It's not just non trinitarian Christians who find Sharp's rule rather dull

 probably the most telling blow against this 200-year-old controversial rule is the rejection of it by so many of the most respected trinitarian Bible language experts! Even Wallace himself (who desperately tries for some kind of “absolute” scriptural proof for a trinity idea) complains that

“so many grammarians and exegetes objected to the validity of Granville Sharp’s Rule with reference to texts dealing with the Deity of Christ”!  

He specifically mentions “the great Greek grammarian,” G. B. Winer (trinitarian) and “one of the greatest grammarians of this [nineteenth/twentieth] century,” J. H. Moulton (trinitarian) as rejecting this “rule”!

     I have also seen that the Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner rejects this rule as do C. F. D. Moule and Henry Alford. Even famed trinitarian scholar Dr. James Moffatt (“probably the greatest biblical scholar of our day”) showed his rejection of the “absoluteness” of this rule by his rendering of Titus 2:13.  

In fact, even very trinitarian Daniel B. Wallace complains that the common translation of Titus 2:13 as found in the KJV (“the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”) treats “‘God’ and ‘Savior’ separately”! - Compare 2 Peter 1:1, 2 KJV). The same separation can be seen in the ASV (Titus 2:13), the Douay Version, and the NEB (footnote). In vol. 5, p. 257 the respected The Expositor's Greek Testament says: "In the present case [Jude 1:4], however, the second noun (kupiov) belongs to the class of words which may stand without the article .... A similar doubtful case is found in Tit. ii. 13.... Other examples of the same kind are Eph. v. 5 ... 2 Thess. i: 12 ... 1 Tim. v. 21 (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 1) ... 2 Peter i. 1." [Except for kupiov, emphasis has been added by me.]

 

It is no secret to NT Grammarians that when you have more than one noun connected by "and" (kai in NT Greek) and the first noun has the article, the following nouns may or may not have the article but they can still be understood to have the article.  

 

Moulton's Grammar of New Testament Greek says:

 

"(f) Repetition of Article with several nouns connected by kai

 

"The art. may be carried over from the first noun to the other(s)" - p. 181, Vol. 3, 1963.

 

We might compare Matt. 22:32 (all nouns with article) with Mark 12:26 (first article understood with following nouns).

 

So compare the KJV rendering of Titus 2:13 (which “treats ‘God’ and ‘Savior’ separately”) with that of 2 Peter 1:1, KJV.  

 

(KJV) 2 Peter 1:1 "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" 

Also compare:

 

(ASV) 2 Peter 1:1 "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ."

 

(Weymouth NT) 2 Peter 1:1 "Simon Peter, a bondservant and Apostle of Jesus Christ: To those to whom there has been allotted the same precious faith as that which is ours through the righteousness of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ."  

 

     Even clearer are the renderings by the trinitarian scholars who translated The New American Bible, 1970 ed. (2 Thess. 1:12; Titus 2:13); NAB, 1991 ed. (Titus 2:13); New American Standard Bible (1 Tim. 5:21); Revised Standard Version (1 Tim. 5:21); NRSV (1 Tim. 5:21); The Jerusalem Bible (1 Tim. 5:21); NJB (1 Tim. 5:21); Today’s English Version (1 Tim. 5:21); New English Bible (1 Tim. 5:21); The Living Bible (2 Thess. 1:12); Phillips (Titus 2:13); Modern Language Bible (2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21); Douay Version (2 Thess. 1:12); King James II Version (2 Thess. 1:12); Good News Bible (2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21); The Amplified Bible (1 Tim. 5:21); Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, 1975 (2 Thess. 1:12); Riverside NT (Titus 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21 ); New Life Version (2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21); Easy-to-Read Version(1 Tim. 5:21).

We can find numerous translations of Titus 2:13 (probably the most-used scripture for this “proof”) which render it as referring to two persons.

Titus 2:13 

 

Bible translations old and new:

 

 

13 lokynge for that blessed hope and appearynge of the glory of ye greate God and of oure Sauioure Iesu Christ - Coverdale

 

13 lokynge for þe blessed hope & appearinge of the glory of the greate God, & of oure sauioure Iesu Christ, - The Great Bible 

 

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glorie of that mightie God, and of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, - Geneva

 

13 abidinge the blessid hope and the comyng of the glorie of the greet God, and of oure sauyour Jhesu Crist; - Wycliffe

 

13 lokinge for that blessed hope and glorious apperenge of ye myghty god and of oure savioure Iesu Christ - Tyndale

 

13 in expectation of that desirable happiness, the glorious appearance of the supreme God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ, - Mace

 

13 awaiting the blessed hope of the appearance of the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus, - Moffatt

 

13 expecting the blessed hope; namely, the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; - The Living Oracles

 

13 looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; - Noyes 

13 waiting for the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus, - Riverside

 

13 looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, - Sawyer

 

(KJV) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

(New American Bible - 1970) as we await our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus

 

(New American Bible - 1991) as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ

 

(New American Bible - 2010) as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ

 

(A New Translation in Plain English - Charles K. Williams) while we wait for the blessed thing we hope for, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ

 

And while we live this life we hope and wait for the glorious denouement of the Great God and of Jesus Christ our saviour. - Phillips

 

We are to be looking for the great hope and the coming of our great God and the One Who saves, Christ Jesus. - NLV 

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glory of that mighty God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ. - GNV

 

"looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of the mighty God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ," - NMB  

 

According to An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109, at Titus 2:13, the sense "of the Great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ ... is possible in [New Testament] Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article before the second noun]."

 

Noted British NT scholar and trinitarian clergyman Henry Alford wrote: "I would submit that [a translation which clearly differentiates God from Christ at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s [Paul’s] way of writing: and I have therefore preferred it." - The Greek Testament, p. 421, Vol. 3.

Elijah Daniels 

 

Yet more propaganda re: the genetic code?

