The Watchtower Society's commentary on the biblical 1st century apostles

APOSTLE:

The Greek word a·poʹsto·los is derived from the common verb a·po·stelʹlo, meaning simply “send forth (or off).” (Mt 10:5; Mr 11:3) Its basic sense is clearly illustrated in Jesus’ statement: “A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one that is sent forth [a·poʹsto·los] greater than the one that sent him.” (Joh 13:16) In this sense the word also applies to Christ Jesus as “the apostle and high priest whom we confess.” (Heb 3:1; compare Mt 10:40; 15:24; Lu 4:18, 43; 9:48; 10:16; Joh 3:17; 5:36, 38; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 17:3, 8, 18, 21-25; 20:21.) Jesus was sent forth by God as his appointed and commissioned representative.

The term is principally applied, however, to those disciples whom Jesus personally selected as a body of 12 appointed representatives. The names of the original 12 selected are given at Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19, and Luke 6:13-16. One of the original 12, Judas Iscariot, proved to be a traitor, thereby fulfilling earlier prophecies. (Ps 41:9; 109:8) The remaining 11 faithful apostles are again listed at Acts 1:13.

Some of the apostles had been disciples of John the Baptizer before becoming Jesus’ disciples. (Joh 1:35-42) Eleven of them were evidently Galileans (Ac 2:7), Judas Iscariot being considered the sole Judean. They were from the working class; four were definitely fishermen by trade; one had been a tax collector. (Mt 4:18-21; 9:9-13) At least two of them appear to have been cousins of Jesus (James and John, the sons of Zebedee). They were men who were viewed by the religious leaders as “unlettered and ordinary,” indicating that their education was elementary and not from the schools of higher learning. A number of them, including Peter (Cephas), were married men.—Ac 4:13; 1Co 9:5.

Of the 12, Peter, James, and John seem to have enjoyed the closest relationship with Jesus. They alone witnessed the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter (Mr 5:35-43) and the transfiguration of Jesus (Mt 17:1, 2), and they accompanied him farther into the garden of Gethsemane than the other apostles on the night of his arrest. (Mr 14:32, 33) A special affinity appears to have existed between Jesus and John, and John is accepted as being the one referred to as “the disciple whom Jesus used to love.”—Joh 21:20-24; 13:23.

Selection and Early Ministry. The 12 were selected out of a larger group of disciples and were designated “apostles” by Jesus, “that they might continue with him and that he might send them out [a·po·stelʹlei] to preach and to have authority to expel the demons.” (Mr 3:13-15) Thereafter they did “continue with him” in very close association during the remainder of his earthly ministry, receiving extensive personal instruction and ministerial training. (Mt 10:1-42; Lu 8:1) Since they continued to be Jesus’ pupils, they were still called “disciples,” particularly in accounts of events prior to Pentecost. (Mt 11:1; 14:26; 20:17; Joh 20:2) Thereafter they are consistently called “apostles.” At the time of their appointment, Jesus gave them miraculous powers to heal, as well as to expel demons, and they used these powers to some extent during Jesus’ ministry. (Mr 3:14, 15; 6:13; Mt 10:1-8; Lu 9:6; compare Mt 17:16.) This activity, however, is shown to be always subordinate to their principal work of preaching. Though forming an inner circle of followers, their instruction and training included no mysterious rituals or ceremonies.

Human Weaknesses. Though greatly favored as apostles of God’s Son, they manifested normal human failings and weaknesses. Peter was inclined to be rash and impetuous (Mt 16:22, 23; Joh 21:7, 8); Thomas was slow to be convinced (Joh 20:24, 25); James and John manifested youthful impatience (Lu 9:49, 54). They quarreled over the issue of their future greatness in the earthly kingdom that they expected Jesus to establish. (Mt 20:20-28; Mr 10:35-45; compare Ac 1:6; Lu 24:21.) They acknowledged their need for greater faith. (Lu 17:5; compare Mt 17:20.) Despite their years of intimate association with Jesus and though knowing him to be the Messiah, they all abandoned him at the time of his arrest (Mt 26:56); the matter of his burial was handled by others. The apostles were slow at first to accept the testimony of the women who first saw Jesus after his resurrection. (Lu 24:10, 11) Because of fear they met behind locked doors. (Joh 20:19, 26) The resurrected Jesus gave them further enlightenment, and following his ascension to heaven on the 40th day from his resurrection, they manifested great joy and “were continually in the temple blessing God.”—Lu 24:44-53.

