Search This Blog

Saturday, 6 January 2018

Isaiah ch.1-5 New World Translation 2013 edition.

1 The vision that Isaiah*+ the son of Aʹmoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uz·ziʹah,+ Joʹtham,+ Aʹhaz,+ and Hez·e·kiʹah,+ kings of Judah:+

 2 Hear, O heavens, and pay attention, O earth,+

For Jehovah has spoken:

“Sons I have brought up and raised,+

But they have revolted against me.+

 3 A bull well knows its buyer,

And a donkey the manger of its owner;

But Israel does not know me,*+

My own people do not behave with understanding.”

 4 Woe to the sinful nation,+

The people weighed down with error,

A brood of wicked men, corrupt children!

They have abandoned Jehovah;+

They have treated the Holy One of Israel with disrespect;

They have turned their backs on him.

 5 Where will you be struck next as you add to your rebellion?+

The whole head is sick,

And the whole heart is diseased.+

 6 From the sole of the foot to the head, nothing is healthy.

There are wounds and bruises and open sores

—They have not been treated* or bound up or softened with oil.+

 7 Your land is desolate.

Your cities are burned with fire.

Foreigners devour your land right in front of you.+

It is like a wasteland overthrown by foreigners.+

 8 The daughter of Zion has been left like a shelter* in a vineyard,

Like a hut in a cucumber field,

Like a city under siege.+

 9 Unless Jehovah of armies had left us a few survivors,

We should have become just like Sodʹom,

And we should have resembled Go·morʹrah.+

10 Hear the word of Jehovah, you dictators* of Sodʹom.+

Pay attention to the law* of our God, you people of Go·morʹrah.+

11 “Of what benefit to me are your many sacrifices?”+ says Jehovah.

“I have had enough of your burnt offerings of rams+ and the fat of well-fed animals,+

And I have no delight in the blood+ of young bulls+ and lambs and goats.+

12 When you come to appear before me,+

Who has required this from you,

This trampling of my courtyards?+

13 Stop bringing in any more worthless grain offerings.

Your incense is detestable to me.+

New moons,+ sabbaths,+ the calling of conventions+

—I cannot put up with the use of magical power+ along with your solemn assembly.

14 I have* hated your new moons and your festivals.

They have become a burden to me;

I am tired of bearing them.

15 And when you spread out your palms,

I hide my eyes from you.+

Although you offer many prayers,+

I am not listening;+

Your hands are filled with blood.+

16 Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;+

Remove your evil deeds from my sight;

Stop doing bad.+

17 Learn to do good, seek justice,+

Correct the oppressor,

Defend the rights of the fatherless child,*

And plead the cause of the widow.”+

18 “Come, now, and let us set matters straight between us,” says Jehovah.+

“Though your sins are like scarlet,

They will be made as white as snow;+

Though they are as red as crimson cloth,

They will become like wool.

19 If you show willingness and listen,

You will eat the good things of the land.+

20 But if you refuse and rebel,

You will be devoured by the sword,+

For the mouth of Jehovah has spoken it.”

21 How the faithful city+ has become a prostitute!+

She was full of justice;+

Righteousness used to lodge in her,+

But now murderers.+

22 Your silver has become dross,+

And your beer* is diluted with water.

23 Your princes are stubborn and partners with thieves.+

Every one of them loves a bribe and chases after gifts.+

They do not grant justice to the fatherless,*

And the legal case of the widow never reaches them.+

24 Therefore the true Lord, Jehovah of armies,

The Powerful One of Israel, declares:

“Ah! I will rid myself of my adversaries,

And I will take revenge on my enemies.+

25 I will turn my hand against you,

I will smelt away your dross as with lye,

And I will remove all your impurities.+

26 I will restore your judges as in the beginning

And your advisers as at the start.+

After this you will be called City of Righteousness, Faithful Town.+

27 With justice Zion will be redeemed,+

And her people who return, with righteousness.

28 The rebels and the sinners will be broken together,+

And those leaving Jehovah will come to their finish.+

29 For they will be ashamed of the mighty trees that you desired,+

And you will be disgraced because of the gardens* that you chose.+

30 For you will become like a big tree with withering leaves,+

And like a garden without water.

31 The strong man will become tow,*

And his work a spark;

Both of them will go up in flames together,

With no one to extinguish them.”
2 This is what Isaiah the son of Aʹmoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem:+

 2 In the final part of the days,*

The mountain of the house of Jehovah

Will become firmly established above the top of the mountains,+

And it will be raised up above the hills,

And to it all the nations will stream.+

 3 And many peoples will go and say:

“Come, let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah,

To the house of the God of Jacob.+

He will instruct us about his ways,

And we will walk in his paths.”+

For law* will go out of Zion,

And the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem.+

 4 He will render judgment among the nations

And set matters straight* respecting many peoples.

They will beat their swords into plowshares

And their spears into pruning shears.+

Nation will not lift up sword against nation,

Nor will they learn war anymore.+

 5 O house of Jacob, come,

Let us walk in the light of Jehovah.+

 6 For you have forsaken your people, the house of Jacob,+

Because they have become full of things from the East;

They practice magic+ like the Phi·lisʹtines,

And they abound with the children of foreigners.

 7 Their land is filled with silver and gold,

And there is no limit to their treasures.

Their land is filled with horses,

And there is no limit to their chariots.+

 8 Their land is filled with worthless gods.+

They bow down to the work of their own hands,

To what their own fingers have made.

 9 So man bows down, he becomes low,

And you cannot possibly pardon them.

10 Enter into the rock and hide yourself in the dust

Because of the terrifying presence of Jehovah

And his majestic splendor.+

11 The haughty eyes of man will be brought low,

And the arrogance of men will bow down.*

Jehovah alone will be exalted in that day.

12 For it is the day belonging to Jehovah of armies.+

It is coming upon everyone who is haughty and lofty,

Upon everyone, whether exalted or lowly,+

13 Upon all the cedars of Lebʹa·non that are lofty and exalted

And upon all the oaks of Baʹshan,

14 Upon all the lofty mountains

And upon all the high hills,

15 Upon every high tower and every fortified wall,

16 Upon all the ships of Tarʹshish+

And upon all desirable boats.