 Fake News From PBS on the DNA Code

Cornelius G Hunter 

Evolution, according to the highly produced PBS Evolution Project, “determines who lives, who dies, and who passes traits on to the next generation. The process plays a critical role in our daily lives, yet it is one of the most overlooked -- and misunderstood -- concepts ever described. … The Evolution series' goals are to heighten public understanding of evolution and how it works, to dispel common misunderstandings about the process, and to illuminate why it is relevant to all of us.” In other words, the PBS Evolution Project would clear away the ignorance and bring the real news of evolution. And with a long list of evolution luminaries advising the project (including Rodger Bybee, Gerald Carr, John Endler, Paul Ewald, Larry Flammer, Douglas Futuyma, Anne Houde, Les Kaufman, Joseph Levine, David Maddison, Anne Magurran, Justin Marshall, Kenneth Miller, Martin Nickels, Kevin Padian, Diane Paul, David Reznick, Helen Rodd, Chris Schneider, Judy Scotchmoor, Daniel Simberloff, Neil Shubin, Meredith Small, David Wake, and Peter Ward), we would expect nothing less. Here is what they had to say about the DNA code

Biologically and chemically, there is no reason why this particular genetic code, rather than any of millions or billions of others, should exist, scientists assert. Yet every species on Earth carries a genetic code that is, for all intents and purposes, identical and universal. The only scientific explanation for this situation is that the genetic code was the result of a single historic accident. That is, this code was the one carried by the single ancestor of life and all of its descendants, including us.

                            There was only one problem: that was fake news. The DNA, or genetic, code was and is, in fact, very Special. This was known at the time of the PBS Evolution Project, and since then it has only gotten worse for the evolutionists.

It is the exact opposite of how the evolutionists informed their viewers. They could not have misrepresented the science any more than they did. Because when evolutionists seek to “heighten public understanding,” and “dispel common misunderstandings,” it doesn’t mean teaching science. It means promoting evolution, in spite of the science.

Think you're a law abiding citizen? Time to think again

Yet more on why the trinity dogma is poor philosophy.

 Revelation4:11NWT2013Edition:"You are worthy, JEHOVAH our God,to receive the glory and the honor and the power,because you created all things ,and because of your will they came into existence and were created."  

Jehovah God alone is worthy of absolute worship because he alone is both necessary and sufficient as a cause and preserver of the cosmos. Obviously there cannot be anyone else who is both necessary and sufficient. To take the emotion out of the equation let us consider another trinity. Food,water and air. Let's call these three the trinity of life. Given a moderate climate an abundant supply of these three elements would be sufficient for a prolonged life. Of course no single element of these three would be sufficient to sustain a prolonged life though it would be absolutely necessary. But lets say we discovered that we could survive on just water. Then water alone would be both necessary and sufficient. The other two elements would become merely optional. What if we found that any of the three elements (i.e food/water/air) could sustain our lives by itself. Then all three would be come optional none of them would in/or of themselves be necessary. Thus we see that the three can either be all necessary or all optional but not both. The problem with Christendom's trinity is that each of the three elements are being presented as being both necessary and sufficient in and of themselves. Which of course is as we have demonstrated an absurdity. Another issue is that JEHOVAH is supreme. According to the dictionary this implies that he is peerless. A thing that cannot be stated of any of the constituents of Christendom's Trinity.

Ps. Webster's definition of supreme:

Definition of supreme

1: highest in rank or authority

The supreme commander

On the bible's identitarian theology.

 Deuteronomy4:24ASV"For JEHOVAH thy God is a devouring fire, a jealous(Demanding exclusive Devotion) God." 

The entire focus of the bible is the clear and incontrovertible identification of this single person entitled to our exclusive Devotion . Hence the importance of His personal name .

Exodus3:15ASV"And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, JEHOVAH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial(How I am to be remembered) unto all generations. " 

Malachi1:11ASV"For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name'shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense'shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name'shall be great among the Gentiles, saith JEHOVAH of hosts" 

Psalm ch.8:1ASV"O JEHOVAH, our Lord, How excellent is thy name in all the earth, Who hast set thy glory upon the heavens!"

Those who belittle the sacred name are doing Satan's bidding. The Lord JEHOVAH placed his name 7000+ (i.e more than the next five most common names mentioned in the bible combined) times in the holy text for the sake of his agenda(i.e the publishing and exalting of said name) ,any attempt to hinder that agenda is doomed to frustration . The category to which the person bearing this name of names belongs is an exclusive one,

 so exclusive in fact that the God and Father of Jesus is its only member. Hence he is described in ways that exclude every other person or thing from his ontological vicinity . It's not merely that he has no peers ,he has no approximates. 

Psalm83;18ASV"That they may know that thou(Second person singular) alone, whose name is JEHOVAH, Art the Most High over all the earth." 

This single person named JEHOVAH is superlative (as defined by the dictionary)re:every attribute that would make one worthy of being considered a deity. This excludes the possibility of there being any other coequal person with whom he shares a mystical union which union is required to exhaust the category of supreme deity. No, God the Father i.e JEHOVAH exhausts the category of supreme divinity singlehandedly according to scripture. 

1Kings8:27ASV"But will God in very deed dwell on the earth?(It's a rhetorical question not a puzzle) behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot (note,the hard negative)contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded!' 

There is an impassable gulf between the uncreated and the created. Just as JEHOVAH cannot cause the created to possess the nature of the uncreated. He likewise cannot cause the uncreated to possess the nature of the created. 

Hosea11:9ASV"9I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee; and I will not come in wrath." 

Numbers ch.23:19ASV"God is not a man, that he should lie, Neither the son of man, that he should repent: Hath he said, and will he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and will he not make it good?" 

To maintain that JEHOVAH'S exclusion from his creation is not an immutable(as defined by the dictionary) fact is to reduce the above quotations to meaningless word salads. Those words were not propounded merely for the comfort of JEHOVAH'S servants at that time and place but for his people ever after, in every time and place. The limits of the created can NEVER apply to the uncreated. 

JEHOVAH alone is absolutely necessary for the origin and sustenance of the creation including his heavenly and earthly children. JEHOVAH alone is the ultimate source of ALL the information and energy manifest in creation.

Isaiah45:18ASV"For thus saith JEHOVAH that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am JEHOVAH; And there is NONE else." 

Thus even though JEHOVAH routinely uses prior creations as raw materials or instrumentalities in producing later creations he can still legitimately take full credit for their existence.

e.g Genesis6:7ASV,"And JEHOVAH said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the ground; both man, and beast, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; for it repenteth me that I have made them.'" 

