File under 'Well said' IV

"The only wealth which you will keep forever is the wealth you have given away."
Marcus Aurelius Meditations. 167 AD 

More on Atheists' mysticism.

Quashing Materialist Appeals to Magic (Again)

Ironically enough, materialists are a mystical lot. They say they reject irrational and superstitious beliefs, but when one pushes them past their ability to explain life, the universe and everything in materialist terms, they are very quick to resort to obscurantist pseudo-explanations. And “it emerged” is their favorite dodge.

As we have explained many times before, “it emerged” is the explanatory equivalent of “it’s magic.” But like bugs scattering when the lights are turned on, we have to stomp on this one again and again. Like today for instance. In my Why there is no Meaning if Materialism is True post I argued that on materialist premises – that nothing exists but space, time, particles and energy – there can be no meaning.

Popperian says I can do better. There is “emergence” after all.  And I poked a little fun at Pop:

as Popperian argues on these pages ad nauseam, it’s all emergent. You see, if you stack up the burned out star stuff this way, nothing. But if you stack it up ever so slightly differently, poof!! out of a cloud of smoke emerges rabbits, doves, silly string, consciousness, and morality.

Yes, that is the level to which we have descended — the invocation magic.

And then REC gave us this gem:

Barry, @29, seems close to denying that different arrangements of matter will have different properties. If ID wants to fight with chemistry, that is a development I look forward to.

Sigh.

REC, as we have explained over and over and over, we do not reject emergence as an explanation as such. See here where we said this in so many words.  No, we reject “it emerged” when materialist like you and Popperian use it as a pseudo-explanation to obscure the fact that you haven’t the faintest idea how consciousness arises from the physical properties of the brain.

Your fellow atheist Thomas Nagel also rejects your antics:

Merely to identify a cause is not to provide a significant explanation without some understanding of why the cause produces the effect.

To qualify as a genuine explanation of the mental, an emergent account must be in some way systematic. It cannot just say that each mental event or state supervenes on the complex physical state of the organism in which it occurs. That would the kind of brute fact that does not constitute an explanation but rather calls for an explanation.

If emergence is the whole truth, it implies that mental states are present in the organism as a whole, or its central nervous system, without any grounding in the elements that constitute the organism, expect for the physical character of those elements that permits them to be arranged in the complex form that, according to the higher-level theory, connects the physical with the mental. That such a purely physical elements, when combined in a certain way, should necessarily produce a state of the whole that is not constituted of of the properties and relations of the physical parts still seems like magic even if the higher-order psychophysical dependencies are quite systematic.

Emphasis added.

And if you don’t believe Nagel, maybe you’ll believe Elizabeth Liddle:

[“Emergent” is] simply a word to denote the idea that when a whole has properties of a whole that are not possessed by the parts, those properties “emerge” from interactions between the parts (and of course between the whole and its environment). It is not itself an explanation – to be an explanation you would have to provide a putative mechanism by which those properties were generated. . . .

‘It’s emergent’ would be on an intellectual par with saying ‘It’s magic!’

REC, you most certainly cannot provide a putative mechanism by which immaterial consciousness arises from the material properties of the brain. I know this, because if you could I feel sure I would have seen you on the news accepting your Nobel prize.


Since you cannot provide such a putative mechanism, your own buddy Elizabeth Liddle would say you have done the equivalent of invoking magic. And I bet you think ID proponents are credulous.

More reasons to just say no to atheists' magic.

Professor Paul Davies is no friend of Intelligent Design. Nevertheless, he puts forward a formidable argument against its best scientific alternative, the multiverse, in an interview with Robert Lawrence Kuhn, creator and host of “Closer To Truth,” and author of a recent article titled, Is our universe a fake? (Space.com, July 31, 2015). Kuhn summarizes Davies’ argument as follows:

“If you take seriously the theory of all possible universes, including all possible variations,” Davies said, “at least some of them must have intelligent civilizations with enough computing power to simulate entire fake worlds. Simulated universes are much cheaper to make than the real thing, and so the number of fake universes would proliferate and vastly outnumber the real ones. And assuming we’re just typical observers, then we’re overwhelmingly likely to find ourselves in a fake universe, not a real one.”

So far it’s the normal argument.

Then Davies makes his move. He claims that because the theoretical existence of multiple universes is based on the laws of physics in our universe, if this universe is simulated, then its laws of physics are also simulated, which would mean that this universe’s physics is a fake. Therefore, Davies reasoned, “We cannot use the argument that the physics in our universe leads to multiple universes, because it also leads to a fake universe with fake physics.” That undermines the whole argument that fundamental physics generates multiple universes, because the reasoning collapses in circularity.

Davies concluded, “While multiple universes seem almost inevitable given our understanding of the Big Bang, using them to explain all existence is a dangerous, slippery slope, leading to apparently absurd conclusions.”

Davies’ reductio ad absurdum is a devastating one: the multiverse undercuts the basis of physics itself. And Davies is not alone. Physicist Paul Steinhardt, who helped create the theory of inflation but later came to reject it, declared last September: “Our universe has a simple, natural structure. The multiverse idea is baroque, unnatural, untestable and, in the end, dangerous to science and society.” Steinhardt believes that the multiverse hypothesis leads science away from its task of providing a unique explanation for the properties of nature. Instead, it simply deems them to be random – which, for Steinhardt, feels like giving up on the scientific enterprise. It’s a scientific cop-out. In an interview with John Horgan for Scientific American (Physicist Slams Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive, December 1, 2014), Steinhardt made no secret of his disdain for both inflation theory and the multiverse (emphases mine – VJT):

Horgan: You were one of the originators of inflation theory. When and why did you start having doubts about it?