Activity in Christian Congregation. The outpouring of God’s spirit upon them at Pentecost greatly strengthened the apostles. The first five chapters of the Acts of Apostles testify to the great fearlessness of the apostles and their boldness in declaring the good news and the resurrection of Jesus in spite of jailing, beatings, and threats of death from their rulers. During those early days after Pentecost, the dynamic leadership of the apostles, under the power of the holy spirit, resulted in amazing expansion in the Christian congregation. (Ac 2:41; 4:4) Their ministry was at first concentrated in Jerusalem, then extended to Samaria, and in time, throughout the known world.—Ac 5:42; 6:7; 8:5-17, 25; 1:8.

Their primary function as apostles was to be witnesses as to Jesus’ fulfillment of Jehovah God’s purposes and prophecies, particularly of his resurrection and exaltation, and to do a discipling work among all nations; and this commission was emphasized to them by Jesus just before his ascension to heaven. (Mt 28:19, 20; Ac 1:8, 22; 2:32-36; 3:15-26) Their testimony concerning the resurrection was that of eyewitnesses.—Ac 13:30-34.

Miraculous powers. Additionally, to fortify their testimony, the apostles continued to exercise the miraculous powers previously granted them by Jesus, and also other gifts of the spirit received from Pentecost forward. (Ac 5:12; 9:36-40; see GIFTS FROM GOD [Gifts of the Spirit].) While others, too, received such miraculous gifts of the spirit, the account shows that such was the case only when one or more of the apostles were present, or by the laying on of the hands of the apostles. Paul, though not one of the 12, also served in this way as an apostle personally appointed by Jesus Christ. (Ac 2:1, 4, 14; 8:14-18; 10:44; 19:6) Thus the power to transmit such gifts was unique with these apostles. Such miraculous gifts would therefore pass away with the passing away of these apostles and of those who had received these gifts through the apostles (1Co 13:2, 8-11), and thus we read that these powers were “missing in the 2nd-century church, the writers of those days speaking of them as a thing in the past—in the apostolic age, in fact.”—The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, edited by J. D. Douglas, 1980, Vol. 1, p. 79.

Administrative position. In the formation, organization, and subsequent direction of the Christian congregation, the apostles occupied a primary position. (1Co 12:28; Eph 4:11) Although they were joined by others of the “older men” in such supervision, they formed a principal part of the governing body of the expanding Christian congregation, and this body was recognized by the early Christians everywhere as the channel of communication used by God to render decisions and direct the affairs of the congregation throughout the earth. (Ac 2:42; 8:14-17; 11:22; 15:1, 2, 6-31; 16:4, 5) This was possible for these men only because of the fulfillment of the promises about guidance by God’s holy spirit. (Joh 15:26, 27) Such help enabled them to recall Jesus’ instructions and teachings, to clarify points of doctrine, and to be progressively guided “into all the truth” revealed through them at that apostolic period. (Joh 14:26; 16:13-15; compare Joh 2:22; 12:16.) They made appointments to positions of service within the congregation and also designated areas in which certain ones would engage in missionary activity.—Ac 6:2, 3; Ga 2:8, 9.