Of course JEHOVAH did not miraculously produce any of the people and animals living at that time, they came to be as result of natural processes set in motion by the creator ,yet as the ultimate source of ALL the information and energy that made said processes possible the Lord JEHOVAH could take full credit for their existence. This would certainly not be case if he did not unilaterally exhaust the category of supreme (as defined by the dictionary) divinity. Thus redundancy is not a Characteristic of the Lord JEHOVAH. Thus to sumarise the biblical JEHOVAH is superlative(as defined by the dictionary)

The biblical JEHOVAH is absolutely immutable(as defined by the dictionary) 

The biblical JEHOVAH is absolutely essential (as defined by the dictionary)to the origin and sustenance of the both the physical and superphysical creation.

Anti-Darwinism in plants?

 Do Plant Galls Falsify Darwinism?

Evolution news 

On a new episode of ID The Future, host Casey Luskin welcomes Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig to discuss the phenomenon of plant galls and what they mean for the validity of the selection/mutation mechanism. Dr. Lönnig is a retired geneticist who studied mutations for 25 years as a research scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Köln, Germany. Call him old-school, but Dr. Lönnig believes evidence matters when it comes to questions of biological origins. He has offered a number of examples from the plant world that defy gradualist explanations. Most recently, he has pointed to plant galls, growths of various colors, shapes, and sizes that can occur on plants. These atypical, highly specialized structures are induced by the activity of an insect or other parasite. Galls appear to exclusively benefit the intruding organism and confer no advantage to the plants. Most galls are tolerated by the plant, though some can prove lethal to it. 

Charles Darwin was profoundly interested in plant galls, and Darwin himself proposed the challenge these and other forms may pose to his ideas: “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” In his conversation with Dr. Luskin, Dr. Lönnig explains why plant galls challenge Darwin’s theory. Download the podcast or listen to it here. 

China 2.0?

 <iframe width="932" height="524" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ubsQp1o7A28" title="The REAL reason Tesla is building their next Gigafactory in Mexico (Ep. 718)" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Whither the Christian nation? II

Land of the free?

On the language of life.

 The DNA Code and Evolution

Cornelius G Hunter 

The DNA code is used in cells to translate a sequence of nucleotides into a sequence of amino acids, which then make up a protein. In the past fifty years we have learned four important things about the code:

1. The DNA code is universal. There are minor variations scattered about, but the same canonical code is found across the species.

2. The DNA code is special. The DNA is not just some random, off the shelf, code. It has unique properties, for example that make the translation process more robust to mutations. The code has been called “one in a million,” but it probably is even more special than that. For instance, one study found that the code optimizes “a combination of several different functions simultaneously.”

                            3. Some of the special properties of the DNA code only rarely confer benefit. Many of the code’s special properties deal with rare mutation events. If such properties could arise via random mutation in an individual organism, their benefit would not be common.

4. The DNA code’s fitness landscape has dependencies on the DNA coding sequences and so favors stasis. Changes in the DNA code may well wreak havoc as the DNA coding sequences are suddenly not interpreted correctly. So the fitness landscape, at any given location in the code design space, is not only rugged but often is a local minimum, thus freezing evolution at that code.

Observation #1 above, according to evolutionary theory, means that the code is the ultimate homology and must have been present in the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). There was essentially zero evolution of the code allowed over the course of billions of years.

This code stasis can be understood, from an evolutionary perspective, using Observation #4. Given the many dependencies on the DNA coding sequences, the code can be understood to be at a local minimum and so impossible to evolve.

Hence Francis Crick’s characterization, and subsequent promotion by later evolutionists, of the code as a “frozen accident.” Somehow the code arose, but was then strongly maintained and unevolvable.

                        

But then there is Observation #2.

The code has been found not to be mundane, but special. This falsified the “frozen accident” characterization, as the code is clearly not an accident. It also caused a monumental problem. While evolutionists could understand Observation #1, the universality of the code, as a consequence of the code being at a fitness local minimum, Observation #2 tells us that the code would not have just luckily been constructed at its present design.

If evolution somehow created a code to begin with, it would be at some random starting point. Evolution would have no a priori knowledge of the fitness landscape. There is a large number of possible codes, so it would be incredibly lucky for evolution’s starting point to be anywhere near the special, canonical code we observe today. There would be an enormous evolutionary distance to travel between an initial random starting point, and the code we observe.

And yet there is not even so much as a trace of such a monumental evolutionary process. This would be an incredible convergence. In biology, when we see convergence, we usually also see variety. The mammalian and cephalopod eyes are considered to be convergent, but they also have fundamental differences. And in other species, there are all kinds of different vision systems. The idea that the universal DNA code is the result of convergence would be very suspect. Why are there no other canonical codes found? Why are there not more variants of the code? To have that much evolutionary distance covered, and converge with that level of precision would very strange.

And of course, in addition to this strange absence of any evidence of such a monumental evolutionary process, there is the problem described above with evolving the code to begin with. The code’s fitness landscape is rugged and loaded with many local minima. Making much progress at all in evolving the code would be difficult.

                           

But then there is Observation #3.

Not only do we not see traces of the required monumental process of evolving the code across a great distance, and not only would this process be almost immediately halted by the many local minima in the fitness landscape, but what fitness improvements could actually be realized would not likely be selected for because said improvements rarely actually confer there benefit.

While these problems obviously are daunting, we have so far taken yet another tremendous problem for granted: the creation of the initial code, as a starting point.

We have discussed above the many problems with evolving today’s canonical code from some starting point, all the while allowing for such a starting point simply to magically appear. But that, alone, is a big problem for evolution. The evolution of any code, even a simple code, from no code, is a tremendous problem.

Finally, a possible explanation for these several and significant problems to the evolution of the DNA code is the hypothesis that the code did not actually evolve so much as construct. Just as the right sequence of amino acids will inevitably fold into a functional protein, so too perhaps the DNA code simply is the consequence of biochemical interactions and reactions. In this sense the code would not evolve from random mutations, but rather would be inevitable. In that case, there would be no lengthy evolutionary pathway to traverse.

Now I don’t want to give the impression that this hypothesis is mature or fleshed out. It is extremely speculative.

But there is another, more significant, problem with this hypothesis: It is not evolution.

If true this hypothesis would confirm design. In other words, a chemically determined pathway, which as such is written into the very fabric of matter and nature’s laws, would not only be profound but teleological. The DNA code would be built into biochemistry.

And given Observation #2, it is a very special, unique, detailed, code that would be built into biochemistry. It would not merely be a mundane code that happened to be enabled or determined by biochemistry, but essentially an optimized code.

Long live Aristotle.

