More on why I.D and Darwinism just are never going to be a couple.

 Evolution Falsified? Rope Kojonen’s Achievement

Casey Luskin/Stephen Dilley

If mainstream evolutionary theory can account for the eye of an eagle, does it make any sense to say that intelligent design is also needed? Our peer-reviewed paper, “On the Relationship between Design and Evolution,” in the journal Religions considers that and related questions. The paper is a critical appraisal of theologian Rope Kojonen’s book The Compatibility of Evolution and Design. This is the final installment of a 15-part occasional series on the subject. As we’ll see here, despite Kojonen’s thoughtful attempt to harmonize evolution and design, he nonetheless inadvertently sets the table for the rejection of mainstream evolutionary theory. Similarly, his model is no ally to thinkers who want the ID movement to accept only versions of design that are compatible with mainstream evolutionary theory.

Kojonen’s Task

The heart of Kojonen’s book is an attempt to reinvigorate a biology-based design argument that is compatible with mainstream evolutionary theory. That is, he accepts evolutionary explanations of the rise of flora and fauna, yet he alsoargues that this same flora and fauna provides empirical evidence of intelligent design. At first blush, this sounds like a violation of Ockham’s razor. If natural selection and random mutation are up to the task, what ground is there to say that an intelligent agent is also needed? 

Kojonen’s task, then, is to show that “design and evolution” better explain biological complexity than does evolution on its own. He argues that his conception of design adds to evolution’s explanation of biological complexity. If design adds little or nothing, then it is of little account and should be shaved away by Ockham’s razor. By contrast, if design adds notable explanatory insight, then it should be retained.

Kojonen believes that his particular conception of design rises to the challenge. He argues that design helps evolution succeed. In this collaborative model, God directly designed the laws of nature, which in turn gave rise to special preconditions that enabled evolution to produce biological form and function. As we explain in our article:

In chapter four, Kojonen marshals various arguments to show that the preconditions of evolution must be designed if evolution is to be successful (as he believes it to be). The deck must be stacked in advance. In particular, fitness landscapes must be finely tuned ahead of time in order for evolutionary processes to successfully produce biological complexity and diversity. Kojonen believes that it is implausible to think that evolutionary processes can account for flora and fauna without these special preconditions. To make his case, Kojonen cites the work of Andreas Wagner, William Dembski, and others on protein evolution, evolutionary algorithms, structuralism, and the like. For Kojonen, these thinkers’ arguments powerfully show that evolutionary processes need prior “fine-tuning” of fitness landscapes (Kojonen 2021, pp. 97-143, esp. pp. 109-23). Thus, “evolution and design” is superior to “evolution alone.”

The Heart of the Matter

This is a key way that “design” adds value to “evolution.” Yet is there empirical evidence that these fine-tuned preconditions and landscapes exist? If so, then there are good grounds for Kojonen’s particular conception of design. If not, then his view of design falls short. As we explain:

Kojonen situates design precisely in those fine-tuned preconditions which yield smooth fitness landscapes that allow evolution to succeed. His case for marrying design with evolution therefore depends on the existence of this fine-tuning. So, it is crucial to assess whether this fine-tuning is real. And this question can be assessed scientifically: are fitness landscapes smooth? Are there open pathways between functional proteins, for example? Or are there impassible barriers between such proteins?

Alas, this is where the dike breaks. As we show in our article — and in previous posts — there is no good evidence for fine-tuned preconditions and smooth fitness landscapes (as Kojonen envisions them). Indeed, there is extremely strong evidence against such things. 

Why is this significant? We explain: 

Kojonen’s model may have devastating implications for mainstream evolutionary theory. Recall that the heart of his proposal is that evolution needs design (in the form of fine-tuned preconditions). Evolution on its own is insufficient to produce flora and fauna. But if we are correct that Kojonen’s conception and justification of design are flawed, then it follows — by his own lights — that evolution is impotent to explain biological complexity. Kojonen’s own account of the efficacy of evolution depends upon the success of his case for design. But if the latter stumbles, then so does the former. In a startling way, Kojonen has set the table for the rejection of evolution. If he has failed to make his case for design, then he has left readers with strong reasons to abandon mainstream evolutionary theory. The full implications of this striking result warrant further exploration.

Kojonen’s model provides yet another significant reason to reject evolutionary theory. Of course, the general falsity of evolution is not the focus of the argument in our paper per se; it is nonetheless a direct implication of the failure of Kojonen’s model. Readers who take his case seriously will realize that he has given a beautiful account of how to falsify evolutionary theory. Kojonen mounts a sophisticated argument — based on evolutionary algorithms, convergence, structuralism, and the like — that evolution is impotent on its own to explain biological complexity. It requires design. If he is correct, then evolution cannot succeed without design. And if we are correct, there is no such design. The inescapable conclusion is that evolution does not succeed.1

No Ally of Accommodationism

We bring our long series to a close on a note of current relevance to the ID community. As members of this community know, some thinkers actively call for advocates of ID to accept only versions of design that are compatible with mainstream evolutionary theory. They believe that ID will only stand a chance of success if it accepts conventional thinking. Naturally, advocates of this view may be tempted to see Kojonen’s model as an ally in their quest. 

But the reality is quite different. Kojonen’s argument is that mainstream evolution on its own is insufficient to explain biological complexity. Hence, he argues that designed laws and preconditions are needed. His claim about the impotence of evolutionary theory is hardly the received view among evolutionary biologists. (At least, this is true in their public-facing statements; in private, one sometimes hears great cause for concern.) Indeed, many evolutionary biologists say they reject design precisely because they think evolutionary processes are fully sufficient. Why else would they accept the theory? So, even when Kojonen’s model is taken on its own terms, it runs against the grain of mainstream evolutionary thought. Thinkers who petition the ID movement to accept evolutionary theory and who see Kojonen’s model as an aid to their cause have not understood the actual contours of the debate. Kojonen’s model is no ally of accommodationist versions of intelligent design.

Moreover, if our criticisms of Kojonen’s model are correct, then he has, in effect, falsified mainstream evolutionary theory. Far from bringing people into the evolutionary fold, Kojonen has done science (and ID) a great service by showing them why they should pursue a richer, more thoughtful path.

