Why Jehovah's servants doubt that Christ was ever part of the yuletide festivities:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

What Does the Bible Say About Christmas?
The Bible’s answer

The Bible does not give the date of Jesus’ birth, nor does it say that we should celebrate his birthday. As McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia states: “The observance of Christmas is not of divine appointment, nor is it of NT [New Testament] origin.”

Instead, an examination of the history of Christmas exposes its roots in pagan religious rites. The Bible shows that we offend God if we try to worship him in a way that he does not approve of.—Exodus 32:5-7.

History of Christmas customs

Celebrating Jesus’ birthday: “The early Christians did not celebrate [Jesus’] birth because they considered the celebration of anyone’s birth to be a pagan custom.”—The World Book Encyclopedia.

December 25: There is no proof that Jesus was born on that date. Church leaders likely chose this date to coincide with pagan festivals held on or around the winter solstice.

Gift-giving, feasting, partying: The Encyclopedia Americana says: “Saturnalia, a Roman feast celebrated in mid-December, provided the model for many of the merry-making customs of Christmas. From this celebration, for example, were derived the elaborate feasting, the giving of gifts, and the burning of candles.” The Encyclopædia Britannica notes that “all work and business were suspended” during Saturnalia.

Christmas lights: According to The Encyclopedia of Religion, Europeans decorated their homes “with lights and evergreens of all kinds” to celebrate the winter solstice and to combat evil spirits.

Mistletoe, holly: “The Druids ascribed magical properties to the mistletoe in particular. The evergreen holly was worshiped as a promise of the sun’s return.”—The Encyclopedia Americana.

Christmas tree: “Tree worship, common among the pagan Europeans, survived after their conversion to Christianity.” One of the ways in which tree worship survived is in the custom of “placing a Yule tree at an entrance or inside the house in the midwinter holidays.”—Encyclopædia Britannica.

OR From history.com:

AN ANCIENT HOLIDAY:The middle of winter has long been a time of celebration around the world. Centuries before the arrival of the man called Jesus, early Europeans celebrated light and birth in the darkest days of winter. Many peoples rejoiced during the winter solstice, when the worst of the winter was behind them and they could look forward to longer days and extended hours of sunlight.

In Scandinavia, the Norse celebrated Yule from December 21, the winter solstice, through January. In recognition of the return of the sun, fathers and sons would bring home large logs, which they would set on fire. The people would feast until the log burned out, which could take as many as 12 days. The Norse believed that each spark from the fire represented a new pig or calf that would be born during the coming year.

The end of December was a perfect time for celebration in most areas of Europe. At that time of year, most cattle were slaughtered so they would not have to be fed during the winter. For many, it was the only time of year when they had a supply of fresh meat. In addition, most wine and beer made during the year was finally fermented and ready for drinking.

In Germany, people honored the pagan god Oden during the mid-winter holiday. Germans were terrified of Oden, as they believed he made nocturnal flights through the sky to observe his people, and then decide who would prosper or perish. Because of his presence, many people chose to stay inside.

SATURNALIA:In Rome, where winters were not as harsh as those in the far north, Saturnalia—a holiday in honor of Saturn, the god of agriculture—was celebrated. Beginning in the week leading up to the winter solstice and continuing for a full month, Saturnalia was a hedonistic time, when food and drink were plentiful and the normal Roman social order was turned upside down. For a month, slaves would become masters. Peasants were in command of the city. Business and schools were closed so that everyone could join in the fun.

Also around the time of the winter solstice, Romans observed Juvenalia, a feast honoring the children of Rome. In addition, members of the upper classes often celebrated the birthday of Mithra, the god of the unconquerable sun, on December 25. It was believed that Mithra, an infant god, was born of a rock. For some Romans, Mithra’s birthday was the most sacred day of the year.

In the early years of Christianity, Easter was the main holiday; the birth of Jesus was not celebrated. In the fourth century, church officials decided to institute the birth of Jesus as a holiday. Unfortunately, the Bible does not mention date for his birth (a fact Puritans later pointed out in order to deny the legitimacy of the celebration). Although some evidence suggests that his birth may have occurred in the spring (why would shepherds be herding in the middle of winter?), Pope Julius I chose December 25. It is commonly believed that the church chose this date in an effort to adopt and absorb the traditions of the pagan Saturnalia festival. First called the Feast of the Nativity, the custom spread to Egypt by 432 and to England by the end of the sixth century. By the end of the eighth century, the celebration of Christmas had spread all the way to Scandinavia. Today, in the Greek and Russian orthodox churches, Christmas is celebrated 13 days after the 25th, which is also referred to as the Epiphany or Three Kings Day. This is the day it is believed that the three wise men finally found Jesus in the manger.

By holding Christmas at the same time as traditional winter solstice festivals, church leaders increased the chances that Christmas would be popularly embraced, but gave up the ability to dictate how it was celebrated. By the Middle Ages, Christianity had, for the most part, replaced pagan religion. On Christmas, believers attended church, then celebrated raucously in a drunken, carnival-like atmosphere similar to today’s Mardi Gras. Each year, a beggar or student would be crowned the “lord of misrule” and eager celebrants played the part of his subjects. The poor would go to the houses of the rich and demand their best food and drink. If owners failed to comply, their visitors would most likely terrorize them with mischief. Christmas became the time of year when the upper classes could repay their real or imagined “debt” to society by entertaining less fortunate citizens.

On unhyping A.I

Accross the globe;The fourth horseman rides on.

Boko Haram overtakes ISIS as world's deadliest terror group, report says
By Katie Pisa and Tim Hume, CNN
Updated 1330 GMT (2130 HKT) November 19, 2015

(CNN)With its reign of terror in the Middle East, its claim to have brought down a Russian passenger jet and now, the atrocities in Paris, ISIS has commanded global headlines as the world's most dangerous terror group.

But another militant Islamist organization overtook ISIS to become the world's deadliest terrorist group last year, according to a new report.

Boko Haram, the Islamic extremist group based mainly in Nigeria's northern states, was responsible for 6,644 deaths in 2014, an increase of 317% from the previous year, according to the Global Terrorism Index, released Tuesday.

