Romans Ch.2 NWTSB

 2.1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are,+ if you judge; for when you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things.+ 2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in harmony with truth, against those who practice such things.

3 But do you suppose, O man, that while you judge those who practice such things and yet you do them, you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of his kindness+ and forbearance+ and patience,+ because you do not know that God in his kindness is trying to lead you to repentance?+ 5 But according to your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and of the revealing of God’s righteous judgment.+ 6 And he will pay back to each one according to his works:+ 7 everlasting life to those who are seeking glory and honor and incorruptibleness+ by endurance in work that is good; 8 however, for those who are contentious and who disobey the truth but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and anger.+ 9 There will be tribulation and distress on every person who works what is harmful, on the Jew first and also on the Greek; 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who works what is good, for the Jew first+ and also for the Greek.+ 11 For there is no partiality with God.+

12 For all those who sinned without law will also perish without law;+ but all those who sinned under law will be judged by law.+ 13 For the hearers of law are not the ones righteous before God, but the doers of law will be declared righteous.+ 14 For when people of the nations, who do not have law,+ do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. 15 They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their own thoughts they are being accused or even excused. 16 This will take place in the day when God through Christ Jesus judges the secret things of mankind,+ according to the good news I declare.

17 If, now, you are a Jew in name+ and rely on law and take pride in God, 18 and you know his will and approve of things that are excellent* because you are instructed out of the Law,+ 19 and you are convinced that you are a guide of the blind, a light for those in darkness, 20 a corrector of the unreasonable ones, a teacher of young children, and having the framework of the knowledge and of the truth in the Law— 21 do you, however, the one teaching someone else, not teach yourself?+ You, the one preaching, “Do not steal,”+ do you steal? 22 You, the one saying, “Do not commit adultery,”+ do you commit adultery? You, the one abhorring idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who take pride in law, do you dishonor God by your transgressing of the Law? 24 For “the name of God is being blasphemed among the nations because of you,” just as it is written.+

25 Circumcision+ is, in fact, of benefit only if you practice law;+ but if you are a transgressor of law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 If, therefore, an uncircumcised person+ keeps the righteous requirements of the Law, his uncircumcision will be counted as circumcision, will it not?+ 27 And the physically uncircumcised person will, by carrying out the Law, judge you who are a transgressor of law despite having its written code and circumcision. 28 For he is not a Jew who is one on the outside,+ nor is circumcision something on the outside, on the flesh.+ 29 But he is a Jew who is one on the inside,+ and his circumcision is that of the heart+ by spirit and not by a written code.+ That person’s praise comes from God, not from people.+

Be thankful for your shoulders' flawless design.

 Is the Human Shoulder Badly Designed?

Jonathan Wells

Editor’s note: We are saddened by the passing of our friend and colleague, the iconoclastic biologist Jonathan Wells. As a tribute, we are presenting some highlights from his work.

A few months ago, I fell and dislocated my left shoulder. My upper arm bone was put back in its socket the same day, but then I spent months in physical therapy to regain full function. In the process, I have learned a lot about an amazing joint that I previously took for granted.

The drawing below shows only part of the human shoulder’s anatomy. Not shown is the large deltoid muscle, which overlies the shoulder joint and connects the upper arm bone (humerus) to the collarbone (clavicle) and the shoulder blade (scapula). Also not shown is the trapezius muscle across the back, which connects the left and right scapulas. Both the deltoid and the trapezius play important roles in stabilizing the joint. 

Image source: National Institute Of Arthritis And Musculoskeletal And Skin Diseases (NIAMS); SVG version by Angelito7, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Anatomy of the Shoulder Joint

In the drawing, yellow indicates bone, red indicates muscle, blue indicates tendon, and purple indicates bursa (a fluid-filled cushion). The dashed black lines indicate the hidden ball-and-socket joint between the humerus and the scapula. Unlike the hip joint, in which the ball is deeper in the socket, the shoulder joint is more open. This means the shoulder joint is less stable than the hip joint, but it is also much more flexible. In fact, it is the most flexible joint in the human body. 

The biceps muscle at the lower left gets its name from the fact that it has two heads. One attaches, through a tendon and a small bursa, near the top of the humerus. The other head attaches to the coracoid process, an extension of the scapula. The lower end of the biceps muscle is attached to the forearm. Although it is primarily involved in moving the forearm, its divided head helps to stabilize the shoulder joint.

Both the flexibility and stability of the shoulder joint are due primarily to the muscles of the “rotator cuff,” listed on the left side of the drawing. All four of the listed muscles stretch across the scapula and attach to the top of the humerus. For a 10-minute tutorial on the rotator cuff, see here. For a longer (20-minute) tutorial on the movements, bones, and muscles of the shoulder, see here.

The more I have learned about the shoulder joint, the more I have been impressed by its specified complexity, which points to intelligent design. Imagine my surprise when I came across a six-and-a-half-minute video claiming that the human shoulder is a “design disaster.” The video was made by Cheddar News, which describes itself as “the only news network focused on the next generation of innovators and decision-makers[.] Cheddar News is where forward thinkers go to learn about the people, ideas and innovations that are driving change and creating what’s next.”

 am confident that a rigorous argument can be made for the intelligent design of the human shoulder. But that is not what I present here. In what follows, I examine the claims against design that are made in the Cheddar News video.

Proof that the Human Shoulder Is a Design Disaster?

The video’s producer is Natalia Ryzak, who has a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University. At the beginning, Ryzak explains that “human shoulder blades tilt down and outwards, whereas chimps tilt up. Small variations like this are the reason humans have awful shoulders. And chimps, with whom we share nearly 99% of our DNA, don’t.” For that, Ryzak continues, “we can thank evolution — or more specifically, how we are outpacing it.”

But the tilt difference does not explain why the human shoulder is “awful.” If we spent most of our time swinging from tree branches, it might; but we don’t. And the claimed 99% similarity between human and chimp DNA has no bearing on the issue.

Ryzak goes on (from 0:47 to 0:59) to say:

Side effects of a human shoulder may include dislocation, separation, rotator cuff tears, bursitis, tendonitis, tendonosis, impingement syndrome, instability, arthritis, adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder), and fracture.

But these are not “side effects,” any more than getting a flat tire is a “side effect” of making an automobile. Or having a roof torn off by a tornado is a “side effect” of building a house. And these problems are not unique to humans: Chimps can also suffer from arthritis and fractures, among other things.