Notes

Strictly speaking, Kojonen’s attempt to harmonize “design” and “evolution” does not per se require fine-tuned preconditions. He argues, for example, that his model is compatible with divinely guided mutations. (See, for example, Kojonen’s response to David Glass in Kojonen, “Response: The Compatibility of Evolution and Design,” Zygon 57 (2022): 1024–36.) Be that as it may, in CED, Kojonen strongly emphasizes fine-tuned preconditions (CED, p. 63-68, 119-33, 156-74). This is the centerpiece of his model. Yet insofar as this conception fails, it’s not clear that Kojonen succeeds at showing how “design” and “evolution” are compatible. And surely this is a desideratum: whether “design” and “evolution” are reconcilable is closely tied to how they are to be reconciled. Second, if his model allows direct divine tinkering with mutations, it’s also unclear that his view of evolution is consistent with “mainstream” evolutionary theory. As such, it’s unclear that his model reconciles mainstream evolution with design. Third, even setting aside these two criticisms, Kojonen’s model, in its various conceptualizations, does not seem to escape our deeper epistemological concerns, which we have described in our original paper (Section 7) as well as here and here.

The search for a third way rolls on.

 

The myth of the hegemony of the gene?

 

The pathway to an amicable national divorce?

 

The butterfly effect is a thing?

 

The voice of British heterodoxy?

 

Catholicism's civil war rages on?

 How Catholics Celebrate Pride: Jesuit Pastor Defends Pride Mass Against Protests

New Ways Ministries

So much negative news regarding Pride seems to have arisen this year. For this final week of Pride Month, we are instead highlighting, in a series of posts titled “How Catholics Celebrate Pride,” all the good ways that the people of God are celebrating queerness and advocating for equality. Some of the content will be highly visible news events. Other bits will be the more local, somewhat quieter, but no less significant actions of pro-LGBTQ+ Catholics in their parishes, schools, and communities.

At Holy Trinity Church in Washington, D.C., the pastor, Fr. Kevin Gillespie, SJ, affirmed the parish’s commitment to its LGBTQ+ ministry after right-wing activists tried to have its 3rd annual LGBTQIA+ Pride Mass cancelled. Gillespie issued a brief statement:

“This celebration is an expression of our parish’s mission statement TO ACCOMPANY ONE ANOTHER IN CHRIST, CELEBRATE GOD’S LOVE, AND TRANSFORM LIVES. Our LGBTQIA+ ministry is a response to the Holy Father’s call to go out to the margins. Our celebration of Pride is not celebrating personal vanity, but the human dignity of a group of people who have been for too long the objects of violence, bullying and harassment. Our parish reaches out to LGBTQIA+ people as it reaches out to all Catholics in our area.”

The Pride Mass was celebrated as scheduled on June 14 with more than 250 people joining in person, uninterrupted by the small group of protestors gathered outside the church. Petula Dvorak, a columnist for The Washington Post, wrote about attending the Mass and conversing with some of the queer faithful there. Dvorak told the story of Joseph Chee

             “Chee, who went to Catholic school, who studied Carmelite theology, who belonged to conservative political groups and who knew for a good part of his 30 years that he was gay, had spent years searching for his place in the world and in a church that didn’t seem to want him.

“‘I felt very alienated from all the communities that I had,’ he said. ‘I felt deeply convinced that I wasn’t supposed to leave the church, you know? But I was like, “Where is my place?”‘

“But under the leadership of Pope Francis, who last year publicly rejected judgment of gay people, Chee sensed an opening.”

Dvorak spoke to longtime parishioners and newer ones at Holy Trinity. Cerissa Cafasso, a bisexual Catholic, explained: “[At this parish] I can be myself, my full person, with no throat clearing.” Dvorak also reported:

“‘It’s ridiculous,’ said a gay man who traveled about five hours to walk up those steps of Holy Trinity, to sit in a pew and to — finally — exhale.

“He’s in his 30s, lives in a conservative town in Pennsylvania, works at very conservative organization and is only out to his family. He asked me several times to preserve his anonymity in our interview.

“Deeply Catholic, he kept trying to go to church, knowing what he knows about himself, about what those in the pews next to him think of him. ‘I wouldn’t feel welcome,’ he said.

“Ever since he accidentally found Holy Trinity’s online Mass during the pandemic (he said his mouse bumped a tab and opened the link, he called it a ‘God sighting’) he’s been attending their services, online, then in person, making that drive. Five hours each way, as often as he can.

“His mom came with him on Wednesday, and they knelt together.”

A growing number of parishes have held Pride Masses in recent years, like New York City’s Church of St. Paul the Apostle, run by the Paulist Fathers. Once again, its LGBTQ+ group, Out at St. Paul, planned to hold a Mass near The Stonewall Inn in New York City, where, in 1969, riots against police raids led to the launch of the modern gay rights movement. (Due to the park’s closure, the Pride Mass ended up being celebrated at the church.) Michael O’Loughlin reported about other parish celebrations in America:

              “A parish in Hoboken, N.J., Our Lady of Grace and St. Joseph, will host a Pride Mass on June 25. In Seattle, Wash., St. Joseph Parish was scheduled to host a pride picnic on June 11, following the Saturday afternoon Mass, an event which has previously drawn scrutiny from conservative media. An art installation celebrating Pride is present again at Historic St. Paul Catholic Church in Lexington, Ky., which is intended to serve as a signal that the parish is welcoming to L.G.B.T. Catholics and their families. . .

“Meredith Augustin has helped plan the ‘Pre-Pride Mass,’ held the afternoon before the New York City’s pride parade, at St. Francis of Assisi Parish in Manhattan since its inception about a dozen years ago. The parish’s director of pastoral music and staff liaison to its L.G.B.T. ministry, Ms. Augustin said that in previous years, the Mass had attracted protesters, but the parish never considered canceling it. . .

“In Chicago, St. Teresa of Avila Parish has marked Pride for several years, the Rev. Frank Latzko told America.The pastor said that he tries to keep messages of solidarity and acceptance in his sermons all year, but the weekend of Chicago’s Pride parade, which attracts about a million spectators, counts as a special celebration.

“While there is not a special ‘Pride Mass,’ many parishioners attend Sunday Mass, at which Father Latzko delivers a topical homily, before making the walk over to the parade.”

—Robert Shine (he/him), New Ways Ministry, June 26, 2023

Hummingbirds vs. Darwin.