17 Man’s haughtiness will be brought down,

And the arrogance of men will bow low.*

Jehovah alone will be exalted in that day.

18 The worthless gods will completely disappear.+

19 And people will enter into the caves of the rocks

And into the holes in the ground,+

Because of the terrifying presence of Jehovah

And his majestic splendor,+

When he arises to make the earth tremble in terror.

20 In that day men will take their worthless gods of silver and of gold

That they had made for themselves to bow down to

And throw them away to the shrewmice* and to the bats,+

21 In order to enter into the holes in the rocks

And into the clefts of the crags,

Because of the terrifying presence of Jehovah

And his majestic splendor,

When he arises to make the earth tremble in terror.

22 For your own sakes, quit trusting in mere man,

Who is only the breath in his nostrils.*

Why should he be taken into account?
3 For look! the true Lord, Jehovah of armies,

Is removing from Jerusalem and Judah every kind of support and supply,

All support of bread and water,+

 2 Mighty man and warrior,

Judge and prophet,+ diviner and elder,

 3 Chief of 50,+ dignitary, and adviser,

The expert magician and the skilled charmer.+

 4 I will make boys their princes,

And the unstable* will rule over them.

 5 The people will oppress one another,

Each one his fellow man.+

The boy will assault the old man,

And the lightly esteemed one will defy the respected one.+

 6 Each one will take hold of his brother in his father’s house and say:

“You have a cloak—you be our commander.

Take charge of this overthrown pile of ruins.”

 7 But he will protest in that day:

“I will not be your wound dresser;*

I have no food or clothing in my house.

Do not make me commander over the people.”

 8 For Jerusalem has stumbled,

And Judah has fallen,

Because in word and deed they are against Jehovah;

They behave defiantly in his glorious presence.*+

 9 The expression of their faces testifies against them,

And they proclaim their sin like Sodʹom;+

They do not try to hide it.

Woe to them,* for they are bringing disaster on themselves!

10 Tell the righteous that it will go well for them;

They will be rewarded for what they do.*+

11 Woe to the wicked one!

Disaster will befall him,

For what his hands have done will be done to him!

12 As for my people, their taskmasters are abusive,

And women rule over them.

My people, your leaders are causing you to wander,

And they confuse the direction of your paths.+

13 Jehovah is taking his position to accuse;

He is standing up to pass sentence on peoples.

14 Jehovah will enter into judgment with the elders and princes of his people.

“You have burned down the vineyard,

And what you have stolen from the poor is in your houses.+

15 How dare you crush my people

And grind the faces of the poor in the dirt?”+ declares the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies.

16 Jehovah says: “Because the daughters of Zion are haughty,

Walking with their heads high,*

Flirting with their eyes, skipping along,

Making a tinkling sound with their anklets,

17 Jehovah will also strike the head of the daughters of Zion with scabs,

And Jehovah will make their forehead bare.+

18 In that day Jehovah will take away the beauty of their bangles,

The headbands and the crescent-shaped ornaments,+

19 The earrings,* the bracelets, and the veils,

20 The headdresses, the ankle chains, and the breastbands,*

The perfume receptacles* and the charms,*

21 The finger rings and the nose rings,

22 The ceremonial robes, the overtunics, the cloaks, and the purses,

23 The hand mirrors+ and the linen garments,*

The turbans and the veils.

24 Instead of balsam oil,+ there will be a rotten smell;

Instead of a belt, a rope;

Instead of a beautiful hairstyle, baldness;+

Instead of a rich garment, a garment of sackcloth;+

And a brand mark instead of beauty.

25 By the sword your men will fall,

And your mighty men in battle.+

26 Her entrances will mourn and grieve,+


And she will sit on the ground desolate.”+
4 And seven women will grab hold of one man in that day,+ saying:

“We will eat our own bread

And wear our own clothing;

Only let us be called by your name

To take away our disgrace.”*+

2 In that day what Jehovah makes sprout will be splendid and glorious, and the fruitage of the land will be the pride and beauty of the survivors of Israel.+ 3 Whoever remains in Zion and is left over in Jerusalem will be called holy, all of those in Jerusalem written down for life.+


4 When Jehovah washes away the filth* of the daughters of Zion+ and rinses away the bloodshed of Jerusalem from her midst by the spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning,*+ 5 Jehovah will also create over the whole site of Mount Zion and over the place of her conventions a cloud and smoke by day and a bright flaming fire by night;+ for over all the glory there will be a shelter. 6 And there will be a booth for shade by day from the heat,+ and for refuge and protection from storms and the rain.+
5 Let me sing, please, to my beloved

A song about my loved one and his vineyard.+

My beloved had a vineyard on a fruitful hillside.

 2 He dug it up and rid it of stones.

He planted it with a choice red vine,

Built a tower in the middle of it,

And hewed out a winepress in it.+

Then he kept hoping for it to produce grapes,

But it produced only wild grapes.+

 3 “And now, you inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,

Please judge between me and my vineyard.+

 4 What more could I have done for my vineyard

That I have not already done?+

Why, when I hoped for grapes,

Did it produce only wild grapes?

 5 Now, please, let me tell you

What I will do to my vineyard:

I will remove its hedge,

And it will be burned down.+

I will break down its stone wall,

And it will be trampled on.

 6 I will make it a wasteland;+

It will not be pruned or hoed.

It will be overgrown with thornbushes and weeds,+

And I will command the clouds not to send any rain on it.+

 7 For the vineyard of Jehovah of armies is the house of Israel;+

The men of Judah are the plantation* he was fond of.

He kept hoping for justice,+

But look! there was injustice;

For righteousness,

But look! a cry of distress.”+

 8 Woe to those who join one house to another house+

And who annex one field to another field+

Until there is no more room

And you live by yourselves on the land!

 9 Jehovah of armies has sworn in my ears

That many houses, though great and beautiful,

Will become an object of horror,

Without an inhabitant.+

10 For ten acres* of vineyard will produce but one bath measure,*

And a hoʹmer measure* of seed will produce only an eʹphah.*+

11 Woe to those who get up early in the morning to drink alcohol,+

Who linger late into the evening darkness until wine inflames them!