By contrast, ISIS, the terror group to which Boko Haram reportedly pledged allegiance in March of this year, was responsible for 6,073 deaths.

Between them, the two groups were responsible for more than half (51%) the deaths attributed to terrorism, in the deadliest year on record for terror, according to the report.

Internationally, deaths from terrorism experienced a "dramatic rise" in 2014, increasing by 80% from the previous year, according to the study by the Institute for Economics and Peace.

There were 32,658 people killed in terrorist attacks last year -- nine times more victims than there were in 2000, it says.

School kidnappings, market bombings
Boko Haram, whose name means "Western education is forbidden" in the local Hausa dialect, gained international notoriety for its raids on schools, in which hundreds of girls have been kidnapped.

An estimated 276 teenage girls were snatched from a boarding school in Chibok in Nigeria's Borno state in April of last year, sparking the #bringbackourgirls campaign on social media.

The group -- whose elusive leader, Abubakar Shekau, has a $7 million U.S. government bounty on his head -- has also pursued a ruthless campaign of bombing marketplaces throughout Nigeria.

The country was rocked by two such blasts within 24 hours this week, with at least 31 people killed Tuesday in the northeastern city of Yola, according to a local Red Cross official, and 15 killed in Kano, about 400 miles (645 kilometers) to the northwest, according to police.


Boko Haram's campaign of terror, combined with the rise of Fulani militants operating in the country's central belt, has led to Nigeria experiencing the biggest year-on-year increase of deaths from terrorism ever recorded, with 7,512 fatalities in 2014, up more than 300% since the previous year.

Fulani militants, hailing from a pastoralist ethnic group engaged in conflict with farming communities, were responsible for 1,229 deaths last year, making them the world's fourth deadliest terror group, according to the report.

Where is terror happening?
Iraq continues to be the country most impacted by terrorism, with 9,929 terrorist fatalities last year, the highest ever recorded in a single country, according to the report.

Terrorist attacks went up by 80% in 2014, though 78% of them were in five countries.
Terrorist attacks went up by 80% in 2014, though 78% of them were in five countries.
The next most affected countries were Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria. Nearly four-fifths -- 78% -- of deaths from terrorism occurred in these countries, according to the report, although terrorism was spreading, with more countries recording attacks and deaths than previously.

The number of countries experiencing more than 500 terrorism deaths increased from five to 11 in 2013. The six new countries on the list are Somalia, Ukraine, Yemen, the Central African Republic, South Sudan and Cameroon. The report adds that Ukraine entered the list because of the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 by a missile in a rebel-controlled area in the east of the country, killing all 289 people on board.

Most deaths from terrorism are not taking place in the West. Excluding the 9/11 attacks, since 2000, only 0.5% of deaths from terrorism have occurred on Western soil.

Of the attacks that did take place in the West, "lone wolf" attackers are the main perpetrators, causing 70% of all deaths since 2006.

How do we stop 'lone wolf' attacks?

The majority of "lone wolf" attackers are a mixture of political extremists, nationalists, racial, religious and white supremacists and, to a lesser degree, Islamic fundamentalists.

Economic impact

The report, which was compiled using data from the University of Maryland, says the global economic cost of terrorism last year reached an all-time high of $52.9 billion.

This cost was 61% higher than 2013, when the economic cost of terrorism reached $32.9 billion, and over a tenfold increase since 2000. The vast majority of the costs stem from injury and death.

"Terrorist activity is a significant driver of forced migration," the report says. "Ten of the 11 countries most affected by terrorism also have the highest rates of refugees and internal displacement. This highlights the strong connection between the current refugee crisis, terrorism and conflict."

What is driving terrorism?
Political violence and conflict are the two factors most closely linked to terrorism.

Between 1989 and 2014, 92% of all terrorist attacks took place in countries where state-funded political violence was widespread.

Scope of ISIS threat grows in France

Scope of ISIS threat grows in France 02:32
Drivers of terrorism differ, however. In developed countries, socioeconomic factors such as lack of opportunity and low social cohesion are significantly linked to terrorism. In less-developed countries, internal conflicts, political factors and corruption are strongly linked to terrorism.

Since there are clear sociopolitical factors that foster terrorism, it is important to implement policies addressing these associated causes, said Steve Killelea, founder of the Institute for Economics and Peace. "This includes reducing state-sponsored violence, defusing group grievances, and improving respect for human rights and religious freedoms, while considering cultural nuances," wrote Killelea.

The rise of ISIS has been significant. The flow of foreign fighters into Iraq and Syria since 2011 is the largest influx in modern times, with current estimates now ranging from 25,000 to 30,000 fighters from 100 countries. This flow of foreign fighters does not appear to be diminishing, the report says, with over 7,000 arriving in the first six months of 2015 alone.

Homicides are still deadlier
While terrorism is undoubtedly a major concern for safety and security, the report also highlights the fact that global homicide accounts for more deaths annually than terrorism.

Paris attack survivor: Felt like the worst horror film

Paris attack survivor: Felt like the worst horror film 05:52
The global homicide rate is 13 times the global terrorism rate, with 437,000 people dying from homicides, compared with 32,658 from terrorism in 2014.

The deadliest city in the world for terrorism is Baghdad. There were 2,454 deaths in Baghdad in 2014, with a death rate from terrorism of 43 per 100,000 people.

Many cities in the world have higher homicide rates than the highest terrorist rates. Caracas, for example, holds the highest homicide rate in the world at 111 per 100,000 for the decade starting in 2000.

The Watchtower Society's commentary on God's gifts

GIFTS FROM GOD:

The gifts God gives to men are an expression of his undeserved kindness. The very word khaʹri·sma (literally, gracious gift), appearing 17 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures, implies a gift involving “undeserved kindness” (khaʹris) on God’s part. (Ro 6:23, ftn; 1Co 12:4; 2Ti 1:6; 1Pe 4:10) It is, therefore, only proper that the gifts received from Jehovah be used for the benefit of fellowmen and to the glory of God the giver. (1Pe 4:10, 11) These gifts are not for the selfish profit of the receiver. Since such a person has “received free,” he is under obligation to “give free.”—Mt 10:8.