Steinhardt: From the very beginning, even as I was writing my first paper on inflation in 1982, I was concerned that the inflationary picture only works if you finely tune the constants that control the inflationary period. Andy Albrecht and I (and, independently, Andrei Linde) had just discovered the way of having an extended period of inflation end in a graceful exit to a universe filled with hot matter and radiation, the paradigm for all inflationary models since. But the exit came at a cost — fine-tuning. The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved.

But my concerns really grew when I discovered that, due to quantum fluctuation effects, inflation is generically eternal and (as others soon emphasized) this would lead to a multiverse…

To me, the accidental universe idea is scientifically meaningless because it explains nothing and predicts nothing. Also, it misses the most salient fact we have learned about large-scale structure of the universe: its extraordinary simplicity when averaged over large scales…

Scientific ideas should be simple, explanatory, predictive. The inflationary multiverse as currently understood appears to have none of those properties.

These concerns and more, and the fact that we have made no progress in 30 years in addressing them, are what have made me skeptical about the inflationary picture.

    
 ven MIT Professor Alan Guth, a strong supporter of the theory of inflation (which he helped originate) and the multiverse, has acknowledged that it has some philosophically bizarre implications. As he put it in an interview with Natalie Wolchover and Peter Byrne (In a Multiverse, What Are the Odds?, November 3, 2014):

“In a single universe, cows born with two heads are rarer than cows born with one head,” he said. But in an infinitely branching multiverse, “there are an infinite number of one-headed cows and an infinite number of two-headed cows. What happens to the ratio?”

Why I think a transcendent Creator would make computer simulations of consciousness impossible

An interesting question for Intelligent Design proponents to ponder at this point is: supposing that the universe was designed by a Being Who wished to make His existence scientifically knowable to any intelligent life-forms living within the cosmos, and suppose that this Being was not only intelligent but also transcendent, how would He design the universe in such a way as to prevent human beings (and any other intelligent life-forms that might exist in outer space) from drawing the wrong inference about the nature of the Designer, and conceiving of Him as merely super-human (like the Greek and Roman gods of antiquity), rather than transcendent?

In his article, Robert Lawrence Kuhn finds that the argument that our universe might be a simulation rests upon five critical premises: “(i) Other intelligent civilizations exist; (ii) their technologies grow exponentially; (iii) they do not all go extinct; (iv) there is no universal ban or barrier for running simulations; and (v) consciousness can be simulated.” Kuhn goes on to say that the notion that our own universe is a simulation is not incompatible with theism, but he adds that it would be a weak form of theism, as the super-intelligent designer(s) of our universe “wouldn’t need unlimited or infinite minds.” Kuhn wonders how scientists, philosophers and theologians would distinguish between “the traditional creator God and hyper-advanced creator-simulators.”

Here is a prediction I would make. If the transcendent God of traditional theism exists, and wishes to make Himself known to His creatures, then the last thing He’d want to do is give the intelligent life-forms within this universe the power to create other universes. For if these intelligent life-forms discovered that they had this power, then they would also realize that it was highly likely that they, in turn, were created by intelligent life-forms in another universe. This disturbing realization would make it much harder for them to infer the existence of a transcendent God. So my prediction would be that to prevent this from happening, a Transcendent Creator would make it impossible for intelligent life-forms to simulate human consciousness on a computer – and probably animal consciousness, as well. This is just what we find, as I reported in my article, Could the Internet ever be conscious? Definitely not before 2115, even if you’re a materialist. In that article, I calculated that the human brain is 31 orders of magnitude more complex than the entire Internet. And to those who would appeal to Moore’s law as a way for scientists of the future to catch up, I have some bad news: Moore himself declared in 2005 that his law would reach a “fundamental limit” in 10 or 20 years – i.e. by 2025 at the latest – and according to Intel’s former chief architect, Robert Colwell, Moore’s law will be dead by 2022, largely for economic reasons. Darwinist philosopher Daniel Dennett is also skeptical of the Internet ever becoming conscious. In a recent article by Slate journalist Dan Falk (September 20, 2012), he remarked:

“The connections in brains aren’t random; they are deeply organized to serve specific purposes,” Dennett says. “And human brains share further architectural features that distinguish them from, say, chimp brains, in spite of many deep similarities. What are the odds that a network, designed by processes serving entirely different purposes, would share enough of the architectural features to serve as any sort of conscious mind?” (Emphasis mine – VJT.)

Dennett also pointed out that while the Internet had a very high level of connectivity, the difference in architecture “makes it unlikely in the extreme that it would have any sort of consciousness.”

The massive number of assumptions upon which the multiverse hypothesis is built

In addition to the reductio ad absurdum advanced above, Professor Paul Davies has other objections to the multiverse. In an interview last year on Closer to Truth titled, Are There Multiple Universes? (August 23, 2014), Professor Davies explained why he finds the multiverse hypothesis intellectually unsatisfying (emphasis mine – VJT):

[0:40]
It’s not an unreasonable speculation. However, it falls far short of being a complete theory of existence, which it’s often presented as. That is, if there’s a multiverse, we can forget about all the mysteries of the universe because it’s all explained: everything’s out there somewhere. End of story. Well, it’s simply not true, because to get a multiverse, you need a universe-generating mechanism – something has got to make all those Big Bangs go “Bang!” – so you’re going to need some laws of physics to do that. All of the theories of the multiverse assume quantum mechanics, quantum physics, to give the element of spontaneity to make the bangs happen. They assume pre-existing space and time, they assume the normal notion of causality – a whole host of things. You write down a list, there’s about ten different basic assumptions they have to make to get the theory to work. And you can say, well, “Where did they all come from? What about these meta-laws that generate universes and impose effective local by-laws, as Martin Rees would call it, upon these universes? What is this distribution mechanism? How does that work? Where do those rules come from? So all you’ve done is shift the problem of existence up from the level of universe to the level of multiverse. But you haven’t explained it.