12 They have harp and stringed instrument,

Tambourine, flute, and wine at their feasts;

But they do not consider the activity of Jehovah,

And they do not see the work of his hands.

13 So my people will go into exile

For lack of knowledge;+

Their glorious men will go hungry,+

And all their people will be parched with thirst.

14 So the Grave* has enlarged itself*

And has opened its mouth wide without limit;+

And her splendor,* her noisy multitudes, and her revelers

Will certainly go down into it.

15 And man will bow down,

Man will be brought low,

And the eyes of the haughty will be brought low.

16 Jehovah of armies will be exalted by his judgment;*

The true God, the Holy One,+ will sanctify himself through righteousness.+

17 And the lambs will graze as in their pasture;

Foreign residents will feed on the desolate places of well-fed animals.

18 Woe to those who drag along their guilt with ropes of deception

And their sin with wagon cords;

19 Those who say: “Let Him speed up his work;

Let it come quickly that we may see it.

Let the purpose* of the Holy One of Israel take place

That we may know it!”+

20 Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,+

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

21 Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!+

22 Woe to those who are mighty in drinking wine

And to the men who are masters at mixing alcoholic drinks,+

23 Those who acquit the wicked for a bribe+

And who deny justice to the righteous!+

24 Therefore, just as the tongue of fire consumes the stubble

And dry grass shrivels in the flames,

Their very roots will rot,

And their blossoms will scatter like powder,

Because they rejected the law* of Jehovah of armies

And disrespected the word of the Holy One of Israel.+

25 That is why the anger of Jehovah burns against his people,

And he will stretch out his hand against them and strike them.+

The mountains will quake,

And their corpses will be like refuse in the streets.+

In view of all this, his anger has not turned back,

But his hand is still stretched out to strike.

26 He has raised up a signal* to a distant nation;+

He has whistled for them to come from the ends of the earth;+

And look! they are coming very swiftly.+

27 None among them are tired or stumbling.

No one is drowsy or sleeps.

The belt around their waist is not loosened,

Nor are their sandal laces broken.

28 All their arrows are sharp,

And all their bows are bent.*

The hooves of their horses are like flint,

And their wheels like a storm wind.+

29 Their roaring is like that of a lion;

They roar like young lions.*+

They will growl and seize the prey

And carry it off with no one to rescue it.

30 In that day they will growl over it

Like the growling of the sea.+

Anyone who gazes at the land will see distressing darkness;


Even the light has grown dark because of the clouds.+

On Abbadon :The Watchtower Society's commentary.

ABADDON

A·badʹdon) [from Heb., meaning “Destruction”].

At Revelation 9:11 this Hebrew word is transliterated into the English text. There we read concerning the symbolic plague of locusts that they have “a king, the angel of the abyss. In Hebrew his name is Abaddon, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon.”

In Hebrew the word ʼavad·dohnʹ means “destruction” and may also refer to “the place of destruction.” It appears in the original Hebrew text a total of five times, and in four of the occurrences it is used to parallel “the burial place,” “Sheol,” and “death.” (Ps 88:11; Job 26:6; 28:22; Pr 15:11) The word ʼavad·dohnʹ in these texts evidently refers to the destructive processes that ensue with human death, and these scriptures indicate that decay or destruction takes place in Sheol, the common grave of mankind. At Job 31:12 ʼavad·dohnʹ designates the damaging effect of an adulterous course. Job declared: “That [adulterous course] is a fire that would eat clear to destruction [ʽadh-ʼavad·dohnʹ], and among all my produce it would take root.”—Compare Pr 6:26-28, 32; 7:26, 27.

Abaddon, the angel of the abyss—who is he?

At Revelation 9:11, however, the word “Abaddon” is used as the name of “the angel of the abyss.” The corresponding Greek name Apollyon means “Destroyer.” In the 19th century there were efforts made to show that this text prophetically applied to individuals such as Emperor Vespasian, Muhammad, and even Napoleon, and the angel was generally regarded as “satanic.” It should be noted, however, that at Revelation 20:1-3 the angel having “the key of the abyss” is shown to be God’s representative from heaven, and rather than being “satanic,” he binds and hurls Satan into the abyss. Commenting on Revelation 9:11, The Interpreter’s Bible says: “Abaddon, however, is an angel not of Satan but of God, performing his work of destruction at God’s bidding.”


In the Hebrew scriptures just considered, it is evident that ʼavad·dohnʹ is paralleled with Sheol and death. At Revelation 1:18 we find Christ Jesus stating: “I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.” His power with regard to the abyss is shown at Luke 8:31. That he has destroying power, including the power of destruction over Satan, is evident from Hebrews 2:14, which says that Jesus partook of blood and flesh in order that “through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil.” At Revelation 19:11-16 he is clearly represented as God’s appointed Destroyer or Executioner.—

Braver,newer and nearer than ever?

Here’s a Recipe for Procreative Anarchy
Wesley J. Smith


It is a profound irony that as we allow even very late term fetuses to be aborted on one hand, scientists are finding radical nature-bending ways to assist people have babies — including methods that could shatter familial norms.

Newest possibility: Artificial sperm and ova.  From the story in The Guardian:

Speaking at the Progress Educational Trust annual conference in London this month, Azim Surani, director of germline and epigenetics research at the University of Cambridge’s Gurdon Institute, said he and colleagues had passed a significant milestone on the path to producing sperm in the laboratory.

The team is thought to be the first to have reached the halfway point on the developmental path from human stem cells to immature sperm.

The study hints that one day it may be possible to manufacture sperm and eggs from stem cells or even adult skin cells.

This could, at least in theory, permit men to become biological mothers, and with genetic engineering, women to become fathers:

Fertility clinics in Britain are currently banned from using artificial sperm or eggs to treat infertile couples. However, if scientists perfected the ability to produce germ cells in the lab — something Surani predicts is at least a decade away — regulators could face pressure to revise the law to reflect the new possibilities.

For instance, two men could potentially have a baby that was genetically related to both of them by using skin cells from one to make an egg and cells from the other to make the sperm.

Then, a woman would be hired or would volunteer to become a surrogate mother of a baby with two male biological parents.

