Why the designer's Identity does not matter in the context of scientific inquiry.

In Refusing to Identify a “Designer,” ID Proponents Aren’t Being Coy
Walter Myers III

Alongside my work as a software architect in Redmond, WA, I have the privilege of serving on the faculty of Biola University, near Los Angeles. My focus there includes preparing students to rebut the falsehoods propagated by academia and the scientific community about the historical relationship between science and religion, to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, and to defend the careful reasoning underlying a theistic worldview.

One of our yearly courses is an advanced seminar on intelligent design. Its purpose is to enable students to appraise the current debate between Darwinian evolution and ID.

We have lively discussions based on class texts, and invariably the nagging question comes up from several students every year: “Why don’t ID advocates quit being coy and just come out and say who they think the designer is? We already know most of them think it is the God of the Bible.” I never back down from this question, as it is wholly legitimate. However, as I explain in response, it does not fully factor in the actual project of intelligent design.

My reply starts by reviewing the notion of metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, or philosophical naturalism). Metaphysical naturalism is the view that only physical laws and forces exist, and thus any discussion of supernatural concepts has no place in modern science. Generally, academia and the scientific community doggedly defend this view.

There is another philosophical view, methodological naturalism, that doesn’t specifically commit itself to proscribing supernatural explanations. Methodological naturalism asserts that in doing science, we take no particular attitude toward the supernatural. Rather, this approach is a method of doing science that only considers natural causes. Under methodological naturalism, it doesn’t matter whether a person has religious attitudes or not. Scientists, whether religious, agnostic, or atheist, can work together to solve scientific problems on a day-to-day basis, regardless of their personal views. While ID proponents would likely not be adherents of metaphysical naturalism, most have little argument with methodological naturalism.

Despite what ID advocates may personally conclude about who the designer is, they still work within the framework of methodological naturalism to explain scientific phenomena. They part ways with metaphysical naturalism on the latter’s insistence that the natural world can, all on its own, produce the full complexity and diversity that we see in the universe and in biological organisms.

ID readily concedes that physical laws and forces can, alone, produce natural phenomena including snowflakes, clouds, lightning, and whirlpools. But no evidence demonstrates that natural laws can produce even single-cell organisms, which require a high degree of specified information, let alone butterflies, hummingbirds, or human beings.

Metaphysical naturalists accuse ID of offering a “God of the gaps” argument, inserting “God” into the gaps of our knowledge, purely from ignorance. This criticism, however, is false. ID’s argument is hardly one from ignorance, but from the knowledge we have that things requiring high degrees of specified information can, as far as we practically know, only be produced by intelligent agents. Human experience, what we know of our own creative endeavors, itself demonstrates this.

Returning to the question my students often ask, if ID advocates believe there is a designer, why don’t they specify who the designer is, particularly since many, but not all, are theists themselves? The answer is because 1) ID proponents don’t arrogantly purport to have exhaustive knowledge of who the designer might be, and admit that their particular notion of the designer may be wrong. 2) Harkening back to our discussion about methodological naturalism, ID seeks an approach where scientists and philosophers, regardless of personal views, may pursue the truth wherever the evidence leads. Finally, 3) ID fully allows those who wish to sincerely join the debate to argue for other mechanisms.

In not specifying a designer, ID leaves science open to pursue plausible explanations of biological complexity without getting tangled up in extraneous theological or philosophical discussions. The everyday practice of the current scientific establishment already curtails and constrains what science is able to discover. ID resists this trend, and instead seeks to democratize scientific investigation.


We invite a maximum diversity of researchers to join the hunt for the truth. Discussions of who or what the designer might be would only work against that.

On Christ's Resurrection body:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

After Jesus’ Resurrection, Was His Body Flesh or Spirit?

The Bible’s answer

The Bible says that Jesus “was put to death in the flesh but made alive [resurrected] in the spirit.”—1 Peter 3:18; Acts 13:34; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 5:16.

Jesus’ own words showed that he would not be resurrected with his flesh-and-blood body. He said that he would give his “flesh in behalf of the life of the world,” as a ransom for mankind. (John 6:51; Matthew 20:28) If he had taken back his flesh when he was resurrected, he would have canceled that ransom sacrifice. This could not have happened, though, for the Bible says that he sacrificed his flesh and blood “once for all time.”—Hebrews 9:11, 12.

If Jesus was raised up with a spirit body, how could his disciples see him?

Spirit creatures can take on human form. For example, angels who did this in the past even ate and drank with humans. (Genesis 18:1-8; 19:1-3) However, they still were spirit creatures and could leave the physical realm.—Judges 13:15-21.
After his resurrection, Jesus also assumed human form temporarily, just as angels had previously done. As a spirit creature, though, he was able to appear and disappear suddenly. (Luke 24:31; John 20:19, 26) The fleshly bodies that he materialized were not identical from one appearance to the next. Thus, even Jesus’ close friends recognized him only by what he said or did.—Luke 24:30, 31, 35; John 20:14-16; 21:6, 7.

When Jesus appeared to the apostle Thomas, he took on a body with wound marks. He did this to bolster Thomas’ faith, since Thomas doubted that Jesus had been raised up.—John 20:24-29.

Yet another American century?:Pros and cons.

Tiger moms can teach western parents a thing or two?:Pros and cons.

That's ,Mr.Glacier, to you. Or Environmentalism gone mad.

Now, It’s “Personhood” for Glaciers
Wesley J. Smith

Environmentalism is going mad. In the process, it’s becoming dangerous to human thriving and to our metaphysical self perception.