Enter Nathan Lents, professor of biology at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. In 2015, Lents argued on his blog that the human eye is badly designed, primarily because “the vertebrate retina is wired in backwards.” Like Richard Dawkins and others before him, Lents based his claim on the fact that the light-sensing cells face away from the incoming light. But evidence published from the 1960s onward — and reported in standard textbooks — shows that this arrangement is far better than the one Lents favors.

Back to the video on “Why the Human Shoulder is a Design Disaster.” Lents says (at 1:30) that the shoulder is “more of a floating joint than any other joint in the body.” Ryzak explains that the outer layer of muscles (consisting of the deltoid and trapezius) is stronger than the inner layer (the rotator cuff). Then Lents continues (from 1:59), “Having such an overlapping meshwork of muscles, what you’re inviting is pinching, and tearing, as the orientation can shift.” Lents compares the shoulder joint to the hip joint, in which “the relationship of the hip to the leg is fairly fixed in place.”

So far, the video has summarized the structure of the shoulder and its difference from the hip. The shoulder is more flexible than the hip. Good thing, too, or we wouldn’t be able to perform many of the actions we do. Just watch an acrobat performing on the parallel bars. Or a baseball player pitching a fastball. Or an athlete swimming the butterfly.

But journalist Ryzak confidently concludes ex cathedra (starting at 2:19) that “we’ve proven to you just how cr*ppy our shoulders are.” How so? Ryzak doesn’t say. Instead she simply suggests going “back into the evolution part.”

Does Evolution Explain It All?

According to Lents (starting at 2:28), “In our quadrupedal ancestors, in our deep past, really we had four legs, they weren’t really arms, to speak of. When you think of a dog and a cat, they don’t have arms, they have legs. But they still have a shoulder joint, as we can think of it.”

Then Ryzak says, “Our shoulders evolved for a life in the trees, swinging and hanging out. Then we left the trees behind and began to stand upright. This freed our arms up for other purposes, like hunting and gathering.” So from four-legged animals that walked and ran on the ground, we get animals that spend some of their time on the ground but mostly swing from branches to branches in the trees. Then those animals “evolved” into animals that stood upright and used their arms for other purposes. This is the standard Darwinian narrative. But how, exactly, did four-legged animals on the ground evolve into two-armed animals that swung on tree branches, which then evolved into two-armed animals that stood upright on the ground? The video offers no explanation; only an imaginative story.

Lents continues (starting at 2:54), “We are partially adapted for throwing, which is… no other animal in our group of animals throws anything.” This is not true: Chimps can throw, though not as far or as accurately as humans. Indeed, they are infamous for flinging feces at visitors to zoos.

But that’s a minor detail. Lents goes on to say, “So we believe that throwing was a very strong evolutionary pressure as we began to hunt — throwing spears, thrusting as well, so thrusting and throwing are very specific kinds of motion. And that required that floating nature to our shoulder.” But “evolutionary pressure” just means that throwing favored the survival of early humans. It does not account for the origin of the human shoulder. As Darwinian biologists wrote in 1996, adaptations “concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest.”

So the claim that “we left the trees behind and began to stand upright” does not explain the remarkable anatomy of the human shoulder. After all, chimps leave the trees on a regular basis (though they don’t stand upright). Yet their shoulder anatomy has not changed.

The Problem and Its Solution

According to Lents (at 3:57), “Part of the problem in present-day humans is not so much a bad shoulder design but a mismatch between what our shoulder is designed to do and how we use it on a daily basis.” Of course, Lents doesn’t think the shoulder was intelligently designed. As a Darwinist, he believes that the shoulder evolved through accidental variations and survival of the fittest. And in our immediate ancestors, the shoulder was adapted (“designed”) to swing through trees.

Most of our modern activities are very different. Ryzak adds (starting at 4:16), 

It might surprise you, but simply sitting at your desk is a major contributor to shoulder problems. When we hunch forward for days, hours, months, years on end, we end up causing unnecessary pulls and strains on our rotator cuff muscles. That can lead to injuries

Lents explains (starting at 5:20) that you can minimize shoulder problems by “changing the way you eat, changing the ways you use your body.” And, Ryzak adds (from 5:34 to 5:52), “pay attention to basic posture.” So after all the talk about bad design and evolutionary mismatch, the solution to our “design disaster” is for us to pay attention to diet, exercise, and posture. 

I think I could have figured that out without all the anti-design rhetoric and Darwinian storytelling. Oh, and I would add: Be careful not to fall in such a way as to dislocate your shoulder.

Our AI overlords are one step closer to world domination?

 

The Russian church has gone off the rails II

 

Physics is on its deathbed?

 

On extinguishing metal fires: learning the hard way edition.

 

Thermite : a brief history.

 

The Russian church has gone off the rails?

 

And yet even more lost technology?

 

Rediscovering more lost technology?

 

Hubris on steroids?

 

The sky is falling in china?

 

Homology implies Darwinism?

 

Natural selection is not very selective?

 

Finetuned for life? II

 

Finetuned for life?

 

No JEHOVAH No Justice

 Psalm ch.97:1,2ASV"1JEHOVAH reigneth; let the earth rejoice; Let the multitude of isles be glad.

2Clouds and darkness are round about him: Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne."

Only an invincible, incorruptible,infallible,immortal, almighty judge can bring us justice in the true sense of the word.

Psalm ch.146:3ASV"Put not your trust in princes, Nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help."

But make no mistake if we are to receive JEHOVAH'S Help it's going to be on his terms

Jeremiah ch.8:9ASV"The wise men are put to shame, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of JEHOVAH; and what manner of wisdom is in them?

The immortal(?) Tardigrade.

 

Still a theory in crisis? II

 Theory in Crisis? Dissatisfaction and the Proliferation of New Articulations

Jonathan Wells

Editor’s note: We are saddened by the passing of our friend and colleague, the iconoclastic biologist Jonathan Wells. As a tribute, we are presenting some highlights from his work. The following is the third part in a series, “Is Darwinism a Theory in Crisis?” It is adapted from the book, The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith. Look here for the series so far.