Or, if some get their way, one of the men could have a uterus transplanted so that he could gestate and give birth via Caesarean section. That has been seriously advocated by such bioethics luminaries as Joseph Fletcher.

Now, add in CRISPR gene editing, three-parent IVF techniques, and the “no limits” mentality of some in science and society, and the atomizing Brave New World possibilities become endless.

By the way, the (phony) ban mentioned in the article is typical of what we see in biotech all the time: Outlaw what can’t be done today to permit the research to be performed that will permit it to be done. Then, once that succeeds, lift the ban — meaning the prohibition was really meant to give false assurance and public space to work out the technology.

This is a recipe for the transhumanist dream of radical individualistic procreation, baby manufacture, and radical family restructuring. If that’s what we want — I don’t think it should be permitted, but I don’t have a monopoly on wisdom — it is what we may get.

We should at least have a serious societal discussion before these things can be done, to determine — through democratic means — the breadth and scope of regulations that should govern these technologies. Otherwise, we are heading toward an anarchic procreative society.

Playing God?

Playing God? II

Playing God? III

Lady math gives Darwinism yet another rebuff?

Peer-Reviewed Science: A “Mathematical Proof of Darwinian Evolution” Is Falsified

Due to the tradition of professional scientific writing, major developments in scientific literature often arrive muffled in language so bland or technical as to be totally missed by a general reader. This, along with the media’s habit of covering up for evolution, is how large cracks in the foundation of Darwinism spread unnoticed by the public, which goes on assuming that the science is all settled and will ever remain so.

A case in point is a recent article in the Journal of Mathematical Biology, a significant peer-reviewed publication from the influential publisher Springer. The title of the article announces, The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations.”

Including a verb would, presumably, be too much of a concession to populist sensationalism. Yet the conclusion, if not sensational, is certainly noteworthy.

Generations of students of biology and evolution have learned of the pioneering work of Ronald A. Fisher (1890-1962). A founder of modern statistics and population genetics, he published his famous fundamental theorem of natural selection in 1930, laying one of the cornerstones of neo-Darwinism by linking Mendelian genetics with natural selection. Wikipedia summarizes, “[T]his contributed to the revival of Darwinism in the early 20th century revision of the theory of evolution known as the modern synthesis.”

Fisher’s theorem, offered as what amounts to a “mathematical proof that Darwinian evolution is inevitable,” now stands as falsified.

His idea is relatively easy to state. It goes:

The rate of increase in fitness of any organism at any time is equal to its genetic variance in fitness at that time.

His proof of this was not a standard mathematical one; fitness is not rigorously defined, and his argument is more intuitive than anything else. The theorem addresses only the effects of natural selection. Fisher did not directly address any other effect (mutation, genetic drift, environmental change, etc.) as he considered them to be insignificant. Later mathematicians took issue with Fisher’s lack of rigor, some at considerable length. But the omission of the effects of mutation got the most attention.

Now along come mathematician William F. Basener and geneticist John C. Sanford who propose an expansion of the fundamental theorem to include mutations. Basener is a professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a visiting scholar at the University of Virginia’s Data Science Institute. Sanford is a plant geneticist who was an associate professor at Cornell University for many years. He is an editor of the volume Biological Information: New Perspectives (World Scientific, 2013).  The Journal of Mathematical Biology is the official publication of the European Society for Mathematical and Theoretical Biology.

Basener and Sanford expand the Fisher model to allow both beneficial and deleterious mutations, following and extending earlier work. They use zero mutation levels to test their model’s agreement with Fisher’s. They establish that there is an equilibrium fitness level where selection balances the mutational effects. However, if mutations at biologically plausible levels are used, overall fitness is compromised. In some cases this leads to “mutational meltdown,” where the effect of accumulated mutations overwhelms the population’s ability to reproduce, resulting in extinction.

Extinction is the opposite of evolution. They conclude:

We have re-examined Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection, focusing on the role of new mutations and consequent implications for real biological populations. Fisher’s primary thesis was that genetic variation and natural selection work together in a fundamental way that ensures that natural populations will always increase in fitness. Fisher considered his theorem to essentially be a mathematical proof of Darwinian evolution, and he likened it to a natural law. Our analysis shows that Fisher’s primary thesis (universal and continuous fitness increase) is not correct. This is because he did not include new mutations as part of his mathematical formulation, and because his informal corollary rested upon an assumption that is now known to be false.

We have shown that Fisher’s Theorem, as formally defined by Fisher himself, is actually antithetical to his general thesis. Apart from new mutations, Fisher’s Theorem simply optimizes pre-existing allelic fitness variance leading to stasis. Fisher realized he needed newly arising mutations for his theorem to support his thesis, but he did not incorporate mutations into his mathematical model. Fisher only accounted for new mutations using informal thought experiments. In order to analyze Fisher’s Theorem we found it necessary to define the informal mutational element of his work as Fisher’s Corollary, which was never actually proven. We show that while Fisher’s Theorem is true, his Corollary is false.

In this paper we have derived an improved mutation–selection model that builds upon the foundational model of Fisher, as well as on other post-Fisher models. We have proven a new theorem that is an extension of Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection. This new theorem enables the incorporation of newly arising mutations into Fisher’s Theorem. We refer to this expanded theorem as “The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations”.

After we re-formulated Fisher’s model, allowing for dynamical analysis and permitting the incorporation of newly arising mutations, we subsequently did a series of dynamical simulations involving large but finite populations. We tested the following variables over time: (a) populations without new mutations; (b) populations with mutations that have a symmetrical distribution of fitness effects; and (c) populations with mutations that have a more realistic distribution of mutational effects (with most mutations being deleterious). Our simulations show that; (a) apart from new mutations, the population rapidly moves toward stasis; (b) with symmetrical mutations, the population undergoes rapid and continuous fitness increase; and (c) with a more realistic distribution of mutations the population often undergoes perpetual fitness decline.

Is this unfair to a historical figure? What about models developed after Fisher?

