Yet more on why ID is already mainstream.

 Design: A Scientific Proxy for Intelligence

Eric Hedin

Paul Nelson speaks to the pervasive use of design detection in how we infer intelligent agency in various fields of investigation, from archaeology to arson:

What turned my head around about ID — in a good way — in 1991, well before I met Bill Dembski, was a single paragraph in one of his early papers. He pointed out that design detection, far from being an esoteric and inscrutable inference, lay in fact at the center of many normal human inquiries and activities.1

Fine-tuning, in which a low-probability event also matches an independently derived pattern or condition, can serve as a proxy for intelligent design.2 The inference of intelligent agency stems from our experience with generating designed systems, and this applies across multiple fields of inquiry.

Michael Egnor writes,

How could we discern design from non-design? It’s an issue central to archaeology, and obviously would be central to space archaeology. It would be great science to sort out criteria for detecting intelligent agency in an object in nature, especially in a situation in which we have no idea about the nature of the designer.

Yet we find design everywhere in living things, on an immense scale. There’s a breathtaking lack of self-awareness in the scientific community about intelligent design.3

Researchers use proxies to help trace out the existence and progression of a target parameter in cases where the historic values of the parameter are no longer accessible.

A Common Procedure in Science

Using proxies to infer information about the past is a common procedure in science. How it works: For determining the trend of a certain parameter during the geological history of Earth, scientists identify a measurable artifact that has a strong positive correlation with the parameter. If the appropriate artifact is recorded chronologically and can currently be accessed (such as by taking a core sample), then the historical trend in the desired parameter (for example, the atmospheric temperature) can be determined. 

The correlation between the proxy and the target parameter needs to be properly calibrated to avoid systematic errors. Furthermore, researchers need to establish a strong negative correlation between the proxy and other possible effects that might confuse its association with the target parameter. For example

Paleomagnetic records from several sources (volcanics, archeological artifacts, stalagmites, and sedimentary materials) that serve as proxy magnetometers provide access to geomagnetic field evolution before the age of systematic ground and satellite measurements or historical observations of Earth’s magnetic field.4

Triple oxygen isotope measurements of shales have been used as a proxy for the abundance of continental landmasses.5

Paleoclimatology is the study of past climates. Since it is not possible to go back in time to see what climates were like, scientists use imprints created during past climate, known as proxies, to interpret paleoclimate. Organisms, such as diatoms, forams, and coral serve as useful climate proxies. Other proxies include ice cores, tree rings, and sediment cores.

Ice core records- deep ice cores, such as those from Lake Vostok, Antarctica, the Greenland Ice Sheet Project, and North Greenland Ice Sheet Project can be analyzed for trapped gas, stable isotope ratios, and pollen trapped within the layers to infer past climate.6

Intelligent design as a causative explanation can be inferred from proxies that consist of artifacts that contain a level of specified complexity or complex functionality and are known to be associated with intelligence. The negative correlation stems from the complete lack of any examples of such artifacts arising from non-intelligent sources. A negative correlation between design artifacts and natural processes also arises from our knowledge that natural processes systematically destroy information-rich systems with the passage of time.7

From the Caves of Qumran

The Dead Sea Scrolls are an example of a design artifact for which intelligence is inferred as the source.8 These scroll fragments, found in caves near Qumran in 1947-1956, are artifacts of a type known to be produced by intelligent humans, providing a strong positive correlation between the artifacts and intelligent human agency. Further, our comprehensive experience gives a negative correlation between scrolls of this type and any other source besides intelligence. Consequently, the scroll artifacts serve as an example of a robust proxy for human intelligence operating in the historical era to which the scrolls are dated.

When biological systems are examined, the level of specified complexity and complex functionality found in the molecular biochemistry of the cell, and in the irreducibly complex systems of living organisms, far exceeds anything ever designed and constructed by human intelligence. As a result, the mainstream scientific consensus is that this pervasive and profound complexity arose over time by non-intelligent forces of nature acting on fundamental particles. 

One reason that the origin of the specified complexity and complex functionality found in the molecular biochemistry of the cell is attributed to the fundamental forces of nature acting on elementary particles is that a strong positive correlation exists between random mixtures of particles and the subsequent formation of functional biochemistry. (Sarcasm alert!)

Elementary particles, primarily fermions interacting according to the strong force and the electric force, are known to form atoms which can combine into simple molecules such as water (H20) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Slightly more complex molecules, including sugars and amino acids, have also been found to occur naturally. The natural formation of complex bio-polymers becomes problematic, however.

Attempting to get those amino acids to join into any sort of complex molecules has been one long study in failure.9

Suitable Agents for Producing Living Systems?

Is there any warrant to draw a positive correlation between random, natural processes and the artifacts of living systems manifesting profound, functional complexity? Can it be legitimately claimed that living systems serve as a valid proxy for the action of unguided forces of nature? Have unguided forces of nature shown themselves as suitable agents for producing living systems? Only if the forces of nature are acting within a living system to begin with. 

One of biology’s “universal laws” (accredited to Rudolph Virchow) states, “Every cell comes from a preexistent cell.” 

CANCELED SCIENCE, P. 212

Apart from biological reproduction, natural processes have never been known to produce life. So, living organisms and their fossilized remains lack any positive correlation with the forces of nature. Therefore, the existence of life in the history of Earth does not serve as a valid proxy for the actions of natural forces as the agency for producing such life. With the complete absence of a positive correlation between living systems and natural processes, there is no need to establish a negative correlation between the proxy of life and the purported agency of nature.

Despite these arguments, the mainstream scientific community may nonetheless dismiss artifacts of living systems as proxies pointing to intelligent agency. Perhaps a different proxy for intelligent agency would be more convincing. For this, I suggest that the ultimate proxy for intelligent agency is intelligence. “Artifacts” of intelligent minds are available for investigation on Earth today. If researchers are unconvinced that artifacts of biochemistry belonging to living organisms are sufficient proxies for intelligence, perhaps careful scrutiny of their own minds would suggest otherwise. Or, perhaps not.10

Just another revolution devouring its children?