File under "well said" XCV

"It takes considerable knowledge Just to realise the extent of your own ignorance."

Thomas Sowell

How the peppered moth became a witness for the prosecution.

 How the Peppered Moth Backfired

Cornelius G Hunter 

It has been called one of the best examples of evolution observed in the wild—light colored peppered moths (Biston betularia) became dark colored in response to 19th century industrial pollution darkening the birch trees in their environment. Evolving a darker color helped camouflage the moths, and keep them hidden from predatory birds. And more recently, air pollution reductions lightened the environment and with it, the moths also began to revert to their lighter color. Proof of evolution, case closed, right? From popular presentations and museum exhibits, to textbooks and scientific papers, evolutionists have relentlessly pounded home the peppered moth as an undeniable confirmation of Darwin’s theory in action. There’s only one problem: All of this ignores the science.

There are two main problems with peppered moths story. First, changing colors is hardly a pathway leading to the kinds of massive biological change evolution requires. It is not as though a change in the peppered moth coloration is any kind of evidence for how the moths evolved, or how any other species, for that matter, could have evolved.

In fact changing the color of a moth not only fails to show how species could evolve, it also fails to show how any biological design could evolve. The peppered moth case doesn’t show how metabolism, the central nervous system, bones, red blood cells, or any other biological wonder could have arisen by evolution’s random mutations coupled with natural selection.

                 

In fact changing the color of a moth not only fails to show how species could evolve, it also fails to show how any biological design could evolve. The peppered moth case doesn’t show how metabolism, the central nervous system, bones, red blood cells, or any other biological wonder could have arisen by evolution’s random mutations coupled with natural selection.

The moths were already there. Their wings were already there. Different colors were already there. The changing of color in moth populations, while certainly a good thing for the moths, is hardly an example of evolution.

Second, research strongly suggests that the cause of the darkening, at the molecular level, is an enormous genetic insertion. In other words, rather than a nucleotide, in a gene, mutating to one of the other three nucleotides, as you learned in your high school biology class, instead what has been found is an insertion of a stretch of more than 20,000 nucleotides. That long inserted segment consists of a shorter segment (about 9,000 nucleotides) repeated about two and one-third times.

Also, the insertion point is not in a DNA coding sequence, but in an intervening region (intron), which have been considered to be “junk DNA” in the past.

This observed mutation (the insertion of a long sequence of DNA into an intron), is much more complicated than a single point mutation. First, there is no change in the gene’s protein product. The mutating of the protein sequence was the whole idea behind evolution: DNA mutations which lead to changes in a protein can lead to a phenotype change with fitness improvement, and there would be subject to natural selection.

That is not what we are seeing in the much celebrated peppered moth example. The DNA mutation is much more complicated (~20,000 nucleotides inserted), and the fact it was inserted into an intron suggests that additional molecular and cellular mechanisms are required for the coloration change to occur.

None of this fits evolutionary theory.

For example, evolutionary theory requires that the needed random DNA mutational change is reasonably likely to occur. Given the moth’s effective population size, the moth’s generation time period, and the complexity of the mutation, the needed mutation is not likely to occur. Evolution would have to be inserting segments of DNA with (i) different sequences, at (ii) different locations, within the moth genome. This is an enormous space of mutational possibilities to search through.

It doesn’t add up. Evolution does not have the resources in terms of time and effective population size to come anywhere close to searching this astronomical mutational space. It’s not going to happen.

A much more likely explanation, and one that has been found to be true in so many other cases of adaptation (in spite of evolutionary pushback), is that the peppered moth coloration change was directed. The environmental change and challenge somehow caused the peppered moth to modify its color. This suggests there are preprogrammed, directed adaptation mechanisms, already in place that are ready to respond to future, potential, environmental changes, which might never occur.

Far from an evidence for evolution, this is evidence against evolution.

So there are at least two major problems with what is celebrated as a key evidence for evolution in action. First, it comes nowhere close to the type of change evolution needs, and the details of the change demonstrate that it is not evolutionary to begin with.

Yet another look at why the thumb print of JEHOVAH remains the logical conclusion.

 <iframe width="460" height="259" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8FKmIDApbe0" title="Stephen Meyer: The Return of the God Hypothesis" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The scientific case for the design inference?

 <iframe width="460" height="259" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UC_e-nINk0w" title="The Scientific Case for God" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

From JEHOVAH'S thumb print as hypothesis to JEHOVAH'S thumb print as axiom?

 Is a New Design-Based Paradigm of Biology Emerging?

Evolution News 

On a new episode of ID The Future, host Dr. Casey Luskin sits down with Dr. Brian Miller to begin a thought-provoking conversation about design in biology. Miller is Research Coordinator at the Center for Science & Culture at Discovery Institute. He contributed a chapter to the recently published book Science and Faith in Dialogue titled “Engineering Principles Explain Biological Systems Better Than Evolutionary Theory.” Miller describes several lines of evidence in biology that collectively suggest that teleology, or purpose, is central to life. He also reports that optimality is becoming a powerful tool of prediction in biology, with more biologists returning to the use of design-based assumptions, tools, models, and language to study the natural world. This is Part 1 of an interview. Download the podcast or listen to it Here

Saving civil discourse?

 <iframe width="460" height="259" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/On-4lOWuWQQ" title="Stephen Meyer—Return of God Hypothesis: 3 Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Darwinism imperilled by yet another explosion?

 Fossil Friday: The Abrupt Origin of Butterflies

Gunter Bechly 

This Fossil Friday features a wonderful fossil of the nymphalid butterfly Prodryas persephone from the famous Eocene fossil locality of Florissant in Colorado. Even though the insect order Lepidoptera is represented by small caddisfly-like and moth-like taxa in Mesozoic sediments, there is no Mesozoic fossil record of real butterflies or any other “macrolepidopterans” (Sohn et al. 2012, 2015). They appear abruptly with modern families like Hesperiidae (Jong 2016), Pieridae, Papillionidae, and Nymphalidae in the Eocene, without any evidence for a gradual evolution of these modern butterfly families and totally contrary to evolutionist estimates, which placed their diversification in the Early Cretaceous (Wahlberg 2006, Heikkilä et al. 2012, Jong 2017). This phenomenon could rightfully be called a Tertiary Butterfly Explosion analogous to the Cambrian Explosion of animal phyla. It is yet another example of the general pattern of abrupt appearances of new biological groups in the fossil record that contradict any Darwinian expectations and better resonates with a design perspective.

