George Church on the design debate.

Harvard geneticist George Church has said some fascinating things on the theme of intelligent design. He's particularly interested, if I'm summarizing correctly, in the idea of biology as engineering. So is Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer. Which is why, having read some of his published remarks, we sent Dr. Church an advance copy of Darwin's Doubt asking that he look in particular at the middle section of the book, "How to Build an Animal," which deals precisely with the massive engineering problems facing Darwinian evolutionary theory.

We were grateful to get back this gracious comment, which appears on the dust jacket.

Stephen Meyer's new book Darwin's Doubt represents an opportunity for bridge-building, rather than dismissive polarization -- bridges across cultural divides in great need of professional, respectful dialog -- and bridges to span evolutionary gaps.

While very gratifying to have his warm wishes, it's not shocking that Dr. Church would share them with us. Back in 2008 he participated in a recorded seminar, "Life: What a Concept!," with Freeman Dyson, Robert Shapiro, J. Craig Venter, and others. He said:

As a scientific discipline, many people have casually dismissed Intelligent Design without carefully defining what they mean by intelligence or what they mean by design. Science and math have long histories of proving things, and not just accepting intuition -- Fermat's last theorem was not proven until it was proven. And I think we're in a similar space with intelligent design.

Again:

The ribosome, both looking at the past and at the future, is a very significant structure -- it's the most complicated thing that is present in all organisms. Craig does comparative genomics, and you find that almost the only thing that's in common across all organisms is the ribosome. And it's recognizable; it's highly conserved. So the question is, how did that thing come to be? And if I were to be an intelligent design defender, that's what I would focus on; how did the ribosome come to be?

Is he an advocate of intelligent design like Stephen Meyer? No. Is he a very interesting, independent thinker, who has made some suggestive comments relevant to ID, about which one would like to have the opportunity to question him much further? Yes.

On why Frankenstein cannot help Origin of life scientists.

Can We Solve the Mystery of the Origin of Life by Creating Life in the Lab?

Denyse O'Leary March 24, 2014 4:19 AM

 

 

 

Francis Crick said in 1981, "Every time I write a paper on the origins of life I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts, though I must confess that in spite of this, the subject is so fascinating that I never seem to stick to my resolve."¹ He isn't alone. With unmistakable dejection, Christian de Duve listed a number of OOL theories -- pyrophosphate world, iron-sulfur world, thioester world -- adding, "opinions are divided on what has been accomplished by all this activity. While much has been learned, it is clear that we are still nowhere near explaining the origin of life."² James Shapiro said bluntly in 2010 that origin of life theories are "still on the fringes of serious scientific discussion."

One group is charting a genuinely new path. Nobelist Jack Szostak seeks to construct an origin-of-life grade cell: "You want something that can grow and divide and, most importantly, exhibit Darwinian evolution. The way that we study that is by trying to make it happen in the lab." He thinks he has succeeded with the cell membrane but "genetic material is the harder problem; the chemistry is just more complicated." And well-known origin-of-life researcher Gerald Joyce thinks that "alien" (i.e., alternative) life forms will more likely be constructed in a laboratory than found in space. Richard Dawkins is optimistic about such efforts: "I watch from the sidelines with engaged curiosity, and I shall not be surprised if within the next few years, chemists report that they have successfully midwifed a new origin of life in the laboratory."

The lab may be the best bet. Science writer John Horgan assesses the current programs unsparingly (but doubtless correctly): "This is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion." We are forever on the verge of a great discovery -- perhaps our hundredth such verge -- but there are no dates proposed for progress evaluation. We can, however, draw some conclusions at this point:

Life's origin on Earth may simply be impossible to determine. It was, after all, an event in time, in history, like the moment the last dinosaur died or the first human fashioned a wheel. If the origin is chance, as most models imply, it is all the more likely to be lost to follow-up.

Life produced in the lab would be a stunning feat but would not necessarily explain life's historical origin. As evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne told New Scientist, "Even if we can create a 'second genesis' in the laboratory, that won't tell us exactly how it happened on Earth 3.8 billion years ago," adding "There are so many different scenarios for how life got going and they all involve molecules that don't get fossilized. It's a clear limit." Astrobiologists argue that life could get started a number of ways elsewhere. A successful lab experiment does not rule out other scenarios, on Earth or anywhere else.