Last week, I wrote about rivers being declared “persons.” Now in India, glaciers have been similarly declared to be “living entities.” Specifically, a court has declared that rivers of ice have the “rights” of legal persons. From the Humanosphere story:

Less than three weeks ago, New Zealand granted similar status to a river — the Whanganui. Just days later on March 20, India followed suit for the Ganga and Yamuna rivers.

Now the Gangotri and Yamunotri glaciers as well as waterfalls, forests, lake, meadows and other environmental features in the area have all been granted legal rights as “living entities.”

The glaciers are among the largest in the Himalayas and feed into the Ganga and Yamuna rivers. However, they are receding at an “alarming rate,” the judges said according to Press Trust of India, with the Gangotri glacier shrinking more than 2,800 feet in about 25 years.

“The rights of these entities shall be equivalent to the rights of human beings and any injury or harm caused to these bodies shall be treated as injury or harm caused to human beings,” Uttarakhand’s highest court said in its ruling, according to AFP.
This is anti-science. Glaciers are physical phenomenon. They are not alive.

But who cares, right? Post-modernism strikes a beat, into your life it will seep. Narratives rule now.

So, do the glaciers have the “right” not to melt? Will the glaciers thus be able to sue to prevent human actions that might be perceived to cause melting or otherwise impact the ice, boulders, rocks, and dirt that make up glaciers?

Can the trees sue not to be cut? Can ponds sue not to be drained?

Understand that the “rights” of glaciers will be “enforced” by appointed committees made up of people of a particular ideological bent. Human exceptionalists need not apply.

Worse, many of the “nature rights” laws passed in the U.S. — more than 30 municipalities have such statutes and ordinances — actually empower anyone to litigate on behalf of nature.

Actually, such suits would be brought by zealots hell-bent on impeding development and the exploitation of natural resources, and as a means of subverting capitalistic enterprise. Nature itself has nothing to do with it.

This isn’t something to just roll our eyes over and cluck, “What will they think of next?” It is highly subversive. If “nature” has rights, everything in the world does — flora, fauna, microscopic, geological, gasses, everything.

That sucks the power and meaning from the crucial concept of “rights” — just as a spider sucks out the juice of a fly.


It also means that human beings cannot be considered of unique or special value. Our lives cannot be said to have greater meaning. Our needs and desires are redefined as no more important than those of the birds and the bees and the honey and trees, or the moon up above.

A clash of Titans. L

Big pharma is making matters worse?Pros and Cons.

Civil war?

Yet more supposed evidence of suboptimal design debunked.

Behold, a Further Use for Body Hair
David Klinghoffer

It's one of those supposedly useless parts of us that demonstrate the purported incompetence or nonexistence of design reflected in bodies, but the hair on your arm or face or elsewhere turns out to have yet another use that was previously unknown. Hair follicles, along with the folds and oil-producing glands in the skin, form a habitat for microorganisms that are vital to the skin's ability to fight off harmful pathogens.

 Nature News summarizes:

The folds, follicles and tiny oil-producing glands on the skin's surface create a multitude of diverse habitats, each with its own community of microbes.1 Most of these "commensals" live harmlessly on the skin, and their presence is thought to stop pathogenic microbes from invading the skin's habitats. But these benign residents are not just innocent bystanders -- according to a paper published today in Science, skin-specific bacteria also influence the response from the host's immune system to help fight off infection.2
Immunologist Yasmine Belkaid and her team at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Maryland, decided to investigate the immunological role of the skin's resident microorganisms, known collectively as the skin microbiome. "For the first time, we've shown that the skin needs microbial signals for proper immune-cell function," says study author Shruti Naik, a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who is based in Belkaid's lab.

Mice raised in a sterile germ-free environment, thus without their normal complement of skin microbiota, were unable to mount an effective immunological response to attack by a particular pathogen -- but the ability was restored after scientists introduced a normally friendly bacterium, Staphylococcus epidermidis.
We have a dear friend who's quite germophobic and whose kids play with our kids. She's always insisting that nobody may come into her house without a severe scrubbing of the hands, face, etc. I need to remember to bring this to her attention.

The finding, by the way, adds to earlier news that fine body hair is part of our defense system against parasites; see here: "Human Fine Body Hair and the Myth of Junk Body Parts," ENV.

The epigenome v. Darwin.

Electric DNA, Circular RNA, and Other Epigenetic Wonders
Evolution News | @DiscoveryCSC

Upon completion of the Human Genome Project, scientists were baffled at the unexpectedly low number of genes. How could so few protein-coding genes (about 20,000) build a human being? It turned out that genes are only one part of the action. The old Central Dogma that viewed DNA as the master molecule, RNA as the messenger boy, and protein as the end product is long gone. Now we are beginning to see that there are three “-omes” that interact in complex ways with other molecules, including lipids and sugars. Everywhere they turn, scientists are seeing molecular wizardry at work. Here are just a few recent examples.

Another -Ome with a Code of Its Own

The Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBELL) of Barcelona, Spain, assumes we know about the genome and the epigenome. Now,  news from IDIBELL draws our attention to another “-ome” that is rising in significance: the transcriptome, referring to the “epigenetics of RNA”:

“It is well-known that sometimes DNA produces a RNA string but then this RNA does not originate the protein. Because in these cases the alteration is neither in the genome nor the proteome, we thought it should be in the transcriptome, that is, in the RNA molecule”, Dr. Esteller explains.”In recent years, we discovered that our RNA is highly regulated and if only two or three modifications at the DNA level can control it, there may be hundreds of small changes in RNA that control its stability, its intracellular localization or its maturation in living beings”. [Emphasis added.]
For example, some non-coding RNAs are now known to be ‘guardian RNAs’ according to the modifications on their bases or sugars with methyl groups that act as tags. The field of transcriptomics is only about five years old; “It will definitely be an exciting research stage for this and the next generation of scientists,” Dr. Esteller says. See our recent article “RNA Code Surpassing DNA in Complexity” for more about this epicentric karma running over the Central Dogma.

