Whither the bright line between artificial and natural causation?

More Unnatural Naturalism, and More Confusion from Naturalists 

David Coppedge 

Yesterday I commented on the conundrums created for evolutionists by engineering. Once you start looking, you’ll frequently see the problem facing naturalists about natural and unnatural causes. Writing in City Journal, for example, science reporter Nicholas Wade assumed that “natural” causes could be distinguished from “manipulated” actions in the case of the origin of SARS-Coronavirus-2: 

Two hypotheses have long been on the table. One is that the virus jumped naturally from some animal host, as many epidemics have done in the past. The other is that it escaped from a lab in Wuhan, where researchers are known to have been genetically manipulating bat viruses in order to predict future epidemics. Both hypotheses are plausible but, so far, no direct evidence exists for either. 

News from CORDIS via Phys.org again illustrates the distinction between natural activities of humans and their intentional, purposeful designs. The article, “When did humans start using roads?”, says this: 

But when did humans actually begin to use roads? “The generic and honest answer is that it’s really hard to know,” says Kalayci. “First, we have to be very clear in our mind what we mean by ‘road’ — are we talking about an engineered road, or a simple dirt track that has naturally formed by people and/or animals constantly walking along the same line?”

In the case of the latter, one can argue, rather philosophically, that as soon as humans learnt to walk and began to traverse the world from their African homelands, roads began to form — in short, a road can be conceived as merely a line that humans continuously wander along.

But Kalayci informs us that it was probably the ancient Egyptians that purposely went out of their way to build the first paved roads, when they were busy building pyramids and other monuments, sometime between 2600 and 2200 BCE, during the Old Kingdom Period. “They essentially wanted a nice, easy, straight route between the monument site and quarry that allowed materials to be transported quickly and efficiently,” he explains. 

Hikers know that animals like bighorn sheep consistently re-use paths in their natural habitats. This quote, though, shows something different about humans. They “purposely” sometimes go “out of their way” to build monuments that are not essential to mere survival, and think about ways to move materials “quickly and efficiently.” They employ mathematics to build geometric objects for purposes that they believe transcend physical existence. 

“Natural” Organisms Are Oblivious to Human Design 

"If the art of ship-building were in the wood,” Aristotle recognized, “ships would exist by nature.” We humans know the intelligent causation, foresight, and intentionality required to build a floating craft able to carry cargo that left to its natural state would sink to the bottom of the sea. Flotsam can drift by nature, but something other than nature is required to design something capable of navigating a chosen course against natural wind and waves, using manufactured sails and oars. 

Ships can, however, sink “by nature” (e.g., due to storms, accidents, entropy). Now “millions of shipwrecks in the world’s oceans, each providing a potentially new habitat for sea life,” states a news item at Frontiers in Science. The bacteria and fish that find habitats in shipwrecks don’t care. They treat them like other “natural” habitats. Only humans know or care. 

Wooden shipwrecks provide microbial habitats similar to naturally occurring geological seabed structures, reports a new study in Frontiers in Marine Science…. Microbes are at the base of ocean food chains, and this is among the first research to show the impact of human activities–like shipwrecks–on these environments.

“Microbial communities are important to be aware of and understand because they provide early and clear evidence of how human activities change life in the ocean,” said corresponding author Dr Leila Hamdan of the University of Southern Mississippi.

“Ocean scientists have known that natural hard habitats, some of which have been present for hundreds to thousands of years shape the biodiversity of life on the seafloor. This work is the first to show that built habitats (places or things made or modified by humans) impact the films of microbes (biofilms) coating these surfaces as well. These biofilms are ultimately what enable hard habitats to transform into islands of biodiversity.” 

Is Animal Engineering the Same as Human Engineering? 

To round out this discussion of natural versus unnatural causes, we need to investigate how reporters treat cases of animal engineering. For example, the journal Nature discussed “how bees achieve an engineering marvel: the honeycomb.” In a similar vein, news from Texas A&M tells about research “Determining how and why cells make decisions.” Isn’t decision-making a mental, purposeful activity? Isn’t engineering a honeycomb an example of intentional work for a purpose?

Well, yes and no. The answers can be elucidated with another question: is there a distinction between a software programmer and the program he or she designed? Honeybees and cells have a limited set of options that are programmed into their genomes. It could be considered “unnatural” for a honeybee to gather ingredients and build hexagons in which the queen’s eggs can be nourished. Rock and soil would never do that. The bee must apply directed work against entropy to pull it off. The cells in an embryo “make decisions” based on pre-programmed responses to signals. These can be considered “natural” activities in the same way a robot on a car assembly line is performing the “natural” function it was designed to do. 

Human beings, by contrast, have free will to think, decide, and design things that may have no survival function at all, such as art and literature. As C. S. Lewis said: 

The Naturalists have been engaged in thinking about Nature. They have not attended to the fact that they were thinking. The moment one attends to this it is obvious that one’s own thinking cannot be merely a natural event, and that therefore something other than Nature exists.  

We can decide to do something, or decide not to do it. We can choose between limitless options. Thoughts are what make human beings unnatural. Thoughts are what make us exceptional. 

 

Darwinism is not settled science?

 There Is No Settled “Theory of Evolution”

Cornelius Hunter 

What is evolution? The origin of species by: natural selection, random causes, common descent, gradualism, etc. Right?

Wrong. Too often that is what is taught, but it is false. That’s according to evolutionists themselves. A typical example? See, “The study of evolution is fracturing — and that may be a good thing,” by Lund University biologist Erik Svensson, writing at The Conversation.

Evolutionists themselves can forfeit natural selection, random causes, common descent, etc. How do I know? Because it is in the literature. 

So, what is evolution? In other words, what is core to the theory — and not forfeitable? It’s naturalism. Period. That is the only thing required of evolutionary theory. And naturalism is a religious requirement, not a scientific one.

Aside from naturalism, practically anything is fair game: Uncanny convergence, rapid divergence, lineage-specific biology, evolution of evolution, directed mutations, saltationism, unlikely simultaneous mutations, just-so stories, multiverses … the list goes on.

But this is where it gets interesting. Because if you have two theories, you don’t have one theory. In other words, you have a multitude of contradictory theories. And you have heated debates because nothing seems to fit the data. In science, that is not a good sign. But it is exactly what evolutionists have had — for over a century now.

There is no such thing as a settled theory of evolution. On that point, textbook orthodoxy is simply false. 

"Reputation management" and other euphemisms.

 Respectability is for sale. Here is a buyer’s guide. Names are omitted to protect the guilty from blushes and us from lawsuits 

PICTURE yourself as a big shot from an unpopular country—leader of an oil-rich bit of the Middle East, say, or a tycoon from a grungy bit of the former Communist world. You wish your family could shop, invest, socialise and study in the richest and nicest parts of the world (and flee there if needs be). But you don't deserve it and won't earn it: you will not stop torture, allow criticism, obey the law, or keep your fingers out of the public purse.

Luckily, respectability is on sale. You just have to know how to buy it. The place to start is London. Among its advantages are strict libel laws, which mean nosy journalists risk long, costly legal battles. And helpful banks, law firms, accountants and public relations people abound.

Laws on money-laundering have irritating requirements about scrutiny of new customers. This used to be merely an exercise in ticking boxes, but has got a bit tougher. Still, a well-connected and unscrupulous banker will be your best friend, for a fee. You cut him in on some lucrative transactions with your country or company. In return he will pilot you through the first stages, arming you with a lawyer (to scare rivals and critics) and an accountant (to keep your books opaque but legal) 

Next comes a virtuous circle of socialising and do-gooding. Start with the cash-strapped upper reaches of the cultural world: a big art gallery, an opera house, or something to do with young musicians. Donations there will get you known and liked. Or try funding a prize at UNESCO or some other international do-gooding outfit. Support causes involving war veterans or sick children. Sponsoring sport works too. But don't overdo it—the public is wiser than the glitterati, and will soon scent a crude attempt to buy popularity.

Send your children to posh English schools. Shower hospitality on their friends: they will be important one day. But invite the parents too: they are influential now. A discreet payment will tempt hard-up celebrities to come to your parties. Minor royals are an even bigger draw: British for choice, but continental will do. Even sensible people go weak at the knees at the thought of meeting a princeling, however charmless or dim-witted.

