On the necessity of building a better design filter

Bad Design Inferences Can Land Innocent People in Jail
Evolution News | @DiscoveryCSC

We’ve noted forensic science in previous discussions of sciences that show   intelligent design in action 
(along with archaeology, informatics, cryptology, and others). A good forensic analyst can determine where a particular uranium ore came from in Africa, even if it is found in North Korea. Crime labs routinely piece together clues to separate natural from intelligent causes in murder cases, and calculate the probabilities that clues are not due to chance.

When there is strong motivation to find a particular outcome, however, forensics can not only yield wrong answers, but put innocent people in jail. Courtrooms have long trusted forensic analysts as expert witnesses. Highly motivated prosecuting attorneys try to wring confident assertions from their expert witnesses about DNA matches to a suspect, ammunition links to his weapon, and the like. Often, defense attorneys lack the expertise to counter the assertions, and a jury can be swayed by what appears to be strong evidence of guilt.

In Nature, Robin Mejia argues for labeling the limits of forensic science. As a forensic scientist herself and a member of the Center for Statistics and Applications in Forensic Evidence (a consortium of four universities that aims to close holes in statistical analyses of pattern-matching evidence), she knows of many horror stories of innocent people wrongly convicted.

In 2005 I produced a documentary showcasing several cases in which flawed forensic analyses helped to get innocent people locked up. Riky Jackson went behind bars for two years because of incorrectly matched fingerprints. Jimmy Ray Bromgard spent nearly 15 years in jail, mainly because of hair comparisons that lacked scientific rigour. Now I’m a scientist who uses data analysis to promote human rights, and I’m disheartened to see these errors continue. That is why I hope that a US federal commission will vote next week to endorse practices that would transform how forensic analysts talk about evidence.

This would reduce the number of innocent people sent to prison. Consider Crystal Weimer, a single mother of three whose murder conviction was largely based on assertions that wounds on a dead man’s hand were made by Weimer’s teeth. Last June, after a multi-year, multi-lawyer saga, all charges against her were dismissed. [Emphasis added.]
Would these errors have been prevented by proper application of the Design Filter? As with criminal justice, natural causes are “innocent till proven guilty” of intelligent design. The burden of proof is on the forensic analyst to show that a given phenomenon could not have happened by chance. Only through sufficiently small probabilities can chance be eliminated. Coincidences do happen. This month, BBC News reported that a lucky couple won the lottery three times: in 1989, in 2010, and again this year.

Mejia lists what the proposals would do to tighten up loose design inferences:

The proposals that will be put to a vote on 10 April lay out how forensic analysts should testify about evidence such as shoeprints, bullet ballistics, blood spatter and glass shards. Analysts must explain how they examined evidence and what statistical analyses they chose. They must also describe inherent uncertainties in their measurements. Most importantly, experts must never claim with certainty that anything found at a crime scene is linked to a suspect, and they must always try to quantify the probability that observed similarities occurred by chance.
In forensics, that probability can be hard to calculate.

Even if scientists can objectively quantify the similarities between evidence from a crime scene and evidence from a suspect, no one knows how often such matches would occur by chance. Suppose striations on a bullet from a crime scene resemble those from a bullet test-fired from a suspect’s gun. How frequently would bullets from other guns have similar markings? Except for some types of DNA samples, just about every type of forensic comparison lacks that information.
She did not elaborate on which “DNA samples” are more amenable to eliminating chance when analyzing similarities, but that’s interesting. Clearly, some types of evidence can eliminate chance with much greater certainty.

One major boost for certainty in a design inference is the magnitude of the improbability of chance. In their recent film Origin, Illustra Media used Biologic Institute scientist Doug Axe’s calculation of chance generating a single functional protein of 100 amino acids in length, under ideal conditions, as 1 in 10 to the 161st power. Such an inconceivable number exceeds William Dembski’s “Universal Probability Bound” (1 in 10 to the 150th power) by 11 orders of magnitude — 100 billion times less probable. Clearly, if something is so improbable it will never ever happen in the entire universe, it’s not going to happen if it is 100 billion times less probable!

A sharp defense attorney might cross-examine the forensic analysis with pointed questions: How do you know it is that improbable? How was this figure calculated? Axe would explain his methods for measuring the degree of functional space within configuration space for proteins of that length. He would explain, additionally, that the amino acids have to form peptide bonds, not just any bond. And they would have to be left-handed. Writing on the whiteboard in court, he could justify his calculation. He might even show that his value underestimates the real improbability.