“Every good gift and every perfect present is from above.” (Jas 1:17) Jehovah is generous in giving, allowing both the righteous and the wicked to benefit from the sunshine and the rain. In fact, he “gives to all persons life and breath and all things.” God’s gifts, including food and drink and seeing good from one’s hard work, are for man’s enjoyment. (Mt 5:45; Ac 17:24, 25; Ec 3:12, 13; 5:19; 1Ti 6:17) Both singleness and marriage are gifts from God, to be enjoyed within the limits of his requirements. Since the single person is freer to devote himself to Jehovah’s service without distraction, singleness is the better of the two gifts.—Pr 18:22; Mt 19:11, 12; 1Co 7:7, 17, 32-38; Heb 13:4.

God’s Gift Through Jesus’ Sacrifice. Jehovah’s undeserved kindness in providing his Son as a ransom sacrifice is a priceless gift, and those exercising faith in Jesus Christ’s sacrifice can thereby gain the gift of everlasting life. (Ro 6:23; Joh 3:16) God’s “indescribable free gift” evidently includes all the goodness and loving-kindness that God extends to his people through Jesus Christ.—2Co 9:15; compare Ro 5:15-17.

Holy Spirit. God imparts his spirit as a gift to his people, enabling them to avoid the degrading works of the flesh and to cultivate instead the fruitage of the spirit, namely, love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, and self-control. (Ac 2:38; Ro 8:2-10; Ga 5:16-25) Jehovah’s spirit is a sure guide and supplies power beyond that which is normal, helping the Christian to fulfill his God-given assignments regardless of the pressures brought against him. (Joh 16:13; 2Co 4:7-10) Jesus assured his disciples that God’s spirit would teach them all things, would bring back to their minds the things he had taught them, and would help them to make a defense even before rulers.—Joh 14:26; Mr 13:9-11.

Wisdom and Knowledge. True wisdom and knowledge are gifts from God. Jehovah actually invites his servants to pray for wisdom and knowledge, as Solomon did. (Jas 1:5; 2Ch 1:8-12) Nevertheless, to gain knowledge, effort in studying what God has made available by the gift of his Word is required. (Pr 2:1-6; 2Ti 2:15; 3:15) But a study of God’s Word in itself does not guarantee receiving the gifts of knowledge and wisdom. True knowledge and wisdom are available only through Jesus Christ and with the help of God’s spirit.—1Co 2:10-16; Col 2:3.

Godly wisdom serves as a protection and a guide in the ways of life. (Ec 7:12; Pr 4:5-7) The wisdom that stems from God is distinctly different from worldly wisdom, which is foolishness from Jehovah’s standpoint and also harmful in that it leaves God out of account. (1Co 1:18-21) “But the wisdom from above is first of all chaste, then peaceable, reasonable, ready to obey, full of mercy and good fruits, not making partial distinctions, not hypocritical.”—Jas 3:17.

Accurate knowledge of Jehovah’s will helps its possessor to “make sure of the more important things,” to avoid stumbling others, and “to walk worthily of Jehovah to the end of fully pleasing him.” (Php 1:9-11; Col 1:9, 10) Furthermore, knowledge is one of the things helping the Christian to be active and productive in his service to God. (2Pe 1:5-8) This gift from God involves more than a mere acquaintance with facts. It embraces understanding of those facts and knowing how to use them in giving “an answer to each one.”—Col 4:6.

Gifts of Service and “Gifts in Men.” Assignments of service in God’s earthly arrangement, or organization, are really gifts from Jehovah. (Nu 18:7; Ro 12:6-8; Eph 3:2, 7) Those favored with assignments of service by God’s undeserved kindness are also called “gifts in men,” and Jesus Christ, as God’s representative and head of the congregation, has given these to the congregation in order that its members individually might be built up and attain maturity. (Eph 4:8, 11, 12) In order to discharge his responsibilities faithfully to the blessing of others, the one having the gift must continue to cultivate it, never neglecting it. (1Ti 4:14; 2Ti 1:6) With the help of Jehovah, anyone, by putting forth determined efforts to make full use of his capabilities and to surmount the obstacles that may present themselves, can cultivate the ability to perform any divinely assigned service.—Php 4:13.

Gifts of the Spirit. In the first century C.E. miraculous gifts attended the baptism with holy spirit. These served as signs that God was no longer using the Jewish congregation in his service but that his approval rested on the Christian congregation established by his Son. (Heb 2:2-4) On the day of Pentecost, miraculous gifts accompanied the outpouring of the holy spirit, and in each case mentioned thereafter in the Scriptures where the miraculous gifts of the spirit were transmitted, at least one of the 12 apostles or Paul, who was directly chosen by Jesus, was present. (Ac 2:1, 4, 14; 8:9-20; 10:44-46; 19:6) Evidently, with the death of the apostles, the transmittal of the gifts of the spirit ended, and the miraculous gifts of the spirit ceased altogether as those who had received these gifts passed off the earthly scene.

Performing apparently miraculous works would not in itself prove divine authorization, nor would the inability of God’s servants to perform miracles with the help of God’s spirit cast doubt on the fact that they were being used by him. (Mt 7:21-23) Not every first-century Christian could perform powerful works, heal, speak in tongues, and translate. Paul, and doubtless some others, had by God’s undeserved kindness been granted a number of these gifts of the spirit. However, these miraculous gifts marked the infancy of the Christian congregation and were foretold to cease. In fact, even Jesus indicated that his followers would be identified, not by their performance of powerful works, but by their love for one another.—1Co 12:29, 30; 13:2, 8-13; Joh 13:35.

Paul enumerates nine different manifestations or operations of the spirit: (1) speech of wisdom, (2) speech of knowledge, (3) faith, (4) gifts of healings, (5) powerful works, (6) prophesying, (7) discernment of inspired utterances, (8) different tongues, and (9) interpretation of tongues. All these gifts of the spirit served a beneficial purpose that not only contributed to the numerical growth of the congregation but also resulted in its spiritual upbuilding.—1Co 12:7-11; 14:24-26.