A scientific revolution is fueled in part by growing dissatisfaction among adherents of the old paradigm. This leads to new versions of the theoretical underpinnings of the paradigm. In his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn wrote:

The proliferation of competing articulations, the willingness to try anything, the expression of explicit discontent, the recourse to philosophy and to debate over fundamentals, all these are symptoms of a transition from normal to extraordinary research.1

Serious Problems with Darwin’s Theory

A growing number of biologists now acknowledge that there are serious problems with modern evolutionary theory. In 2007, biologist and philosopher Massimo Pigliucci published a paper asking whether we need “an extended evolutionary synthesis” that goes beyond neo-Darwinism.2 The following year, Pigliucci and 15 other biologists (none of them intelligent design advocates) gathered at the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research just north of Vienna to discuss the question. Science journalist Suzan Mazur called this group “the Altenberg 16.”3 In 2010, the group published a collection of their essays. The authors challenged the Darwinian idea that organisms could evolve solely by the gradual accumulation of small variations preserved by natural selection, and the neo-Darwinian idea that DNA is “the sole agent of variation and unit of inheritance.”4

“A View from the 21st Century”

In 2011, biologist James Shapiro (who was not one of Altenberg 16 and is not an intelligent design advocate) published a book titled Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. Shapiro expounded on a concept he called natural genetic engineering and provided evidence that cells can reorganize their genomes in purposeful ways. According to Shapiro, many scientists reacted to the phrase “natural genetic engineering” in the same way they react to intelligent design because it seems “to violate the principles of naturalism that exclude any role for a guiding intelligence outside of nature.” But Shapiro argued that.

the concept of cell-guided natural genetic engineering is well within the boundaries of twenty-first century biological science. Despite widespread philosophical prejudices, cells are now reasonably seen to operate teleologically: Their goals are survival, growth, and reproduction.5

In 2015, Nature published an exchange of views between scientists who believed that evolutionary theory needs “a rethink” and scientists who believed it is fine as it is. Those who believed that the theory needs rethinking suggested that those defending it might be “haunted by the specter of intelligent design” and thus want “to show a united front to those hostile to science.” Nevertheless, the former concluded that recent findings in several fields require a “conceptual change in evolutionary biology.”6 These same scientists also published an article in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London,in which they proposed “an alternative conceptual framework,” an “extended evolutionary synthesis” that retains the fundamentals of evolutionary theory “but differs in its emphasis on the role of constructive processes in development and evolution.”7

An Unusual Meeting in London

In 2016, an international group of biologists organized a public meeting to discuss an extended evolutionary synthesis at the Royal Society in London. Biologist Gerd Müller opened the meeting by pointing out that current evolutionary theory fails to explain (among other things) the origin of new anatomical structures (that is, macroevolution). Most of the other speakers agreed that the current theory is inadequate, though two speakers defended it. None of the speakers considered intelligent design an option. One speaker even caricatured intelligent design as “God did it,” and at one point another participant blurted out, “Not God — we’re excluding God.”8

The advocates of an extended evolutionary synthesis proposed various mechanisms that they argued were ignored or downplayed in current theory, but none of the proposed mechanisms moved beyond microevolution (minor changes within existing species). By the end of the meeting, it was clear that none of the speakers had met the challenge posed by Müller on the first day.9

A 2018 article in Evolutionary Biology reviewed some of the still-competing articulations of evolutionary theory. The article concluded by wondering whether the continuing “conceptual rifts and explanatory tensions” will be overcome.10 As long as they continue, however, they suggest that a scientific revolution is in progress.

Notes

Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 91.

Massimo Pigliucci, “Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis?,” Evolution 61 (2007), 2743-2749.

Suzan Mazur, The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry (Wellington, New Zealand: Scoop Media, 2009).

Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Müller, Evolution: The Extended Synthesis (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010).

James A. Shapiro, Evolution: A View from the 21st Century (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press Science, 2011), 134-137.

Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, John Odling-Smee, Gregory A. Wray, Hopi E. Hoekstra, Douglas J. Futuyma, Richard E. Lenski, Trudy F.C. Mackay, Dolph Schluter, and Joan E. Strassmann, “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” Nature 514 (2014), 161-164.

Kevin N. Laland, Tobias Uller, Marcus W. Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee, “The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 282 (2015), 20151019.

Paul A. Nelson, “Specter of intelligent design emerges at the Royal Society meeting,” Evolution News & Views (November 8, 2016), https://evolutionnews.org/2016/11/specter_of_inte/ (accessed August 22, 2020).

Paul A. Nelson and David Klinghoffer, “Scientists confirm: Darwinism is broken,” CNS News (December 13, 2016). https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/david-klinghoffer/scientists-confirm-darwinism-broken (accessed August 22, 2020).

Alejandro Fábregas-Tejeda and Francisco Vergara-Silva, “Hierarchy Theory of Evolution and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Some Epistemic Bridges, Some Conceptual Rifts,” Evolutionary Biology 45 (2018), 127-139.

Jonathan Wells doing a bit of bomb throwing.

 

Still a theory in crisis?

 Theory in Crisis? Redefining Science

Jonathan wells

Editor’s note: We are saddened by the passing of our friend and colleague, the iconoclastic biologist Jonathan Wells. As a tribute, we are presenting some highlights from his work. The following is the second part in a series, “Is Darwinism a Theory in Crisis?” It is adapted from the book, The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith. Look here for the series so far.

In his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn noted that scientific revolutions are often marked by disputes over the “standard that distinguishes a real scientific solution from a mere metaphysical speculation.” Newton’s theory of gravity was resisted because “gravity, interpreted as an innate attraction between every pair of particles of matter, was an occult quality” like the medieval “tendency to fall.” Critics of Newtonianism claimed that it was not science and “its reliance upon innate forces would return science to the Dark Ages.”1

Centuries later, some scientists claimed that the big bang was not science. In 1938, German physicist Carl F. von Weizsäcker gave a lecture in which he referred to the relatively new idea that our universe had originated in a big bang. Renowned physical chemist Walther Nernst, who was in the audience, became very angry. Weizsäcker later wrote: 

He said, the view that there might be an age of the universe was not science. At first I did not understand him. He explained that the infinite duration of time was a basic element of all scientific thought, and to deny this would mean to betray the very foundations of science. I was quite surprised by this idea and I ventured the objection that it was scientific to form hypotheses according to the hints given by experience, and that the idea of an age of the universe was such a hypothesis. He retorted that we could not form a scientific hypothesis which contradicted the very foundations of science.

Weizsäcker concluded that Nernst’s reaction revealed “a deeply irrational” conviction that “the world had taken the place of God, and it was blasphemy to deny it God’s attributes.”2

Is Intelligent Design Science?