But even if Axe were off by billions, or indeed trillions or quadrillions or septillions, he could still convincingly eliminate chance with auxiliary calculations. Obviously, he could tell the jury, one protein is not alive. The simplest known living cell has over 300 different proteins. Discovery fellow Paul Nelson emphasizes this point in the film. Even if against all odds the single protein assembles by chance, the improbability ramps up much further when you factor in all the other requirements for a self-replicating cell. Tim Standish rubs it in by explaining that peptide bonds do not form in water anyway, and Biologic Institute scientist Ann Gauger closes all the other loopholes that origin-of-life materialists try to use to get around the vast improbability.

This, friends, is the level of certainty to be had in the design inference for life. Other intelligent-design sciences actually fall far short of this level of certainty. Whether in forensics, optimization, SETI, or one’s own experience, inferences to design as the best explanation will always leave some room for doubt. The jury in a murder case needs to maintain the accused’s innocence till proven guilty, and only convict when the evidence is “beyond reasonable doubt.”


There is no reasonable doubt that the origin of life occurred by design. One has to believe in miracles upon miracles to say chance could surmount such enormous, unthinkable, preposterous improbabilities. Scientists don’t reject design in cases involving far, far less robust calculations. Even a hiker infers design intuitively when seeing three rocks stacked on top of each other. How much more should one recognize design when the probability of chance is so absurdly low?

A brief history of the atom.

Yet more on proto-life v. Darwin.

New Study on the Evolution of Photosynthesis — A “Very Advanced Capability”
Cornelius Hunter

How exactly is evolution a fact when, as the number two science journal in the world put it, “How and when Cyanobacteria evolved the ability to produce oxygen through photosynthesis is poorly understood”?

Or as evolutionist Robert Blankenship admitted, “The whole question of the origin of cyanobacteria has long been a mystery because they kind of just appeared out of the tree of life with this very advanced capability to do oxygenic photosynthesis without any apparent forebears.”

If the cyanobacteria that do photosynthesis “just appeared” with this “very advanced capability” and “without any apparent forebears,” and if how and when they evolved photosynthesis “is poorly understood,” then just how is it that evolutionists are so certain that evolution is a fact? What am I missing here?

It is not as though photosynthesis is a tangential capability or a minor event in the “evolutionary history” of life. As the leading science writer Charles Q. Choi put it, “One of the most pivotal moments in Earth’s history was the evolution of the photosynthetic life that suffused air with the oxygen on which virtually all complex life on the planet now depends.”

Nor is it as though photosynthesis is a simple capability, in no need of explanation for how it possibly could have arisen by random mutations. Anyone who has studied photosynthesis even superficially knows it is incredibly complex. And for those who have studied in greater detail, it only gets worse. The molecular machines and their exquisite, finely-tuned, functions are truly amazing. It doesn’t “just happen.”

Even evolutionists, who are always trying to explain how easy it would be for biology’s wonders to arise by happenstance, admit to the complexity of photosynthesis. As Blankenship put it, photosynthesis is a “very advanced capability.” Similarly, Woodward Fischer agreed that the evolution of photosynthesis would be “very challenging”:

It took a substantial unfolding of evolutionary time before oxygenic photosynthesis developed, perhaps because, as we know, it was a very challenging biochemistry to develop.
Nor is it as though the evidence we do have suggests any kind of a straightforward evolutionary development of photosynthesis.

If evolution is true, then we must fire up fresh rounds of evolution’s fake news, including incredible convergences and massive horizontal, or lateral, gene transfer and fusion. Round up the usual suspects:

The phylogenetic relationships of these prokaryotes suggest that the evolution of aerobic respiration likely occurred multiple times. This, along with evidence that the modern photosynthetic system apparently arose through the lateral gene transfer and fusion of two photosynthetic systems
This is absurd. Convergence, horizontal gene transfer, and fusion are all made up mechanisms to fix the problem that the scientific evidence contradicts evolutionary theory.

But it gets worse.

Not only are evolutionists forced to draw from their army of phony explanatory mechanisms, but they are left with the proverbial “missing link.” The problem is, from where did the photosynthesis come? It couldn’t have come from the purported common ancestor via descent, and it “just appeared” with this “very advanced capability.”  So evolutionists have to usher in their horizontal gene transfer story.

But from where?

From where did the incredible battery of genes — that would just happen to team up and create the all-time incredible capability of photosynthesis — come? Conveniently for evolutionists — and here’s one of the beauties of being an evolutionist — they can never know. Like Flew’s gardener, evolutionists are certain that some “missing link” organism somehow had photosynthesis up and running, or just happened to have the crucial genes just lying around, but we likely will never observe that organism because it has long since become extinct.