Electric DNA

Here’s another way that DNA carries information that is rather shocking: it conducts electricity. Science Magazine describes “DNA charge transport” as an unexpected signaling system between the code and its reading machines.

DNA charge transport provides an avenue for rapid, long-range signaling between redox-active moieties coupled into the DNA duplex. Several enzymes integral to eukaryotic DNA replication contain [4Fe4S] clusters, common redox cofactors. DNA primase, the enzyme responsible for initiating replication on single-stranded DNA, is a [4Fe4S] protein. Primase synthesizes short RNA primers of a precise length before handing off the primed DNA template to DNA polymerase α, another [4Fe4S] enzyme. The [4Fe4S] cluster in primase is required for primer synthesis, but its underlying chemistry has not been established. Moreover, what orchestrates primer handoff between primase and DNA polymerase α is not well understood.
In the paper, seven researchers from Caltech and Vanderbilt tell about experiments they ran to establish the existence of electrical charge transfers between the double helix and the molecular machines that read it and duplicate it. “We demonstrate that the oxidation state of the [4Fe4S] cluster in DNA primase acts as a reversible on/off switch for DNA binding,” they conclude. And it’s not alone. Because DNA can conduct charges over long distances, “Such redox signaling by [4Fe4S] clusters may play a wider role in polymerase enzymes to coordinate eukaryotic DNA replication.”

Circular RNA

Some RNAs fold into stable loops. We have them in our brains. What do they do? When discovered, they were considered non-coding. Now, however, scientists at Hebrew University have found that they can indeed code for proteins. The paper in Molecular Cell, “Translation of CircRNAs,” opens up a new window of functional possibilities for these oddball transcripts.

Circular RNAs (circRNAs) are abundant and evolutionarily conserved RNAs of largely unknown function. Here, we show that a subset of circRNAs is translated in vivo. By performing ribosome footprinting from fly heads, we demonstrate that a group of circRNAs is associated with translating ribosomes. Many of these ribo-circRNAs use the start codon of the hosting mRNA, are bound by membrane-associated ribosomes, and have evolutionarily conserved termination codons…. Altogether, our study provides strong evidence for translation of circRNAs, revealing the existence of an unexplored layer of gene activity.
“Evolutionarily conserved,” of course, means not evolved. A layman’s account in Science Daily explains the significance of this finding.

This discovery reveals an unexplored layer of gene activity in a type of molecule not previously thought to produce proteins. It also reveals the existence of a new universe of proteins not yet characterized.
One possible function for circRNAs is stable storage of protein-coding data for regions far from the nucleus. The tips of axons, for instance, can be too far away for quick access to genes they need. “As circRNAs are extremely stable, they potentially could be stored for a long time in compartments more distant to the cell’s body like axons of neuron cells,” Science Daily says. “There, the RNA molecules could serve as a reservoir for proteins being produced at a given time.” One scientist not connected about the research expressed excitement about it. “This is a very important, promising and timely discovery that gives an important hint of the function of these abundant yet uncharacterized RNAs.”

Interdependent Modifications

As geneticists explore the universe of epigenetic modifications, they have been unable to replicate some of them in a lab dish (in vitro). Now, a reason for this is coming to light. A paper in Nature begins with surprising statistics in the number of epigenetic modifications known. Then the authors tell how they discovered a case of “interdependent” modifications:

Nucleic acids undergo naturally occurring chemical modifications. Over 100 different modifications have been described and every position in the purine and pyrimidine bases can be modified; often the sugar is also modified. Despite recent progress, the mechanism for the biosynthesis of most modifications is not fully understood, owing, in part, to the difficulty associated with reconstituting enzyme activity in vitro. Whereas some modifications can be efficiently formed with purified components, others may require more intricate pathways. A model for modification interdependence, in which one modification is a prerequisite for another, potentially explains a major hindrance in reconstituting enzymatic activity in vitro. This model was prompted by the earlier discovery of tRNA cytosine-to-uridine editing in eukaryotes, a reaction that has not been recapitulated in vitro and the mechanism of which remains unknown.
Sure enough, they found a case in a microbe where one modification was a prerequisite to another modification. The mechanism appears to provide quality control by preventing catastrophic modifications to every matching spot on a whole genome.

Here’s a case we can relate to. The human antibody response system rapidly mutates sequences looking for matches to antigens. How does activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID) deaminate the immunoglobulin receptors (IgG) without affecting the rest of the genome? The answer may involve interdependent modifications:

In mammalian cells, AID plays a critical role in antibody class diversification by specifically targeting the IgG receptor genes, while generally leaving the rest of the genome unblemished. While the mechanism of this enzyme has been elucidated, the basis for its programmed specificity towards only a fraction of the genome is still unclear. The work presented here provides a rationale for controlling mutagenic enzymes through their interaction with other partners, as has been suggested previously. This, of course, leads to the question of how such substrate specificities evolved. Our data suggest that the answer may relate to the ability of certain protein–protein interactions to provide secondary functions based on extreme mutual dependability, as illustrated here by the interplay between TRM140a and ADAT2/3.