The apostles, therefore, served as a foundation, resting on Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone, for the building up of the “holy temple for Jehovah.” (Eph 2:20-22; 1Pe 2:4-6) There is no evidence of the primacy of any one apostle in the established Christian congregation. (See PETER.) Peter and John appear to have been especially prominent at Pentecost and immediately thereafter, with Peter acting as the principal spokesman. (Ac 2:14, 37, 38; 3:1, 4, 11; 4:1, 13, 19; 5:3, 8, 15, 29) However, in the decisions made at that time neither of these appears to have had a superiority over the others of the governing body, and when news arrived of the baptisms taking place in Samaria, the apostles in Jerusalem “dispatched [a·peʹstei·lan] Peter and John to them,” so that these two served, in effect, as apostles of the apostles. (Ac 6:2-6; 8:14, 15) Following the death of the apostle James, the disciple of the same name, James the half brother of Jesus, appears to have presided in the governing body. Paul speaks of this James and also Peter (Cephas) and John as “the ones who seemed to be pillars.” (Ac 12:1, 2, 16, 17; Ga 1:18, 19; 2:9, 11-14) It was James who announced the final decision on the important issue of circumcision as involving the Gentile believers, at which meeting Peter and Paul both presented testimony.—Ac 15:1, 2, 6-21.

Who replaced Judas Iscariot as a twelfth apostle?

Because of the defection of Judas Iscariot, who died unfaithful, there were only 11 apostles remaining, and during the 40 days from Jesus’ resurrection until his ascension to heaven he made no appointment of a replacement. Sometime during the ten days between Jesus’ ascension and the day of Pentecost it was viewed as necessary that another be selected to fill the vacancy left by Judas, not simply on the basis of his death but, rather, on the basis of his wicked defection, as the Scriptures quoted by Peter indicate. (Ac 1:15-22; Ps 69:25; 109:8; compare Re 3:11.) Thus, by contrast, when the faithful apostle James was put to death, there is no record of any concern to appoint anyone to succeed him in his position of apostle.—Ac 12:2.

It is evident from Peter’s statements that it was then considered that any individual filling the position of an apostle of Jesus Christ must have the qualifications of having been personally conversant with him, having been an eyewitness of his works, his miracles, and particularly his resurrection. In view of this it can be seen that any apostolic succession would in course of time become an impossibility, unless there were divine action to supply these requirements in each individual case. At that particular time before Pentecost, however, there were men meeting these requirements, and two were put forth as suitable for replacing unfaithful Judas. Doubtless having in mind Proverbs 16:33, lots were cast, and Matthias was selected and was thereafter “reckoned along with the eleven apostles.” (Ac 1:23-26) He is thus included among “the twelve” who settled the problem concerning the Greek-speaking disciples (Ac 6:1, 2), and evidently Paul includes him in referring to “the twelve” when speaking of Jesus’ postresurrection appearances at 1 Corinthians 15:4-8. Thus, when Pentecost arrived, there were 12 apostolic foundations on which the spiritual Israel then formed could rest.

Congregational Apostleships. Matthias was not a mere apostle of the Jerusalem congregation, any more than the remaining 11 apostles were. His case is different from that of the Levite Joseph Barnabas who became an apostle of the congregation of Antioch, Syria. (Ac 13:1-4; 14:4, 14; 1Co 9:4-6) Other men also are referred to as “apostles of congregations” in the sense that they were sent forth by such congregations to represent them. (2Co 8:23) And, in writing to the Philippians, Paul speaks of Epaphroditus as “your envoy [a·poʹsto·lon] and private servant for my need.” (Php 2:25) The apostleship of these men was clearly not by virtue of any apostolic succession, nor did they form part of “the twelve” as did Matthias.

The correct understanding of the wider application of the term “apostle” can help to clear away any apparent discrepancy between Acts 9:26, 27 and Galatians 1:17-19, when applied to the same occasion. The first account states that Paul, on arriving in Jerusalem, was led “to the apostles” by Barnabas. In the account in Galatians, however, Paul states that he visited with Peter and adds: “But I saw no one else of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.” James (not the original apostle James the son of Zebedee nor James the son of Alphaeus, but the half brother of Jesus) was evidently viewed as an “apostle” in the wider sense, namely, as “one sent forth” by the Jerusalem congregation. This would allow for the Acts account to use the title in the plural in saying that Paul was led “to the apostles” (that is, Peter and James).—Compare 1Co 15:5-7; Ga 2:9.