How convenient. Some mysterious organism did it. We’ll never know just how photosynthesis evolved because the organism where it happened has long since gone extinct, billions of years ago. Since then, it just luckily passed the technology around for other organisms to have, such as the cyanobacteria. Choi and Fischer explain:

The fact that Oxyphotobacteria possess the complex apparatus for oxygenic photosynthesis while their closest relatives do not suggests that Oxyphotobacteria may have imported the genes for photosynthesis from another organism via a process known as lateral gene transfer. It remains a mystery what the source of these genes was, “and because it happened long ago, it’s pretty likely that the group may actually have gone extinct,” Fischer said.
Photosynthesis is crucial to life and incredibly complex, evolutionists haven’t a clue how it could have evolved, it doesn’t fit the evolutionary common descent model and “just appeared” without a hint of where it came from, evolutionists are forced to make up a long just-so story to try to explain it, their story can’t be falsified because the origin of photosynthesis has long since disappeared, and on top of all this, evolutionists insist their theory is a fact, beyond all reasonable doubt.


This is like something out of a Monty Python skit. Evolution loses every battle, but manages to win the war because, after all, it’s right.

On conflating politics with science.

March for Science Is Going to Be a Hell of a Mess — Bring It On
David Klinghoffer | @d_klinghoffer

Coming on April 22 to the Mall in Washington, DC, plus hundreds of other locations around the country and the world, the March for Science is gloriously misnamed. The word “science” has many meanings, but most people think of it as the evidence-based search for truth about the natural world, with no holds barred.

In this understanding of science, there are no preconceived conclusions, no sacred dogma, no repression of disfavored thinkers or politically incorrect thoughts, no politics, no parties, no agenda beyond teasing out the truth. The March for Science isn’t really about all that.

Sure, it pays lip service to this common conception of science, derived for many people from science classes you took in high school and college. But judging from the coverage we’ve seen up till now, it looks like the march is set to be an exercise in self-congratulation and virtue signaling, political axe-grinding, a veiled grab by ideological partisans for power and funding. We venture to predict that most marchers won’t even be scientists but, instead, people looking to seize hold of the prestige of science for their own ends.

There’s been much talk of diversity, as organizers have revised the diversity statement on their website multiple times, so that nobody — no possible sexuality, ethnicity, or other identify — feels left out. This rainbow coalition, however, expects lock-step agreement with its views on controversial scientific claims.

The organizers, meanwhile, have been racked by infighting, and some clear-eyed scientists have warned colleagues to beware of conflating science with political agendas.

To all appearances, it’s going to be a hell of a mess, and we say: Bring it on.

Why? Because Americans are going to get a look at something we’ve been telling you about for years. And it’s not going to be pretty. Science, more and more, has been hijacked. Rather than glorying in freewheeling debate, it increasingly insists on conformity. It’s in step with the times on university campuses, where intellectual diversity is frowned on at best, or, at worst, drowned out by screaming, sometimes violent young people.

Advocates of the theory of intelligent design have been protesting for open discussion for two decades now. We’ve seen the closing of the American mind up close. We were the canary in the coalmine, as Darwin skeptics became among the first scholars to feel the impact of the insistence on intellectual conformity.

The academy and the media ignored our warnings. Evolution’s apologists claimed there was no controversy about evolution. They denied the existence of the rumblings going on in peer-reviewed science journals.

On the issue of evolution, Stephen Meyer in Darwin’s Doubt (2013) documented the growing discontent among mainstream scientists with orthodox Darwinian theory. He was dramatically vindicated this past November when the august Royal Society in London met to consider “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology.” The very first speaker, Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd Müller, stood up and acknowledged that evolution lacks explanations for three major mysteries of life’s history, what most people think of when they think of “evolution.” See my article with Paul Nelson, “Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken.”

But the media covers all this up. As Meyer notes in Darwin’s Doubt, “Rarely has there been such a great disparity between the popular perception of a theory and its actual standing in the relevant peer-reviewed science literature.”

Rather than candidly acknowledge dissent among scientists, the media together with the academic community insists on assent from the populace in favor of what Douglas Axe calls Darwinism’s “self-righteous monoculture,” or what Jonathan Wells describes in a new book as “zombie science.”

The March for Science promises to be a massive demonstration of that monoculture, applied to several areas of scientific, political, and cultural disagreement. The marchers will demand an end to that disagreement. And if recent episodes on campuses such as U.C. Berkeley and Middlebury College are any sign, we should not be surprised to see violence.

The March’s website includes a “Statement on Peaceful Assembly and Nonviolence.” “We do not condone violence,” they say. But if they weren’t well aware of the possibility, they wouldn’t need to have a statement on it.

We take no pleasure in saying “We told you so.” But…we did tell you so. This monoculture with its intense dislike of debate seems set to be exposed in all its ugly quasi-fascism. Getting an eyeful of that, for the public, may be a step on the road to recovering intellectual freedom.