ID advocates are certain to catch the phrases “programmed specificity” and “extreme mutual dependency” in support of their view, while chuckling at the Darwinists’ quandary about “how such substrate specificities evolved.” Their suggested solution only appears to dig a deeper hole. They never quite get around to telling readers how “extreme mutual dependability” came up with “secondary functions” by sheer dumb luck, such that the result only gives an appearance of “programmed specificity.” ID, on the other hand, provides a common-sense answer. Programming presupposes a programmer.

on miracles and the miraculous.:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

MIRACLES

Occurrences that excite wonder or astonishment; effects in the physical world that surpass all known human or natural powers and are therefore attributed to supernatural agency. In the Hebrew Scriptures the word moh·pheth′, sometimes translated “miracle,” also means “portent,” “wonder,” and “token.” (De 28:46; 1Ch 16:12, ftn) It is often used in conjunction with the Hebrew word ʼohth, meaning “sign.” (De 4:34) In the Greek Scriptures the word dy′na·mis, “power,” is rendered “powerful works,” “ability,” “miracle.”—Mt 25:15; Lu 6:19; 1Co 12:10, AT, KJ, NW, RS.

A miracle, amazing to the eye of the beholder, is something beyond his ability to perform or even to understand fully. It is also a powerful work, requiring greater power or knowledge than he has. But from the viewpoint of the one who is the source of such power, it is not a miracle. He understands it and has the ability to do it. Thus, many acts that God performs are amazing to humans beholding them but are merely the exercise of his power. If a person believes in a deity, particularly in the God of creation, he cannot consistently deny God’s power to accomplish things awe-inspiring to the eyes of men.—Ro 1:20; see POWER, POWERFUL WORKS.

Are miracles compatible with natural law?

Through study and observation, researchers have identified various uniform operations of things in the universe and have recognized laws covering such uniformity in natural phenomena. One such is ‘the law of gravity.’ Scientists admit the complexity and yet the reliability of these laws, and in calling them “laws” imply the existence of One who put such laws into force. Skeptics view a miracle as a violation of laws they accept as natural, irrevocable, inexorable; therefore, they say, a miracle never occurs. It is good to keep in mind that their attitude is that if it is not understandable and explainable to us as far as we discern these laws, it cannot happen.

However, capable scientists are becoming increasingly cautious about saying that a certain thing is impossible. Professor John R. Brobeck of the University of Pennsylvania stated: “A scientist is no longer able to say honestly something is impossible. He can only say it is improbable. But he may be able to say something is impossible to explain in terms of our present knowledge. Science cannot say that all properties of matter and all forms of energy are now known. . . . [For a miracle] one thing that needs to be added is a source of energy unknown to us in our biological and physiological sciences. In our Scriptures this source of energy is identified as the power of God.” (Time, July 4, 1955) Since this statement was made, further scientific development has made it more emphatic.

Scientists do not fully understand the properties of heat, light, atomic and nuclear action, electricity, or any of the forms of matter under even normal conditions. Even more deficient is their understanding of these properties under unusual or abnormal conditions. For example, it is relatively recently that extensive investigations have been made under conditions of extreme cold, but in this brief time, many strange actions of the elements have been observed. Lead, which is not an ideal electrical conductor, when immersed in liquid helium cooled to a temperature of −271° C. (−456° F.) strangely becomes a superconductor and a powerful electromagnet when a bar magnet is placed near it. At such supercold temperature helium itself appears to defy the law of gravity by creeping up the side of a glass beaker and over the edge, draining itself out of the container.—Matter, Life Science Library, 1963, pp. 68, 69.

This discovery is one of many that have astounded scientists, seeming to upset their former ideas. How, then, can anyone say that God violated his own laws in performing powerful works that seemed amazing and miraculous to men? Surely the Creator of the physical universe has perfect control of that which he created and can maneuver these things within the framework of the laws he has made inherent in them. (Job 38) He can bring about the condition necessary for the performance of these works; he can speed up, slow down, modify, or neutralize reactions. Or angels, with greater power than man, can do so in carrying out Jehovah’s will.—Ex 3:2; Ps 78:44-49.

Certainly the scientist is not superseding or going beyond physical laws when he applies more heat or cold, or more oxygen, and so forth, to speed up or slow down a chemical process. Nevertheless, skeptics challenge the Bible miracles, including the “miracle” of creation. These challengers are asserting, in effect, that they are familiar with all conditions and processes that ever took place. They are insisting that the operations of the Creator must be limited by the narrow confines of their understanding of the laws governing physical things.

This weakness on the part of scientists is acknowledged by a Swedish professor of plasma physics, who pointed out: “No one questions the obedience of the earth’s atmosphere to the laws of mechanics and atomic physics. All the same, it may be extremely difficult for us to determine how these laws operate with respect to any given situation involving atmospheric phenomena.” (Worlds-Antiworlds, by H. Alfvén, 1966, p. 5) The professor applied this thought to the origin of the universe. God established the physical laws governing the earth, sun, and moon, and within their framework men have been able to do marvelous things. Surely God could bring the laws to play so as to produce a result unexpected by humans; it would present no problem for him to split the Red Sea so that “the waters were a wall” on each side. (Ex 14:22) Though, to man, walking on water is an astounding feat, with what ease it could be accomplished in the power of “the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell.” Further, God is described as creating, and having control of, all the things in the heavens, and it is said that “due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.”—Isa 40:21, 22, 25, 26.

Since the acknowledgment of the existence of law, such as the law of gravity, presupposes a lawmaker of surpassing, superhuman intelligence and power, why question his ability to do marvelous things? Why try to limit his operation to the infinitesimally narrow scope of man’s knowledge and experience? The patriarch Job describes the darkness and foolishness into which God lets these go who thus pit their wisdom against his.—Job 12:16-25; compare Ro 1:18-23.