 

 Ingenious Artistry in the Origin of Hummingbirds

Wolf Eckhardt Lönnig

Please see below the Abstract of my recent article which asks, “Can Neo-Darwinism Explain the Origin and Variation of the Hummingbirds?”

Abstract

Richard Dawkins is one of the leading spokesmen for the evolutionary theory’s modern synthesis (neo-Darwinism). He is in full agreement with virtually all his colleagues when he asserts 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.” So, the entire array of the fascinatingly different 366 hummingbird species of the family Trochilidae, being “distinctly different than all other avians,” must have evolved by natural selection through — in Darwin’s words — “infinitesimally small changes,” “infinitesimally slight variations,” “insensibly fine steps,” and “insensibly fine gradations.” Many of those gradations are thought to have been due to mutations with only “invisible effects on the phenotype,” according to Ernst Mayr. However, 

“Even a new mutation that is slightly favorable will usually be lost in the first few generations after it appears in the population, a victim of genetic drift. If a new mutation has a selective advantage of S in the heterozygote in which it appears, then the chance is only 2S that the mutation will ever succeed in taking over the population. So, a mutation that is 1 percent better in fitness than the standard allele in the population will be lost 98 percent of the time by genetic drift.” (Emphasis added.)

Let us apply this method to individual hummingbird species, including their sexual dimorphism, and the corresponding flower formations of their nectar-producing host plants. Together these imply coordinated inter-kingdom mutations and interactions. Five examples will be discussed in the following article: (1) the strongly curved beaks of the two species of Eutoxeres, (2) Lophornis gouldii (the dot-eared coquette), (3) Docimastes ensifer (Gould) = Ensifera ensifera (the sword-billed hummingbird), (4) Sappho sparganurus (the red-tailed comet), and finally (5) Loddigesia mirabilis (the marvelous spatuletail). 

All five examples display sexual dimorphism. Now, sexual selection stands in clear opposition to natural selection. Here that is the case not only because of the fact that “conspicuously colored males preferentially fall victim to their enemies,” but also because their often astoundingly acrobatic behavior to impress the females necessitates a tremendous expenditure of energy for the show. Ontogenetically, it requires development of a strikingly showy and flamboyant plumage. In the present cases, displays by the males in color, size, and shape almost completely dwarf those of the females. (Compare with this the prime example of the phenomenon among the class Aves: the well-known peacock.)

      Moreover, to evolve a special preference for brightly colored males with specially formed short and/or long decorative feathers, sexual selection presupposes the occurrence of a series of highly unusual mutations in the females. For these mutations, however, there is not the slightest evidence. 

Now, let us look briefly at the species mentioned above, in reverse order. We begin with (5) Loddigesia, whose males possess two stunningly long tail feathers ending in large flat violet-blue discs (see the photo at the top of this article). To evolve in a process of continuous evolution, this would mean thousands of unknown mutations — mutations, again, with “slight or even invisible effects on the phenotype,” each new step implying the substitution of the entire population of birds. All this would have happened regularly in opposition to natural selection. The females, however, have been described as “not easily impressed” by the show of the males. So, one may ask: are there really decisive selective advantages for the survival of spatuletail populations due to changes of about 1 millionth of 1 meter or 1 thousandth of 1 mm of the male’s two tail feathers?

For each species, this immensely improbable process of continuous evolution implies thousands of mutations, with visible or invisible effects on the phenotype, each time selected with certainty by the respective females. This observation applies to (4) the “deeply forked, spectacular, long, iridescent, golden-reddish tail, longer than the length of the body,” of Sappho sparganurus (the red-tailed comet); (3) the enormously long bill distinctive of Docimastes ensifer (the sword-billed hummingbird); (2) the “long dark rufous feathers [that] on its crown form a crest” plus the “long white feathers with shiny green dots [that] make tufts that fan out and back on the cheeks” of Lophornis gouldii (the dot-eared coquette); and (1) the strongly curved beaks of the two species of Eutoxeres (the sicklebills), seemingly in coordination with the flower forms of Centropogon and Heliconia.

If neo-Darwinian theory cannot explain even differences between the hummingbirds themselves (including their sexual dimorphism), what then can we expect when it comes to the origin of the entire family of this anatomically and physiologically well-defined group of birds? From an evolutionary standpoint, we must agree with many hummingbird researchers, including the clear statement of Jillian Mock, that “the origins of hummingbirds are still a major mystery.”

With this in mind, we turn to the theory of intelligent design (ID). According to Stephen Meyer, “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” ID, writes Michael Behe, is usually recognized by “a purposeful arrangement of parts.” In what follows I argue that the origin of hummingbirds reflects brilliant, ingenious artistry, not the work of an endless number of infinitesimally small coincidences, haphazardly chained together by the “truly hideous process” of natural selection, “rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror,” etc. 

In contrast with neo-Darwinism, I conclude that an absolutely ingenious artist was at work here, transcending all human abilities, ideas, and powers.

For all details and references, please see,

“Can Neo-Darwinism Explain the Origin and Variation of the Hummingbirds?”

Time for a paradigm shift re: Origin of Life science?

 

Isaiah ch.6 demystified.

   Isaiah Saw His Glory:

 A few trinitarians attempt to use Is. 6 and John 12:41 as trinitarian evidence.  They point out that Isaiah "saw" Jehovah (Is. 6:5).  And at John 12:41 John says that Isaiah said the things quoted at John 12:38 and 12:40 "because he saw his glory and spoke about him" - NEB.  Although these few trinitarians tell us it's very clear that John 12 is all about Jesus, and, therefore, the glory of Jehovah seen by Isaiah is really the glory of Jesus --- it's not quite that "clear."

First, John 12 is not entirely about Jesus alone.  We find several references in it to the Father (12:26, 28, 49, 50).  Therefore, when John speaks of "his glory," he could mean either the Father's glory or the Messiah's glory.

Let's examine the scriptures in question - Jn 12:37-41 (NEB):

"In spite of the many signs which Jesus had performed in their presence they would not believe in him, for the prophet Isaiah's utterance had to be fulfilled:

"`Lord, who has believed what we reported, and to whom has the Lord's power been revealed?'

[John is quoting Is. 53:1.  Is. 53 is well-known as a reference to the Messiah's suffering and dying for mankind and it also clearly shows that the Messiah is not Jehovah - Is. 53:2, 4, 6, 10.]