Many such titled folk like a lavish lifestyle but cannot earn or afford it. So offer a deal: you pay for their helicopters, hookers and hangers-on. In return, they bring you into their social circuit, and shower stardust on yours. You will need patience: the parties are dull and the guests vapid and greedy. Building your reputation as a charming and generous host may take a couple of years. But once people have met you socially they will find it hard to see you as a murderous monster or thieving thug. Useful props in this game are yachts, private jets, racehorses, ski chalets and mansions. 

Armed with social and cultural clout, you can approach money-hungry academia and think-tanks. A good combination is a Washington, DC, think-tank and a London-based university (Oxford and Cambridge, being richer, are also choosier about whom they take money from). The package deal should involve a centre (perhaps with a professorial chair) and a suitable title: it should include words like global, sustainable, strategic and ethical.

I stink, you think

On the subject of titles, expect an honorary doctorate for yourself and a PhD for your favourite young relative. This need not be an onerous undertaking. A lobbying firm can help with the research. Think-tanks' flimsier finances make them easy prey too—and they are more immediately influential than universities. Most of their experts are expected to raise all their own funds. A few million here or there is chicken feed for you but a career-saver for them and their programmes.

Sponsorship does not just make you look brainy and public spirited. It also skews the academic debate. If you are a pious Muslim, let it be known that a focus on uncontroversial subjects such as Islamic architecture, calligraphy and poetry will keep the money coming. Textual criticism of the mutually contradictory early versions of the Koran, by contrast, is a no-no. If you are from Russia, support cheerleaders for the “reset” in relations with America and pay for people to decry former Soviet satellites as irrelevant basket cases. If you are in oil or gas, pay for studies criticising the disruptive exercise of competition law on energy suppliers.

Then move on to the media. Generous advertising in the mainstream print dailies is a good way to make friends. Nobody will read the lavish supplements that trumpet your imaginary virtues and conceal your real flaws. But the newspaper's managers will be happy. It may be too much to expect them to get the journalists to tweak their coverage (though that can happen) but you will find it easier to put your point across. Sumptuous fact-finding trips are an easy way of making hacks' heads softer and hearts warmer. You can also hold conferences, with high fees for journalists who moderate sessions or sit on the panels. They will soon get the idea.

You are now in a position to approach politics. Most rich countries make it hard (or illegal) for foreigners to give money to politicians or parties. But you can oil the wheels. A non-executive directorship can be a mind-changing experience. Invite retired politicians and officials for lucrative speaking engagements and consultancy work: word will soon get around and the soon-to-retire will bear your interests in mind. Even better, set up an advisory council stuffed with influential foreigners. You need tell them nothing about what you do. Nor do you have to heed their advice.

Foreign respectability also makes you look good in the eyes of your own people. And it demoralises your critics, crushing their belief that Western media, politics, academia and public life are to be admired.

Your progress from villain to hero will not always go smoothly, especially if you have to start killing your opponents. But when the alarm is raised, your allies will rally to your defence. A tame academic can write an opinion piece; a newspaper grateful for your advertising will publish it. Your fans can always say that someone else is much worse and that you are at least a reforming, if not fully reformed, character. A few references to American robber-barons such as John Pierpont Morgan will bolster the case. So too will a gibe at less-than-perfect Western leaders such as Silvio Berlusconi. After all, nobody likes hypocrisy. 

Science is downstream from the design Inference?

The Relevance of Intelligent Design to Science and Society: A Primer 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC

This past summer, the Italian Center for Intelligent Design held its public launch at a conference in Turin, Italy. Following that event, Discovery Institute Vice President John West was interviewed by veteran Italian journalist and human rights activist Marco Respinti. The interview is being published this month in the Italian-language magazine Il Timone. Evolution News is pleased to publish the original English-language version of the interview, which discusses the history, impact, and relevance of the idea of intelligent design.

Dr. West is Managing Director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture and author of the book Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science. He is also editor of The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis on Science, Society, and Society. 

            

RESPINTI: What is the “intelligent design” (ID) hypothesis? 

    WEST: Intelligent design is the idea that nature manifests clear evidence of purpose, planning, and foresight. In other words, nature reflects the brilliance of a master artist, not the haphazard results of an unguided process. 

RESPINTI: How does Darwinian evolution differ from intelligent design?

    WEST: Darwinian evolution sees nature — including human beings — as accidental byproducts of unintelligent matter and energy. According to Darwinism, “man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind,” to quote the words of evolutionary biologist George Gaylord Simpson. In other words, nature is the result of an unguided process, not the creative activity of a master designer.  

RESPINTI: Why do debates over Darwinism and intelligent design matter to society? 

     WEST: In the Darwinian view, nature was created by blind unguided forces rather than a wise Creator, and humans are merely animals who are the unintended result of a process of “survival of the fittest.” Over the past century, this bleak view of nature and humanity has encouraged many abuses, including the denial of God’s existence, “scientific” justifications of racism, and efforts to breed humans like cattle through the so-called science of eugenics. The Darwinian view has promoted despair in many people, including young people, by portraying human life as an accident with no intrinsic dignity and no higher purpose.

By contrast, the intelligent design view upholds human beings as inherently valuable. Our lives have meaning and worth because we are the intentional result of a supreme artist and Creator. Humans are a masterpiece, not something cobbled together by an unguided process. In the words of former Pope Benedict, “We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.” 

RESPINTI: What are the origins of the intelligent design idea? 

   WEST: Intelligent design is one of the foundational ideas in the history of human civilization. It has deep roots in the Jewish and Christian traditions as well as among non-Christian thinkers. In the Jewish tradition, both the Psalms and the Book of Wisdom speak of how nature reveals evidence of its Creator. In the words of Wisdom 13:5, “from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator.” In the Christian tradition, Jesus, St. Paul, and the fathers of the church likewise argued that nature provides evidence of God’s wisdom, foresight, and artistry. For example, Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch in the second century AD, argued that God “is beheld and perceived through His… works,” which for him included the regularities of nature seen in astronomy, the plant world, animals, and ecosystems. 

Among non-Christian thinkers, we find a similar idea that nature displays evidence of purpose and foresight in Greek philosophers such as Plato, Roman thinkers such as Cicero, and medieval Islamic thinkers such as Al-Ghazali.  

RESPINTI: Did intelligent design play any role in the historical development of science? 

    WEST: Definitely. The idea of intelligent design provided a foundation for modern natural science. Because early scientists thought nature was the product of intelligent design, they expected nature to be orderly, purposeful, governed by laws rather than chaos, and understandable through human reason. These scientists’ belief in intelligent design spurred them to research the natural world.  

RESPINTI: That was in the past. What about today? Does intelligent design still play a role in science? 

WEST: Yes! Even today, scientific investigation proceeds because scientists assume for the sake of their research that the natural features they are studying are orderly and exist to fulfill a specific purpose. This is the essence of much scientific investigation — we treat things as designed so we can understand them. The reality is that intelligent design is a guiding assumption for scientific research even for scientists who claim not to believe in it. 

RESPINTI: What light do recent scientific discoveries shed on whether nature was intelligently designed? 

   WEST: The more we investigate nature, the more we see layer after layer of purpose and planning throughout nature. The laws of physics and chemistry are exquisitely fine-tuned to make life possible. Inside each of our cells, there exist sophisticated “molecular machines” that make human technologies appear primitive. At the foundation of life, we find DNA, which functions as a code directing many aspects of an organism’s development, just like computer software. Codes and information systems are hallmarks of mind — of intelligent design. Based on what we now know, it is very hard to conceive of the operations of nature without viewing them as products of intelligent design. It is little wonder that a Nobel Prize-winning physicist from Cambridge University recently declared that “intelligent design is valid science.” 

RESPINTI: What do you say to those who claim that Darwinian evolution has refuted the idea of intelligent design? 

    WEST: The evidence shows otherwise. First, Darwinism assumes that a universe fine-tuned for life already exists. It also assumes that the first self-replicating organisms already exist. So Darwinism can’t refute the evidence of design at the level of the universe or in the origin of the first life. It assumes those very things! Now Darwinism does claim that unguided processes can produce everything else. But we have a lot of data from experiments in bacteria that show just how little change unguided evolution can accomplish. Darwinian processes can produce small variations, but the major changes in the history of life — such as the origin of new body plans in animals — seem beyond the power of unguided evolution. Random mutations in DNA are supposed to drive Darwinian evolution, but we have learned that such mutations are usually either harmful or neutral to organisms. Mutations aren’t capable of producing major new biological features. Biochemist Michael Behe, molecular biologist Douglas Axe, and many other scientists have shown this. 