Jonathan Haidt of Heterodox Academy hit the nail on the head in a Wall Street Journal interview this past weekend. He spoke specifically of campus disorder and disrespect for genuine diversity. But what happens in Washington, DC, will likely be an extension of that.

“What I think is happening,” Mr. Haidt says, is that “as the visible absurdity on campus mounts and mounts, and as public opinion turns more strongly against universities — and especially as the line of violence is crossed — we are having more and more people standing up saying, ‘Enough is enough. I’m opposed to this.’” Let’s hope.

Indeed, looking forward to April 22, that could be the best outcome for the March for Science.

The science of batteries

On the science of hard drives.

Let Jehovah God be found true III

Are Jehovah's Witnesses guilty of twisting the scriptures found at Daniel 1:1 and Daniel 2:1 to support their fundamental belief regarding 1914?

At Daniel 1:1 we read the following:

"In the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim the king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it."

Referring to a later period, Daniel 2:1 reads:

"And in the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams; and his spirit began to feel agitated, and his very sleep was made to be something beyond him."

How do Jehovah's Witnesses interpret these scriptures?

With regards to "the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim" referred to at Daniel 1:1, the following comments are offered:

"Second Kings 24:1 shows that Nebuchadnezzar brought pressure upon the Judean king "and so Jehoiakim became his servant [or vassal] for three years. However, he [Jehoiakim] turned back and rebelled against him [Nebuchadnezzar]." Evidently it is to this third year of Jehoiakim as a vassal king under Babylon that Daniel refers at Daniel 1:1."—Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, p. 1269.
"This "third year" of vassalage to Babylon would be the eleventh year of Jehoiakim's entire reign."—The Watchtower, September 15, 1964, p. 637.

And, the "second year" of Nebuchadnezzar mentioned at Daniel 2:1, is interpreted as follows:

"The book of Daniel states that it was in "the second year" of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship (probably counting from the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. and therefore actually referring to his 20th regnal year) that Nebuchadnezzar had the dream about the golden-headed image. (Da 2:1)"—Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, p. 481.
"In the second year after Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E., which would be the twentieth year of his kingship over Babylon but the second year of his exercise of world domination, he had a dream that was a prophecy from God. (Dan. 2:1)"—The Watchtower, December 15, 1964, p. 756.

How can Jehovah's Witnesses say these things, especially when the Scriptures appear to be so clear on the matter? Is it not a deliberate distortion of God's Word to suggest that these scriptures do not mean what they say?


Daniel 1:1

The Bible encyclopedia, Insight on the Scriptures, summarizes the Witnesses' position on Daniel 1:1 well:

"Second Kings 24:1 shows that Nebuchadnezzar brought pressure upon the Judean king "and so Jehoiakim became his servant [or vassal] for three years. However, he [Jehoiakim] turned back and rebelled against him [Nebuchadnezzar]." Evidently it is to this third year of Jehoiakim as a vassal king under Babylon that Daniel refers at Daniel 1:1. It could not be Jehoiakim's third year of his 11-year reign over Judah, for at that time Jehoiakim was a vassal, not to Babylon, but to Egypt's Pharaoh Necho. It was not until Jehoiakim's fourth year of rule over Judah that Nebuchadnezzar demolished Egyptian domination over Syria-Palestine by his victory at Carchemish (625 B.C.E. [apparently after Nisan]). (Jer 46:2) Since Jehoiakim's revolt against Babylon led to his downfall after about 11 years on the throne, the beginning of his three-year vassalage to Babylon must have begun toward the end of his eighth year of rule, or early in 620 B.C.E."—Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, p. 1269.

Can this explanation be substantiated? A detailed examination of the Biblical and historical facts bears out that it can. However, let us first establish some of the surrounding details.

Critics of Jehovah's Witnesses often put forward the idea that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Judah and took captives in his accession year (605 B.C.E., according to secular chronology). By their reasoning, this enables them to suggest that the seventy years of servitude commenced at this time, even though, in actuality, this would amount to only 67 years. Some of these critics have gone on the record stating that the year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is not mentioned along with the "third year of Jehoiakim" at Daniel 1:1, because it was Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. Incidentally, this claim is false. Nebuchadnezzar ascended to the throne following the battle of Carchemish, which didn't occur until the fourth year of Jehoiakim. This is attested to by the Scriptures (Jeremiah 46:2), and is also supported by Jewish historian Josephus, and most modern-day historical references that deal with the subject. For example, the Handbook of Biblical Chronology, by historian Jack Finegan (Princeton University, 1964), p. 200 states: "According to the contemporary prophet Jeremiah, the battle of Carchemish took place in the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah." After a detailed examination of Jeremiah's claim, Finegan concludes on p. 201: "This was in fact in the fourth year of King Jehoiakim as stated in Jer 46:2."