"So it was that they could not believe, for there is another saying of Isaiah's:

"`He has blinded their eyes and dulled their minds, lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their minds, and turn to me to heal them.'

"Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke about him."

So whose glory did John say Isaiah had seen?  The glory of the Messiah (Is. 53 and other places in Isaiah) or God's glory (Is. 6 and other places in Isaiah)?

Jn 12:41 in the very trinitarian  NIV Study Bible, 1985, Zondervan:  "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him."*  And the footnote for this verse in this trinitarian study Bible says concerning Jesus' glory in this verse:

".... The thought of glory here is complex.  There is the idea of majesty, and there is also the idea (which meant so much to John) that Jesus' death on the cross and his subsequent resurrection and exaltation show his real glory.  Isaiah foresaw the rejection of Christ, as the passages quoted (Is. 53:1; 6:10) show.  He spoke of the Messiah both in the words about blind eyes and hard hearts, on the one hand, and about healing, on the other.  This is the cross and this is the glory, for the cross and the resurrection and exaltation portray both suffering and healing, rejection and triumph, humiliation and glory."

............................................................................
*   The ETRV says: "because he saw his (Jesus') glory.  So Isaiah spoke about him (Jesus)."  The GNB says: "because he saw Jesus' glory...."  The NLV says: "Isaiah said when he saw the shining-greatness of Jesus..."   The LB says: "for he had seen a vision of the Messiah's glory."  Phillips says: "because he saw the glory of Christ..."  And the NAB (`70) says: "because he had seen Jesus' glory...."
............................................................................


The Daily Study Bible Series: The Gospel of John, Vol. 2, by famed trinitarian scholar and Bible translator Dr. William Barclay, 1975 ed., p. 81, also tells us:

"Again and again in the fourth Gospel Jesus talks of his glory in connection with the cross.  John tells us in 7:39 that the Spirit had not yet come because Jesus was not yet glorified, that is to say, because he had not yet died upon his cross.  When the Greeks came to him, Jesus said:  `The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified' (John 12:23).  And it was of his Cross that he spoke, for he went on to speak of the corn [kernel] of wheat which must fall into the ground and die.  In John 12:16 John says that the disciples remembered these things after Jesus had been glorified, that is after he had died and risen again.  In the Fourth Gospel it is clear that Jesus regarded the Cross both as his Supreme glory and as the way to glory."

So we see noted trinitarian scholar Dr. William Barclay also explaining that Jesus' sacrificial death was understood by John to be Jesus' Glory.  Isaiah saw that Glory (sacrificial death) and told of it in his writing (including Is. 53).

[Additional information by Timo Koonstra (Belgium):

May I add something a friend of mine discovered:

The glory referred to may well be near the Isaiah 53 passage, and even clearer just before verse 1, namely 2:13, 14 where the word glory is used three times in the LXX (doxa), twice as a verb. Since the chapter break between chapter 52 and 53 is very badly chosen, I feel this is what John had in mind.

I quote these Isaiah verses from an English translation of the LXX:

(52:13) Behold, my servant shall understand, and be exalted, and glorified exceedingly. (14) As many shall be amazed at thee, so shall thy face be without glory from men, and thy glory shall not be honoured by the sons of men.  (15) Thus shall many nations wonder at him; and kings shall keep their mouths shut: for they to whom no report was brought concerning him, shall see; and they who have not heard, shall consider.  (53:1) O Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 

I think this fits very well with what John stated.

On ID and reductionism.

 Understanding “Reductionism” and Intelligent Design

Daniel Witt

The burgeoning field of “systems biology,” as defined by the National Institutes of Health (NIH),

is an approach in biomedical research to understanding the larger picture — be it at the level of the organism, tissue, or cell — by putting its pieces together. It’s in stark contrast to decades of reductionist biology, which involves taking the pieces apart.

I’m sure that statement is designed to make systems biology sound radical and exciting, and it succeeds. It’s especially exciting for proponents of intelligent design, because ID theorists have been arguing against reductionism in biology for a long time. 

But we need to be careful. We don’t want to make an argument based on an equivocation. The word “reductionism” is thrown around a lot, but it can mean several different things. It’s not as simple as saying, “Biologists are learning that reductionism is bad!” 

As it turns out, the move away from reductionism in systems biology is significant for the ID debate, but not simply by word-association. So I want to take some time to suss out the different meanings of the word “reductionism” and what they have to do with intelligent design.  

There are two kinds of reductionism that are relevant to this discussion: methodological reductionism and ontological reductionism. (For a third kind, epistemological reductionism, see this Cartoon.) The opposing philosophies are, respectively, methodological antireductionism and ontological antireductionism. The terms are a bit eye-splitting, but they aren’t difficult to understand. 

Methodological Reductionism

Methodological reductionism is the idea that a thing can best be understood by breaking it down into its parts. The contrary philosophy, methodological antireductionism, says that a thing can be best understood by looking at it as a whole. 

The opposing views are summed up nicely in a conversation between the wizards Saruman and Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings. Saruman shows Gandalf his new rainbow-colored outfit and tells him that he has decided to stop going by “Saruman the White” and go by “Saruman of Many Colours” instead.  

“I liked white better,” says Gandalf. 

“White!” Saruman sneers. “It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken.” 

“In which case it is no longer white,” says Gandalf. “And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.” 

Saruman is a methodological reductionist and Gandalf is a methodological antireductionist. 

Methodological reductionism: “The white light can be broken.” 

Methodological antireductionism: “He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.”

Ontological Reductionism

Ontological reductionism, on the other hand, is not about the best way to study something, but rather about what that thing “really is” at the deepest level. Ontological reductionism says that a thing can be reduced to its most basic parts, and that’s what it is — nothing more. According to this theory, a tree is a collection of cells, which in turn are collections of molecules, which are collections of atoms, which are collections of subatomic particles. So in the final analysis, a “tree” is a collection of subatomic particles. 

This view, and its antithesis, is expressed in C. S. Lewis’s Voyage of the Dawn Treader. On an island near the edge of the world, the characters meet a being named Ramandu who claims to be a star.

“In our world,” Eustace Scrubb objects, “a star is a huge ball of flaming gas.”

“Even in your world, my son,” replies Ramandu, “that is not what a star is but only what it is made of.”