In the light of Fisher’s work, and the problems associated with it, we also examined post-Fisher models of the mutation–selection process. In the case of infinite population models, what has commonly been observed is that populations routinely go to equilibrium or a limit set — such as a periodic orbit. They do not show perpetual increase or decline in fitness, but are restricted from either behavior because of the model structure (an infinite population with mutations only occurring between pre-existing genetic varieties). On a practical level, all biological populations are finite. In the case of finite population models, the focus has been upon measuring mutation accumulation, as affected by selection. Finite models clearly show that natural populations can either increase or decrease in fitness, depending on many variables. Not only do other finite mathematical population models show that fitness can decrease — they often show that only a narrow range of parameters can actually prevent fitness decline. This is consistent with very many numerical simulation experiments, numerous mutation accumulation experiments, and observations where biological systems have either a high mutation rate or a small population size. Even when large populations are modeled, very slightly deleterious mutations (VSDMs), can theoretically lead to continuous fitness decline.

The final blow comes wrapped in compliments:

Fisher was unquestionably one of the greatest mathematicians of the twentieth century. His fundamental theorem of natural selection was an enormous step forward, in that for the first time he linked natural selection with Mendelian genetics, which paved the way for the development of the field of population genetics. However, Fisher’s theorem was incomplete in that it did not allow for the incorporation of new mutations. In addition, Fisher’s corollary was seriously flawed in that it assumed that mutations have a net fitness effect that is essentially neutral. Our re-formulation of Fisher’s Theorem has effectively completed and corrected the theorem, such that it can now reflect biological reality.

What they mean to say is stated most bluntly earlier in the article:

Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified.

That’s the “biological reality.” Fisher’s work is generally understood to mean that natural selection leads to increased fitness. While this is true taken by itself, mutation and other factors can and do reduce the average fitness of a population. According to Basener and Sanford, at real levels of mutation, Fisher’s original theorem, understood to be a mathematical proof that Darwinian evolution is inevitable, is overthrown.

Kudos to Basener and Sanford for making this important point. Now, will the textbooks and the online encyclopedia articles take note?

Sunday, 24 December 2017

On Intelligent design and designed intelligence.

Intelligent Design and Artificial Intelligence — The Connection
David Klinghoffer | @d_klinghoffer

It seems obvious on a moment’s reflection: intelligent design and artificial intelligence have something in common, and that is intelligence. What’s the significance of that? In an illuminating conversation for ID the Future, Robert Crowther talks about the connection with Dr. Robert Marks of Baylor University, co-author of the recent book  Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics.
Marks and his fellow researchers have shown that evolution isn’t computable, meaning it can’t be successfully modeled — “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution,” as Marks puts it. And you know what? The qualities that make human intelligence special are similarly not computable.

That, as Professor Marks explains among other helpful observations, makes fantasies about AI robots taking over the world, developing consciousness, or displacing the human race incompatible with reality.  Listen to the podcast here.

The elixir of life?

The Wonder of Water at the Nanoscale
Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC

The last chapter of Michael Denton’s latest book, The Wonder of Water (which we’ll abbreviate WoW, and yes, the pun is intended), is the grand slam that runs home all the bases. After showing water’s incomparable role in climate, geology, and physiology, he looks deep into the cell and shows that water’s unique properties contribute to life at the nanoscale of molecular interactions. In “Water and the Cell” (especially pp. 168-177), Denton shows that H2O has been promoted from cellular stage hand to prima donna:

Water is fit for cellular physiology and biochemistry for many reasons: it has great solvation powers for all charged and polar compounds, its viscosity is right, and so forth. But water is far more than just a passive matrix. Water plays so many well-understood key roles in active processes, such as folding proteins, assembling cell membranes, and providing proton flows (especially proton flows in which water is clearly a key player if not the key player in bioenergetics), that it is already clear that it is indeed the active player in cellular physiology that Szent-Győrgi envisaged when he said, “Life is water, dancing to the tune of solids.”

This hyperbole is not meant to discount the essential role of coded information in the cell, as ID science reminds us; but as we shall see, water plays essential roles in the transfer of information in proteins and other biomolecules. Its ability to do this arises from the properties Denton discusses in chapter 7, such as viscosity, metastability and temperature range as a liquid, but it plays out in unexpected ways, some of them “well understood” but others at the frontier of biophysics.

A series of papers presented in December 2017 by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) shows that much work needs to be done to understand water. In their introductory paper, “Chemical physics of water,” Pablo G. Debenedettia and Michael L. Klein begin with some Denton-esque WoW:

There is hardly any aspect of our lives that is not profoundly influenced by water. From climate to commerce and agriculture to health, water shapes our physical environment, regulates the major energy exchanges that determine climate on Earth, and is the matrix that supports the physical and chemical processes of life as we know it. The chemistry and physics of water, which underlie all of its uses, its necessity for life, its effects on other molecules and on the environment, are very active areas of research at the present time. So, why is this? Surprisingly, there are major gaps in knowledge and understanding that persist despite this substance’s ubiquity and central importance.

Among the ten papers that rise to the challenge is an opening perspective article by science journalist Philip Ball, “Water is an active matrix of life for cell and molecular biology.” Ball has a particular fascination with this topic, which apparently has grown over the last decade (Denton references his 2008 paper on the subject). Now he has additional data to confirm water’s “dance” with proteins as an active partner. This is best appreciated with some examples. First, he sets the stage. Notice his mention of information:

Water exhibits diverse structural and dynamical roles in molecular cell biology. It conditions and in fact partakes in the motions on which biomolecular interactions depend. It is the source of one of the key forces that dictate macromolecular conformations and associations, namely the hydrophobic attraction. It forms an extraordinary range of structures, most of them transient, that assist chemical and information-transfer processes in the cell. It acts as a reactive nucleophile and proton donor and acceptor, it mediates electrostatic interactions, and it undergoes fluctuations and abrupt phase-transition — like changes that serve biological functions. Is it not rather remarkable that a single and apparently rather simple molecular substance can accomplish all of these things? Looked at this way, there does seem to be something special about water.

Before proceeding to examples, we should look at water not as individual molecules, but a dynamic network. Because water is a polar molecule, its “electrostatic interactions” come from hydrogen bonds with itself and with other molecules. The dynamic network of water molecules adapts to the surfaces of cellular components, attracted to hydrophilic (water-loving) points and resisting hydrophobic (water-hating) points. In a related paper in the PNAS special feature, Xi et al. experimented with artificial surfaces and with mutated proteins to try to measure how shape and amino acid position affect hydrophobicity. By their own admission, this is a “major challenge” that their efforts only bluntly addressed. Nevertheless, we need to see the typical maps of proteins as incomplete without their “hydration haloes” attached.