RESPINTI: Why, then, do so many scientists continue to embrace Darwinian evolution? 

     WEST: I think it is primarily due to culture, not science. The distinguished Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti once called Darwinism “the ‘politically correct’ of science.” I think he was right. Many people continue to embrace Darwinism because it is fashionable. Others support it because they think it provides a scientific justification to reject God. 

    

RESPINTI: Where can you find scientists who support intelligent design? 

   WEST: Scientists and scientific groups that support intelligent design can now be found throughout Europe, in South America, in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. In Italy, there is the Italian Center for Intelligent Design, which just held its public launch in June at a conference in Torino, where I had the privilege to speak.

In the United States, there is Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. The Institute is a non-profit organization founded in 1991, and its Center for Science & Culture was started in 1996 by historian of science Stephen Meyer and myself. The Center serves as a hub for the growing international network of scientists and scholars who think there is evidence of intelligent design in nature. The Center funds scientific research, sponsors educational programs, and produces books and educational videos related to intelligent design.  

Finally , representation for the most underserved community of all.

TONY DELUCA WINS REELECTION ...

Despite Death Last Month 

Longtime Pennsylvania state representative Anthony "Tony" DeLuca won in an Election Day landslide -- which has to sting for his opponent, because DeLuca's no longer living.

The late state rep. received 85% of the votes in Wednesday's midterm election -- despite dying in October from a battle with lymphoma.

The timing of DeLuca's death reportedly made it too late to pick a different Democrat candidate, or to reprint updated ballots.

The Pennsylvania House Democratic campaign committee addressed the issue online Tuesday evening -- saying a special election will come soon to fix the error -- but also thanked supporters, presumably for voting him in posthumously.

Many online are pointing to a lack of voter awareness as the reason DeLuca beat Green Party candidate Queonia Livingston ... with others speculating voters simply didn't want to vote for Livingston 

The Rubicon: a brief history.

Rubicon 

By The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica 

Rubicon, Latin Rubico, or Rubicon, small stream that separated Cisalpine Gaul from Italy in the era of the Roman Republic. The movement of Julius Caesar’s forces over the Rubicon into Italy in 49 BC violated the law (the Lex Cornelia Majestatis) that forbade a general to lead an army out of the province to which he was assigned. His act thus amounted to a declaration of war against the Roman Senate and resulted in the three-year civil war that left Caesar ruler of the Roman world. “Crossing the Rubicon” became a popular phrase describing a step that definitely commits a person to a given course of action.

The modern Rubicone (formerly Fiumicino) River is officially identified with the Rubicon that Caesar crossed, but the Pisciatello River to the north and the Uso to the south have also been suggested 

Darwinism's conundrum: the objective distinction between natural and artificial selection.

 What’s “Natural”? Engineering Creates a Conundrum for Evolutionists

David Coppedge 

Are humans natural? Writing in PNAS, Juha Merilä comments on, “Human-induced evolution of salmon by means of unnatural selection.” According to his bio page at Research Portal, Dr. Merilä is Professor in the Organismal and Evolutionary Biology Research Programme in the Ecological Genetics Research Unit of the University of Helsinki. He begins, 

By modifying environmental conditions, human activities are generating novel selection pressures, which pose challenges to wildlife. When faced with novel selection pressures, organismal populations can respond to this through evolutionary adaptation, modifying their phenotype through plastic changes, or evading these new pressures by migrating to more beneficial environments. Otherwise, they will face loss of fitness and eventually, even extirpation. Although alteration of natural environments by humans has been long recognized as a potential source of novel and strong selection pressures, demonstrating human-induced evolution has proven to be challenging. 

The conundrum is obvious here. He refers to “unnatural selection” and “alteration of natural environments by humans” that demonstrate “human-induced evolution” — but why should this be any different from what beavers do to their environments? Are beavers natural? Are their dams natural? Many animals disrupt their environments; are those cases natural?

I do not know Dr. Merilä’s stance on human origins, but it is a safe bet that he (as an evolutionary biologist) denies intelligent design, and believes humans evolved from other natural animals. If so, it is strange to call anything humans do “unnatural.” There seems to be a subconscious recognition in his writing that humans are exceptional, and culpable for damage they cause to “natural” environments. Otherwise, “human-induced evolution” is plain old evolution by natural — not unnatural — selection. 

The Human Impact on Salmon 

In his commentary, Merilä is reflecting on work by Jensen et al. in PNAS that illustrated the impact humans have had on “natural” Atlantic salmon populations. At the end of his article, Merilä waffles on the “natural” designation and confers the term “agency” on what salmon did in response — a word that overlaps with intelligent design. One could say that beavers are the “agents” of “beaver-induced evolutionary change,” but they had no choice in the matter since the drive to build dams is instinctive, built into their genetic nature. In the case of the salmon, the agency could have been indirect, but Merilä seems to suggest that humans could have, and should have, left the natural salmon alone.  

Whatever the selective agent behind the observed body size decline, the study by Jensen et al. provides compelling evidence that the size change is genetically based, driven by natural selection, and clearly associated with human interference with their environment. While concerns about undesirable consequences of human-induced genetic changes in natural fish populations were raised in 1950s, a lot of the early research on this topic failed to provide evidence that observed phenotypic shifts have a genetic basis and hence, represent evolutionary changes. With this in mind, one of the major contributions of the work of Jensen et al. is in providing hard evidence for human-induced evolutionary change. 

The confusion remains. Are humans acting naturally when they become “selective agents”? Are humans thus culpable for the “undesirable consequences” of genetic changes to “natural” fish? Who decides what is “undesirable”? Evolutionists believe that many unsavory consequences of evolutionary change, such as extinctions, have occurred throughout natural history before humans emerged. That label undesirable is an ethically loaded word unique to humans. A “natural” beach stranding of whales might be undesirable for the whales, but highly “desirable” for bacteria.  

Still More Confusion 

The confusion is evident also in the Jensen paper. The last paragraph says, 

Our study provides unequivocal evidence of unintentional human-induced evolution in a natural population, in which the species managed to adapt to the altered environment. River Eira once harbored some of the largest salmon in the world but has now evolved into an ordinary salmon population. This successful adaptation comes at a cost of reduced life-history diversity, and, potentially, reduced population stability and resilience to further environmental change. 

“Unintentional” is an interesting word here. Design advocates identify intentionality as a discriminator between chance and design. If humans had intended to make the fish evolve, and it cost the salmon some of their adaptability and resilience, would that have been unethical? If not, then whatever happened was “natural” and hardly worth worrying about.

We can tell, however, that Merilä had more on his mind, because he praised the Jensen team for documenting human-induced evolutionary change which had raised “concerns about undesirable consequences” back in the 1950s. Now there is hard evidence. The concerns were valid. Humans are guilty as charged. I’ll have more to say on this tomorrow.

File under"Well said." LXXXV

 "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that" 

          John Stuart Mill 

Lamarck gets the last laugh?

Epigenetics Directs Genetics — And That’s a Problem for Darwinism 

David Coppedge 

The power of epigenetic processes over genes continues to be a big subject in biology. Epigenetic processes control which genes are translated and which are silenced, which concentrations of transcripts are required, and how molecular machines assemble at the right times and places to steer gene products to their operational destinations. If sheet music is an argument for design, how much more the organization that makes it come alive in a marching band’s halftime show? 

The Guardian of the Epigenome 

The p53 protein has long been called the “guardian of the genome” for its key role in tumor suppression. Now, some German researchers are calling it “the guardian of the (epi)genome.” News from the University of Konstanz tells how a research team led by Ivano Amelio took a painstaking look at how p53 works.  

Cells — and their DNA integrity — are particularly at risk when they divide, as they duplicate their DNA in the process. “Like in any other replication process, such as photocopying a document or copying a digital file, it is disastrous if the template moves or is changed while the copy is being made. For this reason, genes cannot be transcribed – i.e. used as templates for proteins – while the DNA is being copied,” Amelio explains. If they are transcribed anyway, serious disruptions occur, which can lead to cancer-promoting mutations. The results from Amelio and his team, now appearing as the cover story in Cell Reports, show that p53 inactivation favours such copy-related damage. They found that p53 normally acts by changing cell metabolism in a way that prevents activation of genome regions that should remain inactive.  