God’s Adherence to His Moral Law. The God of creation is not a whimsical God, unreliably violating his own laws. (Mal 3:6) This fact can be seen in God’s adherence to his moral laws, which are in harmony with his physical laws but are higher and grander than they are. In justice he cannot condone unrighteousness. “You are too pure in eyes to see what is bad; and to look on trouble you are not able,” says his prophet. (Hab 1:13; Ex 34:7) He expressed his law to Israel: “Soul will be for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” (De 19:21) When he desired to forgive helpless, repentant men for the sin that is the cause of their dying, God had to have a legal basis if he was going to adhere to his law. (Ro 5:12; Ps 49:6-8) He proved to be strict in his adherence to law, going to the point of sacrificing his only-begotten Son as a ransom for the sins of mankind. (Mt 20:28) The apostle Paul points out that, “through the release by the ransom paid by Christ Jesus,” Jehovah was able to “exhibit his own righteousness . . . that he might be righteous even when declaring righteous the man that has faith in Jesus.” (Ro 3:24, 26) If we appreciate that God, out of respect for his moral laws, did not hold back from sacrificing his beloved Son, certainly we can reason that he would never need to “violate” his physical laws to carry out anything desired within physical creation.

Contrary to Human Experience? Merely to assert that miracles did not take place does not prove that they did not. The truthfulness of any recorded event of history may be challenged by someone living today, because he did not experience it and there are now no living eyewitnesses to testify to it. But that does not change the facts of history. Some object to the accounts about miracles because, they say, they are contrary to human experience, that is, human experience that they acknowledge as true from observation, books, and so forth. If scientists actually took this position in practice, there would be far less research and development of new things and processes on their part. They would not, for instance, continue research on the curing of “incurable” diseases, or on space travel to the planets or even farther into the universe. But they do investigate and sometimes bring mankind into definitely new experiences. What is accomplished today would astonish men of ancient times, and a good share of modern mankind’s common daily experiences would be viewed by them as miracles.

Not “Explained Away” by Logic. Some opponents of the Bible account hold that Bible miracles can be scientifically and logically explained as merely natural happenings and that the Bible writers merely attributed these happenings to God’s intervention. It is true that such things as earthquakes were employed. (1Sa 14:15, 16; Mt 27:51) But this in itself does not prove that God did not take a hand in these events. Not only were the things powerful works in themselves (for example, the aforementioned earthquakes) but also the timing was such as to make the odds overwhelming against any chance happening. For illustration: Some have contended that the manna provided for the Israelites can be found in the desert as a sweet, sticky exudation on tamarisk trees and on bushes. Even if this doubtful contention were true, the provision of it for Israel is still a miracle because of its timing, for it did not appear on the ground on the seventh day of each week. (Ex 16:4, 5, 25-27) Furthermore, whereas it bred worms and stank if kept over until the next day, it did not do so when kept over for food on the Sabbath. (Ex 16:20, 24) It might also be said that the description of this manna as an exudation from trees does not seem to agree fully with the Bible description of the manna. The Bible manna was found on the ground and it melted in the hot sun; it could be pounded in a mortar, ground in a mill, boiled, or baked.—Ex 16:19-23; Nu 11:8; see MANNA.

Credibility of the Testimony. The Christian religion is interwoven with the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1Co 15:16-19) The evidence that it took place was not weak but powerful—there were more than 500 eyewitnesses to testify that it did take place.—1Co 15:3-8; Ac 2:32.

The motive of the persons who accepted the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection as true must also be considered. Many persons have experienced persecution and death for their beliefs—religious, political, and otherwise. But the Christians who so suffered received no material or political gain. Rather than get power, wealth, and prominence, they often suffered the loss of all these things. They preached Jesus’ resurrection but did not use any form of violence to promote their beliefs or to defend themselves. And one reading their arguments can see that they were reasonable persons, not fanatics. They lovingly tried to help their fellowmen.

Characteristics of Bible Miracles. Noteworthy characteristics of the Biblical miracles are their open and public nature, their simplicity, their purpose and motive. Some were performed in private or before small groups (1Ki 17:19-24; Mr 1:29-31; Ac 9:39-41), but often they were public, before thousands or even millions of observers. (Ex 14:21-31; 19:16-19) Jesus’ works were open and public—there was no secrecy attached to them; and he healed all who came to him, not failing on the pretext that some lacked sufficient faith.—Mt 8:16; 9:35; 12:15.

Simplicity marked both miraculous cures and control over the elements. (Mr 4:39; 5:25-29; 10:46-52) In contrast to magical feats accomplished with special props, staging, lighting, and ritual, Biblical miracles generally were performed without outward display, frequently in response to a chance encounter, a request, and that on the public street or in an unprepared place.—1Ki 13:3-6; Lu 7:11-15; Ac 28:3-6.

The motive of the individual performing the miracle was not for the selfish prominence of the individual or to make anyone wealthy, but it was primarily to glorify God. (Joh 11:1-4, 15, 40) Miracles were not mysterious acts performed merely to satisfy curiosity and to mystify. They always helped others, sometimes directly in a physical way and always in a spiritual way, turning persons to true worship. Just as “the bearing witness to Jesus is what inspires prophesying [“is the spirit of the prophecy,” ftns],” so, too, many of the miracles pointed to Jesus as God’s sent one.—Re 19:10.

Bible miracles involved not only animate things but also inanimate ones, such as calming the wind and sea (Mt 8:24-27), stopping and starting rain (1Ki 17:1-7; 18:41-45), and changing water into blood or into wine (Ex 7:19-21; Joh 2:1-11). They also included physical cures of all types, such as “incurable” leprosy (2Ki 5:1-14; Lu 17:11-19) and blindness from birth. (Joh 9:1-7) This great variety of miracles argues for their credibility as backed by the Creator, for it is logical that only the Creator could exercise influence in all areas of human experience and over all forms of matter.