Hydrophobicity Facilitates Protein Hydraulics

Many proteins are known to undergo “conformational changes” (jargon for “moving parts”) essential to their functions. We’ve seen that in classic molecular machines that are icons of intelligent design, like kinesin and ATP synthase. While many of these motions use the energy of ATP, increasingly biochemists are appreciating water’s role in these movements. This is not due to simple lubrication, but from electrostatic and hydrophobic reactions in the protein environment.

One example is protein folding: “The attraction of hydrophobes in water is well-attested and is one of the key driving forces for protein folding and the formation of functional multiprotein aggregates,” Ball says. This “driving force” from hydrophobicity can actually take on a more elegant and positive functional role, however. They hydration halo around a protein gives it a greater sphere of influence.

Hydration water molecules may adopt crystallographically well-defined positions around a macromolecule, and some of these have functional roles. One might say that the surfaces of the biomolecules are not sharply defined: their sphere of influence extends beyond the van der Waals surface into the solvent, and this coupling can make the hydration shell for all intents and purposes part of the biomolecule itself, imbued with some of the information that it encodes and therefore able to play a role in intramolecular rearrangements and intermolecular recognition processes.

Ball gives some recent examples. Some are quite fascinating. Water can facilitate large-scale movements of proteins, as in this example of hydraulic power:

In the hexameric multidomain protein glutamate dehydrogenase, the opening and closing of a hydrophobic pocket are accompanied by wetting and drying of the pocket, whereas binding and unbinding of water molecules in a hydrophilic crevice accompany changes in its length. These two changes in hydration are coupled, creating a kind of “hydraulic” mechanism for large-scale conformational change.

This raises an interesting question for ID research: Do genes take into account the action of water molecules as they construct molecular machines?

Water Transmits Electrical Power

Denton briefly mentioned “proton wires” made of water molecules that efficiently transmit protons without the need for conformational changes (pp 173-174). This form of energy transfer, because it affects protein function, amounts to information transfer as well. It comes directly out of water’s hydrogen-bonding ability. Ball gives the example of Complex I, an essential enzyme in respiration. “Water wires” in this molecular machine are part of its proton pumping function. “Here, a transient proton-conducting water channel is formed by the cooperative hydration of three antiporter-like subunits within the membrane domain of the complex.” Another example has the delicacy of a Debussy Nocturne:

Delicate marshaling of water molecules into positions that control the proton conductivity of a channel is also evident in cytochrome c oxidase, a transmembrane proton pump driven by oxygen reduction. Goyal et al. show how hydration seems to carefully tune and orchestrate this proton translocation. A glutamate residue is believed to act as a temporary proton donor, and its proton affinity is controlled by the degree of hydration in an internal hydrophobic cavity. That hydration, in turn, is governed by protonation of a substituent on the heme group 10 Å away, triggering movement of a loop that gates the cavity’s entrance.

Water Increases Active Site Functionality

The active site of a protein can be enhanced by its hydration halo. Here’s an example:

Water can help to fine-tune protein functionality in a variety of ways. It seems, for example, to enable the promiscuity of alkaline phosphatase enzymes in catalyzing the hydrolysis of a range of different phosphate and sulfate substrates. First principles simulations suggest that a part of the reason why this class of enzymes can support different types of transition state in the same active site is the differential placement of water molecules. Another form of “hydration tuning” is revealed in the chloride-pumping transmembrane retinal protein halorhodopsin of halophiles. Here, subtle rearrangements of waters and ions occur in the vicinity of the chromophore as chloride translocation progresses, inducing changes in chromophore bond lengths that affect its absorption spectrum.

One other example of the functional role of a hydration network is found in antifreeze proteins. We know that water crystals during freezing can disrupt cells, but water molecules working in concert with proteins can actually disrupt freezing:

The involvement of bound water can be more exotic. The fish antifreeze protein Maxi is a four-helix bundle with an interior, mostly hydrophobic channel filled with more than 400 water molecules, crystallographically ordered into a clathrate-like network of predominantly five-membered rings. It seems that this ordered network extends outward through the gaps between the helices to create an ordered layer of water molecules on the outer surface that enables Maxi to bind to ice crystals and hinder their growth, acting as a kind of “molecular Velcro” for ice binding.

Conclusions

Ball ends with the astrobiological question of whether life could arise on other planets without water. It’s hard to answer, he says, given water’s dynamic nature, and some have gone too far by ascribing mystical powers to “biological water,” to the point of mythology. But his gut feel is that it’s riskier to underestimate the importance of water:

However, if we should abandon notions of some special and well-defined phase called biological water, there does not seem to be any prospect of or virtue in returning water to its humble position of life’s canvas. It is a versatile, responsive medium that blurs the boundaries between mechanism and matrix. It surely is special; we might have to depend on either synthetic biology or observational astrobiology to tell us just how special.


Water, indeed, appears very special at the nanoscale. Denton, however, expands its specialness to the planetary scale and all scales in between, showing a multitude of essential roles for this amazing molecule that makes our planet not only habitable, but enjoyable. There’s nothing mystical about that when considered from a design perspective.

On Demons:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

DEMON

An invisible, wicked, spirit creature having superhuman powers. The common Greek word for demon (daiʹmon) occurs only once in the Christian Greek Scriptures, in Matthew 8:31; elsewhere the word dai·moʹni·on appears. Pneuʹma, the Greek word for “spirit,” at times is applied to wicked spirits, or demons. (Mt 8:16) It also occurs qualified by terms such as “wicked,” “unclean,” “speechless,” and “deaf.”—Lu 7:21; Mt 10:1; Mr 9:17, 25; see SPIRIT (Spirit Persons).