 

The maths of ID

 Bayesian Probability and Intelligent Design: A Beginner’s Guide

Andrew McDiarmid

If the phrase “Bayesian calculus” makes you want to run for the hills, you’re not alone! Bayesian logic can sound intimidating at first, but if you give it a little time, you’ll understand how useful it can be for evaluating the evidence for design in the natural world. On a new episode of ID the Future, biologist Jonathan McLatchie gives us a beginner’s guide to Bayesian thinking and teaches us how it can be used to build a strong cumulative case for intelligent design, as well as how we can use it in our everyday lives.

It is one of the most important formulas in all of probability, and it has been central to scientific discovery for the last two centuries. At its heart, Bayes’s theorem, first developed by 18th century English statistician, philosopher, and minister Thomas Bayes, is a method to quantify the confidence one should have in a particular belief or hypothesis. The process results in a likelihood ratio of a hypothesis being true or false, given the evidence. Here, Dr. McLatchie explains what the theorem is, the components that comprise it, when it would typically be used, and some useful examples of Bayesian reasoning in action. 

Dr. McLatchie shows how Bayesian probability can be applied to the evidence for design in nature. First, he argues that the initial prior probability — the intrinsic plausibility of the hypothesis being true given the background information alone — for the design hypothesis is not low:

In the case of intelligent design and our inferences to design in biology, we have independent reasons, I would contend, to already think that a mind is involved in the origin of our cosmos, including the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of our universe…and the prior environmental fitness of nature.

Secondly, when you add in the evidence we’ve discovered of the complexity of living cells, the infusions of new biological information into the biosphere over time, the evidence for the Big Bang, and more, the cumulative case for intelligent design grows stronger. “If we suppose that a mind is involved,” says McLatchie,

then it’s not hugely improbable that we’d find information content in the cell, and that we’d have information processing systems and that we’d have irreducibly complex machines. But, on the other hand, it is overwhelmingly improbable, I would argue, that such information-rich systems and irreducibly complex machinery would exist on the falsity of the design hypothesis. And so you have this overwhelmingly top-heavy likelihood ratio.

Download the podcast or listen to it here.

The iron fist of the emperor

 

On formalising design recognition

 

Yet more on the future of energy.

 

Chemistry did not beget biology?

Proteins Are Rare and Isolated — And Thus, Cannot Evolve

Brian Miller

Were the laws of physics and chemistry fine-tuned to allow proteins to evolve easily? This claim is a key element in a conception of design advocated by theologian Rope Kojonen. He believes, in effect, that God designed the laws of nature so that proteins and other biological phenomena can evolve. In a previous post, I discussed an article, “On the Relationship between Design and Evolution,” that I wrote with Stephen Dilley, Casey Luskin, and Emily Reeves. Both in the article and in a series at Evolution News, we have been critiquing Kojonen’s book The Compatibility of Evolution and Design, which argues that evolutionary theory can be reconciled with the belief that life demonstrates evidence of design. Here, I will expand my previous argument about proteins, showing functional proteins are rare and isolated — and thus, cannot evolve. If my account is correct, then Kojonen’s view of design is fatally flawed.

The Relationship Between Rarity and Isolation

Kojonen acknowledges that many proteins correspond to such rare sequences that they could not have emerged through a random search. Yet he argues that rarity does not necessarily entail isolation. We summarize the argument as follows: 

Like Kojonen, other thinkers (e.g., Hunt 2007; Venema 2010; Matheson 2010) have argued that rarity in sequence space does not necessarily imply isolation in sequence space to a degree that would pose a barrier to evolution. This line of thinking accepts (or allows) a continuous path of functional sequences from a simple protein to a more complex protein. Under this view, even if proteins are rare, they are (or could be) clustered together. As such, the mutation-selection mechanism would not need to search a large region of sequence space; it would only need to find the continuous pathways close at hand.

A Spacecraft Seeks a Clear Path

We respond to this argument as follows:

Yet a simple analogy shows why this objection is wrong. Imagine a spacecraft lands on the north pole of a planet, and the astronauts wish to drive to the south pole. Their ability to do so depends on the percentage, p, of the planet’s surface that is navigable. If p is 70.0%, a continuous path likely exists between the poles. If p is 0.1%, a path most likely would not exist. The lower the percentage, the less likely a path.

Let us now consider how this analogy would apply to the evolution of new proteins. The rarity of the beta-lactamase domain studied by Axe (2004) would correspond to a planet the size of our entire galaxy, and the total amount of navigable land would correspond to the surface area of an atom. If we extend our analogy to a protein whose rarity is 1 in 1023, this would still be akin to a planet the size of Jupiter with a total area of traversable land the size of a postage stamp. A navigable path from one pole to the other would almost certainly not exist. In other words, even for the protein that Kojonen claims has a sequence probability that is “more common”, the possibility of a continuous functional path leading from it to a typical protein is exceedingly remote. 

Complex proteins appear to be overwhelmingly isolated, including from simple amino acid sequences that can perform basic functions. Collectively, the data show that proteins of typical complexity are beyond the reach of natural selection, random mutation, and other standard evolutionary mechanisms.

Could the laws of physics have been fine-tuned to enable such narrow paths? It seems not:

Kojonen tries to overcome this problem by arguing that the physical properties of proteins are “finely-tuned” to bias the clustering of functional sequences such that a very narrow path could extend to complex proteins with rare functional sequences. The biasing would result in the prevalence of functional sequences along a path to a new protein being much higher than in other regions of sequence space. But such biasing could not possibly assist the evolution of most proteins. Biasing in the distribution of functional sequences in sequence space due to physical laws is arguably subject to the same constraints as the biasing in play in the algorithms employed by evolutionary search programs. Consequently, protein evolution falls under “No Free Lunch” theorems that state that no algorithm will in general find targets (e.g., novel proteins) any faster than a random search. An algorithm might assist in finding one target (e.g., specific protein), but it would just as likely hinder finding another. Thus, although Kojonen acknowledges that proteins are sometimes too rare to have directly emerged from a random search, he fails to appreciate the extent to which rarity necessitates isolation and why this must often pose a barrier to further protein evolution. Different proteins have completely different compositions of amino acids, physical properties, conformational dynamics, and functions. Any biasing that might assist in the evolution of one protein would almost certainly oppose the evolution of another. In other words, the probability of a continuous path leading to some proteins would be even less likely than if the distribution of functional sequences were random

Rare Functional Sequences Entail Isolation

We summarize our general argument as follows:

In the end, evolving new proteins is quite difficult to envision under known laws of nature. This is because a continuous path of functional sequences in sequence space is not plausible — primarily due to both the rarity of functional sequences and the isolation of proteins with entirely different structures and functions. A key point here is that extremely rare functional sequences entail isolation in sequence-space. This hurdle poses a fundamental challenge to Kojonen’s thesis that nature was designed to evolve life. Proteins, like stars, are separated by vast distances. 