The Selection of Paul. Probably about the year 34 C.E., Saul of Tarsus was converted and is later referred to as Paul. He did become a true apostle of Jesus Christ and was the direct choice of the resurrected and ascended Jesus Christ. (Ac 9:1-22; 22:6-21; 26:12-23; 13:9) He argued on behalf of his apostleship and presented as his qualification the fact that he had seen the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, that he had performed miracles, and that he had served as a channel for imparting the holy spirit to baptized believers. (1Co 9:1, 2; 15:9, 10; 2Co 12:12; 2Ti 1:1, 11; Ro 1:1; 11:13; Ac 19:5, 6) Since the apostle James (the brother of John) was not killed until about the year 44 C.E., “the twelve” were yet alive at the time of Paul’s becoming an apostle. He nowhere includes himself among such “twelve,” while at the same time he acknowledges no inferiority in his apostleship compared with that of such ones.—Ga 2:6-9.

Matthias’ and Paul’s apostleships were both valid for the purpose for which those men were “sent forth,” yet when the apostle John saw the vision of the heavenly New Jerusalem in the Revelation (given about 96 C.E.) he saw only 12 foundation stones and on them inscribed “the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (Re 21:14) The testimony of the Holy Scriptures is clear that the apostle Paul was never referred to as one of “the twelve.” Therefore, it logically follows that one of “the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” inscribed on the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem is that of Matthias and not that of Paul. This means that the vision of the apostle John reflects the situation that existed at the start of the Christian congregation on the day of Pentecost in the year 33 C.E.—See PAUL.

End of the Apostolic Period. Though the Bible does not relate the death of the 12 apostles, aside from that of James, the evidence available indicates that they maintained their faithfulness until death and therefore needed no replacement. Concerning history in the following centuries, the observation is made that “whenever it [the term “apostle”] is applied to individuals in later Christian literature, the use of the term is metaphorical. The church has never had apostles in the N[ew] T[estament] sense since the first century.”—The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, edited by G. A. Buttrick, 1962, Vol. 1, p. 172.

During their lifetime the apostles’ presence served as a restraint upon the influences of apostasy, holding back the forces of false worship within the Christian congregation. It is evidently to this “restraint” that the apostle Paul referred at 2 Thessalonians 2:7: “True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work; but only till he who is right now acting as a restraint gets to be out of the way.” (Compare Mt 13:24, 25; Ac 20:29, 30.) This apostolic influence, including the authority and powers unique with them, continued until the death of John about 100 C.E. (1Jo 2:26; 3Jo 9, 10) The rapid influx of apostasy and false doctrine and practices after the death of the apostles shows that any pretended apostolic successors had none of the restraining influence of the apostles.


The reference to Andronicus and Junias at Romans 16:7 as “men of note among the apostles” indicates, not that they were apostles, but, rather, that they were held in high repute by the apostles. That some made false pretenses of being “apostles of Christ” is shown at 2 Corinthians 11:5, 13; 12:11, 12; Revelation 2:2.

The fall of the empire of the gene

Demise of the Gene
Evolution News & Views September 19, 2012


Like much of the rest of the world that follows science news, we have been overwhelmed by the implications of ENCODE 2.0. From reading through the papers and looking at the data, it is quite clear that the unit "gene" is no more. That is to say, the "gene" is to morphogenesis what "phlogiston" is to chemistry and physics....an obsolete concept. And with the former void of content, the framework of evolutionary/population genetics is, well, gone. That's right: Gone. What do we inherit, then? A phenotype (= RNA sequences; transcripts).

Note well:

...three-quarters of the human genome is capable of being transcribed, as well as observations about the range and levels of expression, localization, processing fates, regulatory regions and modifications of almost all currently annotated and thousands of previously unannotated RNAs. These observations, taken together, prompt a redefinition of the concept of a gene.
This supports and is consistent with earlier observations of a highly interleaved transcribed genome, but more importantly, prompts the reconsideration of the definition of a gene. As this is a consistent characteristic of annotated genomes, we would propose that the TRANSCRIPT be considered as THE BASIC ATOMIC UNIT OF INHERITANCE. Concomitantly, the term gene would then denote a higher-order concept intended to capture all those transcripts (eventually divorced from their genomic locations) that contribute to a given phenotypic trait. (Landscape of transcription in human cells. Sarah Djebali et al. Nature 2012 489: 101-108.)