Researchers who design their experiment so that life "just happens" a certain way in the lab are not ruling out design. A gaming commission designs a lottery to assign winning tickets randomly, using a computer algorithm. But the algorithm was designed to assign the numbers randomly. For example, a math genius might then game the algorithm by detecting the design and arranging his ticket purchases to greatly improve his odds. But, if so, he is substituting design for design, not design for chance. Indeed, one Toronto, Canada, statistician did something like that, demonstrating to the gaming commission a flaw in the algorithm for assigning the numbers, such that a design could be detected (and the game was changed as a result).

In short, setting ethical concerns aside for the moment, creating life from scratch in the lab is the only strategy that could, in principle, yield results that are subject to normal science investigation (controlled conditions in the present day). But it would not demonstrate either that life came into existence by that method or that it came into existence without design. Quite the opposite; we would now have a method of creating life by design -- but still no known methods that do not include design.

Could we at least apply what we learn from designing life ourselves to the lost events of deep time? Maybe. But the most reliable methods for producing life in the lab might require the most intervention or feature the conditions we think least likely on early Earth. On the other hand, we could at least test panspermia models. Best results stemming from Mars or asteroid simulations would support panspermia far more strongly than lack of success with Earth-based models (really, panspermia is then just an argument from desperation).

And -- some may think this benefit alone worth all the trouble, risk, and expense -- we could ignore dozens of sketchy model-of-the-month scenarios based on contested claims about Earth's history. Either a model creates life or it isn't ready for prime time. Science journals can then dispense with complex conditional tenses like "might have had," "could have had," and "would have had" when writing about the creation of life.

In short, the lab approach offers an all-science-and-no-religion way out of the present quagmire, with the likelihood of at least some useful answers. Why not just generally adopt it, or at least work toward it? One problem is that it doesn't support claims about the vast powers of randomness or the brute laws of nature. And no solution that dismisses both can be regarded as "science" today. So origin-of-life projects continue to head off in dozens of directions to nowhere instead.

But they at least remain free of any taint of design.

References:

(1) Francis Crick, Life Itself (1981), p. 153.

(2) Christian de Duve, "Mysteries of Life", in Bruce L. Gordon and William A. Dembski, The Nature of Nature: Examining the Role of Naturalism in Science (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books,
2011), p. 349.

Yet another non-theist does some bomb throwing re:darwinism

Lynn Margulis Criticizes Neo-Darwinism in Discover Magazine (Updated)

Casey Luskin April 12, 2011 12:05 AM

 

 

 

National Academy of Sciences member biologist Lynn Margulis does not support intelligent design. She's a materialist who is seeking materialist explanations of evolution. However, as revealed in a recent interview with Discover Magazine, she's a skeptic of neo-Darwinian evolution, and she expressly admits that many of her criticisms of neo-Darwinism are the same as those made by proponents of intelligent design (ID). She first explains why she disagrees with the adequacy of mutation and natural selection:

This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create.... [N]eo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify and organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change-led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.

In this vein, when asked about the Grants' famous studies of evolution in Galapagos finches, she states: "They saw lots of variation within a species, changes over time. But they never found any new species--ever."

When asked, "What kind of evidence turned you against neo-Darwinism?" she replies it is a lack of evidence for gradual change in the fossil record:

What you'd like to see is a good case for gradual change from one species to another in the field, in the laboratory, or in the fossil record--and preferably in all three. Darwin's big mystery was why there was no record at all before a specific point [dated to 542 million years ago by modern researchers], and then all of the sudden in the fossil record you get nearly all the major types of animals. The paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould studied lakes in East Africa and on Caribbean islands looking for Darwin's gradualchange from one species of trilobite or snail to another. What they found was lots of back-and-forth variation in the population and then--whoop--a whole new species. There is no gradualism in the fossil record.

One fascinating comment comes when ID is brought up. The question posed was: "Some of your criticisms of natural selection sound a lot like those of Michael Behe, one of the most famous proponents of 'intelligent design,' and yet you have debated Behe. What is the difference between your views?" And she answered:

The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It's just that they've got nothing to offer by intelligent design or "God did it." They have no alternatives that are scientific.