Recall that Kojonen’s model holds, in effect, that God designed the laws of nature so that proteins can evolve. This is a key element of Kojonen’s design hypothesis. This hypothesis is testable: is there empirical evidence that known laws of nature allow for proteins to evolve? Or do the data indicate impassable hurdles between functional proteins? The data clearly favor the latter. Functional proteins sequences are rare and isolated, with vast chasms of non-functionality between them.

The unavoidable connection between protein rarity and isolation not only overturns Kojonen’s thesis about design, but also overturns mainstream evolutionary theory in its entirety. Although our primary target is Kojonen’s account of design, the scientific data clearly raise additional troubling problems for evolution.

When and where the party of Ali finally triumphed?

 

On the Darwinian establishment's KGB.

 Mimesis and Identifying the Intelligent Designer

Ann Guager

I have been writing about French philosopher René Girard’s idea of mimetic behavior, including in the scientific community, and in particular with regard to intelligent design (here, here, here). I noted that a supernatural being would seem well suited as the designer. To my mind, and to the minds of many others, God fits the job description nicely. However, that answer is unpopular with materialist scientists, and it has been excluded from science by the philosophical view that says nothing except the material world exists. 

It should be noted that materialistic atheists have no proof that this is true. It is simply an assertion based on their philosophical view, enforced by the effects of mimesis. Others say that even if supernatural beings do exist, we couldn’t weigh or measure them or otherwise detect them, so they can’t be studied by science. We can’t detect them. Therefore, they are not here. This is a logical fallacy. If we can’t detect supernatural beings, we can’t know whether supernatural beings exist or not. They can’t prove or disprove they don’t exist. 

The ironic thing is that we can detect the signs of evidence of intelligent activity, just as archeologists or forensic scientists do. When we demonstrate something could not have evolved without intelligent guidance, it is evidence for design. There are many such things in chemistry and biology, too many to include here. I have attempted to illustrate one of the basic ones.

Just to be clear, the predominant view of scientists is that evolution produced every living thing. It is either an article of faith or it is a view held to accommodate one’s colleagues, with good reason. This view is enforced just as strictly as were the Covid vaccine mandates. If you publicly subscribe to intelligent design, you will lose your job. If you don’t lose your job due to seniority, you will be shunned, and it will be very difficult to get your papers published. If you are even suspected of rejecting or doubting evolution, you face extra scrutiny to see if you believe the party line. 

The Evolution Mafia Is Quite Effective

But worse than that, evolutionary propaganda is everywhere — in advertisements, all academic disciplines except maybe music, popular fiction, and non-fiction, video games and entertainment, and of course, education. It’s hard for young adults to withstand the propaganda once they leave home. Even teens in high school buy the message. I take it back. It is in music, too.

The problem is that this propaganda tends to corrupt our understanding of ourselves. Evolution as a theory of everything is not harmless. Neither is what passes for public discourse. It is a brave soul that dares to take an unpopular point of view.

How much do we lose because of this? We don’t know how many ideas collapse under pressure, or how many improvements have been shut down. How many musicians and artists who weren’t fashionable gave up their art, barely scraped by, or starved? People of all sorts with unpopular views either submit and conform or face persecution. René Girard saw the scapegoat mechanism everywhere in human history. 

Mimesis Is Not Going to Go Away

We are social creatures, meant to be together. That means social pressure is real and can be intense. Yet in every generation, brave individuals who believe in their idea, their cause, resist the pressure. At the deepest level, human beings want to live lives full of meaning and purpose, that build rather than tear down, that lead to interior freedom and self-actualization. If each person becomes aware of what truly drives him, or what her thick desires are, and acts on them, they become true individuals, separate from the pack and capable of creative activity. Their work can bear fruit, even if not in their lifetimes. They may be geniuses, or just weirdos, but it is possible for individuals to find and follow their thick desires. and to lead an anti-mimetic life. To put that in more familiar terms for those of us who believe in God: God designed each of us for a purpose. If we listen to God and follow him, we will find that purpose, and bear much fruit.

N.B. Still skeptical? If so, here is a reference to the effect of mimesis in science, not from an ID scientist at all. It was in the news recently: “I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published,” by Patrick T. Brown, writing in The Free Press. It’s an article worth checking out in full.

It's complicated VI

 

John Chapter 1 The Bible in Living English

1.1 At the first there was the Word, and the Word was where God was, and the Word was God.

2 He was at the first where God was. 3 Everything was made by his agency, and not a thing that was made was made without his agency.

4 In him there was life, and the life was the light of men; 5 and the light is shining in the darkness, and the darkness has not taken it in.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 This man came for testimony, to testify about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light but to testify about the light. 9 There was coming into the world the true light that lights every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by his agency, and the world did not know him; 11 he came to what belonged to him, and those who belonged to him did not receive him. 12 But to as many as accepted him he gave the chance to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, 13 who were born not from blood nor from will of flesh nor from will of man, but from God.

14* And the Word became flesh and abode among us and we saw his glory, glory such as that of an only son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testifies of him and shouts “This was the one I spoke of when I said ‘He who is coming behind me has got ahead of me,’ because he was before I was,” 16 because out of his fullness all of us have had portions, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came in through Jesus Christ. 18* Nobody ever has seen God; an Only Born God, he who is in the Father’s bosom, he gave the account of him.