And:

Although the gene has conventionally been viewed as the fundamental unit of genomic organization, on the basis of ENCODE data it is now compellingly argued that this unit is not the gene but rather the transcript (Washietl et al. 2007; Djebali et al. 2012a). On this view, genes represent a higher-order framework around which individual transcripts coalesce, creating a poly-functional entity that assumes different forms under different cellular states, guided by differential utilization of regulatory DNA. (What does our genome encode? John A. Stamatoyannopoulos Genome Res. 2012 22: 1602-1611.)

The Watchtower Society's commentary on the transmission and authenticity of the scriptures.

BIBLE:

The Holy Scriptures, the inspired Word of Jehovah, acknowledged as the greatest book of all times because of its antiquity, its total circulation, the number of languages into which it has been translated, its surpassing greatness as a literary masterpiece, and its overwhelming importance to all mankind. Independent of all other books, it imitates no other. It stands on its own merits, giving credit to its unique Author. The Bible is also distinguished as having survived more violent controversy than any other book, hated as it is by many enemies.

Name. The English word “Bible” comes through the Latin from the Greek word bi·bliʹa, meaning “little books.” This, in turn, is derived from biʹblos, a word that describes the inner part of the papyrus plant out of which a primitive form of paper was made. The Phoenician city of Gebal, famous for its papyrus trade, was called by the Greeks “Byblos.” (See Jos 13:5, ftn.) In time bi·bliʹa came to describe various writings, scrolls, books, and eventually the collection of little books that make up the Bible. Jerome called this collection Bibliotheca Divina, the Divine Library.

Jesus and writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures referred to the collection of sacred writings as “the Scriptures,” or “the holy Scriptures,” “the holy writings.” (Mt 21:42; Mr 14:49; Lu 24:32; Joh 5:39; Ac 18:24; Ro 1:2; 15:4; 2Ti 3:15, 16) The collection is the written expression of a communicating God, the Word of God, and this is acknowledged in phrases such as “expression of Jehovah’s mouth” (De 8:3), “sayings of Jehovah” (Jos 24:27), “commandments of Jehovah” (Ezr 7:11), “law of Jehovah,” “reminder of Jehovah,” “orders from Jehovah” (Ps 19:7, 8), “word of Jehovah” (Isa 38:4), ‘utterance of Jehovah’ (Mt 4:4), “Jehovah’s word” (1Th 4:15). Repeatedly these writings are spoken of as “sacred pronouncements of God.”—Ro 3:2; Ac 7:38; Heb 5:12; 1Pe 4:11.

Divisions. Sixty-six individual books from Genesis to Revelation make up the Bible canon. The choice of these particular books, and the rejection of many others, is evidence that the Divine Author not only inspired their writing but also carefully guarded their collection and preservation within the sacred catalog. (See APOCRYPHA; CANON.) Thirty-nine of the 66 books, making up three quarters of the Bible’s contents, are known as the Hebrew Scriptures, all having been initially written in that language with the exception of a few small sections written in Aramaic. (Ezr 4:8–6:18; 7:12-26; Jer 10:11; Da 2:4b–7:28) By combining some of these books, the Jews had a total of only 22 or 24 books, yet these embraced the same material. It also appears to have been their custom to subdivide the Scriptures into three parts—‘the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.’ (Lu 24:44; see HEBREW SCRIPTURES.) The last quarter of the Bible is known as the Christian Greek Scriptures, so designated because the 27 books comprising this section were written in Greek. The writing, collecting, and arrangement of these books within the Bible’s canon also demonstrate Jehovah’s supervision from start to finish.—See CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES.

