co-authored with mathematicians. He argued that strict Darwinism (natural selection) "provides an exact framework for interpreting empirical observations," dispensing with the other theories he had promoted for decades. Over 140 leading biologists signed a letter to Nature, attacking the 2010 paper. Some called his new, strictly Darwin model "unscholarly," "transparently wrong," and "misguided."

What? All this is said of a Darwin-only model?

New atheist evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne has also weighed in, saying that Wilson et al. are "wrong--dead wrong." Curiously, he admitted, "The "textbook" explanation, based on a higher relatedness of workers to their sisters than to their own potential offspring, no longer seems feasible. ... But we've known all this for years!"

If so, he and fellow evolutionary biologists have been very economical with their accounts of the failures.

How else to account for the -- to most people, incomprehensible -- uproar?

Evolutionary psychologist David Sloan Wilson, defending E. O. Wilson, scolded, "This degree of illiteracy about foundational issues is an embarrassment for the field of evolutionary biology."

He is perhaps telling us more than he realizes there. Neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga, attempting to defend E.O. Wilson, writes:

In the end, Mr. Wilson comes down on the side of what is called multi-level selection--the view that evolution involves a combination of gene selection, individual selection, kin selection and group selection. Although he says his new theory opposes the idea of kin selection, in another sense he is simply maintaining that everybody is right. Genes are being selected to benefit the individual and their kin. Genes are also being selected that encourage the individual to participate in a group.

So if Wilson thinks everybody is right, why is Wilson sowrong? As John Gray put the matter at The New Republic,the debate is "an exercise in sectarian intellectual warfare of the kind that is so often fought in and around Darwinism."

It sounds so much like a family row. But if we are not part of the family, why be involved? Maybe the rest of us should continue to look for answers elsewhere.

How about life forms that do not evolve at all, or not significantly? We might learn something there. What happens when evolution doesn't happen?


See the rest of the series to date at "Talk to the Fossils: Let's See What They Say Back."

A line in the sand XXIII

Christendom continues to be unclear on the concept of separation from the world.

John18:36NASB"Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”

Let's think about this for a minute Jesus' servants were forbidden to fight in aid of what would have been the worthiest cause in human history.Why?Because Jesus' kingdom was to be no part of the present civilisation,Jesus did not come into the world to patch up or prop up human rule.He himself pointed out the folly of any such attempt :Matthew9:16,17NASB"“But no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results. 17“Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.”
 Jesus was no reformer he was here for a far more radical purpose i.e to preside over the dissolution of the discredited present civilisation and its supplanting by an entirely new civilisation of Jehovah God's making:Daniel2:44NASB“In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever."
  His followers were to show a like disinterest in political,nationalistic or otherwise worldly matters.John17:14“I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world."
  Like the modern world there was much that was morally objectionable from a Christian standpoint in the 1st century,yet rather than urging 1st century Christians to campaign for social or political reform,the apostle Paul made it clear that Christians are not to regard the morals of the world outside of the church as any of their business.
  1Corinthians5:9-12NASB"9I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. "
  Christians are to strive to maintain the purity of the congregation but leave the judging of the world up to Jehovah.The church is the foundation of a new global civilisation that will bring due honour and glory to Jehovah's name.It has NO political mandate rather its mandate is to provide a foregleam of the coming new world that would attract those seeking something better than the present hedonistic,egocentric,materialistic culture to a relationship with Jehovah God and his Son.
  :Revelation22:11“Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.”
  When the transition to the new world arrives only those who have taken the time and effort to cultivate a intimate relationship with Jehovah will stand.That's the only way that the new World could be truly new i.e if it's populated by those with a truly new ethic.

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.