Davies’ philosophical misgivings about the multiverse – and Intelligent Design

Continuing in a philosophical vein, Davies explains why he rejects both the multiverse andIntelligent Design (emphases mine – VJT):

[3:00]
I suppose for me, the main problem is that what we’re trying to do is explain why the universe is as it is by appealing to something outside of it – in this case, an infinite number of universes outside of it – that, to me, is no better than traditional religion, that appeals to an unseen, unexplained God that is outside of the universe.

[5:01]
I would like to try to find an explanation for the universe from entirely within it, without appealing to anything external. And as a matter of fact I believe that if somebody did a proper mathematical analysis, they would find that the complexity of the explanation of the multiverse – an infinite number of universes we don’t see – is the same as the explanation of traditional theology: an infinitely complex God outside the universe that we don’t see. They’re really the same thing, in different language, and so my point of view now is: a plague on both your houses. We need to try to find the explanation for the universe from within it, from what we see, and not multiply these unseen entities.

Religious believers will point out, correctly, that the God of classical theism is not complex at all, but utterly simple. However, one needs to distinguish between God’s necessary Being and God’s contingent operations: the former is dogmatically defined to be simple, whereas the latter is not. Even supposing God’s operations to be complex, however, it does not follow that they are infinitely complex. The question that mathematicians should be asking, in my opinion, is: how much information would you need to put into the universe, if you were going to fine-tune not only its laws but also its initial conditions, in such a way that it would be guaranteed to ultimately generate living cells and later on, complex life-forms, some of which would possess consciousness?

More problems with the multiverse

Finally, I should point out that the multiverse is plagued by no less than five severe problems, which I briefly enumerated in a recent post. The first two have already been discussed above; the last three are equally devastating (emphases mine – VJT):

The multiverse hypothesis faces five formidable problems: first, it merely shifts the fine-tuning problem up one level, as a multiverse capable of generating even one life-supporting universe would still need to be fine-tuned; second, the multiverse hypothesis itself implies that a sizable proportion of universes (including perhaps our own) were intelligently designed; third, the multiverse hypothesis predicts that most of the intelligent life-forms that exist should be “Boltzmann brains” that momentarily fluctuate into and out of existence; fourth, the multiverse hypothesis predicts that a universe containing intelligent life should be much smaller than the one we live in; and fifth, the multiverse hypothesis cannot account for the fact that the laws of physics are not only life-permitting, but also mathematically elegant – a fact acknowledged even by physicists with no religious beliefs.

Further discussion of these problems can be found here. The elegance of the laws of Nature has been remarked on by many scientists, including Paul Davies, who wrote in his best-selling book, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster):

A common reaction among physicists to remarkable discoveries of the sort discussed above is a mixture of delight at the subtlety and elegance of nature, and of stupefaction: ‘I would never have thought of doing it that way.’ If nature is so ‘clever’ that it can exploit mechanisms that amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of intelligent design behind the physical universe? (1984, pp. 235-36. Emphasis mine – VJT.)

That was what Davies wrote in 1984. In recent years, sadly, he has changed his mind – not for scientific but for philosophical reasons. In a 2007 article for the Taking Science on Faith

, Davies stated why he now prefers an explanation of the universe’s laws from within the cosmos, even as he candidly acknowledged that no such theory presently exists (emphases mine – VJT):

It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or meta-laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine providence. The alternative is to regard the laws of physics and the universe they govern as part and parcel of a unitary system, and to be incorporated together within a common explanatory scheme.

In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

The way forward for ID?

For my part, I do think Davies is right about one thing. It is not enough to argue that the laws of the universe must have been designed by some Intelligence. For a hypothesis to be scientifically fruitful, it needs to make predictions. What the Intelligent Design movement needs is physicists who are not afraid to “get inside the mind of God,” and freely speculate about why the universe has the laws, fundamental principles and underlying mathematical structures that it does. Why was the universe designed this way, and not some other way? To say that it was designed to support intelligent life is all well and good, but we need to go further, and explain why alternative life-permitting designs for the cosmos would have been less suitable than the one that we find ourselves in. I have previously suggested that Intelligent Design could be rendered more fruitful if it incorporated the assumption that one of the Designer’s aims was to make His existence known to His intelligent creatures, and I also suggested above that the Designer wants to make His transcendence known to us. Finally, I would suggest that the cosmos is asbeautiful in its underlying principles as it possibly can be, while at the same time remaining mathematically comprehensible to the human mind. Taken together, these three assumptions might narrow the range of life-permitting possible universes to the point where we can eventually conclude, on purely scientific grounds, that this universe is the best possible design that a Transcendent Creator could have selected, had He wished to make His existence known to human beings. That, I think, would be a fruitful line of inquiry.

What do readers think?

A hostile takeover?