Subdividing the Bible into chapters and verses (KJ has 1,189 chapters and 31,102 verses) was not done by the original writers, but it was a very useful device added centuries later. The Masoretes divided the Hebrew Scriptures into verses; then in the 13th century of our Common Era chapter divisions were added. Finally, in 1553 Robert Estienne’s edition of the French Bible was published as the first complete Bible with the present chapter and verse divisions.

The 66 Bible books all together form but a single work, a complete whole. As the chapter and verse marks are only convenient aids for Bible study and are not intended to detract from the unity of the whole, so also is the sectioning of the Bible, which is done according to the predominant language in which the manuscripts have come down to us. We, therefore, have both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, with “Christian” added to the latter to distinguish them from the Greek Septuagint, which is the Hebrew portion of the Scriptures translated into Greek.

“Old Testament” and “New Testament.” Today it is a common practice to refer to the Scriptures written in Hebrew and Aramaic as the “Old Testament.” This is based on the reading in 2 Corinthians 3:14 in the Latin Vulgate and the King James Version. However, the rendering “old testament” in this text is incorrect. The Greek word di·a·theʹkes here means “covenant,” as it does in the other 32 places where it occurs in the Greek text. Many modern translations correctly read “old covenant.” (NE, RS, JB) The apostle Paul is not referring to the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures in their entirety. Neither does he mean that the inspired Christian writings constitute a “new testament (or, covenant).” The apostle is speaking of the old Law covenant, which was recorded by Moses in the Pentateuch and which makes up only a part of the pre-Christian Scriptures. For this reason he says in the next verse, “whenever Moses is read.”

Hence, there is no valid basis for the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures to be called the “Old Testament” and for the Christian Greek Scriptures to be called the “New Testament.” Jesus Christ himself referred to the collection of sacred writings as “the Scriptures.” (Mt 21:42; Mr 14:49; Joh 5:39) The apostle Paul referred to them as “the holy Scriptures,” “the Scriptures,” and “the holy writings.”—Ro 1:2; 15:4; 2Ti 3:15.

Authorship. The accompanying table shows that about 40 human secretaries or scribes were used by the one Author to record the inspired Word of Jehovah. “All Scripture is inspired of God,” and this includes the writings in the Christian Greek Scriptures along with “the rest of the Scriptures.” (2Ti 3:16; 2Pe 3:15, 16) This expression “inspired of God” translated the Greek phrase the·oʹpneu·stos, meaning “God-breathed.” By ‘breathing’ on faithful men, God caused his spirit, or active force, to become operative upon them and directed what he wanted recorded, for, as it is written, “prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.”—2Pe 1:21; Joh 20:21, 22; see INSPIRATION.

This unseen holy spirit of God is his symbolic “finger.” Therefore, when men saw Moses perform supernatural feats they exclaimed: “It is the finger of God!” (Ex 8:18, 19; compare with Jesus’ words at Mt 12:22, 28; Lu 11:20.) In a similar display of divine power “God’s finger” began the writing of the Bible by carving out the Ten Commandments on stone tablets. (Ex 31:18; De 9:10) It would, therefore, be a simple matter for Jehovah to use men as his scribes even though some were “unlettered and ordinary” in scholastic training (Ac 4:13), and regardless of whether the individual was by trade a shepherd, farmer, tentmaker, fisherman, tax collector, physician, priest, prophet, or king. Jehovah’s active force put the thoughts into the writer’s mind and, in certain instances, allowed him to express the divine thought in his own words, thus permitting personality and individual traits to show through the writing, yet at the same time maintaining a superb oneness in theme and in purpose throughout. In this way the resultant Bible, reflecting as it does the mind and will of Jehovah, exceeded in wealth and in scope the writings of mere men. The Almighty God saw to it that his written Word of truth was in language easily understood and easily translated into practically any tongue.

No other book took so long to complete as the Bible. In 1513 B.C.E. Moses began Bible writing. Other sacred writings were added to the inspired Scriptures until sometime after 443 B.C.E. when Nehemiah and Malachi completed their books. Then there was a gap in Bible writing for almost 500 years, until the apostle Matthew penned his historic account. Nearly 60 years later John, the last of the apostles, contributed his Gospel and three letters to complete the Bible’s canon. So, all together, a period of some 1,610 years was involved in producing the Bible. All the cowriters were Hebrews and, hence, part of that people “entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God.”—Ro 3:2.