Eustace is an ontological reductionist and Ramandu is an ontological antireductionist. (And if Ramandu’s statement seems mind-bending or baffling, that’s because most of us were educated into ontological reductionism.)

Ontological reductionism: “A star is a huge ball of flaming gas.”

Ontological antireductionism: “That is not what a star is but only what it is made of.”  

Gandalf Points to Ramandu

The field of systems biology is methodologically antireductionist. It does not have to be ontologically antireductionist. So, systems biologists do not necessarily reject materialism or physicalism. They do not have to believe in minds, or be willing to posit neo-Platonic souls of cabbages, or think the true meaning of a mushroom can only be found in its wholeness. 

They have simply found it to be the case that looking at living organisms as complete systems yields better results than only taking them apart to focus on their bare components. Researchers are coming to realize that it is more productive to think about the plan of an organism than simply about its physical structure or components. 

But this is important, because whether systems biologists always admit it or not, methodological antireductionism implies ontological antireductionism. Gandalf agrees with Ramandu, not Eustace.  

That’s not to say that ontological antireductionism logically follows from methodological antireductionism, or vice versa. In theory, you could have one without the other. But the success of methodological antireductionism fulfills a prediction of the hypothesis of ontological antireductionism.

That is: if there really is a plan, then you would naturally suppose that looking for a plan would turn out to be a great strategy, and that proceeding as if there were no plan would not be a great strategy. And that is the reality. It turns out that when you take a creature apart to see what it’s parts are, you see a bunch of parts; but when you take a step back and look for a plan, you find a plan

This Is What Intelligent Design Predicts

Intelligent design is a sub-type of ontological antireductionism. To be exact, it is one way of answering the question “if a thing isn’t just the sum of its parts, then what is it?” ID proposes that (at least some) natural entities are more than the sum of their parts because they are ultimately an expression of an idea in a conscious mind. If this is true, then you would predict those entities to be best understood by grasping the idea behind them; you would try to see the scheme, the purpose, the outline, the plan. 

The neo-Darwinian model, in contrast, does not inherently lead to this prediction, because the mechanism of natural selection and random variation is, by definition, an uncoordinated piling-up of useful features, whereas a “plan” is the coordination of useful features. (Michael Behe’s three books and Marcos Eberlin’s Foresight explore this idea in depth.)

This is not proof of the design hypothesis, but it is evidence for it. In fact, this sort of evidence is one of the pillars of the scientific method: the strength of a scientific hypothesis depends on its ability to make predictions that are borne out by investigation. Based on that criterion, the hypothesis of intelligent design is doing very well. The hypothesis of mindless evolution is not doing so well, because although mindless processes might generate great complexity, they do not make plans.

Some systems biologists may want to reject Saruman but stay with Eustace; to reap the practical benefits of methodological antireductionism while avoiding the philosophical costs. But they may find that stance difficult to maintain. An unwary systems biologist could easily drift over to Ramandu’s Island, where the ID theorists are waiting. 

The mind is as real as the brain?

 Consciousness Observes Different Laws from Physics

Evolution News

Robert Lawrence Kuhn interviewed British philosopher and pastor Keith Ward on “What’s the Stuff of Mind and Brain?” Ward is an idealist philosopher who “believes that the material universe is an expression or creation of a Supreme Mind, namely that of God.” 

He explains how we can know that the mind is not simply what the brain does. One way is that the mind or consciousness functions according to different rules:

Kuhn: [5:53] Keith, what is it that we need to combine with the brain to make this non-material consciousness?

Ward: [6:04] Well, you need — what Buddhists would say is — thoughts and feelings and sensations and perceptions. And this is a stream of, believe it or not, consciousness. And that is something which is at least partly produced by the brain. It’s causally correlated with events in the brain, that is to say, but it also has its own psychical or spiritual or mental forms of causation.

So let me give you one example. [6:35] If I go through a mathematical calculation, I don’t know what’s happening in my brain at all. And I don’t believe that when I get a logically correct result and I say — amazingly, 2 plus two does equal 4 — I don’t believe that that is produced by purely physical laws in the brain. It is a logical calculation and there are laws of thought which produce it. So that’s what you need.

Kuhn: [6:57] So Keith, do you need something like a soul to combine with the brain to make consciousness?

Ward: [7:04] That’s a loaded word. I think the most important distinction I would make is between the laws of physics, which are mechanical in the sense they’re not directed, they’re not for the sake of anything, they’re just proceeding in accordance with mathematical equations … To contrast the laws of physics with the laws of thought, which you use in mathematical calculations for example, … you’ve got a criterion of correctness… the laws of mathematical and logical thinking are not reducible to or statable in terms of laws of physics or of any known science. So there must at least be two completely different ways of understanding what human beings are, a physical way and a way concerned with thinking — and I would say feeling and perception as well. And these you have to put these two together and I believe that nobody on Earth knows how to do that.

Ward is stressing that it is only in the intellectual world that concepts like correct vs. incorrect (or right vs. wrong) are meaningful. That’s a different world from the one created by physics. The unacknowledged difference between the two is one of the reasons materialist philosophies are not working out well in the study of consciousness.

The case for design is muscular?

The Incredible Design of Muscles

Andrew McDiarmid  

To understand the limitations of evolutionary mechanisms, we have to “bite the bullet of complexity,” as biochemist Michael Behe writes. And to appreciate complexity, we have to experience it. On a new episode of ID the Future, Dr. Jonathan McLatchie takes host Andrew McDiarmid on a deep dive into the structure and biochemistry of muscles to gain a better understanding of their incredible design properties.

McLatchie provides an overview of the key parts of muscles, including muscle fibers, connective tissue, and tendons. He describes the two different types of muscles — antagonists and synergists — and provides examples of each. Then he explains the integration of muscle function: how muscle contraction involves the nervous, respiratory, circulatory, and skeletal systems all working together in tandem. 

Did you know our brain predicts and corrects discrepancies between our intended and actual muscle movements? McLatchie explains this remarkable feature and also describes muscle sense and muscle memory. He gives us a taste of the complexity of muscle function at the biochemical level. And while we’re reeling from all that, he explains why all this engineering prowess is fiendishly difficult to explain through evolutionary mechanisms but hardly surprising within an intelligent design framework. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

The deep state is a thing?