So obviously Margulis disagrees with the positive argument for design laid out by ID proponents (though she puts forth a false caricature of the ID argument), but she agrees that ID proponents (which wrongly she lumps as "creationists") are "right about their criticisms" of neo-Darwinism. One thing is clear: Margulis shows that one can critique neo-Darwinism and not be a "creationist."

Are Darwin-Critics Tolerated in the Academy?
The short answer is sometimes maybe--but only if they are materialists like Margulis who openly oppose intelligent design. Even then, many anti-ID biologists feel pressured to withhold critiques of neo-Darwinism.

Nonetheless, some Darwin lobbyists have cited Margulis as evidence that one can critique the neo-Darwinian paradigm and not face opposition. Let's consider that argument in light of her express attacks on ID.

In the interview, Margulis shares some personal experiences about whether she receives pushback due to her non-Darwinian views. She explains that "[a]nyone who is overtly critical of the foundations of his science is persona non grata. I am critical of evolutionary biology that is based on population genetics."

Amazingly, while materialists who challenge neo-Darwinism are apparently "persona non grata," Margulis explains that scientists who continue to pursue Darwinian explanations will readily receive grants and support even though they admit the paradigm is failing:

Population geneticist Richard Lewontin gave a talk here at UMass Amherst about six years ago, and he mathemetized all of it--changes in the population, random mutation, sexual selection, cost and benefit. At the end of his talk he said, "You know, we've tried to test these ideas in the field and the lab, and there are really no measurements that match the quantities I've told you about." This just appalled me. So I said, "Richard Lewontin, you are a great lecturer to have the courage to say it's gotten you nowhere. But then why do you continue to do this work?" And he looked around and said, "It's the only thing I know how to do, and if I don't do it I won't get grant money." So he's an honest man, and that's an honest answer.

In the end, however, there's no doubt that as a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Margulis is generally tolerated. Why is that?

Well, for one Margulis has made significant contributions to evolutionary thinking with her endosymbiosis hypothesis--an idea which is highly flawed--but nonetheless courts her favor with modern evolutionary biologists.

But when critics of the Darwinian paradigm like Margulis are tolerated, it's because they wholly reject intelligent design and believe that unguided material causes built all of life's complexity. They don't threaten the core materialism of neo-Darwinism, making it unsurprising that they have experienced no persecution. Rejecting ID and embracing materialism seems to be a necessary condition of being tolerated as a dissenter from neo-Darwinism.

As I explain at 'Expelled Exposed' Is Wrong: Materialists Allowed to Challenge Neo-Darwinian Orthodoxy, Intelligent Design Proponents Are Not, "One can express scientific dissent from neo-Darwinism--albeit rarely, sheepishly, and full of disclaimers and political pledges to materialism--so long as that dissent does not support intelligent design." Margulis is welcome to disagree with ID if that's how she feels. But her hasty (and inaccurate) rhetoric against ID proponents as "creationists" who say "God did it" and offer "no alternatives that are scientific" is evidence that my point is correct.

-----

Update: It seems that even materialist critics of neo-Darwinism like Margulis face strong pushback in some quarters. The influential University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne has already picked up on her interview, stating: "When discussing evolutionary biology, then, Lynn Margulis is dogmatic, wilfully ignorant, and intellectually dishonest."

Coyne also tries to pressure Discover Magazine into publishing an article defending neo-Darwinism (isn't this what virtually every other issue of Discover Magazine does?), for the purely political goal of not lending credence to what he calls "the creationist Discovery Institute":

Margulis's interview comes off as unsullied, uncontested, and ultimately unwarranted criticism of modern evolutionary biology (it has, of course, already been picked up by the creationist Discovery Institute). It would seem incumbent on Discover to offer a counteropinion. Otherwise, they've acted like a referee who lets a favored boxer get away with punching below the belt.

The divine law and bloodV:When the foxes keep watch.

Acts26-Romans2NWT(2013 Edition)

26 A·grip′pa+ said to Paul: “You are permitted to speak in your own behalf.” Then Paul stretched out his hand and proceeded to say in his defense:

2 “Concerning all the things of which I am accused by the Jews,+ King A·grip′pa, I consider myself happy that it is before you I am to make my defense this day, 3 especially because you are an expert on all the customs as well as the controversies among the Jews. Therefore, I beg you to hear me patiently.