Their work found that p53 is an epigenetic regulator: it keeps genes silent that should not be translated during mitosis by locking them away in heterochromatin. Without this control, genes become accessible to translation machinery at the wrong time, such as during mitosis. “This causes so much damage,” they found, “that it will drive cells into a state of genomic instability that favours and worsens cancer progression.” 

“By unravelling this mechanism, we could demonstrate that there is a link between metabolism, epigenetic integrity and genomic stability. In addition, we provided evidence that p53 represents the switch controlling the on/off status of this protection system in the response to environmental stress,” Amelio summarizes the finding.

The question of how p53-inactivated tumours develop genomic instability has plagued the scientific community for quite some time. “Now we have certainty that, in these tumours, there is a problem at the metabolic level that is reflected in the integrity of the epigenome. Hence, p53 should actually be called guardian of the (epi-)genome. 

Epigenetics Compacts Genes in Gametes 

The John Innes Centre in the UK announced the solution to an enigma: how plants compact their DNA in sperm cells. Animals, which have swimming sperm cells, do it by replacing their histones with protamines. But plants, which spread their gametes via pollen, maintain their histone-based chromatin through fertilization. Why the difference, and how do plants compact the DNA in the male gametes?

The answer was found by a research team at the Centre led by Professor Xiaoqi Feng. It involves condensates (see my article on the Caltech study) that form by phase separation, intrinsically disordered regions of certain proteins, and epigenetics. “Professor Feng’s research team used super-resolution microscopy, comparative proteomics, single-cell-type epigenomic sequencing and 3D genome mapping to investigate this mystery.” Key to the solution was identification of a histone variant named H2B.8. It is specifically expressed in sperm nuclei. 

H2B.8 has a long intrinsically disordered region (IDR), a feature that frequently allows proteins to undergo phase separation. The research found nearly all flowering plant species have H2B.8 homologs (copies), all of which contain an IDR, suggesting important functions. 

So why do plants need DNA compaction, when the sperm don’t need to swim to the egg? Pollen grains land on a pistil and send long pollen tubes to reach the eggs. Compaction of the sperm cells, therefore, serve a purpose for angiosperms. Interestingly, gymnosperms, which use a different method of pollination, do not compact their sperm genomes, and lack H2B.8. 

Dr Toby Buttress first author of the study said: “We propose that H2B.8 is a flowering plant evolutionary innovation that achieves a moderate level of nuclear condensation compared to protamines, which sacrifice transcription for super compaction. H2B.8-mediated condensation is sufficient for immotile sperm and compatible with gene activity.” 

Epigenetics Runs the Office 

A lively follow-up to Caltech’s findings last year about condensates was published by Nature, “The shape-shifting blobs that shook up cell biology.” Reporter Elie Dolgin calls these membraneless organelles droplets, condensates, and granules. She uses the same office floor plan metaphor that Caltech used: 

For years, if you asked a scientist how they pictured the inner workings of a cell, they might have spoken of a highly organized factory, with different departments each performing specialized tasks in delineated assembly lines.

Ask now, and they might be more inclined to compare the cell to a chaotic open-plan office, with hot-desking zones where different types of cellular matter gather to complete a task and then scatter to other regions. 

The picture is less one of robots anchored to the floor on an assembly line, and more one of intelligent actors gathering on the fly, interacting, sharing materials, and solving problems. Isn’t that just like squishy biology anyway? Cells seem like chaotic blobs at one level, but they somehow give rise to a flying owl, a leaping dolphin, and a mathematician at a chalkboard. Clearly things are working at levels of engineering beyond our current ability to fathom. 

“We have the observations that condensates form,” says Jonathon Ditlev, a cellular biophysicist at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada. “Now we need to show why they are important.” 

Dolgin relates how these “blobs” self-organize through phase separation, but many questions remain. How do the right ingredients get into these “molecular crucibles” that speed up interactions by orders of magnitude? How do they separate when the work is done? He doesn’t mention epigenetics in his article, but the implication is clear that genetics alone cannot explain this. 

Epigenetics Challenges Evolution 

Whether plant DNA compaction can be called an “evolutionary innovation” as opposed to a designed solution can be debated. Regarding that controversy, at The Scientist, Katarina Zimmer asks, “Do Epigenetic Changes Influence Evolution?”  

Evidence is mounting that epigenetic marks on DNA can influence future generations in a variety of ways. But how such phenomena might affect large-scale evolutionary processes is hotly debated. 

After telling about a case where nematodes inherited a stress response, Zimmer delves into the current “fierce debate” between believers and doubters about whether epigenetics requires revisions to evolutionary theory. 

No one doubts the examples of epigenetic inheritance, but some in the old guard consign them to minor roles in long-term evolution. Zimmer mentions the buzz generated by the  article by Stephen Buranyi at The Guardian asking, “Do we need a new theory of evolution?” (see David Klinghoffer’s analysis here). One of the revisionists Zimmer quotes is Alyson Ashe at the University of Sydney, who also observed epigenetic inheritance in C. elegans. 

Specifically, the Modern Synthesis developed in the 1940s supposes that evolution is driven solely by random DNA mutations. While many scientists question whether non-DNA-based mechanisms could be meaningful contributors to evolutionary processes, some say that textbooks are due for an update.

“We don’t need to rewrite and throw away the current theories, but they’re incomplete,” says Ashe. “They need adjustment to show how epigenetics can interplay with those theories.” 

Epigenetics Makes the Band Play 

Zimmer leaves the controversy unresolved, but it’s likely that Darwinians will have to face the epigenetic music soon as its drumbeat gets louder. If the instrumentalists are like the genes, other entities must be telling the band members what music to play, when to start, and how to scatter and gather into the next formation on the field, or else there would be cacophony. If neo-Darwinism cannot even get random notes on a page to result in a melody, how can it account for a drum major, manager, librarian, programmer, drill team and all the other entities needed for a coherent performance? Thanks to epigenetics, all the players condense in the right positions, move around while playing, and give a crowd-pleasing performance of “Strike Up the Band.” 

 

Design Detection by the numbers?

William Dembski Offers an Updated Edition of an Intelligent Design Classic

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

On a new episode of ID the Future, mathematician and philosopher William Dembski talks with host Eric Anderson about a revised and updated edition of Dembski’s pioneering 1998 Cambridge University Press book, The Design Inference. Dembski says he stands by that work and his early contributions to intelligent design theory, but adds that he has learned a lot more in the intervening years, particularly from his work with Robert J. Marks and Winston Ewert at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab. Lessons from that and other research, Dembski explains, will enrich the new edition. What light do these design-detecting methods shed on modern evolutionary theory? To find out, download the podcast or listen to it here. 

 

One more thing re: the Bible's antitrinitarian bias.

 The advocates of the dogma of the trinity claim that its constituents are persons but not beings. For the sake of continuity we'll ignore that assault on the lexicon only to point out that at 

Revelation1:4KJV"John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is(Grk. Ho On: the being), and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; "  

The God and Father of Jesus Christ is identified as the supreme being. Also how can one be anyone(let alone the most high God) without first having concrete existence. If one is not a BEING one certainly can't BE a person with whom anyone can have a relationship. Christendom's absurdity has the effect of reducing JEHOVAH to an abstraction, like numbers or colors only even more nonspecific. 

Scripture,logic,common sense and the dictionary remain trinitarians problem.

 The scriptures do not merely assure us that there is one true God. It furnishes us with a description of this one God. Additionally if this one God is the great first cause and is worthy of our confidence in his ability to indefinitely sustain his creation certain things must be through of him that cannot true of any member of Christendom's trinity. 

In his book 'the forgotten Trinity' pastor White claims that the one God is 'three whos and one what'. But really it depends on who you ask I've spoken to quite a few trinitarians who insists that the trinity is himself a person. Wouldn't that make him a quadrinity then? The reply some give is that he is not a person in the same way that the constituents of him are because he is also a being. Bit of a fudge if you ask me. But here is the issue the God of the bible is superlative ,as defined by the dictionary. 