19 And this is John’s testimony, when the Jews sent priests and Levites to him from Jerusalem to ask him “Who are you?” 20 and he answered and made no denial. And he said “I am not the Messiah.” 21 And they asked him “Then what? are you Elijah?” and he said “I am not.” “Are you the prophet?” and he answered “No.” 22 So they said to him “Who are you? that we may give those who sent us an answer, what you say about yourself.” 23 He said “I am the voice of one calling out in the wilderness ‘Straighten out the Lord’s road,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” 24 And they were sent from the Pharisees; 25 and they asked him “Then why do you baptize if you are not the Messiah nor Elijah nor the prophet?” 26 John answered “I baptize in water; in your midst stands he whom you do not know, 27 he who is coming behind me, whose shoestring I am not worthy to untie.”

28 This happened in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. 29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said “There is God’s lamb that takes away the world’s sin. 30 That is the one about whom I said ‘There is coming behind me a man who has got ahead of me,’ because he was before I was. 31 And I did not know him, but it was to have him disclosed to Israel that I came baptizing in water.” 32 And John testified “I have seen the Spirit coming down like a dove out of the sky, and it rested on him. 33 And I did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize in water, he said to me ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest on him, he is the one that baptizes in Holy Spirit’; 34 and I have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God.”

35* The next day John was standing there again, and two of his disciples, 36 and he looked at Jesus walking along and said “There is God’s lamb”; 37 and the two disciples heard him speak, and followed Jesus. 38 And Jesus turned and saw them following him and said to them “What do you want?” and they said to him “Rabbi (which translated means Teacher), where are you staying?” 39 He said to them “Come and you shall see.” So they came and saw where he was staying, and stayed with him that day; it was about four o’clock.

40 Simon Peter’s brother Andrew was one of the two that heard from John and followed him; 41 he found his own brother Simon first and said to him “We have found the Messiah” (which means Anointed; translated into Greek it is Christ). 42 He brought him to Jesus; Jesus looked at him and said “You are Simon the son of John, you shall be called Cephas” (which means a rock; translated into Greek, the name is Peter). 43 The next day he wanted to go out to Galilee, and found Philip, and said to him “Follow me.” 44 And Philip was from Bethsaida, Andrew and Peter’s city.

45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him “We have found the one that Moses wrote of in the Law, and that the prophets wrote of, Jesus the son of Joseph from Nazareth”; 46 and Nathanael said to him “Can there be anything good out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him “Come and see.” 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him and said of him “Here comes a genuine Israelite with no adulteration.” 48 Nathanael said to him “What have you known about me?” Jesus replied “Before Philip called you I saw you when you were under the fig-tree.” 49 Nathanael answered “Rabbi, you are the son of God, you are the king of Israel.” 50 Jesus replied “Because I said to you I saw you under the fig-tree do you believe? you shall see greater things than these,” 51 and said to him “Verily, verily I tell you, you and the rest shall see the heavens standing open and God’s angels going up and coming down to the Son of Man.” 

Thank you JEHOVAH.

 My blessed heavenly father has granted me more kindnesses than I can count . But today ,by means of this post, I would like to thank the Lord JEHOVAH for freeing me from having to do the grim arithmetic of discriminating between the greater and lesser evils among this world's contending elites.

Thanks to my noble God I am free to choose his unalloyed righteousness instead.

It's Complicated V

 

The nation state: A brief history.

 

The false Gods can bring no peace.

 No JEHOVAH no peace.

Know JEHOVAH know peace.

File under "Well said" CIV

 "Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. "

James chapter 1 verse 12 English Standard Version

Earth 2.0: Yet another sequel falling short of the original?

 

On the gospels as history.

 

Return of the king of Titans?

 

History's other world famous J.C.

 

Malachi Chapter 2 American Standard Version.

 2.1 And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. 2If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith JEHOVAH of hosts, then will I send the curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings; yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. 3Behold, I will rebuke your seed, and will spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your feasts; and ye shall be taken away with it. 4And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant may be with Levi, saith JEHOVAH of hosts. 5My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him that he might fear; and he feared me, and stood in awe of my name. 6The law of truth was in his mouth, and unrighteousness was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and uprightness, and turned many away from iniquity. 7For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of JEHOVAH of hosts. 8But ye are turned aside out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble in the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith JEHOVAH of hosts. 9Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have had respect of persons in the law.

10Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, profaning the covenant of our fathers? 11Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of JEHOVAH which he loveth, and hath married the daughter of a foreign god. 12JEHOVAH will cut off, to the man that doeth this, him that waketh and him that answereth, out of the tents of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto JEHOVAH of hosts.

13And this again ye do: ye cover the altar of JEHOVAH with tears, with weeping, and with sighing, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, neither receiveth it with good will at your hand. 14Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because JEHOVAH hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously, though she is thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15And did he not make one, although he had the residue of the Spirit? And wherefore one? He sought a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. 16For I hate putting away, saith JEHOVAH, the God of Israel, and him that covereth his garment with violence, saith JEHOVAH of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

17Ye have wearied JEHOVAH with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? In that ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of JEHOVAH and he delighteth in them; or where is the God of justice?

An interlude XII

 

The U.S first civil war?

 

Romans Chapter 4 the Bible in Living English

 Then what shall we say that Abraham, our forefather in the way of flesh, had found? 2* For if Abraham was justified as the outcome of deeds, he does have something to boast of. But not to God, 3 for what does the text say? “And Abraham believed God, and it was counted righteousness for him.” 4 But one who works does not have the pay counted to him in the way of grace but of debt; 5 but one who does not work but puts faith in him who justifies an impious man has his faith counted for righteousness, 6 in the same way as David tells of the happy state of the man to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 7 “Happy they whose wickednesses are forgiven and whose sins are covered up; 8 happy a man for whom the Lord does not count sin.” 9 Is this happy state, then, pronounced upon circumcision, or upon uncircumcision too? for we are saying “Faith was counted righteousness for Abraham.” 10 How was it counted then, when he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision but in uncircumcision; 11 and he got the token of circumcision as a seal of his righteousness of faith in uncircumcision, so that he should be father of all who believe while uncircumcised so that righteousness should be counted to them, 12 and father of circumcision for those who are not of circumcision only but who also walk in the tracks of the faith our father Abraham had during uncircumcision. 13 For it is not through the law that there is the promise to Abraham or to his descendants, that he is to be heir of the world, but through righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are on the basis of law are heirs, faith is nullified and the promise is superseded; 15 for the law evolves anger, and where there is not law there is not violation either. 16 Hence, on the basis of faith in order to be in the way of grace, so that the promise may be securely settled to all the descendants, not only the line which is based on the law but also that which is based on Abraham’s faith, his who is father of all of us 17 (as it is written “I have made you father of many nations”) before the God whom he believed, him who brings the dead to life and calls what does not exist as though it did; 18* his who in a hopeless case had the hopefulness to believe, so as to become father of many nations in accordance with what it says, “Such shall your descendants be,” 19* and did not weaken in faith as he observed his own body gone dead, he being a hundred years or so old, and the deadening of Sarah’s womb; 20 but he did not unbelievingly doubt at God’s promise, but had his faith invigorated, giving glory to God 21* and feeling convinced that what he has promised he is able to go on and do; 22 which is why it was counted for righteousness to him. 23 And it was not written on his account only that it was counted to him, 24 but on ours too, to whom it is going to be counted, us who believe on the one that raised from the dead our Lord Jesus, 25 who was handed over to death on account of our offenses and was raised on account of our justification.