4 “Indeed, the manner of life I led from youth up among my people* and in Jerusalem is well-known by all the Jews+ 5 who were previously acquainted with me, if they would be willing to testify, that according to the strictest sect of our form of worship,+ I lived as a Pharisee.+ 6 But now for the hope of the promise that was made by God to our forefathers,+ I stand on trial; 7 this is the same promise our 12 tribes are hoping to see fulfilled by intensely rendering him sacred service night and day. Concerning this hope I am accused by Jews,+ O King.

8 “Why is it considered* unbelievable among you that God raises up the dead? 9 I, for one, was convinced that I should commit many acts of opposition against the name of Jesus the Naz·a·rene′. 10 This is exactly what I did in Jerusalem, and I locked up many of the holy ones in prisons,+ for I had received authority from the chief priests;+ and when they were to be executed, I cast my vote against them. 11 By punishing them often in all the synagogues, I tried to force them to recant; and since I was extremely furious with them, I went so far as to persecute them even in outlying cities.

12 “While doing this as I was traveling to Damascus with authority and a commission from the chief priests, 13 I saw at midday on the road, O King, a light beyond the brilliance of the sun flash from heaven around me and around those traveling with me.+ 14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice say to me in the Hebrew language: ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? To keep kicking against the goads* makes it hard for you.’ 15 But I said: ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said: ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand on your feet. This is why I have appeared to you, to choose you as a servant and a witness both of things you have seen and things I will make you see respecting me.+ 17 And I will rescue you from this people and from the nations, to whom I am sending you+ 18 to open their eyes,+ to turn them from darkness+ to light+ and from the authority of Satan+ to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins+ and an inheritance among those sanctified by their faith in me.’

19 “Therefore, King A·grip′pa, I did not become disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but to those in Damascus+ first and then to those in Jerusalem,+ and over all the country of Ju·de′a, and also to the nations, I was bringing the message that they should repent and turn to God by doing works that befit repentance.+ 21 This is why the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me.+ 22 However, because I have experienced the help that is from God, I continue to this day bearing witness to both small and great, saying nothing except what the Prophets as well as Moses stated was going to take place+— 23 that the Christ was to suffer+ and that as the first to be resurrected from the dead,+ he was going to proclaim light both to this people and to the nations.”+

24 Now as Paul was saying these things in his defense, Festus said in a loud voice: “You are going out of your mind, Paul! Great learning is driving you out of your mind!” 25 But Paul said: “I am not going out of my mind, Your Excellency Festus, but I am speaking words of truth and of a sound mind. 26 For a fact, the king to whom I am speaking so freely well knows about these things; I am convinced that not one of these things escapes his notice, for none of this has been done in a corner.+ 27 Do you, King A·grip′pa, believe the Prophets? I know that you believe.” 28 But A·grip′pa said to Paul: “In a short time you would persuade me to become a Christian.” 29 At this Paul said: “I wish to God that whether in a short time or in a long time, not only you but also all those who hear me today would become men such as I am, with the exception of these prison bonds.”

30 Then the king rose and so did the governor and Bernice and the men seated with them. 31 But as they were leaving, they began saying to one another: “This man is doing nothing deserving of death or prison bonds.”+ 32 A·grip′pa then said to Festus: “This man could have been released if he had not appealed to Caesar.”+

 

 

27 Now as it was decided for us to sail away to Italy,+ they handed Paul and some other prisoners over to an army officer named Julius, of the unit of Au·gus′tus. 2 Going aboard a ship from Ad·ra·myt′ti·um that was about to sail to ports along the coast of the province of Asia, we set sail; Ar·is·tar′chus,+ a Mac·e·do′ni·an from Thes·sa·lo·ni′ca, was with us. 3 The next day we landed at Si′don, and Julius treated Paul with kindness* and permitted him to go to his friends and enjoy their care.

4 And putting out to sea from there, we sailed under the shelter of Cy′prus, because the winds were against us. 5 Then we navigated through the open sea along Ci·li′cia and Pam·phyl′i·a and put into port at My′ra in Ly′ci·a. 6 There the army officer found a ship from Alexandria that was sailing for Italy, and he made us board it. 7 Then after sailing on slowly quite a number of days, we came to Cni′dus with difficulty. Because the wind did not let us make headway, we sailed under the shelter of Crete off Sal·mo′ne. 8 And sailing with difficulty along the coast, we came to a place called Fair Havens, which was near the city of La·se′a.