“Speech of wisdom.” Although wisdom can be acquired through study, application, and experience, the “speech of wisdom” here mentioned apparently was a miraculous ability to apply knowledge in a successful way to solve problems arising in the congregation. (1Co 12:8) It was “according to the wisdom given him” that Paul wrote letters that became part of God’s inspired Word. (2Pe 3:15, 16) This gift also appears to have been manifest in the individual’s ability to make a defense that opposers were unable to resist or to dispute.—Ac 6:9, 10.

“Speech of knowledge” and “faith.” All in the first-century Christian congregation had basic knowledge concerning Jehovah and his Son as well as God’s will and his requirements for life. Therefore, “speech of knowledge” was something above and beyond the knowledge shared by Christians in general; it was miraculous knowledge. Likewise “faith” as a gift of the spirit was evidently a miraculous faith that helped the individual to overcome mountainlike obstacles that would otherwise hinder service to God.—1Co 12:8, 9; 13:2.

“Healings.” The gift of healing was manifest in the ability to cure diseases completely, regardless of the nature of the affliction. (Ac 5:15, 16; 9:33, 34; 28:8, 9) Prior to Pentecost, healing had been done by Jesus and his disciples. Whereas some persons healed did manifest obvious faith, the afflicted one was not required to make an expression of faith in order to be cured. (Compare Joh 5:5-9, 13.) Jesus, on one occasion, attributed his disciples’ inability to cure an epileptic, not to the lack of faith of the one seeking a cure for his son, but to the little faith of his disciples. (Mt 17:14-16, 18-20) Not once do the Scriptures cite an instance where Jesus or his apostles were unable to heal others on account of the lack of faith of those seeking a cure. Furthermore, instead of using the gift of healing in curing Timothy of his stomach trouble or attributing his frequent cases of sickness to his lack of faith, the apostle Paul recommended that Timothy use a little wine for the sake of his stomach.—1Ti 5:23; see FAITH; HEALING.

“Powerful works.” Powerful works included raising dead persons, expelling demons, and even striking opposers with blindness. (1Co 12:10) The manifestation of such powerful works resulted in adding believers to the congregation.—Ac 9:40, 42; 13:8-12; 19:11, 12, 20.

“Prophesying.” Prophesying was a greater gift than speaking in tongues, as it built up the congregation. Moreover, unbelievers were helped thereby to recognize that God was really among the Christians. (1Co 14:3-5, 24, 25) All in the Christian congregation spoke about the fulfillment of the prophecies recorded in God’s Word. (Ac 2:17, 18) However, the particular ones having the miraculous gift of prophesying were able to foretell future events, as did Agabus.—Ac 11:27, 28; see PROPHECY; PROPHET (Prophets in the Christian Greek Scriptures).

“Discernment of inspired utterances.” Discernment of inspired utterances evidently involved the ability to discern whether an inspired expression originated with God or not. (1Co 12:10) This gift would prevent its possessor from being deceived and turned away from the truth and would protect the congregation from false prophets.—1Jo 4:1; compare 2Co 11:3, 4.

“Tongues.” The miraculous gift of tongues attended the outpouring of God’s spirit at Pentecost, 33 C.E. The approximately 120 disciples assembled in an upper room (possibly near the temple) were thereby enabled to speak about “the magnificent things of God” in the native tongues of the Jews and proselytes who had come to Jerusalem from faraway places for the observance of the festival. This fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy proved that God was using the new Christian congregation and no longer the Jewish congregation. In order to receive the free gift of the holy spirit, the Jews and proselytes had to repent and be baptized in Jesus’ name.—Ac 1:13-15; 2:1-47.

The gift of tongues proved very helpful to first-century Christians in preaching to those who spoke other languages. It was actually a sign to unbelievers. However, Paul, in writing to the Christian congregation at Corinth, directed that when meeting together, not all should speak in tongues, as strangers and unbelievers entering and not understanding would conclude that they were mad. He also recommended that the speaking in tongues “be limited to two or three at the most, and in turns.” However, if no one could translate, then the person speaking in a tongue was to remain silent in the congregation, speaking to himself and to God. (1Co 14:22-33) If no translating took place, his speaking in a tongue would not result in upbuilding others, for no one would listen to his speech because it would be meaningless to those unable to understand it.—1Co 14:2, 4.

If the person speaking in a tongue was unable to translate, then he did not understand what he himself was saying nor would others who were not familiar with that tongue, or language. Hence, Paul encouraged those having the gift of tongues to pray that they might also translate and thereby edify all listeners. From the foregoing, it can readily be seen why Paul, under inspiration, ranked speaking in tongues as a lesser gift and pointed out that in a congregation he would rather speak five words with his mind (understanding) than 10,000 words in a tongue.—1Co 14:11, 13-19.

“Interpretation of tongues.” The gift of interpretation of tongues was manifest in a person’s being able to translate a language unknown to the one having this gift. (1Co 12:10) This gift really enhanced the gift of speaking in tongues, since the entire congregation would be built up by hearing the translation.—1Co 14:5.

Other Operations of the Spirit. When mentioning some of the operations of the spirit in conjunction with the placement of the individual members of Christ’s body, Paul states: “God has set the respective ones in the congregation, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services, abilities to direct, different tongues.” (1Co 12:27, 28) “Helpful services” may have included the organized arrangements for aiding needy brothers materially, such as the distributing of food to needy widows, for which seven men “full of spirit and wisdom” were appointed in the Jerusalem congregation. (Ac 6:1-6) “Abilities to direct” were needed in order to follow through on the commission outlined by Jesus to make disciples. (Mt 28:19, 20) The missionary work as well as the establishing of new congregations and then guiding the activities of these congregations required skillful direction. In this regard it is noteworthy that Paul, with reference to his part in God’s building program, speaks of himself as “a wise director of works.”—1Co 3:10.