The ministry of truth is a thing.

Mimetic Behavior in the Scientific Community

David Klinghoffer 

Yesterday I wrote about French philosopher René Girard’s idea of mimesis, and I alluded to having seen such behavior in the scientific community (here). I have been a research scientist for almost thirty years. I personally have seen persecution of scientists who support intelligent design. Some have been tossed out or denied degrees. Others see the threat, so they hide their beliefs. I have seen papers turned down because the reviewer was powerful in his or her field and often suppressed other people’s work. I have seen grants and papers turned down because the individuals writing the paper held certain scientific positions. I have repeatedly seen people lose their jobs because they hold an unpopular view. I have seen misinformation and mockery used against people with unpopular ideas. And I have seen professors pressure graduate students and postdoctoral fellows to be selective in the data they use. All these things are forbidden officially but still happen. The question is, how much do they distort scientific progress?

Just in the last month I saw a report of bad science by a scientist. He was a graduate student who tried to replicate the work of a well-known group. He could not. After careful work, he determined it was because inappropriate controls were used. Because many others were using the same assay and were publishing based on the faulty design, he wrote to the original lab to tell them, and was ignored. He then wrote up his findings and tried to publish them. He was turned down by the journals he submitted to, and rather than submit to a journal that would be ignored, he ended up publishing in a non-reviewed online site called arXiv that is seen by many. He did this just so people might not have the same difficulty he had — it had wasted months of his fellowship and prevented him from performing the work he came to do. 

It is very hard to publish negative results, even if they are important. A student was about to lose his degree because he could not change an enzyme’s activity by repeated mutation. Scientists often believe that enzymes can be modified easily. This is because the failures don’t get published. A friend who was on the student’s committee, and very knowledgeable about enzyme modification, reported that he had to demonstrate to the student’s committee that the thing the student had been assigned to do could not be done. This is another way that scientific resources of time and money are wasted.

Held Hostage Because of Propaganda

Sometimes an entire discipline can be held hostage because of propaganda. A well-known case is that of continental drift. Alfred Wegener first published his hypothesis in the early 1900s that the continents moved over geologic time. He accumulated a great deal of evidence from biology, geology, and fossils showing where the continents were originally linked. He called that super-continent Pangaea. Geologists ignored his hypothesis, despite strong evidence supporting it. It wasn’t until the 1960s that the idea was accepted, based on evidence of the movement of the northern magnetic pole.

Doctors and pharmaceutical companies are another whole category of the role of mimesis and propaganda, and I don’t have space to treat those things fairly. However, I will give one infamous example of doctors behaving badly because of resistance to change. Ignaz Semmelweis was a young doctor who was eagerly following the work of Louis Pasteur. He was aware of Pasteur’s work on the role of microbes in disease. The hospital in Vienna where he worked had a mortality rate in obstetrics of 25-30 percent, which is horrifying. He thought that maybe the childbed fever that was killing women was due to infection carried by the medical students from their dissections to the women in labor. He demanded that all the students wash their hands in a strong antiseptic before seeing women patients. The childbed fever cases dropped dramatically as a result. Some doctors took up his method, but others did not. He had seminars and consultations canceled. He had to leave Vienna and find work elsewhere after his involvement in politics turned everyone in Vienna against him. 

He found work in his native Budapest and published his research. He wrote to doctors all over Europe and beyond, but he was ignored. Women continued to die of childbed fever. Semmelweis’s mental health deteriorated, and he became angry and bitter at the medical profession’s refusal to change. He died in an insane asylum, where his colleagues had taken him two weeks before, from an infected wound inflicted by the guards (who had beaten him), probably from the same bacterium as caused childbed fever. 

Suppression by the State

Sometimes the suppression comes from the government. The restriction on doctors’ freedom to use promising treatments during the recent pandemic was unprecedented. Promising lines of research were shut down. The government of many states issued a mandate: police, firefighters, nurses, transit workers, and many others lost their jobs because for moral reasons they refused to comply with the mandate. Many had to move to other less punitive states. All these things were done to impose the agendas of Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and of the CDC, on vaccine implementation. Whatever your views on the virus or the vaccines, such coercion and suppression is wrong. Uniformity of opinion cannot be imposed. As a result, we have had a significant polarization of society.

Tomorrow I will narrow my focus and discuss the treatment, in this regard, of intelligent design scientists.

File under "well said" CIII

" It is far easier to concentrate power than to concentrate knowledge. That is why so much social engineering backfires and why so many despots have led their countries into disasters."

Thomas Sowell

On the death of science?

 

Yet another miracle molecule?

 

On the Darwin of the gaps?

 An Argument from Ignorance?

William Dembski

Editor’s note: We are delighted to welcome the new and greatly expanded second edition of The design inference, by William Dembski and Winston Ewert. The following is excerpted from the Introduction.

Tacitly in the first edition of The Design Inference and explicitly in its sequel, No Free Lunch, I argued that natural selection and random variation could not create the sort of complexity we see in living things. My approach in applying the design inference to biology was to piggyback on the work of design biologists such as Douglas Axe and Michael Behe. They had identified certain subcellular systems (e.g., bacterial flagella and beta-lactamase enzymes) that proved highly resistant to Darwinian explanations. 