9 A considerable time had passed and by now it was hazardous to navigate, because even the fast of Atonement Day+ was already over, so Paul made a recommendation 10 to them: “Men, I can see that this voyage is going to result in damage and great loss not only of the cargo and the ship but also of our lives.”* 11 However, the army officer listened to the pilot and the shipowner rather than to what Paul was saying. 12 Since the harbor was unsuitable for wintering, the majority advised setting sail from there to see if they could somehow make it to spend the winter in Phoenix, a harbor of Crete that opens toward the northeast and toward the southeast.

13 When the south wind blew softly, they thought they had achieved their purpose, and they lifted anchor and began sailing along Crete close to the shore. 14 After a short time, however, a violent wind called Eu·ro·aq′ui·lo* rushed down on it. 15 As the ship was violently seized and was not able to keep its head against the wind, we gave way to it and were driven along. 16 Then we ran under the shelter of a small island called Cau′da, and yet we were hardly able to get the skiff* at the stern of the ship under control. 17 But after hoisting it aboard, they used supports to undergird the ship, and fearing that they would run aground on the Syr′tis,* they lowered the gear and so were driven along. 18 Because we were being violently tossed by the storm, they began to lighten the ship the following day. 19 And on the third day, they threw away the tackling of the ship with their own hands.

20 When neither sun nor stars appeared for many days and a violent* storm was battering us, all hope of our being saved finally began to fade. 21 After they had gone a long time without food, Paul stood up in their midst and said: “Men, you certainly should have taken my advice and not have put out to sea from Crete and as a result suffered this damage and loss.+ 22 Still, I now urge you to take courage, for not one* of you will be lost, only the ship will. 23 This night an angel+ of the God to whom I belong and to whom I render sacred service stood by me 24 and said: ‘Have no fear, Paul. You must stand before Caesar,+ and look! God has granted to you all those sailing with you.’ 25 So take courage, men, for I believe God that it will be exactly as I was told. 26 However, we must be cast ashore on some island.”+

27 Now when the 14th night fell and we were being tossed about on the Sea of A′dri·a, at midnight the sailors began to suspect that they were getting near to some land. 28 They sounded the depth and found it 20 fathoms,* so they proceeded a short distance and again made a sounding and found it 15 fathoms.* 29 And fearing that we might run aground on the rocks, they cast out four anchors from the stern and began wishing for it to become day. 30 But when the sailors began trying to escape from the ship and were lowering the skiff into the sea under the pretense of intending to let down anchors from the bow, 31 Paul said to the army officer and the soldiers: “Unless these men remain in the ship, you cannot be saved.”+ 32 Then the soldiers cut away the ropes of the skiff and let it fall off.

33 Now close to daybreak, Paul encouraged them all to take some food, saying: “Today is the 14th day you have been waiting anxiously, and you have gone without taking any food at all. 34 So I encourage you to eat some food; this is in the interests of your safety, for not a hair of the head of any one of you will perish.” 35 After he said this, he took bread, gave thanks to God before them all, broke it, and started eating. 36 So they all took courage and began taking some food themselves. 37 In all we were 276 persons* in the ship. 38 When they had eaten enough food to be satisfied, they lightened the ship by throwing the wheat overboard into the sea.+

39 When daylight came, they could not recognize the land,+ but they saw a bay with a beach and were determined to beach the ship there if they could. 40 So they cut away the anchors and let them fall into the sea, at the same time loosening the lashings of the rudder oars; and after hoisting the foresail to the wind, they made for the beach. 41 When they struck a shoal washed on each side by the sea, they ran the ship aground and the bow got stuck and stayed immovable, but the stern began to be violently broken to pieces by the waves.+ 42 At this the soldiers decided to kill the prisoners so that no one might swim away and escape. 43 But the army officer was determined to bring Paul safely through and prevented them from carrying out their plan. He commanded those able to swim to jump into the sea and make it to land first, 44 and the rest were to follow, some on planks and some on pieces of the ship. So all were brought safely to land.+

 

 

28 After we made it to safety, we learned that the island was called Malta.+ 2 And the foreign-speaking people* showed us extraordinary kindness.* They kindled a fire and received all of us kindly because of the rain that was falling and because of the cold. 3 But when Paul collected a bundle of sticks and laid it on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself on his hand. 4 When the foreign-speaking people caught sight of the venomous creature hanging from his hand, they began saying to one another: “Surely this man is a murderer, and although he made it to safety from the sea, Justice* did not permit him to keep on living.” 5 However, he shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm. 6 But they were expecting him to swell up or suddenly to drop dead. After they waited for a long time and saw that nothing bad happened to him, they changed their mind and began saying he was a god.