Psalm83:18ASV "18That they may know that thou alone, whose name is JEHOVAH, Art the Most High over all the earth.," 

Neither the non-being persons nor the personal being nor the impersonal being mentioned in these competing definitions matches this description. They each are matched by others in glory and power. Additionally the bible repeatedly Identifies the Father who by common consent is a single person as the one God of Abraham,Isaac and Jacob who by common consent is a being. 

Acts3:13ASV"The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified Servant Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him. "  

John8:54ASV"54Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing: it is my Father that glorifieth me; of whom ye say, that he is your (Lit.the God of you)God;" 

Additionally the Father is the God of the Son 

John20:17ASV"17Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." 

Revelation3:12ASV"2He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name. " Thus the Father is a person ,a being and the God according to scripture,logic and common sense.  

Of course God is necessary ,apart from him none of us would be here and there would be no hope for a perpetual future. 

Acts17:28ASV"28for in HIM (Not It)we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also HIS(not its) offspring. " Again this can't be true of any of the members of the trinity or the impersonal/hyperpersonal substance in which they subsists. There are peers who/which are fully God and hence can duplicate/replicate their capabilities. A clear violation of the principle of Occam's razor. Christendom's apologists appeal to this principle as a polemic against polytheism. A polytheist would be justified in arguing that the trinity constitutes a far more egregious violation of this principle than the ancient (or modem) pantheons, these being complementarian and not needlessly redundant like Christendom's trinity. 

My rant against predestinationism.

 Genesis18:25ASV"That be far from thee to do after this manner,... shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" 

Of all the despicable defamations being trafficked by the churches of Christendom against the Lord JEHOVAH, surely the lie that God has foredoomed the majority of his human creation to an eternity of subjection to sin and irrational cruelty ,and this from eternity past tops the list. 

Some wonder that there are so many atheists , given what is being pedaled as biblical orthodoxy I marvel that there are so few. 

What does JEHOVAH'S doing what is right entail?

2Peter3:9KJV"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" 

As I have repeatedly stated any doctrine that requires that we toss logic, common sense and scripture under the bus should raise a red flag. 

The only reason that those foredoomed from eternity would be thus foredoomed would be the desire of JEHOVAH i.e if he were the amoral beast being painted by Christendom's professors. Likewise if the eternal salvation of elect individuals were a done deal God's patience would be neither here nor there. 

1Peter1:20KJV"Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you," 

Firstly what the verse does not say i.e that our Lord's redemptive work was fore-determined from eternity, wickedness is NEVER part of JEHOVAH'S design.

James1:13NIV"When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each person is tempted when..." 

The world mentioned here i.e 1peter ch.1 is not a reference to the stars and planets but legitimate candidates for JEHOVAH'S salvation. 

John3:16NIV"For God so loved the WORLD( Grk. Cosmos)that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." 

Thus it was before the founding of this 'world' that our Lord's role in mankind's reconciliation with its creator was foreordained specifically here: 

Genesis3:15ASV"15and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." 

Indeed our Lord identified the Founding of this world with the birth of mother eve's firstborn. 

Luke11:51,52ASVhat the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 51from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zachariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary: yea, I say unto you, it shall be required of this generation. " 

The Greek word rendered founding/foundation here is 'katabole'  here is thayers commentary:  a throwing or laying down: τοῦ σπέρματος (namely, εἰς τήν μήτραν), the injection or depositing of the virile semen in the womb, Lucian, amor. 19; Galen, aphorism. iv. § 1; of the seed of animals and plants, 

 Thus before the first legitimate candidate for JEHOVAH'S mercy was birthed JEHOVAH foreordained that his Son would play the primary role in reconciling mankind to its creator. He also foreordained that he would lead an ecclesia the members of which would be mental and moral clones of Christ. Firstfruits to JEHOVAH and his high priest. Individuals blessed with this high calling take nothing for granted. 

Phillipians3:13NIV"Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead," obviously our brother Paul did not consider his final judgment a done deal. It is JEHOVAH'S ecclesia that is elect from of old and not any man, with one obvious exception.

 

 

Predestination: a brief history.

 predestination 

By The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica 

predestination, in Christianity, the doctrine that God has eternally chosen those whom he intends to save. In modern usage, predestination is distinct from both determinism and fatalism and is subject to the free decision of the human moral will, but the doctrine also teaches that salvation is entirely due to the eternal decree of God. In its fundamentals, the problem of predestination is as universal as religion itself, but the emphasis of the New Testament on the divine plan of salvation has made the issue especially prominent in Christian theology. Predestination has been especially associated with John Calvin and the Reformed tradition. 

Christian doctrines of predestination may be considered explanations of the words of the Apostle Paul, 

For those whom he [God] foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified (Romans 8:29–30). 

Three types of predestination doctrine, with many variations, have developed. One notion (associated with semi-Pelagianism, some forms of nominalism, and Arminianism) makes foreknowledge the ground of predestination and teaches that God predestined to salvation those whose future faith and merits he foreknew. 

At the opposite extreme is the notion of double predestination, commonly identified with Calvinism and especially associated with the Synod of Dort (1618–19) and appearing also in some of the writings of St. Augustine and Martin Luther and in the thought of the Jansenists. According to this notion, God has determined from eternity whom he will save and whom he will damn, regardless of their faith, love, or merit or lack thereof.

A third notion was set forth inunmerited grace of God and thus to predestination, but it attributes divine reprobation to human sin and guilt. other writings of Augustine and Luther, in the decrees of the second Council of Orange (529), and in the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. It ascribes the salvation of humans to the unmerited grace of God and thus to predestination, but it attributes divine reprobation to human sin and guilt.

Being with JEHOVAH forever.

Revelation ch.20:4NIV"4I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They a had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years." 

No one goes to heaven when they die ,heaven can only be accessed via a resurrection, this resurrection is termed the first resurrection. 

 Revelation ch.20:6NIV"6Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years."

I am constantly amazed at how many 'bible believing Christians' including many who ought to know better ,claiming as they do, to be pastors/teachers of God's people ,believe and teach that heaven can be accessed via a so called afterlife. Those who share in this first resurrection we are told rule with Christ over the earth, during the millennium and serve as priests. Thus it is not only those who go to heaven who are saved,indeed these would be pitiful excuses for priests if  their services resulted in no one being reconciled to JEHOVAH 

Revelation ch.20:12KJV"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the BOOK OF LIFE: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. " 

Here we get a glimpse of the millennium, obviously if there is a first resurrection there is going to be a following resurrection. To what end ,simply to rehash the resurrected's specific sins before consigning them to eternal conscious torment body and soul. Is that why these books are opened. JEHOVAH and his Son don't need to consult any books to recall anyone's sins, why ,they possess the power and wisdom to raise the dead. And why is the book of life opened is JEHOVAH unclear as to whom he promised to bless with the gift of eternal life. These books are not opened to aid the Lord JEHOVAH and his heavenly sons but those sharing in that earthly resurrection among whom would include faithful pre-Christian servants of JEHOVAH. 

Matthew ch.11:11KJV"Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. " 

Also those who through no fault of their own went to their graves ignorant of the truth. 

Psalms147:19,20"19He showeth his word unto Jacob, His statutes and his ordinances unto Israel.

20He hath not dealt so with any nation; And as for his ordinances, they have not known them. Praise ye JEHOVAH" 

Acts ch.14:15,16ASV"15and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and bring you good tidings, that ye should turn from these vain things unto a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that in them is: 16who in the generations gone by suffered all the nations to walk in their own ways. " 

Acts ch.17:30ASV"30The times of ignorance therefore God OVERLOOKED but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent:" 

These will all benefit from a program of instruction in JEHOVAH'S word the Holy Bible and possibly new written revelation.

There is NO place in the Bible where it is stated that only those going to heaven are saved. This is simply more eisegesis from Christendom's 'teachers' . This is why those inheriting the heavenly resurrection are labeled first-fruits.

James ch.1:18ASV"f his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures." 

Revelation ch.14:4ASV"These are they that were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they that follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, to be the first-fruits unto God and unto the Lamb." 

Obviously then there remains general ingathering post the first-fruits. This is why the book of life is opened in the millennium to add(and if need be subtract) names .  

JEHOVAH guaranties his eternal fatherhood/companionship of all his Son's heavenly and earthly. 

Revelation ch.21:1ASV"And I saw a new heaven and A NEW EARTH: for the first heaven and the first earth are passed away; and the sea is no more." 