Horizontal Gene Transfer: Sorry, Darwin, It's Not Your Evolution Any More

Denyse O'Leary August 13, 2015 10:48 AM |

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), sometimes called lateral gene transfer (LGT), is a profound recent discovery in genetics: Genome mapping has shown that bacteria can acquire genes from the bacteria around them --that is, horizontally -- rather than from a previous generation (vertical transfer), as when a parent cell divides into two daughter cells. They can transfermultiple segments of DNA at once to fellow species members.

But that was hardly the critical finding. This is: Because bacteria are found everywhere and are comparatively simple, they can move newly acquired genes between life forms in the other domains of life. They can produce heritable changes with no recent common ancestor. For example,

-- Some researchers have reported that a massive network of recent gene exchange connects bacteria from around the world, "10,000 unique genes flowing via HGT among 2,235 bacterial genomes," providing the bacteria with genetic information they didn't inherit from their parent cells, including antibiotic resistance.

Microbes were fighting natural antibiotics this way, we are told, from long before humans learned how to invent them. Bacteria from 30,000 years ago that resist today's antibiotics have been found in permafrost (underground frost that never melts). A generalized antibiotic resistance may have been traded between types of bacteria long ago, including some that subsequently got frozen for millennia.

-- Bacteria were assumed to need long, intact strings of DNA to integrate. But it turns out that they can also use discarded DNA. A 2013 PNAS papernotes:

Our surroundings contain large amounts of strongly fragmented and damaged DNA, which is being degraded. Some of it may be thousands of years old. Laboratory experiments with microbes and various kinds of DNA have shown that bacteria take up very short and damaged DNA from the environment and passively integrate it in their own genome. Furthermore this mechanism has also been shown to work with a modern bacteria's uptake of 43,000 years old mammoth DNA.

One is reminded of mechanics who visit wrecking yards to locate reuseable spare parts.

-- Sometimes the microbes' methods of harvesting genes are more sophisticated than we might expect. Bacteria that grow on crustaceans can absorb fragments containing more than 40 genes, using a small "spear." Researcher Melanie Blokesch describes that number as "an enormous amount of new genetic information." That may explain why antibiotic resistance sets in so quickly.

Bacteria just do not play by Darwin's rules.

Neither, it turns out, do plants, animals, or fungi, not when bacteria shuttle between them, absorbing, carrying, and delivering genes that get incorporated into other genomes.

-- Scientific American observes that HGT from bacteria to more complex life forms (eukaryotes) is more common than formerly believed:

Muller and his colleagues scanned the genomes of 149 eukaryotes, and found acdS-like genes in 65 of them -- 61 in fungi and 4 in parasitic microorganisms called oomycetes, includingPhytophthora infestans, the microbe responsible for the Irish potato famine. After analysing the organisms' genetic family trees, the researchers determined that the most likely explanation was that three different kinds of bacterium had donated the gene to the fungi and oomycetes in a total of 15 different horizontal-gene-transfer events.

-- In another study, ferns were found to have adapted to low light via HGTfrom moss-like hornworts from which they diverged 400 million years ago:

"We're actually seeing more and more incidence of horizontal gene transfer in plants"... However neochrome was transferred, it seems to have occurred at just the right moment in ferns' evolutionary history.

-- The giant Rafflesia flower has stolen genes from plants it parasitizes.Genes may even be shared among plants with only a distant ancestral relationship.

-- Animals do it too. Bacteria are known to use horizontal gene transfer by injecting toxins into rival cells. And some species of ticks and mites (relatives of spiders) have been found to acquire these toxins to get rid of the bothersome bacteria.

-- The bdelloid rotifer (pictured above) holds the record for HGT (as of 2013). It dispenses with sex, and at least 8 percent of its genes are considered likely to have been acquired by HGT.

Even vertebrates do it.

-- An article in prestigious Scientist tells us, "Scientists show that horizontal transfer of a particular DNA sequence among a diverse range of vertebrates is more widespread than previously believed."

The results can be surprising. In one gene sequence, cows are closer to snakes than elephants, with shared parasites as a possible vector.

-- One finding could affect lab research: Bacterial DNA pass traits from mouse mother to offspring, which means, among other things that when we study lab mice, we must account for the possibility that inherited bacteria and their genes could influence the trait under study--as opposed to assuming that the Darwinian mechanism of vertical common ancestry is the only possible source of genes.

-- Lastly, in one remarkable case, an invertebrate stole more than a plant's genes: Sea slugs were known to steal chloroplasts from algae (kleptoplasty) since the 1970s. But one question was how the chloroplasts lasted so much longer in the slug than in the algae. A recent finding:

"This paper confirms that one of several algal genes needed to repair damage to chloroplasts, and keep them functioning, is present on the slug chromosome," Pierce says. "The gene is incorporated into the slug chromosome and transmitted to the next generation of slugs." While the next generation must take up chloroplasts anew from algae, the genes to maintain the chloroplasts are already present in the slug genome, Pierce says.

"There is no way on earth that genes from an alga should work inside an animal cell," Pierce says. "And yet here, they do. They allow the animal to rely on sunshine for its nutrition. So if something happens to their food source, they have a way of not starving to death until they find more algae to eat."

The slug did not "evolve" this trait, it hijacked it. One researcher has commented, "The process of evolution just isn't what many evolutionary biologists think it is."

But surely bacteria could not transfer DNA to humans, considering how complex we are? Yes they can, apparently,according to a recent article in the Scientist.

-- For example, we are told in Aeon Magazine, "... in Japan, some people's gut bacteria have stolen seaweed-digesting genes from ocean bacteria lingering on raw seaweed salads."