7 Now in the neighborhood of that place were lands belonging to the principal man of the island, whose name was Pub′li·us, and he welcomed us and entertained us hospitably for three days. 8 It so happened that the father of Pub′li·us was lying in bed sick with fever and dysentery, and Paul went in to him and prayed, laid his hands on him, and healed him.+ 9 After this occurred, the rest of the people on the island who were sick also began to come to him and be cured.+ 10 They also honored us with many gifts, and when we were setting sail, they loaded us up with whatever we needed.

11 Three months later we set sail in a ship with the figurehead “Sons of Zeus.” The ship was from Alexandria and had wintered in the island. 12 Putting into port at Syracuse, we remained there for three days; 13 from there we went along and arrived at Rhe′gi·um. A day later a south wind sprang up and we made it into Pu·te′o·li on the second day. 14 Here we found brothers and were urged to remain with them for seven days, and so we went toward Rome. 15 From there the brothers, when they heard the news about us, came as far as the Marketplace of Ap′pi·us and Three Taverns to meet us. On catching sight of them, Paul thanked God and took courage.+ 16 When finally we entered Rome, Paul was permitted to stay by himself with the soldier guarding him.

17 However, three days later he called together the principal men of the Jews. When they had assembled, he said to them: “Men, brothers, although I had done nothing contrary to the people or the customs of our forefathers,+ I was handed over as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.+ 18 And after making an examination,+ they wanted to release me, for there were no grounds for putting me to death.+ 19 But when the Jews objected, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar,+ but not because I had any accusation to make against my nation. 20 So for this reason I asked to see and speak to you, for it is because of the hope of Israel that I have this chain around me.”+ 21 They said to him: “We have not received letters about you from Ju·de′a, nor have any of the brothers who came from there reported or spoken anything bad about you. 22 But we think it proper to hear from you what your thoughts are, for truly as regards this sect,+ we know that it is spoken against everywhere.”*+

23 They now arranged for a day to meet with him, and they came in even greater numbers to him in his lodging place. And from morning to evening, he explained the matter to them by bearing thorough witness concerning the Kingdom of God, to persuade them about Jesus+ from both the Law of Moses+ and the Prophets.+ 24 Some began to believe the things he said; others would not believe. 25 So because they disagreed with one another, they began to leave, and Paul made this one comment:

“The holy spirit aptly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your forefathers, 26 saying, ‘Go to this people and say: “You will indeed hear but by no means understand, and you will indeed look but by no means see.+ 27 For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn back and I heal them.”’+ 28 So let it be known to you that this salvation from God has been sent out to the nations;+ they will certainly listen to it.”+ 29* ——

30 So he remained there for an entire two years in his own rented house,+ and he would kindly receive all those who came to him, 31 preaching the Kingdom of God to them and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with the greatest freeness of speech,*+ without hindrance.

*Emphasis mine.

 

 

 

1 Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus and called to be an apostle, set apart for God’s good news,+ 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who came to be from the offspring* of David+ according to the flesh, 4 but who with power was declared God’s Son+ according to the spirit of holiness by means of resurrection from the dead+—yes, Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him we received undeserved kindness and an apostleship+ with a view to obedience by faith among all the nations+ respecting his name, 6 among which nations you also have been called to belong to Jesus Christ— 7 to all those who are in Rome as God’s beloved ones, called to be holy ones:

May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

8 First of all, I give thanks to my God through Jesus Christ concerning all of you, because your faith is talked about throughout the whole world. 9 For God, to whom I render sacred service with my spirit in connection with the good news about his Son, is my witness of how without ceasing I always mention you in my prayers,+ 10 begging that if at all possible I may now at last succeed in coming to you by God’s will. 11 For I am longing to see you, that I may impart some spiritual gift to you for you to be made firm; 12 or, rather, that we may have an interchange of encouragement+ by one another’s faith, both yours and mine.