Purpose in Early Christian Congregation. Miracles served a number of important purposes. Most basic, they helped to establish or confirm the fact that a man was receiving power and support from God. (Ex 4:1-9) Both with Moses and Jesus people drew this correct conclusion. (Ex 4:30, 31; Joh 9:17, 31-33) Through Moses, God had promised a coming prophet. Jesus’ miracles helped observers to identify him as that one. (De 18:18; Joh 6:14) When Christianity was young, miracles worked in conjunction with the message to help individuals to see that God was behind Christianity and had turned from the earlier Jewish system of things. (Heb 2:3, 4) In time miraculous gifts present in the first century would pass away. They were needed only during the infancy of the Christian congregation.—1Co 13:8-11.

In reading the history of the Acts of Apostles, we see that Jehovah’s spirit was working mightily, speedily, forming congregations, getting Christianity firmly established. (Ac 4:4; chaps 13, 14, 16-19) In the few short years between 33 and 70 C.E., thousands of believers were gathered in many congregations from Babylon to Rome, and perhaps even farther west. (1Pe 5:13; Ro 1:1, 7; 15:24) It is worthy of note that copies of the Scriptures then were few. Usually only the well-to-do possessed scrolls or books of any sort. In pagan lands there was no knowledge of the Bible or the God of the Bible, Jehovah. Virtually everything had to be done by word of mouth. There were no Bible commentaries, concordances, and encyclopedias readily at hand. So the miraculous gifts of special knowledge, wisdom, speaking in tongues, and discernment of inspired utterances were vital for the congregation then. (1Co 12:4-11, 27-31) But, as the apostle Paul wrote, when those things were no longer needed, they would pass away.

A Different Situation Today. We do not see God performing such miracles by the hands of his Christian servants today, because all needed things are present and available to the literate population of the world, and to help those who cannot read but who will listen, there are mature Christians who have knowledge and wisdom gained by study and experience. It is not necessary for God to perform such miracles at this time to attest to Jesus Christ as God’s appointed deliverer, or to provide proof that He is backing up His servants. Even if God were to continue to give his servants the ability to perform miracles, that would not convince everyone, for not even all the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ miracles were moved to accept his teachings. (Joh 12:9-11) On the other hand, scoffers are warned by the Bible that there will yet be stupendous acts of God performed in the destruction of the present system of things.—2Pe 3:1-10; Re chaps 18, 19.

In conclusion, it may be said that either those who deny the existence of miracles do not believe there is an invisible God and Creator or they believe that he has not exercised his power in any superhuman way since creation. But their unbelief does not make the Word of God of no effect. (Ro 3:3, 4) The Biblical accounts of God’s miracles and the good purpose that they accomplished, always in harmony with the truths and principles found in his Word, instill confidence in God. They give strong assurance that God cares for mankind and that he can and will protect those who serve him. The miracles provide typical patterns, and the record of them builds faith that God will, in the future, intervene in a miraculous way, healing and blessing faithful humankind.—Re 21:4.

Is political atheism's calling political theism violent the pot calling the kettle black?

A Dehumanizing Ideology Unsurprisingly Catalyzes Violence
Michael Egnor

Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, who denies the existence of free will and has endorsed social control of human beings that is hardly distinguishable from animal training, insists that religion is a significant motivation for violence.

Coyne, who claims that in human affairs "reason is no different from a kick," is of course right, in a sense. There is no question that religious belief can motivate and has motivated violence. We are currently experiencing violence in many parts of the world motivated by Islamic beliefs, and historically many faiths and ideologies have at times motivated wars and repression.

He writes:

...[O]ver at [Why Evolution Is True] we don't find it so hard to understand that religious beliefs could motivate violence. After all, other ideologies like Communism or Nazism, are well known for promoting violence... Wed that to religion's claim of absolute truth and its promulgation of a moral code, and you have an automatic recipe for "othering".

Yet Coyne omits candid discussion of the violence -- the extraordinary violence -- caused by atheist ideology during the past century. He refers to "Communism," but if we are to single out "religion" for violence, we must compare it to "irreligion," not merely to "Communism." And it is precisely the metaphysical commitments Coyne has championed that have catalyzed atheist violence -- the denial of an objective moral law, the denial of eternal accountability for transgressions, the reduction of human beings to animals or even to meat robots, deprived of free will or of any claim to human exceptionalism. These are all tenets of atheist belief, and Coyne himself is one of the loudest salesman for the dehumanizing ideology inherent to atheism.

Just how violent and repressive can atheism be? The most inhuman tactic of Islamic terrorists -- suicide bombing -- was first employed by atheist Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. John Gray in the Guardian notes:

Islamists owe as much, if not more, to the far left, and it would be more accurate to describe many of them as Islamo-Leninists. Islamist techniques of terror also have a pedigree in secular revolutionary movements. The executions of hostages in Iraq are copied in exact theatrical detail from European "revolutionary tribunals" in the 1970s, such as that staged by the Red Brigades when they murdered the former Italian prime minister Aldo Moro in 1978.

Many of the inhuman tactics used by Islamists today were first used systematically in modern times by the atheist Left. In the past century, a number of nations have been governed by explicitly atheist governments. Atheist governments murdered more than 100 million people during the 20th century. See here for a comparison of violence and political repression between nations with established Christian churches or cultures, Islamic nations, and nations governed by atheist ideologies during the 20th century.

Looking at modern history, we see: Christian culture creates reasonable and tolerant democracies. Islamic regimes create repressive theocracies. Atheist regimes create totalitarian hellholes.