But what about Jeremiah 25:1, where "the fourth year of Jehoiakim" is equated with the "first year of Nebuchadnezzar?" Finegan goes on to explain:

"In Hebrew the words are hashshanah haroshniyt. The phrase is not found elsewhere but we recognize, modifying the word "year," the feminine singular form of the adjective which can mean either "first" or "beginning." Since a related noun is used in the standard designation of an accession year, the phrase in Jer 25:1 probably also means the "beginning year," i.e., the accession year, of Nebuchadnezzar. Accepting this as the correct translation, the synchronism in Jer 25:1 is correct and in agreement with that in Jer 46:2. The fourth year of Jehoiakim included the battle of Carchemish and the accession of Nebuchadnezzar to the throne of Babylon."—Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Jack Finegan, Princeton University, 1964, p. 202.

Thus, Jewish historian Josephus was correct in reporting that "in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, one whose name was Nebuchadnezzar took the government over the Babylonians." (Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, Chapter VI, Verse 1) The Bible confirms the testimony that Nebuchadnezzar did not defeat Egypt until the fourth year of Jehoiakim, up until which point Judah continued as a vassal to Egypt:

"This is what occurred as the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet concerning the nations: For Egypt, concerning the military force of Pharaoh Necho the king of Egypt, who happened to be by the river Euphrates at Carchemish, whom Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, the king of Judah."—Jeremiah 46:1-2.

The Biblical testimony on this subject does not end there. The book of Jeremiah contains "the words of Jeremiah . . . to whom the word of Jehovah occurred." (Jeremiah 1:1-2) These included Jeremiah's prophetic pronouncements against disobedient Judah, which began in the thirteenth year of Josiah, and continued down to "the completion of the eleventh year of Zedekiah the son of Josiah, the king of Judah, until Jerusalem went into exile in the fifth month." (Jeremiah 1:3) After some 23 years of continuous prophesying, specifically in the fourth and fifth years of Jehoiakim's reign, we read of the nature of Jeremiah's message at this time:

"Now it came about in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, the king of Judah, that this word occurred to Jeremiah from Jehovah,  saying: "Take for yourself a roll of a book, and you must write in it all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel and against Judah and against all the nations, since the day that I spoke to you, since the days of Josiah, clear down to this day. Perhaps those of the house of Judah will listen to all the calamity that I am thinking of doing to them, to the end that they may return, each one from his bad way, and that I may actually forgive their error and their sin."—Jeremiah 36:1-3.
"Now it came about in the fifth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, the king of Judah, in the ninth month, that all the people in Jerusalem and all the people that were coming in from the cities of Judah into Jerusalem proclaimed a fast before Jehovah. . . . And against Jehoiakim the king of Judah you should say, 'This is what Jehovah has said: "You yourself have burned up this roll, saying, 'Why is it that you have written on it, saying: "The king of Babylon will come without fail and will certainly bring this land to ruin and cause man and beast to cease from it"?'"—Jeremiah 36:9, 29.

The above scriptures suggest that by the "fifth year of Jehoiakim," Nebuchadnezzar had not yet come up against Judah, for Jehoiakim confidently rejects the words of Jeremiah in disbelief, inasmuch as he burned up the roll upon which Jeremiah's words were written.

Yet, some contend that statements made by Berossus, a Babylonian priest of Bel who lived more than 250 years after the fact, indicate that Nebuchadnezzar did in fact take Jewish captives in his accession year. Nevertheless, it has been observed that "many modern scholars have been inclined to distrust Berossus." (A Scheme of Babylonian Chronology, Duncan Macnaughton, London, 1930, p. 2) Aside from the fact that there are no cuneiform tablets supporting Berossus' alleged claim (whereas cuneiform documentation does exist for Nebuchadnezzar's first siege against Judah in his 7th year^ftn1), it is unlikely that Nebuchadnezzar took captives from Judah after the battle of Carchemish, as we are told that, although having defeated Egypt, "he was prevented from following up his advantage immediately because the death of his father in Babylon made it necessary for him to return home to be crowned." (Biblical Archaeology, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1979 edition, p. 177.) Along similar lines, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, by J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, adds that "The young Babylonian crown prince [Nebuchadnezzar] had to depart Syria speedily upon receiving word of the death of his father." (p. 389)

Also, it is noteworthy that Jewish historian Josephus specifically reports that Nebuchadnezzar did not take Jewish captives in his accession year:

"Now in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, one whose name was Nebuchadnezzar . . . the king of Babylon passed over Euphrates, and took all Syria, as far as Pelusium, excepting Judea."—Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, Chapter VI, Verse 1.