13 But I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that many times I have intended to come to you—but I have been prevented until now—in order that I might acquire some fruitage also among you just as among the rest of the nations. 14 Both to Greeks and to foreigners,* both to wise and to senseless ones, I am a debtor; 15 so I am eager to declare the good news also to you there in Rome.+ 16 For I am not ashamed of the good news;+ it is, in fact, God’s power for salvation to everyone having faith,+ to the Jew first+ and also to the Greek.+ 17 For in it God’s righteousness is being revealed by faith and for faith,+ just as it is written: “But the righteous one will live by reason of faith.”+

18 For God’s wrath+ is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth+ in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them.+ 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made,+ even his eternal power+ and Godship,+ so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened.+ 22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles.*+

24 Therefore, God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, so that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated* and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen. 26 That is why God gave them over to uncontrolled sexual passion,+ for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature;+ 27 likewise also the males left the natural use of* the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males,+ working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty,* which was due for their error.+

28 Just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God,* God gave them over to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting.+ 29 And they were filled with all unrighteousness,+ wickedness, greed,*+ and badness, being full of envy,+ murder,+ strife, deceit,+ and malice,+ being whisperers,* 30 backbiters,+ haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, schemers of what is harmful,* disobedient to parents,+ 31 without understanding,+ false to agreements, having no natural affection, and merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God—that those practicing such things are deserving of death+—they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them.

 

2 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 conscience is bearing witness with them, and by* 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.+

A brief commentary by the Watchtower Society on the compatibility of the bible with science.

Does Science Agree With the Bible?

The Bible’s answer

Yes, for although the Bible is not a science textbook, it is accurate when it mentions matters of science. Consider some examples showing that science and the Bible agree and that the Bible contains scientific facts that differed greatly from the beliefs of many people living at the time it was written.

• The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.
• The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.
• The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.
• Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6) The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.
• The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8) In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.
• Sanitary practices protect health. The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.

Are there scientific errors in the Bible?

A reasonable examination of the Bible shows the answer to be no. Here are some common misconceptions about the scientific accuracy of the Bible:

1.Myth: The Bible says that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

Fact: According to the Bible, God created the universe in the indefinite past. (Genesis 1:1) Also, the days of creation described in chapter 1 of Genesis were epochs whose length is not specified. In fact, the entire period during which earth and heaven were made is also called a “day.”—Genesis 2:4.

2.Myth: The Bible says that vegetation was created before the sun existed to support photosynthesis.—Genesis 1:11, 16.

Fact: The Bible shows that the sun, one of the stars that make up “the heavens,” was created before vegetation. (Genesis 1:1) Diffused light from the sun reached the earth’s surface during the first “day,” or epoch, of creation. As the atmosphere cleared, by the third “day” of creation, the light was strong enough to support photosynthesis. (Genesis 1:3-5, 12, 13) Only later did the sun become distinctly visible from the surface of the earth.—Genesis 1:16.

3.Myth: The Bible says that the sun revolves around the earth.

Fact: Ecclesiastes 1:5 says: “The sun rises, and the sun sets; then it hurries back to the place where it rises again.” However, this statement merely describes the apparent motion of the sun as viewed from the earth. Even today, a person can use the words “sunrise” and “sunset,” yet he knows that the earth revolves around the sun.

4.Myth: The Bible says that the earth is flat.

Fact: The Bible uses the phrase “the ends of the earth” to mean “the most distant part of the earth”; this does not imply that the earth is flat or that it has an edge. (Acts 1:8; footnote) Likewise, the expression “the four corners of the earth” is a figure of speech referring to the entire surface of the earth; today a person might use the four points of the compass as a similar metaphor.—Isaiah 11:12; Luke 13:29.

5.Myth: The Bible says that the circumference of a circle is exactly three times its diameter, but the correct value is pi (π), or about 3.1416.

Fact: The measurements of “the Sea of cast metal” given at 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 indicate that it had a diameter of 10 cubits and that “it took a measuring line 30 cubits long to encircle it.” These dimensions might have been merely the nearest round numbers. It is also possible that the circumference and diameter represented inner and outer measurements of the basin respectively.

With regard to myth no.4 I would add that the bible specifically states that the earth is round.

Isaiah40:22NASB"It is He who [s]sits above the [t]circle of the earth,And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain

And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." And of course the only shape that would consistently appear circular regardless of the angle from which it is view is a sphere not a disk.