 

Hippos vs. Darwin

 Notes on the Mysterious Origin of Hippos

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig

Please consider the Abstract of my recently published paper, “Hippo Origin: Accidental DNA Mutations or Ingenious Design?”

Abstract

“To call hippos ‘charming’ may seem a bit of a stretch,”  comments,national Geographic “but they are most certainly among the classic charismatic megafauna of the African continent.” Although the hippos (Hippopotamus amphibius L.) are not a major focus of attention in evolutionary biology, it may nevertheless be quite revealing to appreciate some points about the history of these powerful animals:

The family Hippopotamidae appears abruptly in the fossil record — like all the other groups that I have so far investigated in detail. See here for many more examples.

As compared to the variation possible within living species such as humans and others (see below), the two subfamilies and most of the hippo genera and species, which have been determined solely on the basis of anatomical and morphological criteria, may simply have been special populations of Mendelian recombinants from a genetical point of view (i.e., according to the genetical species concept). These recombinants (putative new subfamilies, species, and genera) also appear abruptly in the fossil record.

The evolutionary derivation currently favored by most paleontologists, of the Hippopotamidae from Anthracotheriidae, has been disproved by the detailed investigations of researcher Martin Pickford (for instance 2009, 2011, 2022). However, his alternative, the Doliochoeridae as ancestors of the hippos, is equally doubtful. 

All three families mentioned above appear abruptly in the fossil record and subsequently display constancy or stasis over long periods of time.[1] In no case is there any documentation of a continuous evolution of one family from another by “infinitesimally small changes” (Darwin) or by mutations with “slight or even invisible effects on the phenotype” (Mayr). Otherwise, there would be no contradictory evolutionary derivations.The popular rejoinder asserts the incompleteness of the fossil record as the reason for these phenomena. But this rejoinder has in principlebeen refuted by (among many others) paleontologist Oskar Kuhn. As Kuhn states, “in many animal groups such a rich, even overwhelming amount of fossil material exists (foraminifers, corals, brachiopods, bryozoans, cephalopods, ostracods, trilobites, etc.), thatthe gaps between the types and subtypes must be viewed as real.” There is no reason that it would be different in the hippos if we had more fossils. The evolutionary “ghost lineage” will forever continue to consist mostly of “ghosts.”

Evolutionary hypotheses and derivations reflect circular reasoning, and cladistics has not refuted this objection. Note that, “Decisions as to whether particular character states are homologous, a precondition of their being synapomorphies, have been challenged as involving circular reasoning and subjective judgements.” And now according to transformed cladistics “it is a mistake to believe even that one fossil species or fossil ‘group’ can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another” (Nelson).

The truth about hippo origins — apart from the abrupt appearance of this (and virtually all other) families in the fossil record, and drawn from their ingenious blueprints involving structures of irreducible complexity in probably all groups and generally enormous amounts of specified complexity on all biological levels (morphology, anatomy, physiology and genetics) — points to intelligent, ingenious design. Indeed, Georges Cuvier, as the “founding father of paleontology,” as well as renowned researchers such as Louis Agassiz, have argued for “One Supreme Intelligence as the Author of all things.”

You will find a discussion of these and many other  at  “Hippo Origin: Accidental DNA Mutations or Ingenious Design?”

A wizard among titans?

 

The technology of JEHOVAH?

 

Do not forget JEHOVAH our God.

 Deuteronomy Ch.6:10-12 ASV"And it shall be, when JEHOVAH thy God shall bring thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee, great and goodly cities, which thou buildest not, 11and houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and cisterns hewn out, which thou hewedst not, vineyards and olive-trees, which thou plantedst not, and thou shalt eat and be full; 12then beware lest thou forget JEHOVAH, who brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage"

Never forget JEHOVAH our God who freed us from religious confusion and gave us this marvelous estate of spiritual abundance virtually all of which is the work of others.

Design deniers remain gatekeepers of the agrora?

 Healthy Debate? No Thanks, Says National Association of Biology Teachers

Herman B Bouma

A recent article here by Wesley J. Smith highlighted how mainstream science seeks to stifle opposition instead of encouraging open and honest debate. The article reminded me of a recent experience I had involving the Board of Directors of the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT).

Nothing Unscientific About Design

When I attended the annual conference of the NABT in November 2023, I met Amanda Townley, the president-elect of the NABT. During our conversation I mentioned I had a proposal for amending the NABT Position Statement on Teaching Evolution and I asked her what was the procedure for proposing an amendment to a Position Statement. She asked what it concerned and I said it was a clarification that there is nothing unscientific about a theory of design, including in the field of biology. She said only members of the Board of Directors could propose Position Statements or amendments thereto, but she said she would be willing to present my proposal at an upcoming meeting of the Board. She asked me to send her an explanation of the proposal. The explanation I sent to her is set forth below.

Proposal by Herman B. Bouma for Amending NABT Position Statement on Teaching Evolution

I highly recommend that the NABT Position Statement on Teaching Evolution be amended to make clear that there is nothing inherently unscientific about a theory of design, including in the field of biology.

Suppose an American geologist went to England to study its rock formations and happened to come upon Stonehenge. As a scientist, is he precluded from theorizing that Stonehenge is the result of design? If he cannot refer to design, then he might come up with a theory that Stonehenge is the result of a volcanic eruption or the result of deposition by an ancient river. Those are certainly theories, but not very good ones. 

As a scientist, the geologist might have a predilection to explain Stonehenge in terms of natural processes. However, given what he knows about natural processes and given the layout of the stones in Stonehenge, and realizing science should not rule out any logical possibility, he would rightly conclude that design is the best explanation.

Many well-known scientists have had no problem theorizing about design in biology:

Darwin himself theorized that the first forms of life (at most, 8-10 forms) were the result of design;

Alfred Russel Wallace, who came up with a theory of natural selection at the same time as Darwin, later abandoned that theory and instead subscribed to a theory of design;

Louis Agassiz, a leading naturalist at Harvard University and “the father of the American scientific tradition,” opposed Darwin’s theory of natural selection and subscribed to a theory of design;

Even Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary atheist, has theorized that DNA might be the result of design (by space aliens);

Dr. Sudip Parikh, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, addressed the concept of design when he spoke at the National Press Club on April 5, 2021. A questioner noted that Darwin himself theorized that the very first forms of life were the result of design and asked Dr. Parikh if theorizing about design in nature is unscientific. Instead of stating that it is unscientific, he said we should be teaching our students to follow the evidence, “wherever that evidence takes them.”