The skilled trades just keeping making ever more sense (dollars?)

 <iframe width="932" height="524" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DZtpBjMwFNM" title="Mike Rowe: &#39;What we&#39;re doing is crazy&#39;" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Pseudo-science is the mother of science?

 <iframe width="932" height="524" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bWV0XIn-rvY" title="How I learned to love pseudoscience" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

On the borders of the unknown country?

 <iframe width="932" height="524" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/u1sB4G3mB6o" title="How can near-death experiences be explained? | DW Documentary" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So ,there is 'darwinism' and then there is 'Darwinism'?

  Here is Why Steven Novella is Wrong About That Harvard Experiment

Cornelius G Hunter 

Steven Novella, neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine, has Commented on a recent Harvard University Experiment for visualizing bacterial adaptation to antibiotics. The Harvard researchers constructed a giant petri dish with spatially-varying antibiotics to watch how bacteria adapt over time and space (the researchers came up with a great name for the experiment: The microbial evolution and growth arena [MEGA]–plate). And adapt they did. Those adaptations, however, were instantly claimed as an example of evolution in action. The researchers wrote that the “MEGA-plate provides a versatile platform for studying microbial adaption and directly visualizing evolutionary dynamics.” And the press Release informed the public that the experiment provided “A powerful, unvarnished visualization of bacterial movement, death, and survival; evolution at work, visible to the naked eye.” Likewise, Novella called it “a nice demonstration of evolution at work in a limited context.” There’s only one problem: The experiment did not demonstrate evolution, it falsified evolution.

First off, Novella deserves some credit for acknowledging at least some limitations in the experiment’s results:

           Of course, this one piece of evidence does not “prove” something as complex and far ranging as the evolution of life on Earth.

                     Novella also deserves credit for acknowledging that evolutionary change that requires a few mutations, rather than merely one, is a big problem. Novella has solutions which he believes resolve this problem (as we shall see below), but at least he acknowledges what too often is conveniently ignored.

What Novella does not acknowledge, however, is that bacteria adaptation research, over several decades now, has clearly shown non evolutionary change. For instance, bacterial adaptation has often been found to be rapid, and sensitive to the environmental challenge. In other words, when we look at the details, we do not find the evolutionary model of random variation slowly bringing about change, but rather environmentally directed or influenced variation.

That is not evolution.

And indeed, the Harvard experiment demonstrated, again, very rapid adaptation. In just 10 days the bacteria adapted to high doses of lethal antibiotic. As one of the researchers commented, “This is a stunning demonstration of how quickly microbes evolve.”

True, it is “stunning,” but “evolve” is not the correct term.

The microbes adapted.

The ability of organisms to adapt rapidly falls under the category of epigenetics, a term that encompasses a range of sophisticated mechanisms which promote adaptation which is sensitive to the environment. Given our knowledge of bacterial epigenetics, and how fast the bacteria responded in the Harvard experiment, it certainly is reasonable to think that epigenetics, of some sort, may have been at work.

Such epigenetic change is not a new facet of evolution, it contradicts evolution. Not only would such complex adaptation mechanisms be difficult to evolve via random mutations, they wouldn’t provide fitness improvement, and so would not be selected for, even if they did somehow arise from mutations.

Epigenetic mechanisms respond to future, unforeseen conditions. Their very existence contradicts evolution. So the Harvard experiment, rather than demonstrating evolution in action, is probably yet another example of epigenetic-based adaptation. If so, it would contradict evolution.

Another problem, that Michael Behe has pointed out, is that it appears that most of the mutations that occurred in the experiment served to shutdown genes. In other words, the mutations broke things, they did not build things. This is another way to see that this does not fit the evolutionary model. It’s devolution, not evolution. Novella begs to differ, and says Behe has made a big mistake:

                      Behe is wrong because there is no such thing as “devolution.” Evolution is simply heritable change, any change, and that change can create more complexity or more simplicity. Further, altering a protein does not “degrade” it – that notion is based on the false premise that there is a “correct” sequence of amino acids in any particular protein. Evolution just makes proteins different. Proteins perform “better” or “worse” only in so much that they contribute to the survival and reproduction of the individual. If it is better for the survival of the organism for an enzyme to be slower, then the slower enzyme is better for that organism.

                                

First, Novella ignores the fact that many of the mutations introduced stop codons, and so did not merely slow an enzyme but rather shut it down altogether.

Secondly, it is not Behe here who is making the mistake, it is Novella. He says “Evolution is simply heritable change …”

But this is an equivocation.

On the one hand, evolutionists want to say that shutting down or slowing a gene is “evolution,” but on the other hand, evolutionists say that a fish turning into a giraffe is “evolution.”

Unfortunately evolutionists routinely make this equivocation. This is because they don’t think of it as an equivocation. In their adherence and promotion of the theory, the distinction is lost on them. All change just smears together in one big long process called evolution. You can see other examples of this Here and Here.

So the comments, press releases, and articles send a misleading message. Readers are told that the researchers have seen “evolution in action.” The message is clear: This is evolution, the evolution. But it isn’t. There is nothing in these findings that show us how a fish turns into a giraffe.

                          

Multiple mutations

As mentioned above, Novella also believes that evolution coming up with designs requiring multiple mutations is not a problem. Novella’s reasoning is that while this would be a problem if most mutations are harmful, they aren’t. Most mutations are neutral, so evolutionary drift can introduce the many needed mutations, and once the set of required mutations are in place, then you have the new design.

This is a profound misunderstanding of the problem evolution faces. You can’t evolve a protein, for example, with drift. That most mutations are neutral does not suddenly resolve the curse of dimensionality and resolve this astronomical search problem. There just is no free lunch.

Similarly, Novella makes yet another profound mistake involving what he calls “the lottery fallacy.” 

The first is basically the lottery fallacy – considering the odds of John Smith winning the lottery by chance alone and concluding it could not have happened by chance. Rather, you should consider the odds that anyone would win the lottery. This is actually pretty good. Behe looks at life on Earth and asks – what are the odds that this specific pathway or protein or whatever evolved by chance alone. He is failing to consider that there may have been billions of possible solutions or pathways down which that creature’s ancestors could have evolved. Species that failed to adapt either migrated to an environment in which they could survive, or they went extinct. In other words, Behe should not be asking what the odds are that this bit of complexity evolved, but rather what are the odds that any complexity evolved. It is difficult to know the number of potential complexities that never evolved – that number may dwarf the odds of any one bit evolving. Right there Behe’s entire premise is demolished …

This is a terribly flawed argument for several reasons. First, life needs proteins. All life that we know of needs proteins.