Revelation ch.21:3,4ASV"And I heard a great voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall dwell with them, and they shall be his peoples, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God: 4 and he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more: the first things are passed away." 

Matthew ch.6:9,10ASV"After this manner therefore pray ye. Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on EARTH."

The lexicon is the enemy?

 I've been reading pastor James White's 'the forgotten Trinity' (because I'm a masochist). There is a sentence at the beginning of verse 4 of chapter 2 that has just indelibly imprinted itself on my cerebral cortex, it reads as follows: before we present a definition of the Trinity, it is important to point out that we face a real difficulty right at the start :language itself. 

In my experience statements of this sort are usually preludes to extensive goalposts shifting. 

This war on the lexicon is why even among trinitarians there remain fiery debates about the definition of the trinity.

Ps. Mark12:30NIV"Love the LORD(JEHOVAH) your God with all your...MIND...’"

Yet another evangelist of the multiverse preaches the word.

 To Avoid a Cosmic Beginning, Physicist Paul Steinhardt Goes to Extraordinary Lengths

Brian Miller 

The YouTube channel Closer to Truth recently interviewed physicist Paul Steinhardt about his cyclical cosmological model. The model has proven very attractive to atheists since it avoids the philosophical implications of the universe having a beginning. I have written previously about why the model actually does not avoid a beginning and how it requires high levels of fine-tuning to generate a life-permitting universe (here,here). What struck me with renewed force in the recent interview is the model’s layer upon layer of assumptions unsupported by any empirical evidence. 

Renouncing Inflationary Cosmology 

Steinhardt is one of the most interesting and influential figures in cosmology. He was one of the original architects of inflationary cosmology. He later rejected the theory for reasons he detailed in his Scientific American article “Pop Goes the Universe.” He argued that all the major predictions of the simplest and most tractable versions of inflationary theory have failed. And current versions are so contrived and flexible that they could fit nearly any data, so they have no real explanatory power: 

A common misconception is that experiments can be used to falsify a theory. In practice, a failing theory gets increasingly immunized against experiment by attempts to patch it. The theory becomes more highly tuned and arcane to fit new observations until it reaches a state where its explanatory power diminishes to the point that it is no longer pursued … A theory like the multimess does not exclude anything and, hence, has zero power.  

The Basic Framework 

Steinhardt proposes that his cyclic model of cosmology better explains the structure of our universe and avoids many of the pitfalls of inflationary cosmology. The basic framework for his theory includes the following components:

Our universe resides in a multidimensional brane that resides in a higher dimensional space containing other parallel branes hosting other universes.

The branes collide periodically due to an interbrane force drawing them together.

The collisions result in big bang events in the branes. The universes in the branes then expand due to the energy of the collision causing a contracting universe to bounce into an expanding one. The branes reset to their original separation. 

The collision transfers energy into a scalar field. That energy then transfers from the scalar field into the production of matter and energy uniformly filling the universe. 

The universe expands as in standard Big Bang cosmology with galaxies, stars, and planets forming as the universe cools. 

The expansion of the universe eventually accelerates. 

The expansion phase ends, and the universe begins to slowly contract. The slow contraction smooths out the universe.  

The contraction ends in a bounce, and the universe again expands starting a new cycle. 

The expansion, contraction, and bounce are directed by the energy of the scalar field whose value corresponds to the distance between the branes. 

Multitude of Assumptions 

The cyclic cosmological model purportedly explains such features of our universe as the near uniformity of the cosmic background radiation and the lack of curvature of space as well as other models, but it can only do so by relying on numerous speculative assumptions. The entire framework is founded on string theory which many physicists are starting to seriously question (here, here). It also assumes the existence of parallel multidimensional branes containing separate universes — a questionable application of string theory, even if true. The collision of the branes must occur in just the right manner to generate universes with just the right amount of inhomogeneity to birth galaxies with stars and planets. 

Even if all of these assumptions were true, the level of fine-tuning required in the bounces would still be immense. Cosmologist Andrei Linde stated about an earlier version of the model the following 

By evaluating the initial amplitude of quantum fluctuations on the scale corresponding to the observable part of the universe one finds that the branes must be parallel to each other with an accuracy better than 10−60 on a scale 1030 times greater than the distance between the branes. 

In addition, even if branes existed and collided properly, justifying the dynamics of such highly orchestrated expansion, contraction, and bounces requires postulating a very particular scalar field. Its value must depend upon the distance between the branes, and its energy must be described by a very specific mathematical form. And the transfer of energy from the field into the production of common matter and energy requires the proper coupling of the scalar field with the fields underlying the matter and energy. 

The irony is that Steinhardt’s criticisms of inflationary cosmology likely apply with equal force to his own theory. No empirical evidence supports any of the theory’s essential components. The numerous ad hoc features of his model are likely flexible enough to explain any observed data with the right choice of fine-tuned parameters and initial conditions. And the only testable predictions of string theory, which forms the bedrock for the entire framework, have failed. Claims that cyclic cosmology offers a compelling explanation for the structure of our universe is considered by most cosmologists dubious at best. 

A Simpler Explanation 

The most obvious conclusion about our universe is that it was created by a transcendent mind who designed it for the purpose of supporting life. This hypothesis is further supported by the evidence for design we see in our planetary system and throughout life. Denying the conclusion of design has forced scientists to propose the most arcane and contrived theories filled with multiverses, mysterious fields, and other wild speculations. Such efforts by many scientists are perfectly reasonable given their materialist framework. But an honest evaluation of the evidence should at some point inspire them to question their philosophical assumptions.  

The Watchtower society's commentary on the Holy Bible.

 BIBLE 

The Holy Scriptures, the Inspired Word of JEHOVAH, acknowledged as the greatest book of all times due to its antiquity, its total circulation, the number of languages into which it has been translated, its surpassing greatness as a literary masterpiece, and because of its overwhelming importance to all mankind. Independent of all other books, it imitates no other and copies none. It stands on its own merits, giving credit to its unique Author. The Bible also is distinguished as having survived more violent controversy than any other book, hated as it is by enemies legion in number. 

NAME 

The English word “Bible” comes through the Latin from the Greek word bi·bliʹa, which is, in turn, derived from biʹblos, a word that describes the inner part of the papyrus plant out of which a primitive form of paper was made. The Phoenician city of Gebal, famous for its papyrus papermaking, was called by the Greeks “Byblos.” In time bi·bliʹa came to describe various writings, scrolls, books, and eventually the collection of little books that make up the Bible. Jerome called this collection Bibliotheca Divina, the Divine Library.

Jesus and writers of the Christian Scriptures referred to the collection of sacred writings as “the Scriptures,” or “the holy Scriptures,” “the holy writings.” (Matt. 21:42; Mark 14:49; Luke 24:32; John 5:39; Acts 18:24; Rom. 1:2; 15:4; 2 Tim. 3:15, 16) The collection is the written expression of a communicating God, the Word of God, and this is acknowledged in phrases such as “expression of JEHOVAH'S Mouth” (Deut. 8:3), “sayings of JEHOVAH” (Josh. 24:27), “commandments of JEHOVAH” (Ezra 7:11), “law of JEHOVAH,” “reminder of JEHOVAH,” “orders from JEHOVAH” (Ps. 19:7, 8), “word of JEHOVAH” (Isa. 38:4), ‘utterance of JEHOVAH’ (Matt. 4:4), “JEHOVAH'S word.” (1 Thess. 4:15) Repeatedly these writings are spoken of as “sacred pronouncements of God.”—Rom. 3:2; Acts 7:38; Heb. 5:12; 1 Pet. 4:11. 

DIVISIONS 

ixty-six individual books from Genesis to Revelation make up the Bible canon. The choice of these particular books, and the rejection of many others, is evidence that the divine Author not only inspired their writing but also carefully guarded their collection and preservation within the sacred catalog. (See APOCRYPHA; CANON.) Thirty-nine of the sixty-six books, making up three-quarters of the Bible’s contents, are known as the Hebrew Scriptures, all having been initially written in that language with the exception of a few small sections written in Aramaic. (Ezra 4:8–6:18; 7:12-26; Jer. 10:11; Dan. 2:4b–7:28) By combining some of these books, the Jews had a total of only 22 or 24 books, yet these embraced the same material. It also appears to have been their custom to subdivide the Scriptures into three parts, as ‘the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.’ (Luke 24:44; see HEBREW SCRIPTURES.) The last quarter of the Bible is known as the Christian Greek Scriptures, so designated because the twenty-seven books composing this section were written in Greek. The writing, collecting and arrangement of these books within the Bible’s canon, also demonstrate JEHOVAH'S supervision from start to finish.—See CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES. 