Similarly, intelligent design has been criticized for not being science. In 2004, American Society for Cell Biology president Harvey Lodish wrote that intelligent design is “not science” because “the ideas that form the basis” of it “have never been tested by any scientific peer-scrutiny or peer-review.”3 In 2005, the American Astronomical Society declared, “Intelligent Design fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views.”4 And the Biophysical Society adopted a policy stating, “What distinguishes scientific theories” from intelligent design “is the scientific method, which is driven by observations and deductions.” Since intelligent design is “not based on the scientific method,” it is “not in the realm of science.”5

The claims about evidence and peer review in the statements quoted above are false. Nevertheless, the statements illustrate that critics of intelligent design, like the critics of Newtonianism and the big bang, claim that the new paradigm does not qualify as science.

Some pro-Darwin writers have argued that intelligent design is even anti-science. In 2006, philosopher Niall Shanks wrote that “a culture war is currently being waged in the United States by religious extremists who hope to turn the clock of science back to medieval times.” The “chief weapon in this war is…intelligent design theory.”6 In 2008, biologist and textbook writer Kenneth Miller claimed that “to the ID movement the rationalism of the Age of Enlightenment, which gave rise to science as we know it, is the true enemy.” If intelligent design prevails, he wrote, “the modern age will be brought to an end.” For Miller, what is at stake “is nothing less than America’s scientific soul.”6

A Different Definition of Science

It’s true that intelligent design operates with a definition of science that differs from the definition used by pro-Darwin scientists. For the latter, science is the enterprise of seeking natural explanations for everything. Only material objects and the forces among them are real; entities such as a nonhuman mind (which would have to be the source of any intelligent design in nature) are unreal. In Darwinian science, any evidence that seems to suggest intelligent design is ignored or ruled out. In 1999, a biologist wrote in Nature that “even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”7 But in an intelligent design paradigm, science seeks to follow the evidence wherever it leads. According to Kuhn, disputes such as this over the nature of science are common in scientific revolutions.

Notes

Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 103-105, 163.

Carl F. von Weizsäcker, The Relevance of Science (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 151-153.

Letter from Harvey F. Lodish to Ohio Governor Bob Taft (February 24, 2004). https://www.newswise.com/articles/ascb-president-says-creationism-does-not-belong-in-ohios-classrooms (accessed August 22, 2020).

Statement on the Teaching of Evolution, American Astronomical Society (September 20, 2005). https://aas.org/press/aas-supports-teaching-evolution (accessed August 22, 2020).

Statement on Teaching Alternatives to Evolution, Biophysical Society (November 2005). https://www.biophysics.org/policy-advocacy/stay-informed/policy-issues/evolution-1 (accessed August 22, 2020).

Niall Shanks, God, the Devil, and Darwin (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), xi–xii.

Kenneth R. Miller, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul (New York: Viking Press, 2008), 16, 190-191.

Scott Todd, “A view from Kansas on that evolution debate,” Nature 401 (1999), 423.

The throne of JEHOVAH'S Son demystified III

   

(B) Bowman declares, “In Scripture a ‘throne’ is not the source of one’s authority, but the position or place from which one rules.”

Isn’t it terribly strange that famed trinitarian New Testament scholars such as Dr. Westcott, Dr. Moffatt, Dr. Goodspeed (Smith-Goodspeed’s AT), and Dr. William Barclay (The Daily Study Bible Series) all prefer the interpretation “Thy throne is God”? (And highly respected trinitarian Bibles ASV, RSV, and NEB also give this rendering as a proper alternate.) Would these respected trinitarian authorities really render this scripture that way if “throne” could only be interpreted in a literal way? 

The trinitarian New Bible Dictionary tells us that in Scripture “the throne symbolizes dignity and authority” - p. 1196 (2nd ed.), Tyndale House, 1984. (Compare Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.) 

And the equally trinitarian (and highly respected - by trinitarians) The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia tells us about “throne”: “Usually the symbol of kingly power and dignity .... It symbolizes: (1) The exalted position of earthly kings, ... their majesty and power .... (2) The majesty and power of JEHOVAH as the true king of Israel; .... (3) The rule of the promised theocratic king (the Messiah), its everlasting glory and righteousness. He, too, is JEHOVAH’S representative [so JEHOVAH is the Messiah’s ‘throne’ (“power,” “authority,” and “glory”)]....” - p. 2976, Vol. IV, Eerdmans, 1984 printing. 

Please examine the implied meanings of “throne” in the following scriptures: Gen. 41:40; 2 Sam. 7:13, 14, 16; 2 Sam. 14:9; 1 Ki. 1:37, 47; Ps. 94:20 (“rulers,” RSV, Mo; “tribunals,” JB, NAB) ; Col. 1:16 (compare the very trinitarian TEV and GNB: “spiritual powers” and the Phillips translation: “power”). These clearly do not exclusively mean just “a place” as Bowman insists. In fact, the very trinitarian Good News Bible (GNB) actually renders the Hebrew “throne” at Gen. 41:40 as ”authority.” Also note that even IF Heb. 1:8 were translated “Your throne, O God, is forever,” it would certainly mean more than “the seat you sit upon is everlasting”! It still speaks of the kingly power and authority which will last forever! Bowman is clearly wrong in saying that ‘throne’ must mean the “position or place from which one rules” and denying many other figurative uses. 

(C) “The writer of Hebrews is quoting Ps 45:6 and applying it to the Son to show that the Son is far greater than any of the angels [see quotes by Barclay and Robertson: HEB 2-3]. However, if all this verse means is that the Son’s authority derives from God, this in no way makes him unique or greater than the angels...” says Bowman. 

However, the complete quote from Ps. 45:6, 7 which begins at Heb. 1:8 includes Heb. 1:9. This verse not only specifies that God is the God of the king (Jesus), but also concludes with “God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” Jesus was “anointed” (brought into a position he didn’t originally have) by God and, at that point, came to be above his fellows. This is why Heb. 1:8, 9 was quoted by the writer of Hebrews: to show that Jesus is now (after God appointed [Heb. 1:2, 4] and anointed him) higher than the angels (who had been his “fellows”). 

Corroborating this is respected trinitarian Bible scholar, Dr. E. F. Scott, Emeritus Professor at the Union Theological Seminary, who wrote: “The author of Hebrews ... thinks of [Jesus] as an angel, whom God had exalted above all others, investing him with his own majesty and calling him by the name of Son.” - p. 726, An Encyclopedia of Religion, 1945 ed. 