Control of the Gifts of the Spirit. Apparently those having the gifts of the spirit were in a position to use them only when Jehovah’s spirit came to be operative upon them to exercise the gift. For example, at Caesarea although Paul stayed in the home of Philip, who “had four daughters, virgins, that prophesied,” it was not one of these daughters but Agabus, a prophet who had come from Judea, who foretold Paul’s arrest. (Ac 21:8-11) At a meeting of the congregation, a prophet could receive a revelation while another prophet was speaking; but those having the gifts of the spirit had control over these when God’s spirit enveloped them, that is, they could refrain from speaking until opportunity was afforded. Therefore, prophesying, speaking in tongues, and translating could be done in an orderly way in the congregation, for the edification of all.—1Co 14:26-33.

How the science industrial complex sucks up all the oxygen in the room.

"Under the Banyan Tree Nothing Grows"
David Klinghoffer 

James Le Fanu uses that image, a South Indian proverb, to describe the way Big Science devours billions of dollars a year while the productions of this vast government industry seem startlingly and increasingly barren of significance. We've left behind the era of great discoveries of the century past -- permanently, so it seems -- and now find ourselves awash in outpourings of published research that add up, says Le Fanu, to "surprisingly little." Don't believe him? Just follow the website Science Daily for a week.

Dr. Le Fanu, a peer-reviewed medical scientist, medical historian, and one of my favorite science writers, flew into Seattle from London last week and my wife and I had the pleasure of going to lunch with him. A most charming guy who, with the waitress at the sushi restaurant we took him to on Lake Union, suavely passed over the fact that the crab custard he ordered did not go down well at all.

He pointed out to me that much of the thesis of his wonderful book Why Us? -- which I reviewed here in Parts I, II, III, IV, and V -- is crystallized in an essay he wrote for the British magazine Prospect last year that I somehow missed. I pass the latter along to you now. Of the "banyan tree of Big Science," he writes that it

...threatens to extinguish the true spirit of intellectual inquiry. Its mega projects organized on quasi-industrial lines may be guaranteed to produce results, but they are inimical to fostering those traits that characterize the truly creative scientist: independence of judgment, stubbornness and discontent with prevailing theory. Big Science is intrinsically conservative in its outlook, committed to "more of the same," the results of which are then interpreted to fit in with the prevailing understanding of how things are. Its leading players who dominate the grant-giving bodies will hardly allocate funds to those who might challenge the certainties on which their reputations rest.
He argues that the evident "diminishing returns" we're seeing from super-funded science have something to do with a brick wall that materialism has run up against without acknowledging that it has done so. Thrilling technological breakthrough of the 1980s promised to get to the heart of the mystery of life -- how it constitutes itself from the genetic code, how it flowers in human consciousness.
Scientists expected that, respectively, mapping the genome and scanning the brain as it works would lay bare these enigmas. The expectations were cruelly disappointed, however.

The genome projects were predicated on the reasonable assumption that spelling out the full sequence of genes would reveal the distinctive genetic instructions that determine the diverse forms of life. Biologists were thus understandably disconcerted to discover that precisely the reverse is the case. Contrary to all expectations, there is a near equivalence of 20,000 genes across the vast spectrum of organismic complexity, from a millimeter-long worm to ourselves. It was no less disconcerting to learn that the human genome is virtually interchangeable with that of both the mouse and our primate cousins, while the same regulatory genes that cause, for example, a fly to be a fly, cause humans to be human. There is in short nothing in the genomes of fly and man to explain why the fly has six legs, a pair of wings and a dot-sized brain and that we should have two arms, two legs and a mind capable of comprehending the history of our universe.
The genetic instructions must be there -- for otherwise the diverse forms of life would not replicate their kind with such fidelity. But we have moved in the very recent past from supposing we might know the principles of genetic inheritance to recognizing we have no conception of what they might be.

It has been a similar story for neuroscientists with their sophisticated scans of the brain "in action." Right from the beginning, it was clear that the brain must work in ways radically different from those supposed. Thus the simplest of tasks, such as associating the noun "chair" with the verb "sit" cause vast tracts of the brain to "light up" -- prompting a sense of bafflement at what the most mundane conversation must entail. Again the sights and sounds of every transient moment, it emerged, are fragmented into a myriad of separate components without the slightest hint of the integrating mechanism that would create the personal experience of living at the centre of a coherent, unified, ever-changing world...

Meanwhile the great conundrum remains unresolved: how the electrical activity of billions of neurons in the brain translate into the experiences of our everyday lives -- where each fleeting moment has its own distinct, intangible feel: where the cadences of a Bach cantata are so utterly different from the taste of bourbon or the lingering memory of that first kiss.

Taking a somewhat David Berlinski-esque stance, Le Fanu is not an intelligent-design advocate. Instead, he honestly confronts readers with the secret, continuously hushed up because so much money is at stake, that materialist science has failed in gaining access to its own imagined holy of holies.
Or come to think of it, strike and amend that metaphor. It makes me think of the story of how the Roman general Pompey in 63 BCE led his invaders into the Jerusalem Temple. He expected to enter the actual Holy of Holies and find there some material representation of the Deity. After all, those are the terms in which Pompey, like most scientists today, reflexively thought. Fighting his way past the priests, butchering them as he went, the Roman stepped into the most sacred room and was shocked by what he found.

I imagine his dismay and perhaps, too, his secret fear. For the small room was utterly empty.

Read  the rest  of Le Fanu for yourself.

Alas for OOL speculation there was no soup.