Our joint task was to put plausible numbers to these systems so that even factoring in Darwinian natural selection, the probability of these systems arising was exceedingly small. Note that the specification of these systems, as in their exhibiting the right sort of pattern for a design inference, was never in question. The issue was always whether the probabilities were small enough. In using specified improbability to draw a design inference for biology, I therefore needed to argue that the probabilities for Darwinian processes producing certain biological systems, such as those identified by Axe and Behe, were indeed small. 

Misguided and Irrelevant

As far as Darwinists were concerned, however, all attempts to show such biological systems to be vastly improbable were misguided and irrelevant. Any design inferences meant to defeat Darwinian evolution were, according to them, arguments from ignorance. For them, unidentified Darwinian pathways could never be decisively ruled out, so their mere possibility invalidated any design inference applied to biological evolution. In short, no calculated improbability could ever convince the Darwinian critics that the probabilities were actually small. 

It didn’t matter that Darwinists were ignorant of any detailed evidence for such Darwinian pathways, and thus had no counter-probabilities to offer. It was enough for them merely to gesture at the possibility of such pathways, as though raising a possibility could itself constitute evidence for an argument from improbability. To ID proponents critical of Darwin’s theory, the argument-from-ignorance objection seemed to apply more aptly to the Darwinists themselves for positing unsubstantiated Darwinian pathways that offered no nuts and bolts, no nitty-gritty, just hand-waving.

No matter. For Darwinists to refute ID, they merely needed to postulate unidentified, and perhaps forever unidentifiable, indirect Darwinian pathways in which structure and function coevolved and led to the complex biological features in question. Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller led the way. Michael Behe had defined a system (biological or otherwise) to be irreducibly complex if its function was lost by removing key parts. He argued that such systems resisted Darwinian explanations. Miller countered that Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity was ill-conceived because removing parts from, or otherwise simplifying, a biological system could always yield a system with a different function. To convinced Darwinists like Miller, design in biology was therefore a nonstarter. Darwinian pathways to all complex biological systems had to exist, and any inability to find them simply reflected the imperfection of our biological knowledge, not any imperfection in Darwin’s theory. 

Dawkins’s “Laziness Challenge” 

Richard Dawkins, better than anyone, has publicly championed the dogma that Darwinian pathways can and must always exist for any biological system. In a 1990s television interview he memorably took Behe to task for claiming that irreducibly complex biochemical machines, of the sort Behe popularized in Darwin’s Black Box, were beyond the reach of Darwinian processes. Dawkins charged Behe with being “lazy” (yes, he used that very word) for seeing in the irreducible complexity of these machines a reason to conclude design, and thus to rule out any further effort to discover how Darwinian processes could have formed, say, a bacterial flagellum. That is, instead of concluding that these systems were designed by a real intelligence, Behe should get back into the lab and redouble his efforts to discover how Darwinian evolution could have produced them apart from design.

The reaction of the ID community to Dawkins’s “laziness challenge” was that he might just as well have recommended to physicists that they keep trying to construct a perpetual motion machine. Yet why did one task seem futile (constructing a perpetual motion machine) but not the other (discovering Darwinian pathways to irreducibly complex biochemical machines)? Physicists had the second law of thermodynamics to rule out the charge of laziness. That’s why Dawkins would never have said to a physicist, “You’re just being lazy for giving up on inventing a machine that can run itself forever.” 

Even so, Dawkins’s “laziness challenge” was and remains misguided because Behe’s skepticism is based not on ignorance but on careful study of the obstacles that Darwinian evolution must overcome and its consistent failure to do so. To seal the deal, however, the ID research community still needed something like the second law for biology. We found it in the law of conservation of information. This law logically completes the design inference. We’ll address this law in the epilogue.

Time to take the hint re:quantum gravity?

 

The sword Rome lived(and died) by?

 

On Father Charles Coughlin.

 

The Cambrian explosion was nuclear?

 Fossil Friday: Protists Add to the Cambrian Explosion

Gunter Bechly

When talking about the Cambrian Explosion, the focus is usually on the abrupt appearance of bilaterian animal phyla with their distinct body plans, which has been called a Big Bang of life. However, the Cambrian Explosion is not restricted to these animals. As I have shown in previous articles, non-bilaterian animals like true sponges and jellyfish also first appeared in the Lower Cambrian (Bechly 2020, 2023). Today we will have a look at a largely ignored part of the Cambrian Explosion. That is the abrupt appearance of several major groups of protists (Lipps 1993, Wikipedia 2023).

Radiolarians represent an important group of marine zooplankton with beautiful siliceous mineral skeletons that were famously featured in wonderful drawings by the German pioneer Darwinist Ernst Haeckel. Their oldest fossil record is from the Earliest Cambrian (Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary) to Middle Cambrian of China (Braun et al. 2007, Maletz 2017, Chang et al. 2018, Zhang & Feng 2019, Zhang et al. 2021). Thus, they appear right together with the Cambrian Explosion of animal phyla.

Tentative Determinations

oraminiferans are amoeboid marine protists, which mostly live in the seafloor sediment and have a calcium carbonate skeleton. Their oldest uncontroversial fossil record is again from the Early Cambrian (e.g., Culver 1991, McIlroy et al. 2001, Streng et al. 2005). Pawlowski et al. (2003) therefore concluded that “Fossil Foraminifera appear in the Early Cambrian, at about the same time as the first skeletonized metazoans.” More recent evidence for late Ediacaran foraminiferans suggests that this group may have originated already with the Avalon Explosion rather than the Cambrian Explosion (Gaucher & Sprechermann 1999, Hua et al. 2010, Pazio 2012, Chai et al. 2021), but even Hua et al. (2010) admitted that “the oldest unambiguous foraminifers are from Early Cambrian Atdabanian Stage strata.” Possible testate amoebae and possible foraminiferans (Rhizaria) have even been reported from 716-635 million-year-old carbonate rocks in Namibia and Mongolia, which date to a time right after the Sturtian glaciation of the Cryogenian “Snowball Earth” (Bosak et al. 2011, 2012, Parry 2011). However, these determinations are only tentative and far from established. At least the tintinnid determinations in the same work have been strongly disputed by Lipps et al. (2012) (see below).