The demons as such were not created by God. The first to make himself one was Satan the Devil (see SATAN), who became the ruler of other angelic sons of God who also made themselves demons. (Mt 12:24, 26) In Noah’s day disobedient angels materialized, married women, fathered a hybrid generation known as Nephilim (see NEPHILIM), and then dematerialized when the Flood came. (Ge 6:1-4) However, upon returning to the spirit realm, they did not regain their lofty original position, for Jude 6 says: “The angels that did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place he has reserved with eternal bonds under dense darkness for the judgment of the great day.” (1Pe 3:19, 20) So it is in this condition of dense spiritual darkness that they must now confine their operations. (2Pe 2:4) Though evidently restrained from materializing, they still have great power and influence over the minds and lives of men, even having the ability to enter into and possess humans and animals, and the facts show that they also use inanimate things such as houses, fetishes, and charms.—Mt 12:43-45; Lu 8:27-33; see DEMON POSSESSION.

The purpose of all such demonic activity is to turn people against Jehovah and the pure worship of God. Jehovah’s law, therefore, strictly forbade demonism in any form. (De 18:10-12) However, wayward Israel went so far astray as to sacrifice their sons and daughters to the demons. (Ps 106:37; De 32:17; 2Ch 11:15) When Jesus was on earth demon influence was very prevalent, and some of his greatest miracles consisted of expelling wicked spirits from victimized persons. (Mt 8:31, 32; 9:33, 34; Mr 1:39; 7:26-30; Lu 8:2; 13:32) Jesus gave this same power to his 12 apostles and to the 70 that he sent out, so that in the name of Jesus they too could cast out the demons.—Mt 10:8; Mr 3:14, 15; 6:13; Lu 9:1; 10:17.

Demon influence in human affairs is no less manifest today. It is still true that “the things which the nations sacrifice they sacrifice to demons.” (1Co 10:20) In the last book of the Bible, the “revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place,” prophetic warning is given concerning accelerated demon activity on the earth. (Re 1:1) “Down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels [demons] were hurled down with him. On this account . . . woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time.” (Re 12:9, 12) Unclean, froglike expressions “are, in fact, expressions inspired by demons and perform signs, and they go forth to the kings of the entire inhabited earth, to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty.”—Re 16:13, 14.

Christians must, therefore, put up a hard fight against these unseen wicked spirits. James, in arguing that belief alone is not sufficient, says: “You believe there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the demons believe and shudder.” (Jas 2:19) “In later periods of time,” warned Paul, “some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons.” (1Ti 4:1) One cannot eat of Jehovah’s table and at the same time feed from the table of demons. (1Co 10:21) The faithful, therefore, must put up a hard fight against the Devil and his demons, “against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places.”—Eph 6:12.

To the Greeks to whom Paul preached, what were demons?

This use of the word “demon” is narrow and specific compared with the notions of ancient philosophers and the way the word was used in classical Greek. In this regard the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel (Vol. II, p. 8) remarks: “The meaning of the adj[ective dai·moʹni·os] brings out most clearly the distinctive features of the G[ree]k conception of demons, for it denotes that which lies outwith human capacity and is thus to be attributed to the intervention of higher powers, whether for good or evil. [To dai·moʹni·on] in pre-Christian writers can be used in the sense of the ‘divine.’” (Translated and edited by G. Bromiley, 1971) When speaking controversially with Paul, some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers concluded: “He seems to be a publisher of foreign deities [Gr., dai·mo·niʹon].”—Ac 17:18.

When speaking to the Athenians, Paul used a compound of the Greek word daiʹmon, saying: “You seem to be more given to the fear of the deities [Gr., dei·si·dai·mo·ne·steʹrous; Latin Vulgate, ‘more superstitious’] than others are.” (Ac 17:22) Commenting on this compound word, F. F. Bruce remarks: “The context must decide whether this word is used in its better or worse sense. It was, in fact, as vague as ‘religious’ in Eng[lish], and here we may best translate ‘very religious’. But AV ‘superstitious’ is not entirely wrong; to Paul their religion was mostly superstition, as it also was, though on other grounds, to the Epicureans.”—The Acts of the Apostles, 1970, p. 335.


When speaking to King Herod Agrippa II, Festus said that the Jews had certain disputes with Paul concerning their “worship of the deity [Gr., dei·si·dai·mo·niʹas; Latin Vulgate, ‘superstition’].” (Ac 25:19) It was noted by F. F. Bruce that this Greek word “might be less politely rendered ‘superstition’ (as in AV). The corresponding adjective appears with the same ambiguity in [Acts] 17:22.”—Commentary on the Book of the Acts, 1971, p. 483.

Stalinism redux? IV

New World Translation Remains Banned in Russia


Today, the Leningrad Regional Court denied our appeal of the Vyborg City Court’s August ruling that banned the Russian-language New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT), declaring it an extremist publication. Approximately 30 people attended the hearing, including representatives of the Britain, the Netherlands, the Switzerland, and the United States embassies.

Several times during the course of the hearing, the defense presented clear evidence demonstrating the bias and unqualified nature of the court-appointed expert study, which claimed the NWT is not a Bible, paving the way for it to be declared “extremist.”

The so-called experts were resolute in their claim that the NWT is not a Bible because it allegedly does not refer to itself as one. The defense, however, drew attention to page five of the 2007 Russian-language NWT, which clearly states: “This is a new translation of the Bible into Russian.” The defense criticized the so-called experts, who worked for 287 days on their review and yet missed this simple fact in the third paragraph of the NWT’s foreword.

When questioned, one of the court-appointed experts further defended her original claim by stating that the NWT cannot be considered a Bible unless it is marked "by the blessing of the patriarch" or matches word for word with such a translation. The “experts” also objected to the use of God’s personal name, Jehovah, and claimed that the text of the NWT does not support certain church dogma. The judge rejected any motion by the defense for a new unbiased expert study of the NWT.

After their appeal was rejected today, our brothers have no other remedy available within the Russian legal system and will submit the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Jehovah’s Witnesses around the world are confident that no human institution can succeed in wiping out God’s Word and that present attempts to prevent its spread will ultimately fail.—Isaiah 40:8.

Saturday, 23 December 2017

Vox populi vox Dei?Pros and cons.

In search of high quality ignorance?