Thousands of proteins.

Yet proteins are far beyond evolution’s reach. It is true, per Novella’s point, that there are a whole lot of ways to make a given protein. There are many, many different amino acid sequences that give you a globin. But “many, many” is like a grain of sand compared to the astronomical amino acid sequence search space.

There just is no free lunch.

But Novella goes further than this, and this brings us to the second flaw. Novella is not merely arguing there are many different ways to construct life as we know it. He is pointing out that there are, or at least there could be, a whole bunch of different ways to make life, in the first place.

If you take them all together, you could have a pretty big set of possibilities. Perhaps it is astronomical. So what we got in this world—the life forms we observe, are not point designs in an otherwise lifeless design space. Rather, the design space could be chocked full of life forms. And hence, the evolution of life becomes likely, and “Right there Behe’s entire premise is demolished.”

What Novella is arguing for here is unobservable. He is going far beyond science, into an imaginary philosophical world of maybe’s.

Not only is Novella clearly appealing to the unobservable, but even that doesn’t work. At least for any common sense approach. There is no question that the design space is full of useless blobs of chemicals that do nothing. A speculative claim? No, that is what this thing called science has made abundantly clear to us. Even the simple case of a single protein reveals this. Only a relatively few mutations to most proteins rob them of their function. Protein function is known to dramatically reduce as different amino acids are swapped in.

Of course this is all obvious to anyone who understands how things work. Sure, Novella may be right that there are other, unknown, solutions to life. But that isn’t suddenly going to resolve evolution’s astronomical search problem. That problem was never contingent on the life we observe being the only possible life forms possible

Novella calls himself a skeptic. In fact, he is exactly the opposite.

The southern U.S megadrought?

Win win/lose lose.

 <iframe width="932" height="524" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7szPBZxBIg4" title="Game Theory: The Pinnacle of Decision Making" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

2+2=5?

On the propaganda industrial complex?

Urban farmer?

 

More red ink in the ledger re: Darwinism's simple beginning.

 About That Genetic Code 

Cornelius G Hunter 

We Recently looked at the enormous problems that the DNA, or genetic, code pose for evolutionary theory. Here is a paper that seems to have come to the same conclusion. The authors argue that the underlying patterns of the genetic code are not likely to be due to “chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways,” (P-value < 10^-13), and conclude that they are “essentially irreducible to any natural origin.”

A common response from evolutionists, when presented with evidence such as this, is that we still don’t understand biology very well. This argument from ignorance goes all the way back to Darwin. He used it in Chapter 6 of Origins to discard the problem of evolving the electric organs in fish, such as the electric eel (which isn’t actually an eel). The Sage from Kent agreed that it is “impossible to conceive by what steps these wondrous organs” evolved, but that was OK, because “we do not even know of what use they are.”

Setting aside the fact that Darwin’s argument from ignorance was a non-scientific fallacy, it also was a set up for failure. For now, a century and half later, we do know “what use they are.” And it has just gotten Worse for evolution.

Darwin’s argument has been demolished, once again demonstrating that arguments from ignorance, aside from being terrible arguments, are not good science.

The truth is, when evolutionists today claim that the many problems with their chance theory are due to a lack of knowledge, they are throwing up a smoke screen.

Yet more on when the thumb print of JEHOVAH is the logical conclusion.

 <iframe width="460" height="259" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1ZvrwDtg7rQ" title="Stephen Meyer: Return of the GOD Hypothesis!" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What does "the science"say?

The Ascension of the eighth king?

 UN Seeks Vast New Powers for Global Emergencies

Lawmakers and critics are sounding the alarm, but the White House supports the agenda

Alex Newman 

The United Nations is seeking vast new powers and stronger “global governance” tools to deal with international emergencies such as pandemics and economic crises, a new U.N. policy brief has revealed, and the Biden administration appears to support the proposal.

The plan to create an “Emergency Platform,” which would involve a set of protocols activated during crises that could affect billions of people, has already drawn strong concern and criticism from U.S. policymakers and analysts.

Among those expressing concern is House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), whose committee oversees U.S. foreign policy and involvement in international organizations.

“We must be sure that any global protocol or platform operated by the U.N. respects U.S. national sovereignty and U.S. taxpayer dollars,” McCaul told The Epoch Times.

              He also noted his concern that the proposed platform expands the authority and funding of the U.N. and the definitions of “emergency” and “crisis” to include, for instance, climate change.

                 U.N. documents and statements released in March by key leaders of the global organization make clear that climate change is a major piece of the U.N. emergencies agenda.

                          Other critics who spoke with The Epoch Times expressed concern about the influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) within the U.N., the global organization’s well-documented corruption problems, and its track record of dealing with previous emergencies.

“Allowing the U.N. to deal with this is the equivalent of putting the CCP in charge of global emergencies,” former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations Kevin Moley told The Epoch Times.

                                In a policy brief dubbed “Our Common Agenda” headlined “Strengthening the International Response to Complex Shocks – An Emergency Platform,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres laid out his vision for empowering the global organization to deal with global crises.

“The challenges we face can only be addressed through stronger international cooperation,” Guterres declared, calling for “strengthening global governance” for current and future generations.

The policy brief builds on an earlier “Common Agenda” document and comes as U.N. leaders outline the plans for a “Summit of the Future” set to be held during the General Assembly’s annual high-level meeting in September.

                    If it gets a green light from member states, the global emergency protocols would be “triggered automatically” in case of a global crisis, “regardless of the type or nature of the crisis involved,” the U.N. chief said.

The protocols would bring all sorts of institutions together, including national governments, international institutions, and the private sector. Ultimately, all would have to recognize the “primary role of intergovernmental organs [such as U.N. agencies] in decision-making,” the document states.

“The Emergency Platform, once convened, would be a tool for the United Nations system to implement decisions taken by relevant organs,” according to the policy brief.

            State Department Supportive

           A spokesman for the U.S. State Department suggested that the Biden administration backs the plan.

“The administration has made clear its firm belief that U.S. national security is best served by engaging actively and comprehensively with the UN and other international organizations,” the spokesman told The Epoch Times in an e-mailed statement about the proposal.