-- It may not even be rare, say researchers published in Genome Biology:

Lead author Alastair Crisp from the University of Cambridge, UK, said: "This is the first study to show how widely horizontal gene transfer (HGT) occurs in animals, including humans, giving rise to tens or hundreds of active 'foreign' genes. Surprisingly, far from being a rare occurrence, it appears that HGT has contributed to the evolution of many, perhaps all, animals and that the process is ongoing, meaning that we may need to re-evaluate how we think about evolution."

-- From the Economist, we learn:

Alastair Crisp and Chiara Boschetti of Cambridge University, and their colleagues, have been investigating the matter. Their results, just published in Genome Biology, suggest human beings have at least 145 genes picked up from other species by their forebears. Admittedly, that is less than 1 percent of the 20,000 or so humans have in total. But it might surprise many people that they are even to a small degree part bacterium, part fungus and part alga.

Dr Crisp and Dr Boschetti came to this conclusion by looking at the ever-growing public databases of genetic information now available. They did not study humans alone. They looked at nine other primate species, and also 12 types of fruit fly and four nematode worms. Flies and worms are among geneticists' favourite animals, so lots of data have been collected on them. The results from all three groups suggest natural transgenics is ubiquitous.

So we are a long way from when biochemist Christian de Duve (1917-2013), grudgingly admitted the significance of horizontal gene transfer, noting that it "... has been recognized as a major complication when attempting to use molecular data to reconstruct the tree of life."¹

It certainly has, because where HGT is in play, there just isn't a tree of life. Even popular science writers are beginning to recognize the significance of this fact. New Scientist's Mark Buchanan writes: "Just suppose that Darwin's ideas were only a part of the story of evolution. Suppose that a process he never wrote about, and never even imagined, has been controlling the evolution of life throughout most of the Earth's history."

No need to suppose, actually; it's here. But HGT isn't "controlling the evolution of life." It is simply breaking Darwinism's monopoly on accounting for it.

Some ask, why is HGT bad news for Darwin? Can't Darwinism simply co-opt it? No. Admittedly, some hope it can, sort of. In Aeon Magazine, science writer Ferris Jabr suggests,

The fact that horizontal gene transfer happens among eukaryotes does not require a complete overhaul of standard evolutionary theory, but it does compel us to make some important adjustments...

Ferris, it really does require a complete overhaul.

He goes on to defend Darwinism by personifying the gene:

We did not invent gene transfer; DNA did. Genes are concerned with one thing above all else: self-perpetuation. If such preservation requires a particular gene to adapt to a genome it has never encountered before - if riding a parasite from one species to another turns out to be an extremely successful way of guaranteeing perpetuity - so be it. Species barriers might protect the integrity of a genome as a whole, but when an individual gene has a chance to advance itself by breaching those boundaries, it will not hesitate.

No, no, no. Genes can travel but they have no minds and no desires. When the Dawkinsian metaphysic of the vertical "selfish gene" is used to assign properties of minds to genes, it becomes not only questionable but ridiculous. What Jabr mainly demonstrates is how difficult it is for people raised on Darwin (and Dawkins) to maintain a science-based view of evolution in the face of evident non-Darwinian evolution.

Speaking of Richard Dawkins: For over a century, Darwinism was the "must be" explanation, the only "scientific one." As Dawkins put it (p. 287, Blind Watchmaker, 1986):

My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.

But Darwinism is not "the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life." Claims that were formerly merely preferred must be tested against HGT. True, some of the example findings given above may need revision or replacement. But many more will likely turn up, as research uncovers HGT in many genomes.

Anything HGT does, Darwinian evolution did not do. As more and more pieces are carved out of Darwin's territory, just think of the impact on the vast project of "Darwinizing the culture."

One report boldly alludes to Darwin's plight:

It's a firmly established fact straight from Biology 101: Traits such as eye color and height are passed from one generation to the next through the parents' DNA.

But now, a new study in mice by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis has shown that the DNA of bacteria that live in the body can pass a trait to offspring in a way similar to the parents' own DNA.

The latter explanation involves a major change in thinking because it suggests that traits affected by bacteria can pass from mothers to their offspring in the same manner as traits affected by mouse DNA.

As a major change in thinking, HGT is very bad news for Darwinism.

So we find ourselves in an odd situation: Yes, there is some evidence for evolution, but it provides no help to the publicly funded, widely believed, court-enforced Darwinian theory stoutly defended in media as "evolution."

And things will get stranger still when we look at epigenetics. For now, just suppose a sharply diminished Darwin.

Notes:

(1) 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. 348.

What Is Babylon the Great?:The Bible's answer.

The Bible’s answer

Babylon the Great, described in the book of Revelation, is the world’s collective body of false religions, which God rejects. * (Revelation 14:8; 17:5; 18:21) Although those religions differ in many respects, in one way or another they all lead people away from the worship of the true God, Jehovah.—Deuteronomy 4:35.