Of course, if a theory of design is presented in a science classroom of a public school in the United States, then, given the separation of church and state required by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the theory cannot identify the designer with any particular religion.

Acknowledging that there is nothing unscientific about a theory of design in biology would go a long way toward restoring trust in science, which is now seen by many as ignoring the obvious (design).

In an email to me on February 8, 2024, Ms. Townley (now the president of the NABT) informed me that she presented my proposal for amending the NABT Position Statement on Teaching Evolution at the January 2024 meeting of the Board of Directors. She said, “The board heard the proposal and voted to decline the amendment.”

I replied, “Could the Board give me its reasons for declining the amendment? In particular, could it respond to the arguments set forth in my statement supporting the proposal? That would be much appreciated.”

She replied, “The board declined discussion of the amendment and unanimously declined to amend the statement, therefore there are no counter arguments available to share.”

No Debate, Please; We’re Biology Teachers

In an email on February 9, 2024, I replied that I was “very disappointed the Board wasn’t interested in engaging in a healthy debate on the issue of design, especially since Louis Agassiz and Charles Darwin thought there was nothing unscientific about it.” I stated that scientists and science teachers should be interested in promoting debate, not stifling it. I also noted, “If the NABT is sincerely interested in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, it should promote the inclusion of those who share the perspective of Louis Agassiz and Charles Darwin, i.e., that design is a legitimate scientific concept.”

In an email to Ms. Townley on February 22, 2024, I again expressed my disappointment that the Board did not give any reasons for its rejection of my proposal and stated that “I would find it very helpful if you, or someone else at the NCSE [National Center for Science Education], could prepare for me a brief response to the arguments I presented in my proposal.” (I should note that, in addition to being the new president of the NABT, Ms. Townley is now also the new executive director of the NCSE.)

In a response the same day, Ms. Townley thanked me for my email but stated, “As noted previously, the Board deemed that the matter did not warrant discussion or debate and unanimously declined discussion. Your disappointment at that outcome is noted, however, no further discussion or argumentation will be provided.” Like the Board, neither she nor the NCSE had any interest in discussing or debating the question of whether design is a legitimate scientific concept in the field of biology.

It is clear that one way mainstream science seeks to stifle opposition is by simply refusing to discuss or debate opposing views. 

The body's war machine vs. Darwin.

 Newly Discovered War Machines in the Immune System

David Coppedge

An armored terrorist lurks in the city. Suddenly, thousands of pieces of sticky rope fly at him from all directions. They bind together, immobilizing him in a net. The net dissolves the intruder’s armor, and simultaneously signals for miniature robotic snipers who land on the net, using it as a scaffold. They fire armor-penetrating bullets through the net and into the terrorist’s compromised armor. Reinforcements install kill switches inside his body, forcing the terrorist to commit involuntary suicide.

Something like that describes a newly discovered molecular machine that helps fight infectious pathogens in our body cells. The news from Yale University says:

Yale scientists have discovered a family of immune proteins, which they describe as a “massive molecular machine,” that could affect the way our bodies fight infection. 

The immune proteins forming the net around the pathogen are called guanylate binding proteins, or GBPs. They have been known for a decade, but their mode of operation was only recently uncovered by Yale researchers. A short video shows these GBP1 proteins (the sticky ropes) as yellow pillar-shaped dimers rushing in, unfolding and linking up, surrounding the outer membrane of a bacterium (its armor). In short order the bacterium is surrounded with an inescapable straitjacket. There can be up to 30,000 of these proteins enclosing the pathogen in a type of body bag.

“What we found is among the most impressive examples of a biological machine in action that I’ve ever seen,” said John MacMicking, a professor of microbial pathogenesis and of immunobiology at Yale, and an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. MacMicking is senior author of the study.

The bacterial cell wall armor is no match for the immune system’s armor-piercing bullets. Even bacteria able to modify the lipopolysaccharides (LPS) that comprise the outer membrane (OM) have no chance. GBP1 knows all the configurations.

Human GBP1 still targeted cytosolic Stm [Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium] irrespective of bacterial size, shape, motility, or OM composition; the latter spanned LPS chains of different length, charge, and chemical structure. Such broad ligand promiscuity may help GBP1 combat gram-negative pathogens that modify their LPS moiety in an attempt to evade innate immune recognition and antimicrobial killing.

With the pathogen’s armor covered, the GBP proteins work to disentangle the lipopolysaccharide threads of the outer membrane. Having detected the help signal, reinforcements come in, firing caspase-4 grenades and interferon-γ kill switches into the bacterium, forcing it to commit pyroptosis, a form of programmed cell death.

“We are literally observing Mother Nature at work, looking at how these proteins operate in 3-dimensional space and at a particular location,” said MacMicking. “In just a few minutes they unfold and insert into the bacterial membrane to form a truly remarkable nanomachine and innate immune signaling platform.”

The bacteria coated with GBP straitjackets can be as small as 750 billionths of a meter (nanometers). The scientists found that this body-bag method works on bacteria regardless of shape. It works on viruses, too.

Imaging Design in Detail

This discovery was only made possible by recent advances in imaging technology. With cryo-electron microscopy, the researchers were able to “slice” whole live cells that had been quick-frozen. The resulting slices were assembled into tomograms, giving glimpses of heretofore unseen realities at work inside our body cells.

Our immune system mobilizes numerous proteins to detect viruses and bacteria — and to bring them under control. But until recently, limits to research technology have thwarted scientists’ understanding of how to prevent different pathogens from occupying and replicating within specific parts of our cells in the first place.

Harnessing the latest cryo‐electron microscopy techniques to look inside human cells, researchers at the Yale Systems Biology Institute have identified a family of large immune proteins that assemble into a massive signaling platform directly on the surface of microbial pathogens.

The researchers say they found thousands of GBPs building what amounted to a coat of armor (GBP1 coat complex) around the bacteria, allowing other defense proteins to recognize and kill encapsulated bacteria as well as mobilize immune cells for protection.

This reinforces an ID expectation that the more detail revealed, the more the design evidence becomes apparent. Evolution may look plausible from afar, but the angel is in the details. 