Unanswered Questions: New York Times Highlights the Benefits of Teaching "Ignorance" in Science
Sarah Chaffee September 4, 2015 12:11 PM 

Concerned that his students thought they now understood the brain after studying the course's 1400+ page textbook, Dr. Stuart Firestein, neuroscientist and chairman of the Department of Biological Sciences at Columbia University, wrote Ignorance: How it Drives Science. He was afraid his students might come away with the idea that science has all the answers. His book takes a more realistic view, describing scientific discovery as "feeling around in dark rooms, bumping into unidentifiable things, looking for barely perceptible phantoms."

In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, Jamie Holmes, author of the forthcoming book Nonsense: The Power of Not Knowing, shared Firestein's story to emphasize the role of ignorance in education. He explains that ignorance can catalyze curiosity and prompt questions in fields from science to business to education:

As [Firestein] argued in his 2012 book "Ignorance: How It Drives Science," many scientific facts simply aren't solid and immutable, but are instead destined to be vigorously challenged and revised by successive generations. ...
Presenting ignorance as less extensive than it is, knowledge as more solid and more stable, and discovery as neater also leads students to misunderstand the interplay between answers and questions.

People tend to think of not knowing as something to be wiped out or overcome, as if ignorance were simply the absence of knowledge. But answers don't merely resolve questions; they provoke new ones...

But giving due emphasis to unknowns, highlighting case studies that illustrate the fertile interplay between questions and answers, and exploring the psychology of ambiguity are essential. Educators should also devote time to the relationship between ignorance and creativity and the strategic manufacturing of uncertainty.

... Our students will be more curious -- and more intelligently so -- if, in addition to facts, they were equipped with theories of ignorance as well as theories of knowledge.

It's encouraging to find a discussion like this in what might seem an unlikely place. At Discovery Institute, we support critical analysis of ideas about evolution and the origin of life precisely because those are issues where many answers remain as yet unknown. Teaching students about issues where there are more questions than answers fosters high-level learning.

The science of the past two centuries has dramatically expanded our knowledge, from the inventions of computers and the Internet, to making open-heart surgery possible. But there are still many mysteries, and not just at the margins either. Teaching only about our positive scientific knowledge is not enough. Quality science education informs students about areas of certainty and about those where inquiry is ongoing.

Alluding to Thomas Kuhn, Holmes notes that acknowledging ignorance causes us to confront our preconceptions. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn stated that when faced with an anomaly, a theory's defenders "will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict." But eventually, given enough anomalies, the old theory will be replaced. Confronting unknowns is an essential part of scientific progress.

Chemical evolution -- the development of the first cell -- is clouded with mystery. 2007 Priestley Medalist George M. Whitesides wrote, "Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth. How? I have no idea." Similarly, leading molecular biologist Eugene Koonin has noted:

The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-life research has evolved into a lively, inter-disciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the "dirty" rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin-of-life field is a failure -- we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.
Koonin acknowledges that some progress has been made, but falls back on the controversial multiverse theory to explain how life sprang into existence against all odds.

The enigma of biological origins offers an ideal opportunity for students to learn about a field of persistent scientific uncertainty, instead of simply being spoon-fed "facts." Our Science Education Policy states:

Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.
Indeed, the sense of mystery has driven some of the very greatest scientists. Isaac Newton put it well when he said, "I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

Learning based on active engagement and critical thinking promotes understanding and excitement. As Holmes writes, "Questions don't give way to answers so much as the two proliferate together. Answers breed questions. Curiosity isn't merely a static disposition but rather a passion of the mind that is ceaselessly earned and nurtured."

Firestein now teaches a class on scientific ignorance. Hoping to acquaint his students with the world of inquiry, he invites scientists from diverse fields to come and lecture -- not about their discoveries, but about what they don't know. Our stance on academic freedom merely recognizes that his beneficial pedagogical philosophy should extend to the teaching of evolution, no less than any other area of study.

The alliance is dead?:Pros and cons.

Vladimir Putin has made Russia great again?:Pros and cons.

On the making of a bomb-thrower II

Why the designer is King of the mountain and not God of the gaps.

Stephen Meyer Debunks the “God of the Gaps” Objection
David Klinghoffer | @d_klinghoffer


 A vacuous yet often heard objection to intelligent design decries ID as a “God of the gaps” argument. Here, Stephen Meyer requires less than three minutes to show that the complaint rests on a failure to understand a basic feature of the theory of ID.
Yet the point comes up again and again. The group BioLogos, for one, in promoting theistic evolution, starts this way in answer to what they call a “common question,” “Are gaps in scientific knowledge evidence for God?”Are gaps in scientific knowledge evidence for God?


God-of-the-gaps arguments use gaps in scientific explanation as indicators, or even proof, of God’s action and therefore of God’s existence. Such arguments propose divine acts in place of natural, scientific causes for phenomena that science cannot yet explain. The assumption is that if science cannot explain how something happened, then God must be the explanation. But the danger of using a God-of-the-gaps argument for the action or existence of God is that it lacks the foresight of future scientific discoveries. With the continuing advancement of science, God-of-the-gaps explanations often get replaced by natural mechanisms. Therefore, when such arguments are used as apologetic tools, scientific research can unnecessarily be placed at odds with belief in God.1 The recent Intelligent Design (ID) movement highlights this problem. 
No, that is wrong, as Meyer explains. It’s a topic elaborated, among many others, in the vast yet sprightly new volume,  Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique,of which Dr. Meyer served as one of the editors.

May I add a further observation? If you don’t mind, ID is not an “apologetic tool,” as BioLogos puts it. It’s not a “tool” at all, except in the scientific sense, as a heuristic, a methodology for getting at the truth about life and about nature. It’s not a “tool” to use on people, to keep the kids from getting rowdy and disbelieving what their teacher says in class. This misunderstanding is common to theistic and atheistic evolutionists: they think too much in terms of winning recruits or keeping troops in line, rather than finding out what’s true, wherever the quest may take you.

Please, refrain from using a “tool” on me. I don’t care for that approach in a religious or a scientific context, and I can’t help but think many others, of whatever spiritual community or of none, must likewise find it patronizing.

It’s the difference between being treated as a child, or treated as an adult. That may be ID’s greatest strength — it speaks to us as adults — and one of the biggest turnoffs of theistic evolution.