And, again, the trinitarian The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible tells us that at this time the Jewish expectation was that the Christ was “a pre-existent, heavenly ANGELIC being who, at the end of time, will appear at the side of God as judge of the world [see Acts 7:55-56].” - p. 364, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, 1962. 

Similarly, that most famous of Jewish scholars and teachers of the first century A. D., Philo (see the LOGOS study), wrote about Hagar erroneously describing her seeing the Angel of God as seeing God:

“For just as those who are unable to see the sun itself see the gleam of the parhelion [a ‘mock sun’ - an optical illusion, not the true sun - RDB] and [erroneously] take it for the sun, ... so some regard the image of God, His angel the Word, as His very self.” - p. 423, Philo, vol. V, “On Flight and Finding,” Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library, 1988 printing.

“Angel of the Lord [angel of JEHOVAH] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from JEHOVAH .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant.” - p. 39, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), Bethany House Publ., 1982. 

“Angel of the Lord. ... Christ’s visible form before the incarnation.” - p. 40, Smith’s Bible Dictionary (trinitarian), Hendrickson Publ. 

“ANGEL OF THE LORD, ... is represented in Scripture as a heavenly being sent by God to deal with men as his personal agent and spokesman [‘word’] .... In the NT [which trinitarians agree explains and amplifies the OT] there is no possibility of the angel of the LORD being confused with God. .... mostly when appearing to men he is recognized as a divine being, even though in human form, and is [sometimes] addressed as God” - p. 38, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House (trinitarian), 1984 printing.

“The Angel of the LORD.... Traditional [from 2nd century A. D. (at least)] Christian interpretation has held that this ‘angel’ was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God’s Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of (and so be identified with) the One [Jehovah] who sent him” - footnote for Gen. 16:7 in the trinitarian The NIV Study Bible by Zondervan Publishing, 1985.

It is not uncommon for a trusted servant to actually represent his master in dealings with others. “What a servant says or does is [sometimes] ascribed to the master” - Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation,” Eerdmans Publishing, 1978 printing.

The angel of JEHOVAH “is a heavenly being given a particular task by YAHWEH [JEHOVAH], behind whom the angel’s personality entirely disappears .... because YAHWEH'S holiness could have destroyed Israel, only his angel was to go with the people.” - [see 1 John 4:12; John 6:46.] - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (trinitarian), Vol. 1, p. 101, Zondervan Publ., 1986.

[Even the person speaking to Moses from the burning bush was an angel! Even though he spoke Jehovah's words and seemed to Moses to be JEHOVAH, we know that it was an angel speaking and acting for JEHOVAH: Acts 7:30.]

Please compare the following scriptures: Gen. 16:10, 11 and 13; Gen. 31:11 and Gen. 31:13; Gen. 32:24-30 and Hosea 12:4; Judges 6:16 and 6:20-23. 

It should be obvious that the Angel of JEHOVAH is NOT JEHOVAH himself! Even many trinitarian scholars admit the obvious here. However, some are unwilling to let any opportunity go by, no matter how poor, (since there is no real evidence for it to begin with) to insist that Jesus is JEHOVAH. So, although admitting that Jesus was (or probably was) the Angel of JEHOVAH in the OT (at least part of the time) they also insist that he was also JEHOVAH! 

Consider, however, if “Angel of JEHOVAH ” really meant that the one who had that title was JEHOVAH (even though the term literally means “messenger OF JEHOVAH ”), no inspired prophet of God or inspired Bible writer would ever use that term for anyone else. And yet Luke used it for the angel Gabriel, and Haggai actually used it for himself! 

Yes, Luke tells us at Lk 1:11, 19 “Then there appeared to him the angel of the LORD [the very same wording as found in the Septuagint at Gen. 16:7] .... The angel replied, ‘I am Gabriel who stands in God’s presence, and I have been sent to you’” - The Jerusalem Bible, also see NJB and NAB (‘91).

And the prophet and inspired Bible writer Haggai writes at Haggai 1:13 “Then Haggai, the messenger of JEHOVAH, spoke JEHOVAH’S message to the people.” The words are identical to both the Greek and Hebrew of Genesis 16:7: “the messenger [or angel] of JEHOVAH ”! And, of course, the NT shows that other angels [in addition to the “pre-incarnate” Jesus] may use the same title “angel of the LORD.” Even though the angel may, at times, actually identify himself as God (or JEHOVAH), it obviously does not mean he is JEHOVAH himself! He is perfectly representing JEHOVAH as his messenger and is speaking JEHOVAH’S very words at times. 

(Let’s not overlook the fact that King David was described as being “like the Angel of God.” - 2 Sam. 19:28, NJB (c.f., 2 Sam. 19:27 in NASB, NEB, NKJV, AT, RSV). If this angel were really God Himself, such a statement would not have been made - or tolerated by David when he heard it. Instead, King David is often compared to the Messiah in Scripture!)

When JEHOVAH (God alone) created his workman, his firstborn, as his first and only direct creation (the highest of angels or servants of God: Jesus, the Word), he became the Father. This is why Jesus may be called the “Firstborn” and the “onlybegotten” (only direct creation by JEHOVAH himself). When Jesus (the Word), at the command and direction of JEHOVAH God (the Father), became the instrument by which the material universe was made, the other angels (his fellows) were present. When he spoke to men in behalf of JEHOVAH (often using JEHOVAH’S very words which his Father spoke through him), he was called “the Angel of JEHOVAH.” When he had finished his sacrifice on earth, he became much superior to his fellow angels by appointment and anointment from JEHOVAH (but even at this time he certainly did not become equal to God). 

- - - - - - - - - - 

3. A. Some translations of Heb. 1:8 by trinitarians:

“God is your throne” - AT (Dr. Goodspeed)

“God is thy throne” - Mo (Dr. Moffatt)

“God is your throne” - Byington

“God is your throne” - Dr. Barclay

“God is thy throne” - Dr. Westcott

“God is thy throne” - A.T. Robertson (Alternate translation)

“God is thy throne” - Dr. Young (Alt.)

“God is thy throne” - RSV (Alt.) 

“God is your throne” - NRSV (Alt.)

“God is thy throne” - NEB (Alt.)

“Thy throne is God” - ASV (Alt.)

B. Some translations of Ps. 45:6 (quoted at Heb. 1:8) by trinitarians:

“Your Divine throne” - RSV

“Your throne is like God’s throne” - NEB

“God is your throne” - Byington

“The kingdom that God has given you” - GNB

“God has enthroned you” - REB

“Your throne is from God” - NJB

“Your throne is a throne of God” - NRSV (Alt.)