How Reinforcements Are Called

After the bacterium is immobilized, the GBP1 straitjacket becomes a scaffold for snipers to dismantle the intruder’s armor. The GBP family of proteins serve not only as the sticky ropes coating the intruder and disrupting its armor; they are also equipped with radios to call in the snipers and bomb squad. These proteins install the kill switches.

Thus, insertion of human GBP1 seems to disrupt lateral LPS-LPS interactions to compromise OM integrity. This not only activates the caspase-4 inflammasome pathway but allows the passage of small antimicrobial proteins such as APOL3 to directly kill pathogenic bacteria.

Human GBP1 was found to be “obligate for initiating the entire signaling cascade,” the scientists found via knockout experiments. It’s the captain in command.

Irreducible Complexity in Peace and War

ID advocates enjoy the examples of irreducible complexity (IC) in peacetime: the ATP synthase motor, kinesin, and the DNA translation mechanism. But when intruders threaten the life of a cell or its host organism, IC can fight with lethal intensity in an “all hands on deck!” war campaign. Its armed forces are always at the ready.

An emerging paradigm for innate immune signaling cascades is the higher-order assembly of repetitive protein units that generate large polymers capable of amplifying signal transduction. Our results identify human GBP1 as the principal repetitive unit, numbering thousands of proteins per bacillus, that undergoes dramatic conformational opening to establish a host defense platform directly on the surface of gram-negative bacteria. This platform enabled the recruitment of other immune partners, including GBP family members and components of the inflammasome pathway, that initiate protective responses downstream of activating cytokines such as interferon-γ. Elucidating this giant molecular structure not only expands our understanding of how human cells recognize and combat infection but may also have implication for antibacterial approaches within the human population.

Isn’t it nice to know that “eukaryotes have evolved compartment-specific immune surveillance mechanisms that alert the host to infection and recruit antimicrobial proteins that help bring microbial replication under control”? Actually, Charles Darwin never proved that his proposed mechanism of natural selection was capable of creating anything beyond simple variation within a species. His use of rhetoric and the analogy of domestic breeding was recognized even by his contemporaries as a mere suggestive hypothesis lacking scientific demonstration. 

Robert Shedinger shows this in Darwin’s own words in the new book Darwin’s Bluff. Aware that the Origin of Species was a “mere abstract” falling short scientific standards, Darwin promised a “big book” with the evidence. But he never published one. Why? Shedinger suggests he knew the evidence was lacking, and he was afraid of criticism. Instead, he relied on friends to promote his views. Darwin’s friends ran with “natural selection” as an all-purpose can opener to explain nature without an intelligent designer, using imagination and storytelling instead of hard evidence. In my experience reading the best of neo-Darwinian explanations, that’s still all they have to offer. Demonstration of selection’s alleged creative power is lacking, especially for irreducibly complex “massive molecular machines” like this one.

The discovery of a multi-component system able to mount a coordinated response to a threat speaks instead of Foresight: preparedness for a future eventuality. Darwin’s mechanism has no foresight or goal. At best, it can only preserve what it already has. Our uniform experience with foresight is that it is a capability of designing intelligence. That is Undeniable.

Zechariah 2:10-15 demystified

 3a.    Zechariah 2:10-15

This is virtually the same ‘proof’ as that of Is. 48:16 above.

Here is how it was presented to me (in blue) and my response.

“So who was the Jehovah that sent Jehovah in Zechariah 2:10, 11...It was Jehovah who declared this...are you saying Jehovah (the only God...the Father) was sent to tabernacle with us, by Jehovah (the only God...the Father)? Please answer this...YHVH declared it. He was being sent by YHVH...which one is the Father or both or is one the Word (who would also be YHVH but not the Father)? Please exegete this passage…”

This is the same as the Trinitarian argument that Is. 48:16 shows two different persons as Jehovah.

Similarly, we may note that various Trinitarian scholars have shown by quotation marks and use of parentheses that the “sent me” passages in Zechariah also do not refer to Yahweh.

The Jerusalem Bible uses parentheses to separate these passages from the words spoken by Yahweh.

The New Jerusalem Bible uses quotations marks to show where Jehovah’s words start and end. The passages in question are not included.

An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed) also uses quotation marks to show Jehovah’s words. The passages in question are not included in them.

The Good News Bible also uses quotation marks to show that YHWH did not speak the words in the passages including “sent me.”

The Bible: A New Translation (Dr. James Moffatt) uses both quotation marks and Parentheses to separate the words of Yahweh from those of the "sent me" passage.

The Contemporary English Version shows Yahweh speaking in Zech. 2:6-7. The rest of Zechariah 2 are the words of the prophet.

The Easy-to-Read Version also shows Jehovah speaking in Zech. 2:6-7, but all the parts that refer to knowing the prophet was sent by Jehovah are spoken by the prophet.

Remember Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, for example, informs Bible readers: 

“The language of the MESSENGER frequently glides into that of the SENDER, e.g. Gen. 16:10 …Zech 2:8-11.” and, “what a SERVANT says or does is ascribed to the MASTER.” - “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation” - Preface.

The original manuscripts had no punctuation and this has to be added by the translator as he sees fit.

The point is that these were translated by Trinitarian scholars for a (mostly) Trinitarian readership! They certainly would not have taken a real Trinitarian ‘proof’ and neutralized it!

This was followed by this response (in blue) followed by my answer:

“The absolutely non-Trinitarian Masoretic Text has this in verses 14, 15 and literally reads in English... "14 'Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD. 15 And many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people, and I will dwell in the midst of thee'; and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee.” 

This quote is from JPS, 1917 (Margolis). If you are going to quote from a source, you should identify it.

First, the Masoretic Text has YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah) instead of ‘LORD.’

Second, the JPS, 1917 translation you quote says:

(2:12) For thus saith the LORD of hosts who sent me after glory unto the nations which spoiled you: 'Surely, he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye. (2:13) For, behold, I will shake My hand over them, and they shall be a spoil to those that served them'; and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me. (2:14) 'Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD. (2:15) And many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day, and shall be My people, and I will dwell in the midst of thee'; and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee.

Notice the quotation marks this translation uses for Yahweh’s words (highlighted in red). They start at the end of verse 12 and end at ‘that served them’ near the end of verse 13. Then again they start at the beginning of verse 14 and end at ‘midst of thee’ in verse 15. The words following these quotes are the words of the prophet.

Posted by Elijah Daniels