The denial of free will and the other anti-human inferences inherent to atheism are not merely theoretical affronts to humanity.

The fact is that atheism is the most violent ideology in the 20th century, and given its short run and unprecedented rate of state-sanctioned murder, it is also the most violent and repressive ideology in human history.

Ps. almost all instances of so called religious violence when carefully examined turn out to be political violence.Politics is in fact a requirement for the weaponisation of religion.That is why throughout history members of politicised religion are far more likely to kill there co religionists for political/ecomomic reasons than unbelievers or other believers for purely religious reasons in fact they will often join with unbelievers/other believers with whom they share common political aspirations/ideologies against fellow believers.That may explain why atheistic regimes have outdone political theists in state sanctioned violence for the atheist politics is religion.

On the struggle to publish Jehovah's word in the 16th century.:The Watchtower society's commentary.

Lefèvre d’Étaples—He Wanted the Common People to Know God’s Word

ON A Sunday morning in the early 1520’s, the inhabitants of Meaux, a small town near Paris, could not believe what they heard in church. They had listened to the reading of the Gospels in their mother tongue—in French instead of Latin!

The Bible translator who was behind this initiative, Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples (Latin, Jacobus Faber Stapulensis), later wrote to a close friend: “You can scarcely imagine with what ardor God is moving the minds of the simple [people] in some places to embrace his Word.”

At that time, the Catholic Church and the theologians in Paris opposed the use of translations of the Bible in common languages. So, what moved Lefèvre to translate the Bible into French? And how did he manage to help the common people to understand God’s Word?

SEEKING THE TRUE MEANING OF THE SCRIPTURES

Before becoming a Bible translator, Lefèvre had dedicated himself to restoring the original meaning of classical works of philosophy and theology. He noted that ancient texts had often been corrupted by centuries of misleading renderings and errors. In his search for the true meaning of ancient writings, he started studying closely the standard Bible of the Catholic Church, the Latin Vulgate.

His earnest study of the Scriptures led him to the conclusion that “study of divine truth alone promises . . . the highest happiness.” Therefore, Lefèvre turned away from studying philosophy and devoted all his energy to translating the Bible.

In 1509, Lefèvre published a comparative study of five different Latin versions of the Psalms, * including his own correction of the Vulgate. Unlike theologians of his time, he endeavored to find the “natural sense” of Bible passages. His method of interpreting the Scriptures had a strong influence on other Bible scholars and reformers.Born a Catholic, Lefèvre was convinced that a renewal of the church could be possible only if the Scriptures were properly taught to ordinary people. But how would the common people benefit from the Scriptures at a time when those sacred writings were mostly in Latin?

A BIBLE TRANSLATION ACCESSIBLE TO ALL.

Lefèvre’s deep love for God’s Word made him determined to make it accessible to the greatest number of people. To achieve that goal, in June 1523, he published a French translation of the Gospels in two pocket-size volumes. This small format—which cost half the price of a standard edition—made it easier for people with little means to obtain a copy of the Bible.

 The response of the common people was immediate and enthusiastic. Both men and women were so eager to read Jesus’ words in their mother tongue that the first 1,200 copies printed were out of stock after just a few months.

A COURAGEOUS STAND FOR THE BIBLE

In the introduction to the Gospels, Lefèvre explained that he had translated them into French so that “the simple members” of the church “can be as certain of evangelical truth as those who have it in Latin.” But why was Lefèvre so eager to help the common people to get back to what the Bible teaches?

Lefèvre was well-aware that human teachings and philosophy had corrupted the Catholic Church. (Mark 7:7; Colossians 2:8) And he was convinced that the time had arrived for the Gospels to be “purely proclaimed throughout the world, so that people may no longer be led astray by alien doctrines of men.”

Lefèvre also endeavored to expose the faulty arguments of those who opposed the translation of the Bible into French. He denounced their hypocrisy, saying: “How will they teach [the people] to observe all that Jesus Christ commanded, if they are quite unwilling that the simple folk should see and read the Gospel of God in their own language?”—Romans 10:14.

 Not surprisingly, theologians at the University of Paris—the Sorbonne—soon attempted to silence Lefèvre. In August 1523, they objected to vernacular translations of and commentaries on the Bible, considering them “harmful to the Church.” Had it not been for the intervention of French King Francis I, Lefèvre would have been condemned as a heretic.

THE “SILENT” TRANSLATOR COMPLETED HIS WORK

Lefèvre did not allow heated debates on his works to distract him from translating the Bible. In 1524, after completing his translation of the Greek Scriptures (the so-called New Testament), he released a French version of the Psalms so that believers might pray “with greater devotion and deeper feeling.”

Theologians at the Sorbonne lost no time in going through Lefèvre’s works with a fine-tooth comb. They soon ordered that his translation of the Greek Scriptures be burned publicly, and they denounced some other writings as “favoring the heresy of Luther.” When the theologians summoned him to justify his views, Lefèvre decided to remain “silent” and fled to Strasbourg. There, he discreetly continued translating the Bible. Even though some considered his stance to be lacking courage, he believed that it was the best way to respond to those who had no appreciation for the precious “pearls” of Bible truth.—Matthew 7:6.

Almost one year after his flight, King Francis I appointed Lefèvre tutor of his four-year-old son, Charles. This assignment gave Lefèvre plenty of time to finish his translation of the Bible. In 1530, his translation of the complete Bible was printed outside France, in Antwerp, with the approval of Emperor Charles V. *

GREAT HOPES, LAST REGRETS

Throughout his life, Lefèvre hoped that the church would abandon human traditions and return to the pure knowledge of the Scriptures. He strongly believed in “the right, indeed, the duty, of every Christian to read and learn the Bible personally.” That is why he worked so hard to make the Bible accessible to all. Although his desire to see the church reform itself failed to materialize, Lefèvre’s legacy is undisputed—he helped the common people to know God’s Word.