“Thy throne is the throne of God” - ASV (Alt.)

- - - - - - - - - - -

4. New Testament texts produced by trinitarians in which Autou (“His”) was chosen as part of the original text ("... the scepter of his [autou] kingdom":

Westcott and Hort

Nestle’s

It has been admitted by respected trinitarian scholars (UBS text writers) that if autou ("his") were in the original writing of Heb. 1:8, the proper rendering earlier in the same verse must be “God is your throne”! – p. 663, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.

Even the highly respected NASB renders this as "... the scepter of his kingdom." The Jerusalem Bible; New Jerusalem Bible; The New English Bible; Revised English Bible; AT (Smith and Goodspeed); Rotherham; Byington; C.B. Williams; etc. also render it using "his." 

---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------

Posted by Elijah Daniels 

The throne of JEHOVAH'S Son demystified II

   

Another consideration is that later Church copyists would often change the wording of a scripture if it seemed to contradict a teaching of the Roman Church.[1] Therefore, if the wording of an ancient manuscript seems to contradict a later teaching of the Roman Church, it is more likely to have the original wording than another ancient manuscript which (at the same verse) seems to agree with that Church teaching.

Using these criteria, the UBS Committee unanimously agreed with all the wording of Heb. 1:8 except for one word. They agreed that the original writing of Heb. 1:8 should read literally (in the NT Greek): “toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age and the staff of the straightness staff of the kingdom [‘of him’ or ‘of you’].”

It was the very last word of Heb. 1:8 that caused a “considerable degree of doubt” among those textual scholars. This very last word was either the NT Greek word sou (translated into English as “of you” or “your”) or autou (translated “of him” or “his”).

Why is it so important? Because these trinitarian scholars agreed that if autou (“his”) were used here by the author of Hebrews 1:8, then the verse “must be” translated “God is thy throne” and not “thy throne, O God”!! If, however, sou (“your”) was the original wording, then it could be translated either way. Obviously, then, a trinitarian would strongly prefer the reading of sou. [See end note 4]

In discussing this problem the UBS Committee noted that all the very oldest and best manuscripts (p46 - circa 200 A.D.; 'Aleph' - 4th century; and B - 4th century) all agree that the original wording was “his (autou) kingdom.” 

They also noted that later manuscripts which read “your (sou) kingdom” are now in agreement with the corresponding passage in the Greek OT Septuagint! (Remember that the UBS Committee recognizes, as do most Bible scholars, that the NT manuscript that differs slightly from the Septuagint is more likely to be correct than another one which perfectly agrees because copyists strongly tended to deliberately “correct” Septuagint quotes they found in the NT .) 

Furthermore, since autou is not repeated near the word in question in this NT manuscript quote of Ps. 45:6, 7, but sou is repeated, before and after, it would have been easy for a copyist to have inadvertently miscopied sou here. Autou, then, is more likely to have been original than sou for more than one reason.

It is also important to realize that all the oldest manuscripts (which were probably written before the full trinity doctrine was officially declared by the Roman Church in 381 A. D. and certainly written well before it was popularly accepted through the efforts of such men as Augustine in the early 5th century) use the word autou which will not properly allow for the trinitarian-preferred interpretation. Whereas many of the later manuscripts now use the word sou which will allow for the trinitarian-preferred interpretation of Heb. 1:8.

Isn’t it significant that the very earliest manuscript to use the trinitarian-preferred sou is Manuscript A from the 5th century which is shortly after the trinity doctrine was fully and officially declared at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A. D. and during the highly successful efforts of Augustine and others to defend and popularize this newly established “truth” of the Roman Church? (Remember the correlation between new church doctrines and changes in later manuscripts.) - See the HIST study paper. 

So even though there is overwhelming evidence that “his” (autou) was in the original manuscript of Hebrews 1:8 (even the trinitarian scholars who developed the Westcott and Hort text and the Nestle text use autou at Heb. 1:8), the UBS Committee finally agreed to choose “your” (sou) and label that choice as “having considerable degree of doubt,” anyway! 

Why did they bend their own rules of evidence? Because (1) they said there were so many later manuscripts that used sou, and (2) they admitted that they didn’t like what that verse actually said if autou had really been used in the original!

Oh, they did soften the arbitrariness of their choice slightly by labeling it as “having considerable degree of doubt,” but if any honest impartial scholar will examine their own comments on the evidence, he must agree that the UBS Committee’s choice is purely an emotional one and the evidence rules otherwise (as other trinitarian texts noted above admit).

Sou not only has “considerable degree of doubt,” it is nearly impossible. The UBS Committee’s own comments on the evidence make autou virtually certain as the original word, and, therefore, in the committee’s own word’s, Hebrews 1:8 “must be” translated “God is thy throne” and not “thy throne, O God.” - (study pp. 662-663 in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.) 

It might be worthwhile to see that that same UBS textual committee said (p. 522) when discussing Romans 9:5: 

“In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ’s greatness by calling him God blessed for ever.” And, “Nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate [‘the Christ’] as theos [‘God’ or ‘god’].”

So, for those of us who believe that Paul wrote the Bible book of Hebrews, the UBS committee provides yet another reason why Heb. 1:8 must be translated “God is your throne” not “your throne, O God.” (But don’t forget that some scholars don’t consider Paul to be the author of Hebrews even though they may still consider Hebrews to be inspired scripture.) 

Some trinitarians have objected that “it does not make sense [or even, ‘it’s ridiculous’] to call God a ‘throne.’”[2] However, to any serious Bible student, it is entirely reasonable and appropriate. Calling God “the throne of Jesus” is an excellent figurative way to show that God approves and upholds Christ’s kingly reign (as in Westcott’s comment previously quoted).

Is God ever called “unlikely” things in a figurative sense that are as equally “ridiculous” as calling him “a throne”? Every Bible student of any experience knows that He is, repeatedly!

Many times he is called someone’s “Rock” (e.g., Ps. 78:35). 

He is called a “fortress” (e.g., Ps. 91:2). 

He is called a “lamp” in 2 Samuel 22:29. 

He is called a “crown” (“in that day will Jehovah of hosts become a crown of glory, unto the 

residue of his people” - Is. 28:5, ASV). 

Jehovah is called “our dwelling place” - Ps. 90:1, KJV. 

And “Jehovah is my ... song” - Ps. 118:14. 