Subdividing the Bible into chapters and verses (AV has 1,189 chapters and 31,173 verses) was not done by the original writers, but was a very useful device added centuries later. The Masoretes divided the Hebrew Scriptures into verses; then in the thirteenth century of our Common Era chapter divisions were added. Finally, in 1555 Robert Estienne’s edition of the Latin Vulgate was published as the first complete Bible with the present chapter and verse divisions.

The sixty-six Bible books all together form but a single work, a complete whole. As the chapter and verse marks are only convenient aids for Bible study, and are not intended to detract from the unity of the whole, so also is the sectioning of the Bible according to the predominant language in which the manuscripts have come down to us. We, therefore, have both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, with “Christian” added to the latter to distinguish them from the Septuagint Version, which is the Hebrew portion of the Scriptures translated into Greek. 

AUTHORSHIP 

The accompanying table shows that about forty human secretaries or scribes were used by the one Author to record the inspired Word of JEHOVAH. “All Scripture is inspired of God,” and this includes the writings in the Christian Greek Scriptures along with “the rest of the Scriptures.” (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 3:15, 16) This expression “inspired of God” translated the Greek phrase The·oʹpneu·stos, meaning “God-breathed.” By ‘breathing’ on faithful men, God caused his own spirit or active force to become operative upon them and actively directed what JEHOVAH wanted recorded, for, as it is written, “prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.”—2 Pet. 1:21; John 20:21, 22; see INSPIRATION.

This unseen holy spirit of God is his symbolic “finger.” Therefore, when men saw Moses perform supernatural feats they exclaimed: “It is the finger of God!” (Ex. 8:18, 19; compare with Jesus’ words at Matthew 12:22, 28; Luke 11:20.) In a similar display of divine power “God’s finger” began the writing of the Bible by carving out the Ten Commandments on stone tablets. (Ex. 31:18; Deut. 9:10) It would, therefore, be a simple matter for JEHOVAH to use men as his scribes even though some were “unlettered and ordinary” in scholastic training (Acts 4:13), and regardless of whether by trade he was a shepherd, farmer, tentmaker, fisherman, tax collector, physician, priest, prophet or king. JEHOVAH'S active force put the thoughts into the writer’s mind, and in certain instances allowed him to express the divine thought in his own words, thus permitting personality and individual traits to show through the writing, yet at the same time maintaining a superb oneness in theme and in purpose throughout. In this way the resultant Bible exceeded in wealth and in scope the writings of mere men, reflecting as it does the mind and will of JEHOVAH The Almighty God saw to it that his written Word of truth was in language easily understood and easily translated into practically any tongue. 

No other book took so long to complete as the Bible. In 1513 B.C.E. Moses began Bible writing. Until sometime after 443 B.C.E. when Nehemiah and Malachi completed their books, other sacred writings were added to the inspired Scriptures. Then there was a gap in Bible writing for almost five hundred years until the apostle Matthew penned his historic account. Nearly sixty years later John, the last of the apostles, contributed his Gospel and three letters to complete the Bible’s canon. So, all together, a period of some 1,610 years was involved in producing the Bible. All the co-writers were Hebrews and, hence, part of that people “entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God.”—Rom. 3:2.

The Bible is not an unrelated assortment or collection of heterogeneous fragments from Jewish and Christian literature. Rather, it is an organizational book, highly unified and interconnected in its various segments, which indeed reflect the systematic orderliness of the Creator-Author himself. God’s dealings with Israel in giving them a comprehensive Law code as well as regulations governing matters even down to small details of camp life—things that were later mirrored in the Davidic kingdom as well as in the congregational arrangement among first-century Christians—reflect and magnify this organizational aspect of the Bible. 

CONTENTS 

In contents this Book of Books reveals the past, explains the present and foretells the future—matters that only He who knows the end from the beginning could author. (Isa. 46:10) Starting at the beginning by telling of the creation of heaven and earth in the indefinite past, the Bible then gives a sweeping account of more than 42,000 years during which the earth was being prepared for man’s habitation. Then the truly scientific explanation of the origin of man is revealed—how life comes only from a Lifegiver—facts that only the Creator now in the role of Author could explain. (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:7) With the account of why men die, the overriding theme that permeates the whole Bible was introduced. This theme, the sanctification and vindication of Jehovah’s name, was wrapped up in the first prophecy concerning ‘the seed of the woman.’ (Gen. 3:15) More than two thousand years passed before this promise of a “Seed” was again mentioned, God telling Abraham: “By means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves.” (Gen. 22:18) Over eight hundred years later renewed assurance was given to Abraham’s descendant King David, and with the passing of more time Jehovah’s prophets kept this flame of hope burning brightly. (2 Sam. 7:12, 16; Isa. 9:6, 7) Another thousand years after David, more than 4,000 years after the original prophecy in Eden, and the Promised Seed himself appeared, Jesus Christ, the legal heir to “the throne of David his father.’ (Luke 1:31-33; Gal. 3:16) Bruised in death by the earthly seed of the “serpent,” this “Son of the Most High” provided the ransom purchase price for the life rights lost to Adam’s offspring, thus providing the only means whereby mankind can get everlasting life. He was then raised on high, there to await the appointed time to hurl “the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan,” down to the earth, where he finally is to be destroyed forever.  Thus the magnificent theme announced in Genesis and developed and enlarged upon throughout the balance of the Bible is in the closing chapters brought to a glorious climax as Jehovah’s grand purpose by means of his kingdom is made apparent.—Rev. 11:15; 12:1-12, 17; 19:11-16; 20:1-3, 7-10; 21:1-5; 22:3-5.

This kingdom under Christ the Promised Seed is the means by which the sanctification and vindication of God’s name JEHOVAH will be accomplished. Following through on this theme, the Bible magnifies JEHOVAH'S name to a greater extent than any other book; the name occurs more than 6,800 times in the Hebrew Masoretic text, in addition to the abbreviated form “JAH,” and in scores of instances where it combines to form other names like “Jesus,” meaning “JEHOVAH is salvation.” We would not know the Creator’s name, or the great issue raised by the Edenic rebellion involving this name, or God’s purpose to sanctify and vindicate that name before all creation, were these things not revealed in the Bible.

In this library of sixty-six books the theme of the Kingdom and JEHOVAH'S name are closely interwoven with information on many subjects. Its reference to such fields of knowledge as agriculture, architecture, astronomy, chemistry, commerce, engineering, ethnology, government, hygiene, music, poetry, philology and tactical warfare is only incidental to development of the theme; not as a treatise. Nevertheless, it contains a veritable treasure-house of information for the archaeologists and paleographers. In a general way this vast field of information may be divided into four subjects: (1) History and prophecy; (2) Basic truths and doctrines; (3) Fundamental principles; (4) Christian ministry.As an accurate historical work and one that penetrates the past to great depths, the Bible far surpasses all other books. However, it is of much greater value in the field of prophecy, foretelling as it does the future that only the King of Eternity can reveal with accuracy. The march of world powers down through the centuries, even to the rise and ultimate demise of present-day institutions, were prophetically related in the Bible’s long-range prophecies.

God’s Word of Truth in a very practical way sets men free from ignorance, superstitions, philosophies and senseless traditions of men. (John 8:32) “The word of God is alive and exerts power.” (Heb. 4:12) Without the Bible we would not know Jehovah, would not know the wonderful benefits resulting from Christ’s ransom sacrifice, would not understand the requirements that must be met in order to get everlasting life in or under God’s righteous kingdom.

The Bible is a most practical book in other ways too, for it gives sound counsel to Christians on how to live now, how to carry on their ministry, and how to survive this anti-God, pleasure-seeking system of things. Christians are told to “quit being fashioned after this system of things” by making their minds over from thinking like worldlings, and this they can do by having the same mental attitude of humility “that was also in Christ Jesus,” and by stripping off the old personality and putting on the new personality. (Rom. 12:2; Phil. 2:5-8; Eph. 4:23, 24; Col. 3:5-10) This means displaying the fruitage of God’s spirit, “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control”—subjects on which so much is written throughout the book.—Gal. 5:22, 23; Col. 3:12-14. 