But even more telling is the silence of the Biblical record as to any captivity prior to the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar when expressly dealing with the subject at Jeremiah 52:28-30. Unquestionably, a book that so extensively details the history of the Jewish nation with such candor and honesty, would not be lacking in such details if they were historically factual.

Josephus explains that it was not until Jehoiakim refused to "pay his tribute" to the Babylonian king, in Jehoiakim's third year as a vassal king (which was his eleventh year as king over the Hebrews, and Nebuchadnezzar's seventh regnal year), that Nebuchadnezzar proceeded to lay siege to Jerusalem. (Daniel 1:1; 2 Kings 24:1; 2 Chronicles 36:5-7):

"But when Nebuchadnezzar had already reigned four years, which was the eighth of Jehoiakim's government over the Hebrews, the king of Babylon made an expedition with mighty forces against the Jews, and required tribute of Jehoiakim, and threatened, on his refusal, to make war against him. He was affrighted at his threatening, and bought his peace with money, and brought the tribute he was ordered to bring for three years. But on the third year, upon hearing that the king of the Babylonians made an expedition against the Egyptians, he did not pay his tribute."—Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, Chapter VI, Verses 1, 2.

It was a short time after this that Nebuchadnezzar took the first Jewish captives. It was expressly because of Jehoiakim's rebellion that Nebuchadnezzar took captives, for up to that point he had Jerusalem's full cooperation, as observed by historian G. Ernest Wright:

"Jehoiakim of Judah promptly submitted and remained loyal for a time before rebelling (II Kings 24:1)."—Biblical Archaeology, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1979 edition, p. 177, 179.

Historian and chronologist Jack Finegan further expands:

"The purpose of Nebuchadnezzar now undoubtedly included punishment of the defection of Judah and re-establishment of his control there, and in the record of the seventh year we are told explicitly of an attack upon "the city of Judah" which must mean Jerusalem."—Light from the Ancient Past, Princeton University, Second Printing, 1974, p. 222.

Josephus' account agrees with the Biblical record at Jeremiah 52:28-30, which specifically reports that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives in his 7th year, 18th year and 23rd year. Critics may point out that Jeremiah 52:28-30 does not say that Nebuchadnezzar did not take captives in his accession year, however, the conclusive nature of verses 28 to 30 does not allow for this, as the highlighted portions demonstrate:

"These are the people whom Nebuchadrezzar took into exile: in the seventh year, three thousand and twenty-three Jews.
In the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar, from Jerusalem there were eight hundred and thirty-two souls.
In the twenty-third year of Nebuchadrezzar, Nebuzaradan the chief of the bodyguard took Jews into exile, seven hundred and forty-five souls.
All the souls were four thousand and six hundred."—Jeremiah 52:28-30.

While critics of Jehovah's Witnesses frequently put forward the theory that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives in his accession year, so as to suggest that the "seventy years" commenced at this time, this is not the position generally taken by modern historians. For example, the following authoritative references support the understanding that the first Jewish captives were not taken until Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year:

A History of the Babylonians and Assyrians
by George Stephen Goodspeed, Professor of Ancient History, University of Chicago, 1927.
The Greatness That Was Babylon
H. W. F. Saggs, London University, 1962.
Archaeology and the Old Testament World
Dr. John Gray, King's College, University of Aberdeen, 1962.
Everyday Life in Babylonia and Assyria
H. W. F. Saggs, 1965.
Light from the Ancient PastJack Finegan, Princeton University, 1974.
Biblical ArchaeologyG. Ernest Wright, Westminster, 1979.

Furthermore, it would be nonsensical to suggest that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem and took captives in his accession year, and then didn't demand tribute (i.e., vassalage) from Jehoiakim for another four to five years. It was only after having already served faithfully as a tributary king under Nebuchadnezzar for three years, and then rebelling, that Nebuchadnezzar saw fit to punish Judah.

Interestingly, the verses immediately following Daniel 1:1 may provide the most convincing evidence that Daniel was not referring to the third year of Jehoiakim's kingship over Judah:

"In the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim the king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it. In time Jehovah gave into his hand Jehoiakim the king of Judah and a part of the utensils of the house of the [true] God, so that he brought them to the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and the utensils he brought to the treasure-house of his god.
Then the king said to Ashpenaz his chief court official to bring some of the sons of Israel and of the royal offspring and of the nobles, children in whom there was no defect at all, but good in appearance and having insight into all wisdom and being acquainted with knowledge, and having discernment of what is known, in whom also there was ability to stand in the palace of the king; and to teach them the writing and the tongue of the Chaldeans."—Daniel 1:1-4.