Also notice Ps. 60:7, 8 “Ephraim is my helmet, Judah my scepter, Moab is my washbasin”, NIV. And in Is. 22:23 we find Eliakim, whom Jehovah said he would call and commit authority to (Is. 22:20, 21), called a “throne” (“and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house,” RSV). 

Not only is it made very clear by many trinitarian translators [3] and text writers [4] themselves that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated “God is your throne,” but all real evidence shows that it should be so translated!

So we find once more that Jesus cannot possibly be God. Just as we saw in the case of the Israelite king in Ps. 45:6, 7, if God is his throne (the one supporting him - giving him power and authority), then he cannot be that God!

............................................................................

NOTES

1. An example of this is the omission of the words “nor the son” in the majority of manuscripts at Matt. 24:36. However, the two oldest and best manuscripts, Aleph and B (as well as Manuscript A of the 5th century), do have “nor the son” after the word “heaven” (as it is in Mark 13:32). Bible scholars have come to the conclusion that the words were first omitted by a copyist sometime shortly after the development of the trinity doctrine by the Roman Church in the 4th century (see the HIST study) because it seemed to contradict the trinity doctrine: Jesus as equal to the Father. - See A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 62, United Bible Societies, 1971. Also see The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus, published by the trustees of the British Museum (quoted in the Feb. 1, 1984 WT, p. 7) or see the Manuscripts at . http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/ and http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_02 and http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03 

2. Bowman, in his Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, after explaining that Heb. 1:1-6 describes the Son as in essence God, says:

It should come as no surprise, then, that in verse 8 God the Father says “of the Son, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever...’” (translating literally). 

To circumvent this plain statement, the NWT renders verse 8 as “God is your throne forever and ever....” On merely grammatical considerations, this translation is possible, and some biblical scholars have favored this rendering. According to such a reading, the point of the statement is then that God is the source of Jesus’ authority. 

However, this seems to be an unusual, if not completely odd, way of making that point. In Scripture a “throne” is not the source of one’s authority, but the position or place from which one rules. Thus, heaven is called “the throne of God” (Matt. 5:34). Surely God does not derive his authority from heaven, or from anyone or anything! But, even assuming that “God is your throne” would be understood as having that meaning, in context this makes no sense. The writer of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 45:6 and applying it to the Son to show that the Son is far greater than any of the angels. However, if all this verse means is that the Son’s authority derives from God, this in no way makes him unique or greater than the angels, since this could be said of any of God’s obedient angels. - pp. 106-107, Baker Book House, 1991 ed. 

To take things in the order Bowman states them, 

(A) his “literal” translation of Heb. 1:8 is certainly not literal. As we saw at the beginning of this paper, the actual NT Greek literally says “the throne of you the god into the age of the age.” The understood verb “is” may be inserted anywhere in the sentence, but it is not literally in the original manuscript, and to insist that it must be inserted and interpreted as Bowman has done is simply (literally) untrue! In fact it seems much more probable, whether one inserts it before or after “the god,” to mean: ‘the throne of you IS the God into the age of the age.’ (Although it is less likely, it is possible that ho theos could be considered a vocative [‘O God’] - but see trinitarian Dr. Westcott’s quote above). But, at any rate, Bowman is not being truthful when he says he is “translating literally” as ‘your throne, O God, is forever and ever...’! 

Posted by Elijah Daniels 

It's design through and through?

 In Our World, Multiple Levels of Intelligent Design

Eric Hedin

A few weeks ago, when the start of the fall semester brought to me a classroom full of new students for their first college physics course, I took a few minutes to get to know them by asking them a question. Since I currently teach at a Christian university, I asked the students to write out an example or two of how they see God’s hand in nature.

Reading responses to an open-ended question like this provides a valuable glimpse into what students are thinking and where they are in their understanding of science and faith. It was good for me to be reminded that nature offers poignant testimony to a designer, for those who have eyes to see.

Most students saw “God’s hand in nature” in a general way through order, beauty, and interconnectedness. Examples included seeing a sunrise or sunset and the feelings of peace that come when viewing these. The beauty of plants and flowers that thrive in nature. Autumn leaves changing colors, the first snowfall and other seasonal changes. The awesome beauty of mountains and the Grand Canyon. Animals and birds and the purposes they serve. The ocean and all the life it sustains. Clouds and how they bring the rain. The moon and stars at night. And the intricacy of the human body.

An Admission

I’ll have to admit that when I first read through these responses, the thought came to me that appealing to aesthetics or the calming effect of the ocean waves, the regularity of the seasons, or the awesomeness of a starry night sky as evidence would be quickly discounted by most atheists. And yet I realize that all these examples speak most deeply to my own heart not only of the existence of a designer but of his character. 

Lest we become too focused on scientific evidence, to the seeking heart, a deeper question seeks for an answer. The 19th-century Scottish storyteller and theologian George MacDonald framed it this way in his novel Robert Falconer:

The Most Fundamental Level

Evidence from nature is at the heart of the intelligent design argument. As we examine the natural world, multiple levels of design become apparent. At the most fundamental of these we encounter designs that can be fully explained by the universal laws of nature. We’re all familiar with examples, such as exquisite six-sided snowflakes, rainbows across a misty valley, the rosy hues of a sunrise or sunset, or the rhythmic waves of the ocean washing over a sandy beach. Each of these examples of natural design can be fully explained by reference to the forces and laws of nature discovered.

Does explanation by natural cause negate intelligent design? Only if the existence of these prior causes can also be explained naturally. As it is, however, and despite the best efforts of many scientists to explain otherwise, the laws of nature that bring about beautiful instances of natural design have no other scientific explanation than that they just are the way they are. Postulating a designer for the particular suite of orchestrated natural laws that govern our universe has seemed to many scientists a more reasonable conclusion than simply ascribing everything to “dumb luck.”

Designs of Life

Within our world, we also find higher genres of design that cannot be explained by appealing to the actions of natural forces and laws of nature. In every case, these higher levels of design originate from or within living creatures. I address the evidential power of some of these designs in my book, Canceled Science:

Animals, even insects, can create designs that extend beyond the kinds of design produced by the forces of nature alone. Animal designs typically have the added hallmark of functionality — for example, a beehive, or a bird’s nest, or a spider’s web. However, these designs seem to be pre-programmed or instinctive, and do not originate from the individual creativity of the animal.

A creature’s instinctive ability to create a structure of functional design prompts us to investigate how this ability could have been brought about. Three questions regarding instinctive designs need consideration:  

How did the information required to instantiate the design arise in the first place?