AUTHENTICITY 

The veracity of the Bible has been assailed from many quarters, but none of these efforts has undermined or weakened its position in the least. Sir Isaac Newton once said: “I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatever.” Its integrity to truth proves sound on any point that might be tested. Its history is accurate and can be relied upon. For example, what it says about the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians cannot be successfully contradicted. (Jer. 51:11, 12, 28; Dan. 5:28) Or what it says about persons like Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 27:20; Dan. 1:1), Egyptian King Shishak (1 Ki. 14:25; 2 Chron. 12:2), Assyrians Tiglath-pileser and Sennacherib (2 Ki. 15:29; 16:7; 18:13), or the Roman Emperors Augustus, Tiberius or Claudius (Luke 2:1; 3:1; Acts 18:2), or Romans such as Pilate, Felix or Festus (Acts 4:27; 23:26; 24:27), or its remarks about the great temple of Artemis at Ephesus and the Areopagus at Athens (Acts 19:35; 17:19-34)—what the Bible says about these or any other places, persons or events is historically accurate in every detail.—See  ARCHAEOLOGY 

What the Bible says about races and languages of mankind is also true. All peoples, regardless of stature, culture, color or tongue, are one species of creatures. The threefold division of the human family into the Japhetic, Hamitic and Shemitic races, all descending from Adam through Noah, cannot be successfully disputed. (Gen. 9:18, 19; Acts 17:26) Says Sir Henry Rawlinson: “If we were to be guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the Scriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar, as the focus from which the various lines had radiated.”—The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records, p. 287.

The Bible’s teachings, examples and doctrines are most practical for modern man. The righteous principles and high moral standards contained in this book set it apart as far above all other books. Not only does the Bible answer important questions, it also provides many practical suggestions which, if followed, will do much to raise the physical and mental health of earth’s population. The Bible lays down principles of right and wrong that serve as a straightedge for just business dealings (Lev. 19:35, 36; Prov. 20:10; 22:22, 23; Matt. 7:12), industriousness (Eph. 4:28; Col. 3:23; 1 Thess. 4:11, 12; 2 Thess. 3:10-12), clean moral conduct (Ex. 20:14-17; Lev. 20:10-16; Gal. 5:19-23), upbuilding associations (Prov. 5:3-11; 13:20; 1 Cor. 15:33; Heb. 10:24, 25), good family relationships—duties of husband toward wife and children, wife toward husband and children, and children toward parents. (Deut. 6:4-9; Prov. 13:24; Eph. 5:21-33; 6:1-4; Col. 3:18-21) Peace of mind, contentment and security are benefits enjoyed by Bible lovers. As the famous educator, William Lyon Phelps, once said: “I believe a knowledge of the Bible without a college course is more valuable than a college course without the Bible.” “It is a book,” to quote John Quincy Adams, “which neither the most ignorant and weakest, nor the most learned and intelligent mind can read without improvement.” 

When it comes to scientific accuracy the Bible is not lacking. Whether describing the progressive order of earth’s preparation for habitation (Gen. 1:1-31), or speaking of the earth as being spherical and hung on “nothing” (Job 26:7; Isa. 40:22), or mentioning the ‘skin of the teeth’ (Job 19:20), or classifying the hare as a cud chewer (Lev. 11:6), or declaring “the soul of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11-14)—in all these and many more details the Bible is scientifically sound.

On points relating to cultures and customs, in no regard is the Bible found to be wrong. In political matters the Bible always speaks of a ruler by the proper title that he bore at the time of the writing. For example, Herod Antipas and Lysanias are referred to as district rulers (“tetrarchs”), Herod Agrippa as king, Sergius Paulus and Gallio as proconsuls. (Luke 3:1; Acts 25:13; 13:7; 18:12) Triumphant marches of victorious armies, together with their captives, were common during Roman times. (2 Cor. 2:14) In other details the Bible is accurate. For example, the hospitality shown to strangers, the Oriental way of life, the manner of purchasing property, legal procedures in making contracts, and the practice of circumcision among the Hebrews and other peoples.—Gen. 18:1-8; 23:7-18; 17:10-14; Jer. 9:25, 26.

Bible writers displayed a candor that is not found among other ancient writers. From the very outset, Moses frankly reported his own sins as well as the sins and errors of his people, a policy followed by the other Hebrew writers. (Ex. 14:11, 12; 32:1-6; Num. 14:1-9; 20:9-12; 27:12-14; Deut. 4:21) The sins of great ones such as David and Solomon were not covered over, but were reported. (2 Sam. 11:2-27; 1 Ki. 11:1-13) Jonah told of his own disobedience. (Jonah 1:1-3; 4:1) The other prophets likewise displayed this same straightforward, candid quality. Writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures showed the same regard for truthful reporting as displayed in the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul tells of his former sinful course in life; Mark’s error of conduct and also Peter’s are related. (Acts 22:19, 20; 15:37-39; Gal. 2:11-14) Such frank, open reporting builds confidence in the Bible’s claim to honesty and truthfulness. 

Facts testify to the integrity of the Bible. The Bible narrative is inseparably interwoven with the history of the times. It gives straightforward truthful instruction in the simplest manner. The guileless earnestness and fidelity of its writers, their burning zeal for truth, their painstaking effort to attain accuracy in details recommend the Bible for what it is, God’s Word of Truth.—John 17:17.

If there is a single point that alone proves the Bible to be the Inspired Word of Jehovah it is the matter of prophecy, for what man can even foretell with accuracy the weather more than a few hours in advance? Yet there are scores of long-range prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled. For a partial listing and a consideration of some of the more important ones, see the book “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial,” pp. 343-346. 

PRESERVATION 

Today none of the original writings of the Holy Scriptures are known to exist. Jehovah, however, saw to it that copies were made to replace the aging originals. Also, from and after the Babylonian exile, with the growth of many Jewish communities outside Palestine, there was an increasing demand for more copies of the Scriptures. This demand was met by professional copyists who made extraordinary efforts to see that accuracy was attained in their handwritten manuscripts. Ezra was just such a man, “a skilled copyist in the law of Moses, which Jehovah the God of Israel had given.”—Ezra 7:6.

For hundreds of years handwritten copies of the Scriptures continued to be made, during which period the Bible was expanded with the addition of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Translations or versions of these Holy Writings also appeared in other languages. Indeed, the Hebrew Scriptures are honored as the first book of note to be translated into another language. Extant today are thousands of these Bible manuscripts and versions.—See MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE; VERSIONS. 

The first printed Bible came off Gutenberg’s press about the middle of the fifteenth century. Today distribution of the Bible (whole or part) has reached over two billion copies in upward of 1,300 languages. But this has not been accomplished without great opposition from many quarters. Indeed, the Bible has had more enemies than any other book; popes and councils even prohibited the reading of the Bible under penalty of excommunication. Thousands of Bible lovers lost their lives and thousands of copies of the Bible were committed to the flames. One of the victims in the Bible’s fight to live was translator William Tyndale, who once declared: ‘If God gives me life, ere many years the ploughboys shall know more of the Scriptures than the clergy.’

All credit and thanksgiving for the Bible’s survival in view of such violent opposition is due Jehovah, the Preserver of his Word. This fact gives added meaning to the apostle Peter’s quotation from the prophet Isaiah: “All flesh is like grass, and all its glory is like a blossom of grass; the grass becomes withered, and the flower falls off, but the saying of Jehovah endures forever.” (1 Pet. 1:24, 25; Isa. 40:6-8) We, therefore, do well to pay “attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place” in this twentieth century. (2 Pet. 1:19; Ps. 119:105) The man whose “delight is in the law of Jehovah, and in his law he reads in an undertone day and night,” and who puts in practice the things he reads, is the one who prospers and is happy. (Ps. 1:1, 2; Josh. 1:8) To him Jehovah’s laws, reminders, orders, commandments and judicial decisions contained in the Bible are “sweeter than honey” and the wisdom derived therefrom is “more to be desired than gold, yes, than much refined gold,” for it means his very life.—Ps. 19:7-10; Prov. 3:13, 16-18