Verse 2 relates that Jehovah gave Jehoiakim and "a part of the utensils" of the temple into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. This event certainly did not occur in Jehoiakim's third year over Judah, as 2 Kings 23:36 and 2 Chronicles 36:5 tell us that Jehoiakim reigned in Jerusalem for a total of eleven years. Those who attempt to equate this event (at Daniel 1:2) with the tributary submission mentioned at 2 Kings 24:1 seem to ignore the fact that a siege was not necessary  to persuade Jehoiakim to submit; the siege is mentioned only in connection with Jehoiakim's rebellion after having served faithfully for three years. Thus, Jehoikim's being given into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar did not occur in his third year over Judah, but rather, refers to the capture and death of Jehoiakim in his eleventh year, after which, 2 Kings 24:8-17 reports, Jehoiakim's son, Jehoiachin, reigned for only three months in Jerusalem before himself being taken captive to Babylon, along with "the princes and all the valiant, mighty men," which presumably included Daniel himself.

It is these "princes" and "valiant men," mentioned at 2 Kings 24:12-14 as being taken captive in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, that Daniel 1:3 refers to as "royal offspring" and "nobles." The "princes" (or "royal offspring") could not have been taken captive more than once, indicating that the events described at Daniel 1:1-3 are the same as those described at 2 Kings 24:12-16 (where it is established that "all the princes and all the valiant, mighty men" were taken captive).

Also, please note that verse 3 begins with the adverb "then" (NWT, NIV, NKJV; other translations use "and," meaning "together with or along with") indicating that the events described in this verse occurred at the time of, or following, the events mentioned in the previous verse. Therefore, the exiles mentioned at Daniel 1:3 were brought to Babylon after Jehoiakim was given into Nebuchadnezzar's hand, in the eleventh year of his reign over Judah.

When these details are not overlooked, it becomes increasingly obvious that Daniel 1:1-3 is nothing more than a condensed account of 2 Kings 24:1-17 and 2 Chronicles 36:5-10. It is not unusual that Daniel omits mention of Jehoiakim's son, Jehoiachin, since his reign lasted a mere three months before he was whisked away to Babylon along with the other "royal offspring." The fact that this three month reign was considered insignificant so far as Bible prophecy is concerned is seen in the fact that Jeremiah 36:30 foretells that Jehoiakim would "come to have no one sitting upon the throne of David." True to this prophecy, during the continuing siege against Jerusalem, Jehoiachin was removed from the throne by Nebuchadnezzar shortly after his accession.

In light of the above evidence establishing that Daniel was not referring to Jehoiakim's third year of his eleven-year kingship over Judah, is it reasonable to suggest that he was stating the year of Jehoiakim's reign as a tributary king under Nebuchadnezzar?

Most definitely. As already touched upon, the Bible shows that the "siege" referred to at Daniel 1:1 is a parallel account to that described at 2 Kings 24:1-2, which plainly states that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Judah after Jehoiakim rebelled upon completing three years of tributary kingship to the Babylonian king:

"In his days Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came up, and so Jehoiakim became his servant for three years. However, he turned back and rebelled against him. And Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Chaldeans and marauder bands of Syrians and marauder bands of Moabites and marauder bands of the sons of Ammon, and he kept sending them against Judah to destroy it."—2 Kings 24:1-2.

Additionally, becoming a vassal to a foreign king was a significant political event, which could easily change the terms by which a king's reign was reckoned. Historian and chronologist Jack Finegan presents details to that effect:

"At that time and in connection with that submission Jehoiakim may very well have accepted the Babylonian calendar. As late as the eighteenth year of Josiah the old Israelite year was still in use and the regnal year began in the fall, and the same was probably true up to the present point in the reign of Jehoiakim. But with the acceptance of the Babylonian calendar the regnal year would begin in the spring."—Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Princeton University, 1964, pp. 202-3.

So, instead of trying to reconcile the king's past reign under the new Babylonian calendar, which would introduce a seven-month shift (and confusion) into the equation, the Jews may have kept a separate count of Jehoiakim's kingship under Nebuchadnezzar.

In summary, as the preceding evidence demonstrates, the "third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim," referred to at Daniel 1:1 cannot be referring to his third year over Judah, and therefore, is presumably expressed in terms of Jehoiakim's tributary kingship.


Daniel 2:1

Once it has been established that Daniel 1:1 refers to the third year of Jehoiakim's tributary kingship under Nebuchadnezzar, the meaning of Daniel 2:1 is immediately affected, for Daniel would not have been brought to Babylon until Nebuchadnezzar's eighth regnal year, and therefore could not stand before the king in his "second year."