Keys to identifying Babylon the Great

1. Babylon the Great is a symbol. The Bible describes her as “a woman” and a “great prostitute,” having a name that is “a mystery: ‘Babylon the Great.’” (Revelation 17:1, 3, 5) The book of Revelation is presented “in signs,” so it is reasonable to conclude that Babylon the Great is a symbol, not a literal woman. (Revelation 1:1) In addition, she “sits on many waters,” which represent “peoples and crowds and nations and tongues.” (Revelation 17:1, 15) A literal woman could not do that.
2. Babylon the Great represents an international entity. She is called “the great city that has a kingdom over the kings of the earth.” (Revelation 17:18) Thus, she has international scope and influence.
3. Babylon the Great is a religious entity, not a political or commercial one.Ancient Babylon was a profoundly religious city, known for its use of spiritistic “spells” and “sorceries.” (Isaiah 47:1, 12, 13; Jeremiah 50:1, 2,38) In fact, false religion in opposition to the true God, Jehovah, was practiced there. (Genesis 10:8, 9; 11:2-4, 8) The rulers of Babylon arrogantly exalted themselves above Jehovah and his worship. (Isaiah 14:4, 13, 14; Daniel 5:2-4, 23) Likewise, Babylon the Great is known for her “spiritistic practices.” That shows her to be a religious organization.—Revelation 18:23.
   Babylon the Great cannot be a political entity, because “the kings of the earth” mourn her destruction. (Revelation 17:1, 2; 18:9) Neither is she a commercial power, because the Bible distinguishes her from “the merchants of the earth.”—Revelation 18:11, 15.
4. 
   
   

   

   
   
   

   Stela of Babylonian King Nabonidus with symbols of the triad of gods Sin, Ishtar, and Shamash

   Babylon the Great fits the profile of false religion. Rather than teaching people how to draw closer to the true God, Jehovah, false religion actually leads them to worship other gods. The Bible calls this “spiritual prostitution.” (Leviticus 20:6; Exodus 34:15, 16) Beliefs such as the Trinityand the immortality of the soul and practices such as the use of imagesin worship date back to ancient Babylon and continue to permeate false religion. These religions also blend their worship with love for the world. The Bible refers to this form of unfaithfulness as spiritual adultery.—James 4:4.
   False religion’s wealth and showy display of it match the picture that the Bible paints of Babylon the Great, who is “clothed in purple and scarlet” and “adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls.” (Revelation 17:4) Babylon the Great is the source of “the disgusting things of the earth,” or the teachings and actions that actually dishonor God. (Revelation 17:5) The members of false religion are the “peoples and crowds and nations and tongues” who support Babylon the Great.—Revelation 17:15.

Babylon the Great is responsible for the deaths “of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth.” (Revelation 18:24) Throughout history, false religion has not only fomented wars and fueled acts of terrorism but has also failed to teach people the truth about Jehovah, the God of love. (1 John 4:8) This failure has contributed to much bloodshed. For good reason, those who want to please God must “get out of her,” separating themselves from false religion.—Revelation 18:4; 2 Corinthians 6:14-17.

Watchtower Society's commentary on Paul's epistle to the Hebrews

HEBREWS, LETTER TO THE


An inspired letter of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Evidence indicates that it was written by the apostle Paul to the Hebrew Christians in Judea about 61 C.E. To those Hebrew Christians the letter was most timely. It had then been about 28 years since Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. In the earlier part of that period severe persecution had been brought upon these Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and Judea by the Jewish religious leaders, resulting in the death of some Christians and the scattering of most of the others from Jerusalem. (Ac 8:1) The scattered ones remained active in spreading the good news everywhere they went. (Ac 8:4) The apostles had stayed in Jerusalem and had held the remaining congregation together there, and it had grown, even under stiff opposition. (Ac 8:14) Then, for a time, the congregation entered into a period of peace. (Ac 9:31) Later, Herod Agrippa I caused the death of the apostle James, John’s brother, and mistreated others of the congregation. (Ac 12:1-5) Sometime after this, there developed a material need among the Christians in Judea, giving opportunity for those in Achaia and Macedonia (in about 55 C.E.) to demonstrate their love and unity by sending aid. (1Co 16:1-3; 2Co 9:1-5) So the Jerusalem congregation had suffered many hardships.

Purpose of the Letter. The congregation in Jerusalem was comprised almost entirely of Jews and those who had been proselytes to the Jews’ religion. Many of these had come to a knowledge of the truth after the time of the most bitter persecution. At the time the letter to the Hebrews was written, the congregation was enjoying comparative peace, for Paul told them: “You have never yet resisted as far as blood.” (Heb 12:4) Nevertheless, the lessening of outright physical persecution to death did not mean that strong opposition from the Jewish religious leaders had ceased. The newer members of the congregation had to face the opposition just as the rest did. And some others were immature, not having made the progress toward maturity that they should have made in view of the time. (5:12) The opposition they faced daily from the Jews put their faith to a test. They needed to build up the quality of endurance.—12:1, 2.

Time was running out for Jerusalem. Neither the apostle Paul nor those in the congregation at Jerusalem knew when the foretold desolation would occur, but God did know. (Lu 21:20-24; Da 9:24, 27) The situation would call for the Christians there to be alert and to exercise faith so that they would flee from the city when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies. All in the congregation needed to strengthen themselves for these momentous events. According to tradition, it was just about five years after the writing of this letter that Cestius Gallus’ troops attacked the city and then withdrew. Four years after that, Jerusalem and its temple were leveled by the Romans under General Titus. But before either of these events took place, Jehovah had provided the inspired counsel that his servants needed.

Jewish opposition. The Jewish religious leaders, by lying propaganda, had done everything they could to stir up hatred against Christ’s followers. Their determination to fight Christianity with every possible weapon is demonstrated by their actions, as recorded in Acts 22:22; 23:12-15, 23, 24; 24:1-4; 25:1-3. They and their supporters constantly harassed the Christians, evidently using arguments in an effort to break their loyalty to Christ. They attacked Christianity with what might seem to a Jew to be powerful reasoning, hard to answer.