Dinoflagellates are another important group of planktonic protists. Even though the oldest fossil dinoflagellates are known from middle Triassic sediments, there is indirect evidence from geochemical markers that these protists also first appeared in the Lower Cambrian period (Moldowan & Talyzina 1998).

“Darwin’s Dilemma Still Holds”

Other groups of protists appeared at other periods in Earth history, but they also originated abruptly without gradual transition from assumed precursors. For example, diatoms suddenly appear in the fossil record of the Early Jurassic about 182 million years ago (Kooistra & Medlin 1996, Bryłka et al. 2023). Coccolithophores (Hapotophyta), which form the chalk of the famous White Cliffs of Dover, appear at the Norian-Rhaetian boundary about 208.5 million years ago (Gardin et al. 2012). Uncontroversial tintinnids (Ciliata) are first recorded from Upper Triassic to Lower Cretaceous sediments, while several alleged Proterozoic records about 1.600-580 million years ago as well as Paleozoic records are all very doubtful and disputed (Lipps et al. 2012). Lipps et al. (2012) commented that “no solid evidence of Proterozoic tintinnids or other ciliates comes from the Precambrian rock record. Darwin’s dilemma of the lack of fossils for this ancient age (Schopf 2001; Knoll 2004) therefore still holds for at least the ciliates. If there are tintinnid fossils from this ancient time, they have yet to be discovered.”

Not even the tiniest and most abundant organisms seem to confirm the gradualist predictions of Darwinian evolution. Whenever empirical data from the actual fossil record are used to test this crucial part of the theory, it simply fails. Since gradualism is strongly refuted by the evidence, the theory must be false, because even Richard Dawkins, arguably the most ardent modern popularizer of Darwinism, clearly stated in his bestselling book The Greatest Show on Earth (Dawkins 2009) that “evolution not only is a gradual process as a matter of fact; it has to be gradual if it is to do any explanatory work.” Clinging to a refuted paradigm, in spite of the accumulated conflicting evidence, is not science but rather irrational dogmatic belief.

The great war: the end of a world?

 

An interlude XI

 The Lord JEHOVAH is the living embodiment of hope itself.

The war of the Titans rages on

 

The cold war 2.0?

 

The resistance is brought to you by...

 

The argument from common sense?

 Bill Dembski Reflects on the Origins of a Classic

Andrew McDiarmid

Hailed as “sparklingly original” and an “important contribution,” mathematician William Dembski’s 1998 book The Design Inference gave the modern design hypothesis a firm empirical footing and quickly inspired demonization and dismissal from disgruntled Darwinists. Twenty-five years later, Dembski’s arguments stand firm, and a second edition with fresh analysis and insight is now available to a new generation of truth seekers. On a new episode of ID the Future, physicist Brian Miller invites Dr. Dembski to take us back to the 1980s to tell us the story of how The Design Inference came to life. 

What is the nature of randomness? It was a question very much in vogue in academic circles in the late Eighties. Dembski was just finishing a dissertation in mathematics and was intrigued by the relationship between order and disorder, randomness and design. “Randomness is fundamentally a question of design,” he wrote in his 1991 essay “Randomness by Design”. Dembski continued to develop these ideas, and not even a second PhD in philosophy could pull him away from the question of design. Here, Dembski tells the story of how his ideas eventually became a book and how the book got published by one of the most respected publishing houses in academia. 

Dembski also discusses the influence on his work of another man who was weighing up the design hypothesis in the 1980s: evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. His 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker, argued against Paley’s design argument in favor of an evolutionary story of life on earth. The book inspired Dembski to pursue design. “What I was doing in The Design Inference was in dialectical conversation with Darwin and Dawkins,” recalls Dembski. “Whereas Darwin and Dawkins needed that every aspect of biology be un-designed, it was enough for me to say, is there a method for reliably detecting design, and if that method is applied to some biological systems, could it reliably tell us that we’re dealing with an effective intelligence?”

Download the podcast or listen to it here. 

Yet more common ground?

 

Common ground?

 

The antiRome?

 

Chance and necessity can be counted out?

 Dembski Won the Argument with His Critics; New Edition of The Design Inference Shows How

Brian Miller

One of the foundational books undergirding the intelligent design research program is The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, by mathematician and philosopher William Dembski. He developed a rigorous methodology for design detection. His work was initially praised by esteemed scholars. Then, he applied his design-detection apparatus to biology and demonstrated that life displays clear evidence for design. After making this connection, he faced enormous opposition for daring to challenge the sacred dogma of secular society that life is an unintended product of the blind forces of nature. 

Many of the attacks were little more than knee-jerk reactions, but some raised legitimate concerns and asked relevant questions. In the decades that followed, Dembski responded to critics and refined his model. He also collaborated with computer scientists Robert J. Marks and Winston Ewert, along with other scholars, to expand upon his initial ideas and further apply them to biology (here, here, here).

Most recently, Dembski partnered with Ewert to write a second, greatly expanded edition of The Design Inference, which is being released today. The new edition represents the culmination of decades of thought and research. It presents a rigorous and reliable procedure for detecting design in any context. The esteemed Princeton University mathematician Sergiu Klainerman welcomed the book as follows:

Well argued and eminently readable… I don’t see how any open-minded scientist can ignore this important book.

Here I will present a primer on design detection that will aid readers in appreciating the genius behind Dembski and Ewert’s accomplishment. 

The Logic Behind Design Detection

The fundamental goal of any approach to design detection is identifying patterns, events, or artifacts that (1) are extremely unlikely to have occurred through chance and natural processes and (2) show signs that they were deliberate acts of a mind. The challenge is rigorously meeting both criteria. Nearly everyone recognizes that the criteria have been properly met in certain contexts. Forensic experts can often clearly distinguish between a death resulting from natural causes and homicide. Archaeologists readily distinguish between naturally occurring rocks and an arrowhead. And tourists easily differentiate between patterns on mountains resulting from wind and erosion and the faces of the Presidents on Mount Rushmore. 