“The U.N. is only as effective, transparent, and accountable as its membership demands, and the U.S. works tirelessly to ensure the U.N. meets those demands.”

                     The U.N. proposal was unveiled as multibillionaire Bill Gates, one of the most prominent voices during the COVID-19 crisis and a major financier of the World Health Organization (WHO) and vaccines, called for a global “fire department” to address international health emergencies.

Writing in The New York Times last month, Gates said a “Global Health Emergency Corps” could “spring into action at a moment’s notice when danger emerges.”

“The Global Health Emergency Corps will represent massive progress toward a pandemic-free future,” Gates wrote in the op-ed. “The ‌question ‌‌is whether we have the foresight to invest in that future now before it’s too late.”

                           UN Emergencies Protocol

                 Guterres, who is asking governments to approve his plan later this year, said risks are growing and becoming more complex.

“Enhanced international cooperation is the only way we can adequately respond to these shocks, and the United Nations is the only organization with the reach and legitimacy to convene at the highest level and galvanize global action,” he said. “We must keep strengthening the multilateral system so that it is fit to face the challenges of tomorrow.”

Exactly what would constitute an emergency that would trigger the U.N. emergency response wasn’t made clear.

                     However, the document states that crises without “global consequences” would “not necessarily” be categorized as an emergency requiring U.N. intervention. In other words, some crises that don’t have global consequences might trigger a U.N. response.

                           The report gives two examples of recent global crises that struck in the 21st century and that U.N. leaders believe support the case for coordinated global responses: the COVID-19 pandemic and the “cost of living crisis” of 2022.

Rather than offering specifics, the policy brief offers broad categories and types of emergencies that might activate the global protocols. These include climate or environmental events; environmental degradation; pandemics; accidental or deliberate release of biological agents; disruptions in the flow of goods, people, or finance; disruptions in cyberspace or “global digital connectivity;” a major event in “outer space;” and “unforeseen risks (‘black swan’ events).”

                                   Frequently cited throughout the document is the global response to COVID-19. The U.N. chief, who famously led the Socialist International before taking his current post, said that a stronger and a more coordinated U.N. response would have resulted in more people receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.

WHO leaders’ ongoing efforts to strengthen the U.N. health agency with a new international pandemic treaty and changes to International Health Regulations are touted as key mechanisms for emergencies.

                           Upon activation of the emergency protocols, government leaders, U.N. agencies, international financial institutions, the private sector, civil society, and experts would all be convened by the U.N. to respond.

                                 The U.N. secretary-general would decide when to activate the protocols. He would also identify all participants and oversee their contributions to the response, the policy brief explains. Contributions mentioned in the document include everything from providing money to changing government policy.

              Agenda 2030 a Priority

                   Among the reasons for the urgency, the U.N. stated that international emergencies could undermine progress toward achieving the controversial Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, referred to by U.N. leaders as the “master plan for humanity.”

The 17 goals, which cover practically every area of life and have come under fire from critics, were signed by virtually all national governments in 2015, with strong support from the Obama administration and the CCP.

                              Although the U.S. Senate hasn’t ratified the global agreement as required for all treaties, it’s nonetheless being implemented worldwide, as policies in business and government are aligned with the agenda.

“Once a complex global shock occurs, a more timely, predictable, and effective international response could potentially mitigate some of the impacts on the Sustainable Development Goals and allow the process of recovery to start sooner,” the document states. “The proposal to agree on protocols to convene an Emergency Platform aims to achieve this.”

The impetus for the emergencies plan was a pledge by U.N. member states during the global organization’s 75th anniversary to strengthen “global governance.”

Other components of this strengthening—policies that parallel much of the “Great Reset” announced in 2020 by Guterres and others, such as Klaus Schwab, at the World Economic Forum—include a renewed “social contract.” The WEF is a “strategic partner” of the U.N. in implementing Agenda 2030, especially in terms of getting the private sector onboard globally.

                                  The U.N. emergency-response plan was released in tandem with another report on “Our Common Future” calling for a new “Special Envoy for Future Generations,” the creation of a “Futures Lab,” dramatic shifts in policy toward what the U.N. calls “sustainable development,” and more.

The report calls for enshrining policies that U.N. leaders say will preserve the planet for the future, “at the global level, where some of the most consequential decisions for humanity are taken.”

Critics Point to CCP, Corruption, and COVID

                One major concern surrounding the crisis-response proposal among U.S. leaders is the strong influence of the CCP within the U.N.—influence that was felt clearly during the pandemic and that CCP critics say could be even more dangerous in future global emergencies.

                     Moley, who served in key roles at the international level during multiple U.S. administrations, rejected the U.N. plan.

“This U.N. plan flies in the face of the experience we just had with the latest pandemic, which shows why we should reiterate sovereignty, not give more away,” he told The Epoch Times in a phone interview.

Moley, who oversaw the U.S. relationship with international organizations during his time in the Trump administration, has long sounded the alarm about the CCP’s surging influence within the U.N., a process he says has been supported by both the Obama and Biden administrations. He called it an existential threat to the United States.

                      The powerful influence of the CCP and its mostly “authoritarian” and “crony democracy” allies over the U.N. system represents a major danger when it comes to proposals to grant the global outfit more power, Moley said.

“As long as the controlling interests of the U.N. are in the hands of the CCP and aided and abetted by the G77 [an alliance of 134 governments including the CCP], this cannot be allowed,” he said.

As a result of the CCP’s well-documented control over key U.N. agencies and even its powerful influence over most member states, approving the emergencies protocol plan would be tantamount to putting the communist regime in charge of global crises, according to Moley.

Considering that the CCP is a “criminal conspiracy” more than a government and the fact that its agents now dominate vast swaths of the U.N., this is a “recipe for disaster,” he said.

                    “We need to look at anything sponsored by the U.N. with great skepticism. But unfortunately, our State Department—especially now—does not look at it skeptically. Instead, they look at the United States skeptically.”

                          Rather than going along with the U.N. plan, Moley called for completely revamping the U.S. State Department.

“It needs to be taken down to the ground floor,” he said, pointing to obstruction from career bureaucrats throughout Trump’s tenure.

                     “As long as the State Department remains as currently constituted, we do not have diplomats speaking for America, but for [billionaire financier George] Soros [and his] Open Society foundations, globalism, and all that does to undermine American sovereignty,” he said.