At that time Judaism had much to offer in the way of tangible, material things and outward appearance. The Jews might say that these things proved Judaism superior and Christianity foolish. Why, they had told Jesus that the nation had as their father Abraham, to whom the promises were given. (Joh 8:33, 39) Moses, to whom God spoke “mouth to mouth,” was God’s great servant and prophet. (Nu 12:7, 8) The Jews had the Law and the words of the prophets from the beginning. ‘Did not this very antiquity establish Judaism as the true religion?’ they might ask. At the inaugurating of the Law covenant, God had spoken by means of angels; in fact, the Law was transmitted through angels by the hand of the mediator Moses. (Ac 7:53; Ga 3:19) On this occasion God had given a fear-inspiring demonstration of power in shaking Mount Sinai; the loud sound of a horn, smoke, thunder, and lightning accompanied the glorious display.—Ex 19:16-19; 20:18; Heb 12:18-21.

Besides all these things of antiquity, there stood the magnificent temple with its priesthood instituted by Jehovah. Priests officiated at the temple, daily handling many sacrifices. Accompanying these things were the costly priestly garments and the splendor of the services conducted at the temple. ‘Had not Jehovah commanded that sacrifices for sin be brought to the sanctuary, and did not the high priest, the descendant of Moses’ own brother Aaron, enter the Most Holy on the Day of Atonement with a sacrifice for the sins of the whole nation? On this occasion, did he not approach representatively into the very presence of God?,’ the Jews might argue. (Le 16) ‘Furthermore, was not the kingdom the possession of the Jews, with one (the Messiah, who would later come, as they said) to sit on the throne at Jerusalem to rule?’

If the letter to the Hebrews was being written to equip the Christians to answer objections that were actually being raised by the Jews, then those enemies of Christianity had contended in this way: ‘What did this new “heresy” have to point to as evidence of its genuineness and of God’s favor? Where was their temple, and where their priesthood? In fact, where was their leader? Was he of any importance among the leaders of the nation during his lifetime—this Jesus, a Galilean, a carpenter’s son, with no rabbinic education? And did he not die an ignominious death? Where was his kingdom? And who were his apostles and followers? Mere fishermen and tax collectors. Furthermore, whom did Christianity draw, for the most part? The poor and lowly persons of the earth and, even worse, uncircumcised Gentiles, not of the seed of Abraham, were accepted. Why should anyone put his trust in this Jesus, who had been put to death as a blasphemer and a seditionist? Why listen to his disciples, men unlettered and ordinary?’—Ac 4:13.

Superiority of Christian system. Some of the immature Christians may have become neglectful of their salvation through Christ. (Heb 2:1-4) Or they may have been swayed by the unbelieving Jews who surrounded them. Coming to their aid with masterful argument, using the Hebrew Scriptures, on which the Jews claimed to rely, the apostle shows irrefutably the superiority of the Christian system of things and of the priesthood and kingship of Jesus Christ. He Scripturally demonstrates that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, greater than angels (1:4-6), than Abraham (7:1-7), than Moses (3:1-6), and than the prophets (1:1, 2). In fact, Christ is the appointed heir of all things, crowned with glory and honor and appointed over the works of Jehovah’s hands.—1:2; 2:7-9.

As to priesthood, Christ’s is far superior to the Aaronic priesthood of the tribe of Levi. It is dependent, not on inheritance from sinful flesh, but on an oath of God. (Heb 6:13-20; 7:5-17, 20-28) Why, though, did he endure such hardships and die a death of suffering? This was foretold as essential to mankind’s salvation and to qualify him as High Priest and the one to whom God will subject all things. (2:8-10; 9:27, 28; compare Isa 53:12.) He had to become blood and flesh and die in order to emancipate all those who through fear of death were in slavery. Through his death he is able to bring to nothing the Devil, a thing no human priest could do. (Heb 2:14-16) He, having so suffered, is a High Priest who can sympathize with our weaknesses and can come to our help, having been tested in all respects.—2:17, 18; 4:15.

Moreover, argues the apostle, this High Priest “passed through the heavens” and appeared in the very presence of God, not in a mere earthly tent or building that was only pictorial of heavenly things. (Heb 4:14; 8:1; 9:9, 10, 24) He needed to appear only once with his perfect, sinless sacrifice, not over and over again. (7:26-28; 9:25-28) He has no successors, as did the Aaronic priests, but lives forever to save completely those to whom he ministers. (7:15-17, 23-25) Christ is Mediator of the better covenant foretold through Jeremiah, under which sins can really be forgiven and consciences can be made clean, things that the Law could never accomplish. The Ten Words, the basic laws of the Law covenant, were written on stone; the law of the new covenant, on hearts. This prophetic word of Jehovah by Jeremiah made the Law covenant obsolete, to vanish away in time.—8:6-13; Jer 31:31-34; De 4:13; 10:4.

It is true, the writer of Hebrews continues, that an awesome display of power was manifested at Sinai, demonstrating God’s approval of the Law covenant. But even more forcefully God bore witness at the inauguration of the new covenant with signs, portents, and powerful works, along with distributions of holy spirit to all the members of the congregation assembled. (Heb 2:2-4; compare Ac 2:1-4.) And as to Christ’s Kingship, his throne is in the heavens itself, far higher than that of the kings of the line of David who sat on the throne in earthly Jerusalem. (Heb 1:9) God is the foundation of Christ’s throne, and his Kingdom cannot be shaken, as was the kingdom in Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. (1:8; 12:28) Furthermore, God has gathered his people before something far more awe inspiring than the miraculous display at Mount Sinai. He has caused anointed Christians to approach the heavenly Mount Zion, and he will yet shake not only the earth but also the heaven.—12:18-27.