Archaean Microfossils and the Implications for Intelligent Design
Casey Luskin

News came this week reporting the discovery of ~3.4 billion year old microfossils from Archaean rocks in Western Australia. As Nature  suggests, they "could be the oldest microbial fossils yet documented," further quoting a paleobiologist who states:

The authors have demonstrated as robustly as possible, given current techniques and the type of preservation, the biological origin of these microstructures.
Always thinking from a materialistic perspective, the New York Times notes that these microfossils imply life arose "surprisingly soon" after the existence of life became even a possibility:
Their assertion, if sustained, confirms the view that life evolved on earth surprisingly soon after the Late Heavy Bombardment, a reign of destruction in which waves of asteroids slammed into the primitive planet, heating the surface to molten rock and boiling the oceans into an incandescent mist. The bombardment, which ended around 3.85 billion years ago, would have sterilized the earth's surface of any incipient life.
A new paper in Nature Geoscience officially reports the discovery:
Here we report the presence of microstructures from the 3.4-billion-year-old Strelley Pool Formation in Western Australia that are associated with micrometre-sized pyrite crystals. The microstructures we identify exhibit indicators of biological affinity, including hollowcell lumens, carbonaceous cell walls enriched in nitrogen, taphonomic degradation, organization into chains and clusters, and ?13C values.1
Claims of evidence of ancient life from rocks in Western Australia from about this time period are nothing new. In 1980, two papers in Nature reported 3.4 to 3.5 billion-year-old stromatolite fossils from the Warrawoona Group in Western Australia.2 Specific microfossils could not be seen but these overall structures appeared to be similar to bacterial mats known from the present day. Then, in 1987 and 1993, UCLA paleobiologist J. William Schopf published papers in Science reporting actual microfossils from the same group.3 There are even reports of geochemical signatures of life in rocks dating all the way back to 3.8 billion years ago.4
Schopf's findings were later criticized by an Oxford paleobiologist named Martin D. Brasier.5 In a twist of irony, Brasier is a co-author of this new paper which claims to have found microfossils from a different locality of about the same age.

According to an earth scientist  quoted by the New York Times, "Schopf still very strongly defends his original claim." Thus, it seems that whether we're talking about proponents of Schopf's microfossils, or critics, leading scientists on all sides of this question believe that full-fledged cellular life existed on earth by 3.4 billion years ago.

Some of the morphology of these newly discovered microfossils can be seen in the picture above.*

Time Isn't On Their Side
What are the implications of these findings for the debate about intelligent design? Materialists often suggest that blind and unguided chemical reactions -- cheered on by electricity, heat, other forms of energy, and vast eons of time -- spontaneously formed a self-replicating molecule which then evolved through unguided processes into life as we know it. Origin of life theorist George Wald captured the spirit of this perspective in a paper written in 1955:

Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait: Time itself performs the miracles.6
As we've seen, life could not have existed on earth when the earth first formed because the early earth was a hostile place as a result of impacts during the heavy bombardment period. Thus, Stephen Jay Gould explains that, contrary to Wald, the amount of time available for the origin of life is not vast and unending, but extremely limited:
Since the oldest dated rocks, the Isua Supracrustals of West Greenland, are 3.8 billion years old, we are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the earth's surface and the origin of life.7
Likewise origin-of-life theorist Cyril Ponnamperuma stated "we are now thinking, in geochemical terms, of instant life..."8.
The new reports of early microfossils from the Archaean provide more evidence confirming that life existed very soon after the earth became hospitable to life. As Brasier  was recently quoted here as: "This goes some way to resolving the controversy over the existence of life forms very early in Earth's history. The exciting thing is that it makes one optimistic about looking at early life once again." (emphasis added)

This dramatically limits the amount of time, and thus the probablistic resources, available to those who wish to invoke purely unguided and purposeless material processes to explain the origin of life.

But if many billions of years were available for the origin of life on earth, even that would be insufficient time for life to form on earth via blind material causes. To further understand why there are insufficient probablistic resources to explain many key steps in the origin of life -- particularly in forming the first self-replicating molecules -- see some of these recent articles here on ENV:

The Origin of Life: An RNA World?, by Jonathan M. 
New Scientist Weighs in on the Origin of Life  , by Jonathan M. 
Presto! The Origin of Life in Four Surprisingly Easy Steps, by Casey Luskin
Probably the most comprehensive treatment of why there are insufficient probablistic resources to explain the natural unguided chemcial origin of life is Stephen C. Meyer's book  Signature in the Cell.
As Meyer explains, intelligence is the one known cause that can rapidly generate the kind of high levels of complex and specified information that we observe in life. ID can easily accommodate evidence of rapid appearance of life on earth, whereas this new microfossil evidence pushes materialist explanations even further beyond the available probabilistic resources.

While the NY Times says these microfossils show life existed "surprisingly soon" after the earth became hospitable, ID proponents aren't surprised by evidence for early life. Materialists are surprised because they expected much more time would be needed for the origin of life to take place.





References Cited:
[1.] D. Wacey, M. R. Kilburn, M. Saunders, J. Cliff and M. D. Brasier, "Microfossils of sulphur-metabolizing cells in 3.4-billion-year-old rocks ofWestern Australia," Nature Geoscience, DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1238 (2011).

[2.] See D. R. Lowe, "Stromatolites 3,400-Myr old from the Archean of Western Australia," Nature, Vol. 284:441-443 (April 3, 1980); M.R. Walter, R. Buick, J.S.R. Dunlop, "Stromatolites 3,400-3,500 Myr old from the North Pole area, Western Australia," Nature, Vol. 284:443-445 (April 3, 1980). See also H. J. Hofmann, K. Grey, A. H. Hickman and R. I. Thorpe, "Origin of 3.45 Ga coniform stromatolites in Warrawoona Group, Western Australia," Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 111:1256-1262 (August, 1999).

[3.] See J. W. Schopf and B. M. Packer, "Early Archean (3.3-Billion to 3.5-Billion-Year-Old) Microfossils from Warrawoona Group, Australia," Science, Vol. 237: 70-73 (July 3, 1987); J. W. Schopf, "Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex Chert: New Evidence of the Antiquity of Life," Science, Vol. 260: 640-646 (April 30, 1993).

[4.] See for example S. J. Mojzsis, G. Arrhenlus, K. D. McKeegan, T. M. Harrisont, A. P. Nutman, and C. R. L Friend, "Evidence for life on Earth before 3,800 million years ago," Nature, Vol. 384:55-59 (November 7, 1996). For a critical view, see: M. A. van Zuilen, A. Lepland, & G. Arrhenius, "Reassessing the evidence for the earliest traces of life," Nature, Vol. 418:627-630 (August 8, 2002).