How did the information for the design become coded within the biochemistry of the organism?

How did an effectual, multi-generational information storage, retrieval, and implementation system come to exist within the living creature’s being?

These are profound questions that need more than a bobble-head nod to evolution to answer them. Complex, functional systems do not arise without intelligent guidance and direction. 

A Naturalistic Point of View

The mystery of explaining design from a naturalistic point of view reaches an even higher level when we consider human designs that exponentially exceed anything else in nature. I wrote in Canceled Science:

Humans, in contrast, can and do create beautiful designs with a seemingly inexhaustible fund of creativity. Humans can endow their designs with functionality or whimsy, can express the complex emotions of the artist, or the mood and outlook of a people or culture at a particular time and place — the zeitgeist. 

The fields of painting, sculpture, music, literature, architecture, and engineering all offer proofs in abundance of the human capacity and drive to produce masterful designs. Such work involves matter and a mastery of material forces, but it is more than this. Leonardo da Vinci said, “The painter has it first in his mind, and then in his hands.”1 Human-level designs far exceed anything the laws of physics and chemistry alone could produce. Nowhere do we find such laws producing, from scratch, anything approaching the Taj Mahal, or a racing yacht, or the Space Shuttle, or da Vinci’s Mona Lisa.

The Highest Level

Within the physical universe, the highest level of design we encounter manifests in the functional biochemistry of a living creature, perhaps attaining its pinnacle in the human body. Even a single-celled organism exhibits masterful biochemical design properties that challenge the human ability to comprehend, let alone mimic with our most sophisticated technology. Asking for the origin of such exquisitely complex biological designs — designs that surpass the combined intelligence of the entire human race — surely points us to a designer far beyond nature.

And where we directly witness the creation of a form that is fundamentally new, information rich, and of great depth, there is always behind it an intelligent agent — an artist or poet, an architect or engineer. Based on this uniform and repeated experience, biological designs — themselves novel, information-rich, and of great depth — would appear to be the prerogative of creative intelligence.

Eric Hedin, Canceled Science: What Some Atheists Don’t Want You to See (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2021, pp. 204-5)

Notes

Martin Kemp, ed. Leonardo on Painting: An Anthology of Writings by Leonardo da Vinci with a Selection of Documents Relating to His Career as an Artist, trans. Martin Kemp and Margaret Walker (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 32.

Their kingdom is very much a part of this world.

 "Pope Pius XII, in particular, had failed to condemn the Final Solution, though he knew of it."

Paul Johnson, History of the Jews

"How could the Christian Church, apparently quite willingly, accommodate this weird megalomaniac [Constantine] in it's theocratic system? Was there a conscious bargain? Which side benefited most form this unseemly marriage between church and state? Or, to put it another way, did the empire surrender to Christianity, or did Christianity prostitute itself to the empire? It is characteristic of the complexities of early Christian history that we cannot give a definite answer to this question."

Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity

Tags: christianity, history

"Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.”"

John chapter 18 verse 36 New Living translation 

File under "Well said" CXI

"The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false."

Paul Johnson

The Joy of examining the thumb print of JEHOVAH.

 

In search of Darwinism in the real world.

 Decade-Long Study of Water Fleas Found No Evidence of Darwinian Evolution

Denyse O Leary

Science programs tell us that natural selection explains the development of all life forms from the origin of life to the present, from amoebas to humans:

Natural selection is the adaptation strategy of living organisms on Earth. It occurs when they acquire and evolve a trait with time that provides them a distinct advantage for their survival and reproduction over other organisms in the population. Darwin called them “survival of the fittest.”’ (ScienceFacts.net)

It seems so simple. Philosopher Daniel Dennett (1942–2024) called it the single greatest idea anyone ever had. It was perfect for the stark materialism he espoused. 

Times Change

Questions accumulate. Research results don’t add up. And dissatisfaction has grown.

Recently, Arizona State University geneticist Michael Lynch headed up a study published in the venerable journal PNAS that comes as close as any to saying the unsayable: Darwinian evolution, as espoused by, say, Dennett and Richard Dawkins, is not on such firm ground. In a world where huge battles have been fought to entrench it in the school systems, findings like that, published in a key journal, may signal a cultural shift.

The study concerns the common water flea (Daphnia pulex):

Daphnia is a good choice for this kind of study because it is very sensitive to changes in its environment. For that reason, it is used to test water purity. It also reproduces quickly, asexually. So if changes in the environment do change Daphnia’s genome, those changes should be detected.

“Little Consistent Selection Pressure”

The researchers analyzed DNA from 1,000 Daphnia over a decade and did not find evidence of Darwin’s natural selection happening as described. Their findings are phrased in careful science news media prose:

The multi-year, genome-wide analysis of nearly 1,000 genetic samples from a Daphnia pulex population shows that most genetic sites experience varying selection, with an average effect close to zero, indicating little consistent selection pressure over different times and selection spread across many genomic regions.

These findings challenge the usual understanding of genetic diversity and divergence as indicators of random genetic drift and selection intensity. 

The study’s Abstract is unusually blunt:

Despite evolutionary biology’s obsession with natural selection, few studies have evaluated multigenerational series of patterns of selection on a genome-wide scale in natural populations. Here, we report on a 10-y population-genomic survey of the microcrustacean Daphnia pulex … These results suggest that interannual fluctuating selection is a major determinant of standing levels of variation in natural populations, challenge the conventional paradigm for interpreting patterns of nucleotide diversity and divergence, and motivate the need for the further development of theoretical expressions for the interpretation of population-genomic data. 

The science media release says something else that is quite interesting:

These findings challenge the traditional belief that measuring genetic diversity (the range of different traits in a population) and genetic divergence (the differences between populations) can easily show how natural selection is consistently operating. Instead, natural selection seems to operate with greater subtlety and complexity than previously thought.

“Greater Subtlety and Complexity”?

The whole point of claims for Darwinian evolution is to eliminate subtlety and complexity. To show that merely random mutations in response to environmental changes can create everything from the organized complexity of the beehive to the nearly unfathomable human mind. And the researchers did not find these random but creative mutations. 

Since we are here anyway, what is the origin of complexity and subtlety? Do they not suggest a mind in or behind the universe?

To say that “natural selection seems to operate with greater subtlety and complexity than previously thought” is a polite way of saying that Darwinian evolution is not a correct interpretation of the history of life. Culturally, that is very interesting. It means that the only theory permissible in U.S. school systems may not be a correct interpretation of nature.