The letter to the Hebrews is of inestimable value to Christians. Without it, many of the realities concerning Christ as foreshadowed by the Law would be unclear. For example, the Jews had known all along from the Hebrew Scriptures that when their high priest went into the Most Holy compartment of the sanctuary in their behalf he was representing them before Jehovah. But they never appreciated this reality: Someday the real High Priest would actually appear in the heavens in Jehovah’s very presence! And as we read the Hebrew Scriptures, how could we realize the tremendous significance of the account of Abraham’s meeting with Melchizedek, or understand so clearly what this king-priest typified? This, of course, is to cite only two examples out of the many realities that we come to visualize in reading the letter.

The faith that the letter builds helps Christians to hold on to their hope by means of “the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” (Heb 11:1) At a time when many persons rely on antiquity, on the material wealth and power of organizations, on the splendor of rites and ceremonies, and look to the wisdom of this world instead of to God, the divinely inspired letter to the Hebrews admirably helps to make the man of God “fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”—2Ti 3:16, 17.

Writership and Time, Place Written. Writership of the letter to the Hebrews has been widely ascribed to the apostle Paul. It was accepted as an epistle of Paul by early writers. The Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P⁠46) (of about 200 C.E.) contains Hebrews among nine of Paul’s letters, and Hebrews is listed among “fourteen letters of Paul the apostle” in “The Canon of Athanasius,” of the fourth century C.E.

The writer of Hebrews does not identify himself by name. Even though all his other letters do bear his name, this lack of identification of the writer would obviously not rule out Paul. Internal evidence in the letter strongly points to Paul as its writer and to Italy, probably Rome, as the place of writing. (Heb 13:24) It was in Rome, evidently during the years 59 to 61 C.E., that Paul was first imprisoned. Timothy was with Paul in Rome, being mentioned in the apostle’s letters to the Philippians, the Colossians, and Philemon, written from Rome during that imprisonment. (Php 1:1; 2:19; Col 1:1, 2; Phm 1) This circumstance fits the remark at Hebrews 13:23 about Timothy’s release from prison and the writer’s desire to visit Jerusalem soon.

The time of writing was before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., for the temple at Jerusalem still stood, with services being performed there, as is evident from the argument in the letter. And Paul’s remark about Timothy’s being released reasonably fixes the time of writing about nine years earlier, namely, 61 C.E., when it is thought that Paul himself was released from his first imprisonment.—Heb 13:23.

[Box on page 1078]

HIGHLIGHTS OF HEBREWS

A powerful treatise that fortified Hebrew Christians and enabled them to help sincere fellow countrymen during the final years of the Jewish system

Evidently written by the apostle Paul less than a decade before Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 C.E.

The superior position occupied by God’s Son (1:1–3:6)

He is the unique Son, appointed heir, exact representation of his Father’s very being, through whom all that was made is also sustained

Compared with the Son, angels are but servants. The Father calls him alone “my son,” the Firstborn to whom even angels would do obeisance; of him and not of angels can it be said that his royal rule rests upon God as his throne, his permanence surpasses that of heavens and earth made through him, and his position is at the Father’s right hand

If the Law conveyed through angels could not be disregarded without punishment, what was spoken by God through the Son, who is higher than angels, must be given extraordinary attention

Though lower than angels as a man, Jesus Christ was afterward exalted above them and granted dominion over the inhabited earth to come

Moses was an attendant in the house of God, but Jesus Christ is over the entire house

Entering God’s rest still possible (3:7–4:13)

Because of disobedience and lack of faith, the Israelites who left Egypt failed to enter God’s rest

Christians can enter God’s rest, provided they avoid Israel’s disobedience and exert themselves in a course of faithfulness

The living word promising entrance into God’s rest is sharper than a sword, dividing (by a person’s response to it) between what he may appear to be as a soul and what he really is as to his spirit

Superiority of Christ’s priesthood and the new covenant (4:14–10:31)

Because of having been tested in all respects yet remaining sinless, Jesus Christ as high priest can sympathize with sinful humans and deal compassionately with them

He is priest by God’s appointment according to the manner of Melchizedek, whose priesthood was greater than the Levitical priesthood

Unlike Levite priests in Aaron’s family, Jesus Christ possesses an indestructible life and thus requires no successors to continue his saving work; he is sinless and so does not need to present sacrifices for himself; he offered up his own body, not animals, and entered, not an earthly sanctuary, but heaven itself with the value of his outpoured blood, thereby validating the new covenant

The new covenant, with Jesus as Mediator, is superior to the Law covenant in that those in it have God’s laws in their hearts and enjoy true forgiveness of sins

Appreciation for these benefits will move Christians to make public declaration of hope and to assemble regularly

Faith essential to please God (10:32–12:29)

Jehovah is displeased with those faithlessly shrinking back from him instead of enduring so as to receive what he has promised

The exemplary faith of integrity-keepers from Abel onward serves as encouragement to endurance in the Christian race, while considering closely Jesus Christ and his flawless course under suffering

The suffering that God permits to befall faithful Christians may be viewed as a form of discipline from him, designed to produce the peaceful fruit of righteousness

Exhortations to pursue a faithful course (13:1-25)

Manifest brotherly love, be hospitable, remember believers who are suffering, maintain marriage in honor, and be content with present things, confident of Jehovah’s help

Imitate the faith of those taking the lead, and avoid succumbing to strange teachings

Be willing to bear reproach as Christ did; always offer to God sacrifice of praise through him


Be obedient to those taking the lead