[5.] See M.D. Brasier, O.R. Green, A.P. Jephcoat, A.K. Kleppe, M.J. Van Kranendonk, J.F. Lindsay, A. Steele, & N.V. Grassineau, "Questioning the evidence for Earth's oldest fossils," Nature Vol. 416:76-81 (2002).

[6.] G. Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American (August 1954).

[7.] S. J. Gould, "An Early Start," Natural History, p. 10 (February, 1978) (emphasis added).


[8.] C. Ponnamperuma, quoted in F. Hoyle and C. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981).

When they say evolution...

The Eight Meanings of "Evolution"

David Klinghoffer

I mentioned yesterday that Darwinists have a frustrating way, in public discourse, of failing to say what they mean by evolution. Ann Coulter observes how this can function as a method of intimidation:

Just a year later, at a 2008 Republican presidential candidates' debate, Matthews asked for a show of hands of who believed in evolution. No discussion permitted! That might allow scientific facts, rather than schoolyard taunts, to escape into the world.

Evolution is the only subject that is discussed exclusively as a "Do you believe?" question with yes-or-no answers.

In  God and Evolution,  Discovery Institute's Jay Richards gives no fewer than eight meanings of the word. Commit these to memory:

Though God is the grandest and most difficult of all subjects, the meaning of the word "evolution" is actually a lot harder to nail down.

In an illuminating article called "The Meanings of Evolution,"  Stephen Meyer and Michael Keas distinguished six different ways in which "evolution" is commonly used:

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature.

2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.

3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.

5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

6. "Blind watchmaker" thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

Meyer and Keas provide many valuable insights in their article, but here we're only concerned with "evolution" insofar as it's relevant to theology.

The first meaning is uncontroversial -- even trivial. The most convinced young earth creationist agrees that things change over time -- that the universe has a history. Populations of animals wax and wane depending on changes in climate and the environment. At one time, certain flora and fauna prosper on the earth, but they later disappear, leaving mere impressions in the rocks to mark their existence for future generations.

Of course, "change over time" isn't limited to biology. There's also cosmic "evolution," the idea that the early universe started in a hot, dense state, and over billions of years, cooled off and spread out, formed stars, galaxies, planets, and so forth. This includes the idea of cosmic nucleosynthesis, which seeks to explain the production of heavy elements (everything heavier than helium) in the universe through a process of star birth, growth, and death. These events involve change over time, but they have to do with the history of the inanimate physical universe rather than with the history of life. While this picture of cosmic evolution may contradict young earth creationism, it does not otherwise pose a theological problem. The generic idea that one form of matter gives rise, under the influence of various natural laws and processes, to other forms of matter, does not contradict theism. Surely God could directly guide such a process in innumerable ways, could set up a series of secondary natural processes that could do the job, or could do some combination of both.

In fact, virtually no one denies the truth of "evolution" in senses 1, 2, or 3. And, pretty much everyone agrees that natural selection and random mutations explain some things in biology (number 4).

What about the fifth sense of evolution, universal common ancestry? This is the claim that all organisms on earth are descended from a single common ancestor that lived sometime in the distant past. Universal common ancestry is distinct from the mechanism of change. In fact, it's compatible with all sorts of different mechanisms or sources for change, though the most popular mechanism is the broadly Darwinian one. It's hard to square universal common descent with some interpretations of biblical texts of course; nevertheless, it's logically compatible with theism. If God could turn dirt into a man, or a man's rib into a woman, then presumably he could, if he so chose, turn a bacterium into a jellyfish, or a dinosaur into a bird. Whatever its exegetical problems, an unbroken evolutionary tree of life guided and intended by God, in which every organism descends from some original organism, sounds like a logical possibility. (So there's logical space where both intelligent design and theistic evolution overlap -- even if ID and theistic evolution often describe people with different positions.)

Besides the six senses mentioned by Meyer and Keas, there is also the metaphorical sense of evolution, in which Darwinian Theory is used as a template to explain things other than nature, like the rise and fall of civilizations or sports careers. In his book The Ascent of Money, for instance, historian Niall Ferguson explains the evolution of the financial system in the West in Darwinian terms. He speaks of "mass extinction events," survival of the fittest banks, a "Cambrian Explosion" of new financial instruments, and so forth. This way of speaking can sometimes be illuminating, even if, at times, it's a stretch. Still, no one doubts that there are examples of the fittest surviving in biology and finance. We might have some sort of "evolution" here, but not in a theologically significant sense.

Finally, there's evolution in the sense of "progress" or "growth." Natural evolution has often been understood in this way, so that cosmic history is interpreted as a movement toward greater perfection, complexity, mind, or spirit. A pre-Darwinian understanding of "evolution" was the idea of a slow unfolding of something that existed in nascent form from the beginning, like an acorn eventually becoming a great oak tree. If anything, this sense of evolution tends toward theism rather than away from it, since it suggests a purposive plan. For that reason, many contemporary evolutionists (such as the late Stephen J. Gould) explicitly reject the idea that evolution is progressive, and argue instead that cosmic history is not going anywhere in particular.

Lamarck's rehabilitation or t'was all big misunderstanding.

Michael Skinner on Epigenetics: Stage Three Alert

Cornelius Hunter 

On the topic of epigenetics, which I've written about extensively for many years, I was interested to read Washington State University biologist  Michael Skinner's recent article for Aeon

. Skinner's piece reminds us of the old maxim that truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident. If we can slightly modify these three stages as follows, then we have the history of how evolution has struggled oppose the scientific findings we now refer to as epigenetics:

Reject and persecute

Delegitimize and minimize

Rename and incorporate

Skinner's position represents the move, which has been taking place in recent years, into Stage Three (for more, see here)

 ).

Skinner's Aeon article provides an excellent rundown of findings, both old and new, that confirm and elucidate what evolutionists have aggressively and violently opposed for a century: that epigenetics is not only real, but significant in causing long-term biological change. Natural selection plays no role in this process.

From 18th-century observations of plants adapting to hotter temperatures, to Conrad Waddington's fruit fly experiments in the 1950s (for more tidbits see here)

, to more recent observations of a range of species, Skinner provides an accessible summary and draws the inescapable conclusion:

Much as Lamarck suggested, changes in the environment literally alter our biology. And even in the absence of continued exposure, the altered biology, expressed as traits or in the form of disease, is transmitted from one generation to the next.