Despite this foregone conclusion, there is further evidence supporting this position, which in turn, corroborates the evidence put forth regarding Daniel 1:1.

Daniel 1:3-5, 18 demonstrates that Daniel 2:1 cannot be referring to Nebuchadnezzar's second regnal year:

"Then the king said to Ashpenaz his chief court official to bring some of the sons of Israel and of the royal offspring and of the nobles, children in whom there was no defect at all, but good in appearance and having insight into all wisdom and being acquainted with knowledge, and having discernment of what is known, in whom also there was ability to stand in the palace of the king; and to teach them the writing and the tongue of the Chaldeans. Furthermore, to them the king appointed a daily allowance from the delicacies of the king and from his drinking wine, even to nourish them for three years, that at the end of these they might stand before the king. . . . And at the end of the days that the king had said to bring them in, the principal court official also proceeded to bring them in before Nebuchadnezzar."—Daniel 1:3-5, 18.

Yes, during a three-year educational program Daniel and his companions were to learn the "the writing and the tongue of the Chaldeans." This would be a necessary step, since Jehovah foretold that the "house of Israel" would become subject to a nation "whose language [they] do not know, and [they] cannot hear  [understandingly] what they speak." (Jeremiah 5:15) It would not have been until after the completion of this three-year educational program, "at the end of the days that the king had said to bring them in," (Daniel 1:18) that Daniel could likely serve in any useful capacity before the king, and even after which, a  reasonable amount of time would have to have passed before he came to be recognized as one of the "wise men" of Babylon eligible for death at the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. (Daniel 2:12, 13) Therefore, if Daniel 2:1 was in fact referring to Nebuchadnezzar's second regnal year, the testimony at Daniel 1:3-5, 18 could not be true.

However, at least one critic has asserted that Nebuchadnezzar's accession year must be added to the "second year" mentioned at Daniel 2:1 to compensate for the apparent discrepancy. However, there are at least two problems with this point of view.

According to cuneiform documentation, Nebuchadnezzar's accession year began in September, and therefore was only one half-year in duration, completing in the Babylonian month of Nisanu (or March/April of the following year on our calendar). Secondly, when Daniel says "in the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar" he is indicating that Nebuchadnezzar's second regnal year had not yet completed. Even when Nebuchadnezzar's accession year is included, the entire time period covered could amount to as little as a year-and-a-half. On the other hand, had the dream occurred at the end of his second year, which it does not state, this would still only amount to a maximum of two-and-a-half years, whereas Daniel chapter 1 specifically reports that Daniel and his companions were brought before the king after a period of three years had elapsed.

It is apparently because of this that some Hebrew scholars have suggested that the rendition of Daniel 2:1 should read "twelfth year" instead of "second year," as born out in the footnote on Daniel 2:1 in Biblia Hebraica, by Rudolf Kittel, ninth edition of 1954, and in the footnote in The Cross-Reference Bible, Variorum Edition, by Harold E. Monser, B.A., edition of 1910. (For further details, see pp. 172-3 of the Watchtower Society publication "Babylon the Great Has Fallen!" God's Kingdom Rules!)

In the final analysis, though, this "second year" most likely refers to the second year of Nebuchadnezzar following the destruction of Jerusalem, which would be the twentieth year of his reign over Babylon. Two years prior to this, the dethronement of Zedekiah took place, completely abolishing the Judean kingship with "no one sitting on the throne of David" (Jeremiah 36:30), until its prophesied restoration to occur at the end of the "appointed times of the nations." (Ezekiel 21:26-27; Luke 21:24) With the removal of Zedekiah's crown, the entire nation of Judah fell under direct servitude to the king of Babylon, no longer possessing its own king as intermediary, as had previously been the case with Judah's tributary submission to Babylon (and to other nations prior to this). From a Jewish point of view, this would in fact be the "second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar"; Nebuchadnezzar had, in effect, become the king of the Jews. Furthermore, by overturning Jehovah's typical kingdom, he had also acquired sovereignty over all nations of the world. It is therefore not the least bit unusual that Daniel would choose to refer to his kingship in these terms.


Summary

It is not by mere chance or coincidence that the explanations offered by Jehovah's Witnesses work out. They are not the product of twisting scriptures, but rather, they result when one endeavors to harmonize all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), recognizing that every word, no matter how apparentlyinsignificant, comprises the unfailing Word of God.


Footnotes

1. "Year 7, month Kislimu: The king of Akkad moved his army into Hatti land, laid siege to the city of Judah (Ia-a-hu-du) and the king took the city on the second day of the month of Addaru. He appointed in it a (new) king of his liking, took heavy booty from it and brought it into Babylon."—Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, J. M. Pritchard, p. 563-4. (back)

The Jesus Of History

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.