How Martin Luther Was Influenced by Lefèvre

Martin Luther was still an obscure monk when he carefully studied Lefèvre’s works. The young Luther noted that Lefèvre expounded Biblical passages in a clear and simple way, without resorting to fancy allegories as did the scholars of his time. Lefèvre’s method of interpretation exerted a strong influence on Luther as well as on Bible translator William Tyndale and Reformer John Calvin. Although Lefèvre remained a Catholic until his death, his works marked a turning point in Bible translation and paved the way to the Reformation.

On chemical equilibrium.

A brief history of the Olympics.

On how practice makes perfect.

File under "Well said" XLIX

As we must account for every idle word, so we must for every idle silence.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

On a Titan's titan.

Today's science fiction is tomorrow's science fact?

Socrates on democracy v. demagoguery.

A Brief history of theistic monism

By Peter Clarke

Tom Chivers' lively description of his interview with neuroscience professor Patrick Haggard highlights the fundamental question of whether brain research undermines our belief in free will and responsibility. Our brains determine our thinking and behaviour, and our neurons obey the laws of physics and chemistry, so how are we different from neural machines? As Tom points out in a second article, a lot depends on how you define free will.
On this issue, philosophers are divided into two camps: “libertarians“and “compatibilists”. For libertarians, free will is almost by definition incompatible with brain determinism. They argue from our experience of making choices that somewhere in the brain there must be indeterminate events. Most modern libertarians, including Robert Kane, invoke Heisenbergian uncertainty as the source of brain indeterminism, despite scepticism among scientists. In contrast, compatibilists argue for a different definition of free will. They make the distinction between external and internal constraints. The difference is illustrated by the following two excuses: “It’s not my fault I broke the window, my brother pushed me”, and “It’s not my fault I broke the window, my brain caused me to do it”.
Few people would accept the second excuse, which seems strange at best. If my brain did not cause me to break the window, I was certainly not responsible, so how can brain causation be an excuse? Of course, simple arguments like this are only a start in a complicated debate, but compatibilists are currently in the majority in claiming that the “varieties of free will worth wanting” (to quote Dennett) do not require indeterminate events in the brain. The debate is by no means over.
Our attitude to the free will question is intimately linked to the dualism-monism debate. Dualists believe that there are two separate entities, soul (or mind) and brain, and most maintain that they somehow interact, following Descartes. Monists deny a separate soul, saying that everything is matter. This links in with the question of free will, because if you believe in a separate nonphysical soul/mind that somehow influences the brain, you must assume that conventional physical and chemical forces do not completely determine brain function.
This debate is sometimes caricatured as a rearguard defense by religious or spiritually minded traditionalists against the attacks of modern science and atheistic philosophy, but there is not such a neat dividing line. The first philosophers to invoke physical indeterminism as necessary for free will were the materialists Epicurus and Lucretius, who denied life after death and supernatural intervention in the world. Judaism was monistic throughout the Old Testament era, and early Christianity appears likewise.

It is true that neo-Platonist dualism was incorporated into the philosophies of many leading Christian thinkers including Augustine, Luther and Calvin, but over the last couple of centuries these were opposed by equally Christian monists such as Joseph Priestley, the nonconformist minister famed for isolating oxygen, who argued that dualism was a contamination of biblical Christianity by Platonic philosophy. Over the last 60 years monistic philosophy of mind has gained ground among Christians because of increasing evidence that the biblical conception of man is monist, not dualist. For example, the Hebrew word Nefesh, traditionally translated as “soul”, does not refer to a separate, Platonic soul and is nowadays usually translated as “being”.
But how can a monistic conception of the mind-brain be reconciled with humanist notions of freedom and responsibility and with a theistic belief in life after death? Several solutions have been proposed, but the dual-aspect monism of protestant neurobiologist-philosopher Donald MacKay is justifiably one of the most influential, as is reflected in the writings of many subsequent theistic monists such as Malcolm Jeeves, Nancey Murphy and Warren Brown. According to MacKay, my subjective conscious experience and an objective neurobiological account of my brain are two complementary views of a single entity. There is no separate Platonic soul that floats out of the brain at death. MacKay couples this dual-aspect monism to a compatibilist approach to free will. Thus, protestant MacKay and atheist Daniel Dennett share common ground as far as the mind-brain relation is concerned.
But how could the inevitable destruction of the brain at death square with any idea of an afterlife? The New Testament does not teach an eternal soul, but a resurrected “spiritual body”. This is not defined precisely, but the idea seems to be that the information structure of the real “me” will somehow be restored into a very different embodiment, just as a poem can retain its essence when copied or a computer programme can be reinstalled on a new computer.
There is still plenty of debate even among theists. Monism and compatibilism dominate among protestant neurobiologists and philosophers, whereas Roman Catholic and Orthodox scholars (e.g. Richard Swinburne) tend to favour dualism. If a line can be drawn through the diversity of opinions, it may be the ancient divide between Aristotelians and Platonists. The monistic view of soul/self as information structure is close to that of Aristotle, whereas the most widespread forms of dualism are neo-Platonist. But there is no neat division between dualistic, libertarian theists and monistic, compatibilist atheists.
Peter G H Clarke is an associate professor of neuroscience at the Département de Biologie cellulaire et de Morphologie at the Université de Lausanne.

Continuing to rethink the unrethinkable