Another critic, international lawyer and former U.N. internal investigator-turned-whistleblower Peter Gallo, noted the organization’s long history of corruption, politicization, and scandal, including cases in which humanitarian aid was diverted or even weaponized for political purposes.

More alarming, though, is what Gallo described as the “sexual exploitation and human trafficking of victims of such disasters.”

“U.N. personnel have an egregious record of involvement in that exploitation themselves—and the organization has a shameful record of covering up allegations of sexual misconduct rather than properly investigating them,” Gallo said.

          Gallo and other former U.N. officials, using U.N. data, estimate that more than 60,000 women and children were raped and sexually abused by U.N. personnel during the decade-long tenure of Ban Ki-moon, the previous secretary-general. Gallo said he believes that is a “very conservative estimate.”

                          “There is no evidence of anything being any better under António Guterres,” Gallo added, citing impunity for perpetrators and attacks on the U.N. whistleblowers who have tried to stop it.

Considering all that, Gallo suggested that it’s a mistake for governments to consider trusting the U.N. with even more power to oversee emergency responses.

                                   

Disputed Claims 

Investigative journalist and WHO expert James Roguski, meanwhile, blasted the U.N. and contested many of the claims made in its policy brief on emergency protocols.

For instance, Roguski ridiculed the implication that Africans suffered from not receiving enough COVID-19 vaccines from the West.

“In reality, 16 times as many deaths per capita were attributed to COVID in North and South America and Europe when compared to Africa,” he told The Epoch Times, citing WHO data while calling the U.N. claims a “blatant lie.” Roguski gained national prominence for his reporting on the WHO’s plans to consolidate power over global health matters.

“In my humble opinion, the globalist organizations have failed to learn a great number of very important lessons during the past three-plus years,” he said.

                  Pointing to COVID-19 policies championed by the WHO and other U.N. agencies that he said were detrimental and, in some cases, “undeniably harmful and deadly,” Roguski called for a different approach.

“They have failed to learn that centralized control performed far worse than individualized and creative health treatments that saved tens of thousands of lives,” he said.

“We the People need to push back against the relentless push for centralized, bureaucratic control that the globalists offer as the solution to the world’s problems. We need to stand up and speak up in support of individual freedoms and national sovereignty.”

U.N. Secretary-General Guterres and his spokesman, Stéphane Dujarric, didn’t respond by press time to a request from The Epoch Times for comment.

Immortality for sale?

On the rise of the Caesars

A complex beginning?

 Breakthroughs Unveil Evidence of Foresight in Nature

Marcos Eberlin 

Editor’s note: We are delighted to present a series of excerpts from chapters in the recent book, Science and Faith in Dialogue, edited by Frederik van Niekerk and Nico Vorster. You can download a full copy of the book for free by going Here.

Advances in multiple scientific disciplines have identified in nature evidence that a mind designed the laws of nature, our planetary system, and life. Nature demonstrates foresight where ingenious solutions were devised to confront problems and challenges related to sustaining and propagating life. Examples include the cell membrane, the genetic code, bacteria acting as ecosystem engineers, bird navigation, water and our planet. This evidence points not to life resulting from blind, undirected processes but to every aspect of nature being designed by an intelligent agent. 

Biology is amid a gold rush of discovery. At my previous academic institution, the University of Campinas in São Paulo, Brazil, I ran the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Laboratory for 25 years. There, my team and I delved into many areas of chemistry, biochemistry, and medical science that until recently were still too new to have names — everything from proteomics, lipidomics, and mass spectrometry imaging to petroleomics and bacteria fingerprinting.

Breakthrough Technologies and Techniques

My research, along with my role as president of the Brazilian Mass Spectrometry Society and the International Mass Spectrometry Foundation, have brought me into contact with other leading researchers in Brazil and around the globe. And when we come together at conferences, the excitement is tremendous. Due to a cluster of breakthrough technologies and techniques, almost every week reveals some new wonder in the biological realm. 

Some of these discoveries yield new medicines or medical techniques, such as the abundantly awarded cancer pen recently developed by my daughter, Livia Eberlin. Others give engineers new ideas for inventions in the burgeoning field of biomimetics. Still others have no immediate practical application; they are just revelations of beautiful biological ingenuity — scientific discovery for its own sake. 

All of this new knowledge is exhilarating in its own right. At the same time, I am now convinced that many of these discoveries, taken together, point beyond themselves to something even more extraordinary. This new age of discovery is revealing a myriad of artful solutions to major engineering challenges, solutions that for all of us appear to require something that matter alone lacks. I will put this as plainly as I can: This rush of discovery seems to point beyond any purely blind evolutionary process to the workings of an attribute unique to minds — foresight! 

And Yes, I Know

And yes, I know. We are told that it is out of bounds for science to go there. But regardless of where you ultimately land on the question of what conclusions science should or should not allow and whether or not you ultimately affirm that this gold rush of new evidence points to the workings of foresight, I urge you to inspect the evidence. Curiosity may have killed the cat, but it has done wonders for the scientific enterprise. 

The many and ingenious examples uncovered in recent years are so numerous they could fill many large volumes. The pages that follow highlight only a small fraction of the total. But that fraction is filled with marvels. We will look at the cell membrane, the genetic code, bacteria that act as ecosystem engineers, avian navigation, water and our planet. 

Life thrives in our diverse planetary environment, due in no small part to the many ways Earth is fine-tuned for life. But Earth can also be extremely hostile to life. The oxygen molecule (O2) is, for instance, essential to life, but only a life form that can efficiently wrap and transport the “devil” O2 exactly to a place where it can be used as an energy source would benefit from its angelic side. Otherwise, O2 becomes life’s greatest enemy. 

Rupture the membrane of a living cell, exposing it to the air, and you will see the great damage O2 and a myriad of other chemical invaders can do to a perforated cell. Death would be swift and sure. From an engineering standpoint, then, it was essential that a way be found to protect the cell, life’s most basic unit. The solution was clever: the cell was surrounded by a strong chemical shield from the very beginning. 

Read the rest by downloading a free copy of Science and Faith in Dialogue Here

   

                       

The band breaks up?

Social media is grim dark?

 <iframe width="932" height="524" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/m5SePeT3H3I" title="They&#39;re Watching You: The Ban on TikTok || Peter Zeihan" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>