In every context, the first criterion entails identifying, at least qualitatively, the probability for the occurrence of some event or outcome solely due to chance and natural processes. For instance, the probability of any number between 1 and 6 appearing on a well-constructed six-sided die is 1 in 6. The outcome is purely the result of chance. In contrast, the probability of rolling a 6 on a loaded die could be close to 100 percent. The outcome is a direct result of gravity. 

The outcome could also be the product of chance and natural processes. The structure of a snowflake displays a hexagonal pattern due to the physical properties of water molecules. It also displays its own unique features due to chance molecular interactions. Determining the probability of undesigned outcomes must take into consideration both factors. 

The second criterion entails a mind assigning significance or value to some outcomes independently of any law-like process. As a thought experiment, imagine Bill Gates deciding on a whim to give one billion dollars to five specific people scattered throughout the world. In addition, the day after the money was dispersed, you were one of six people invited to a dinner party. If you discovered that four of the five recipients of Gate’s generosity were also invited, you would know that the invitees were not chosen randomly. You would also know that the invitations were not primarily based on any factors independent of the invitees’ newfound wealth, such as their height or weight or nationality. The guests were deliberately chosen for some premeditated purpose, such as raising money for a charity or a political campaign. 

The key elements for this conclusion are (1) the number of combinations of six people chosen out of the entire human population being extremely high and (2) and the number of combinations of six people possessing such wealth being much lower. The disparity between the probability of choosing randomly a specific set of six people and the probability of randomly choosing a set out of all sets of six people with at least that much wealth is what points to design.  

Application to Biology

The argument for design in biology follows the same logic. The number of configurations of atoms resulting from chance and natural laws is unimaginably large. By comparison, the number of configurations is vastly smaller that correspond to life or anything to which a mind would attribute the same significance as life, or nearly so, such as a computer with an advanced AI or an automated space shuttle capable of colonizing mars.  

Stated differently, the probability of a configuration of atoms corresponding to life occurring through chance and natural processes is unimaginably small. By comparison, the probability is vastly larger of choosing life out of a pool of entities that are as significant, or nearly as significant, as life.   

Understanding the Design Debate

The design debate centers on one of the two criteria. Design proponents have described the exceedingly low probability of some biological system or structure emerging, such as a random sequence of amino acids folding into a functional protein. They also point out the significance of biological components, such as folded proteins, in the context of life. 

Some critics challenge the first criterion by arguing either that biological structures are not as rare as design proponents believe, or that natural processes such as self-organization and natural selection dramatically improve the odds of their forming. Others challenge the second criterion by arguing that a specific structure might be extremely unlikely to occur by chance and natural processes, but biological structures are not as special as design proponents believe. Critics assert that life could have used many other structures to accomplish the same tasks, so the probability of finding anything that serves a particular purpose is tractable. 

The second edition of The Design Inference lays out the theoretical framework and practical methodology for addressing all these objections. In addition, advances in biology over the past few decades allow the methodology to be rigorously applied. Such analyses demonstrate evidence for design that is now so clear and rigorous that, for intellectually honest and sincere seekers of the truth, denying it is no longer feasible.   

The multicultural third reich?

 

On the pursuit of happiness

 

James Tour vs. The Sphinx?

 

On giving up Darwin.

 Wisdom Wednesday: Yale Polymath David Gelernter’s Farewell to Darwinism

Emily Sandico

Afew years ago, the brilliant Yale University polymath David Gelernter wrote an essay entitled “Giving Up Darwin — A fond farewell to a brilliant and beautiful theory,” in which he made a stunning confession: “Stephen Meyer’s thoughtful and meticulous 𝘋𝘢𝘳𝘸𝘪𝘯’𝘴 𝘋𝘰𝘶𝘣𝘵 convinced me that Darwin has failed.”

Is Gelernter a creationist? No. Is he a proponent of intelligent design? No. “There’s no reason,” Gelernter wrote in the Claremont Review of Books, “to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture — not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.”

Gelernter summarizes: “𝘋𝘢𝘳𝘸𝘪𝘯’𝘴 𝘋𝘰𝘶𝘣𝘵 is one of the most important books in a generation. Few open-minded people will finish it with their faith in Darwin intact.”

That might sound like a scary thought. Some may not be willing to read Meyer’s book and risk losing their faith in the science we’ve been told is all settled. But don’t you wonder why a brilliant guy like Professor Gelernter would give up Darwin? Read his true confession here

One atheist says the quiet part out loud?

 

Micah Chapter 3 New World Translation (2013 edition)

 3.1 I said: “Hear, please, you heads of Jacob

And you commanders of the house of Israel.+

Should you not know what is just?

 2 But you hate what is good+ and love what is bad;+

You tear off the skin from my people and the flesh from their bones.+

 3 You also eat the flesh of my people+

And strip off their skin,

Smashing their bones, crushing them to pieces,+

Like what is cooked in a pot,* like meat in a cooking pot.

 4 At that time they will call to JEHOVAH for help,

But he will not answer them.

He will hide his face from them at that time,+

Because of their wicked deeds.+

 5 This is what JEHOVAH says against the prophets who are leading my people astray,+

Who proclaim ‘Peace!’+ while they bite* with their teeth+

But who declare* war against him who puts nothing into their mouths:

 6 ‘You will have night;+ there will be no vision;+

There will only be darkness for you, no divination.

The sun will set on the prophets,

And the day will turn dark for them.+

 7 The visionaries will be put to shame,+

And the diviners will be disappointed.

All of them will have to cover over the mustache,*

For there is no answer from God.’”

 8 As for me, I am filled with power by the spirit of JEHOVAH,

And with justice and might,

To tell to Jacob his revolt and to Israel his sin.

 9 Hear this, please, you heads of the house of Jacob

And you commanders of the house of Israel,+

Who detest justice and who make crooked all that is straight,+

10 Who build Zion with bloodshed and Jerusalem with unrighteousness.+

11 Her leaders* judge for a bribe,+

Her priests instruct for a price,+

And her prophets practice divination for money.*+

And yet they lean on JEHOVAH,* saying:

“Is not JEHOVAH with us?+

No calamity will come upon us.”+

12 So because of you,

Zion will be plowed up as a field,

Jerusalem will become heaps of ruins,+

And the mountain of the House* will become like high places in a forest.*+

Not to be outdone we have Catholicism's civil war.