Much as Lamarck suggested? That is an astonishing admission given how evolutionists have, in the past century, vilified Lamarck and anyone who would dare associate with his ideas. To this day such resistance continues, but it is waning. Hence evolutionists such as Skinner can broach the truth.

Skinner also comes clean on the problem that evolution's basic source of biological variation, DNA mutations, is insufficient:

[T]he rate of random DNA sequence mutation turns out to be too slow to explain many of the changes observed. Scientists, well-aware of the issue, have proposed a variety of genetic mechanisms to compensate: genetic drift, in which small groups of individuals undergo dramatic genetic change; or epistasis, in which one set of genes suppress another, to name just two. Yet even with such mechanisms in play, genetic mutation rates for complex organisms such as humans are dramatically lower than the frequency of change for a host of traits, from adjustments in metabolism to resistance to disease.

Mutations are too slow for evolution? Again, this is an astonishing admission. The last time

 mathematicians reported this inconvenient truth they were told by evolutionists that it didn't matter because, after all, we all know that evolution is true. Nothing like contradicting the science. Skinner admits that a paradigm shift is needed.

Unfortunately for Skinner and his readers that is where the light ends and smoke begins. As an evolutionist, Skinner must present this contradictory biology as, somehow, consistent with evolution. The first sign that Skinner will firmly plant himself in Stage Three (Rename and incorporate) comes in his opening sentence:

The unifying theme for much of modern biology is based on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, the process of natural selection by which nature selects the fittest, best-adapted organisms to reproduce, multiply and survive.

Evolution is the unifying theme for much of modern biology? This not so secret handshake is so over-the-top that it hardly seems worthwhile to dignify it with a rebuttal. Given how evolutionists are  consistently surprised

 by biology, one would hope they at least could stop with this particular untruth. But there it is.

Unfortunately it doesn't stop there. Skinner's thesis in his article is that the long rejected epigenetics will now fit conveniently into evolutionary theory. It was all a big misunderstanding and rather than rejecting epigenetics, we should see it as merely another component in the increasingly complex theory called evolution.

This is Stage Three: Rename, recast, retool, reimagine, and incorporate into our modern-day Epicureanism.

With enough massaging and storytelling, evolutionists forget the contradictions and convince themselves, along with their audiences, that the fit is perfect and epigenetics is, in fact, yet more proof of evolution.

There's only one problem. This is all absurd.

What Skinner and the evolutionists don't tell you is that in light of their theory, none of this makes sense. With epigenetics the biological variation evolution needs is not natural. It is not the mere consequence of biophysics -- radiation, toxins, or other mishaps causing DNA mutations. Rather, it is a biological control system.

It is not simple mistakes, but complex mechanisms. It is not random, but directed. It is not slow, but rapid. It is not a single mutation that is selected, but simultaneous changes across the population. This is not evolution.

As Skinner inconveniently realizes, such epigenetics are found across a wide range of species. They are widely conserved and, for evolution, this is yet more bad news. It means the incredible epigenetics mechanisms must have, somehow, arisen very early in the history of evolution.

What the evolutionists don't admit is that epigenetics contradicts evolutionary theory. Not only must such incredibly complex mechanisms have evolved early on, and not only must they have arisen from chance mutation events, and so not only must evolution have created evolution, but they would have persisted in spite of any fitness advantage.

The whole notion of evolution is that natural selection saves the day by directing the blind, chance mutations. Setting aside the silliness of this idea, the problem with epigenetic mechanisms is that if they were to arise from chance (and "oh what a big if"), then mutations would not increase the organism's fitness.

Epigenetic mechanisms are helpful at some future, unknown, time when the environmental challenge finally presents itself. They are useless when they initially arise, and so would not be preserved by evolution's mythical natural selection.

Of course evolutionists will contrive yet more complex just-so stories to explain how epigenetics mechanisms arose from pre-existing parts used for other purposes (the ridiculous co-adaptation argument), and about how they just happened to provide some other functions so as to improve fitness.

Skinner's presentation of how to integrate epigenetics with evolution is entirely gratuitous. He has empirical evidence for the former, and dogma for the latter. There is no scientific need for the addition of evolution -- it is a multiplied entity and is gratuitous. Yet Skinner needs it.

These are all the usual tales, which will be trotted out as yet more "facts." Evolutionists must tell these stories. Otherwise they would have to move beyond Stage Three, and admit the science contradicts their theory. And that is not going to happen.

Censoring compassion?

France Censors Down Syndrome Ad Over Abortion
Wesley J. Smith





Conscience is a good thing. It is the path to repentance, forgiveness, and healing. Take Project Rachel, the compassionate pro-life project that aids women overcome the grief and guilt some experience from having had an abortion.

But France doesn't want women to feel badly for having aborted a Down syndrome baby. Accordingly, it censored an advertisement to air that shows the positive side of parenting a child with Down. From the Wall Street Journal:

Abortion is legal in most of Europe, but its proponents are bent on suppressing efforts to change the minds of mothers considering it.

Witness France's ban on a television commercial showing happy children with Down Syndrome (DS). Produced to commemorate World Down Syndrome Day, the commercial showed several cheerful children with DS addressing a mother considering abortion. "Dear future mom," says one, "don't be afraid." "Your child will be able to do many things," says another. "He'll be able to hug you." "He'll be able to run toward you." "He'll be able to speak and tell you he loves you."

France's High Audiovisual Council removed the commercial from air earlier this year, and in November the Council of State, the country's highest administrative court, upheld the ban, since the clip could "disturb the conscience" of French women who had aborted DS fetuses.

So much for free speech. Worse, France is saying saving the lives of these future children is less important than protecting the feelings of those who aborted their babies.


More broadly, it reflects a rampant view that aborting Down babies is the preferred course. Indeed, this censoring is merely a small part of an effort, easily discernible, to see people with Down disappeared from the face of the earth via eugenic abortion.