The Bible is not an unrelated assortment or collection of heterogeneous fragments from Jewish and Christian literature. Rather, it is an organizational book, highly unified and interconnected in its various segments, which indeed reflect the systematic orderliness of the Creator-Author himself. God’s dealings with Israel in giving them a comprehensive law code as well as regulations governing matters even down to small details of camp life—things that were later mirrored in the Davidic kingdom as well as in the congregational arrangement among first-century Christians—reflect and magnify this organizational aspect of the Bible.

Contents. In contents this Book of Books reveals the past, explains the present, and foretells the future. These are matters that only He who knows the end from the beginning could author. (Isa 46:10) Starting at the beginning by telling of the creation of heaven and earth, the Bible next gives a sweeping account of the events that prepared the earth for man’s habitation. Then the truly scientific explanation of the origin of man is revealed—how life comes only from a Life-Giver—facts that only the Creator now in the role of Author could explain. (Ge 1:26-28; 2:7) With the account of why men die, the overriding theme that permeates the whole Bible was introduced. This theme, the vindication of Jehovah’s sovereignty and the ultimate fulfillment of his purpose for the earth, by means of his Kingdom under Christ, the promised Seed, was wrapped up in the first prophecy concerning ‘the seed of the woman.’ (Ge 3:15) More than 2,000 years passed before this promise of a “seed” was again mentioned, God telling Abraham: “By means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves.” (Ge 22:18) Over 800 years later, renewed assurance was given to Abraham’s descendant King David, and with the passing of more time Jehovah’s prophets kept this flame of hope burning brightly. (2Sa 7:12, 16; Isa 9:6, 7) More than 1,000 years after David and 4,000 years after the original prophecy in Eden, the Promised Seed himself appeared, Jesus Christ, the legal heir to “the throne of David his father.” (Lu 1:31-33; Ga 3:16) Bruised in death by the earthly seed of the “serpent,” this “Son of the Most High” provided the ransom purchase price for the life rights lost to Adam’s offspring, thus providing the only means whereby mankind can get everlasting life. He was then raised on high, there to await the appointed time to hurl “the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan,” down to the earth, finally to be destroyed forever. Thus the magnificent theme announced in Genesis and developed and enlarged upon throughout the balance of the Bible is, in the closing chapters of Revelation, brought to a glorious climax as Jehovah’s grand purpose by means of his Kingdom is made apparent.—Re 11:15; 12:1-12, 17; 19:11-16; 20:1-3, 7-10; 21:1-5; 22:3-5.

Through this Kingdom under Christ the Promised Seed, Jehovah’s sovereignty will be vindicated and his name will be sanctified. Following through on this theme, the Bible magnifies God’s personal name to a greater extent than any other book; the name occurs 6,973 times in the Hebrew Scripture portion of the New World Translation. That is in addition to the use of the shorter form “Jah” and the scores of instances where it combines to form other names like “Jehoshua,” meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation.” (See JEHOVAH [Importance of the Name].) We would not know the Creator’s name, the great issue involving his sovereignty raised by the Edenic rebellion, or God’s purpose to sanctify his name and vindicate his sovereignty before all creation if these things were not revealed in the Bible.

In this library of 66 little books the theme of the Kingdom and Jehovah’s name are closely interwoven with information on many subjects. Its reference to fields of knowledge such as agriculture, architecture, astronomy, chemistry, commerce, engineering, ethnology, government, hygiene, music, poetry, philology, and tactical warfare is only incidental to development of the theme; not as a treatise. Nevertheless, it contains a veritable treasure-house of information for the archaeologists and paleographers.

As an accurate historical work and one that penetrates the past to great depths, the Bible far surpasses all other books. However, it is of much greater value in the field of prophecy, foretelling as it does the future that only the King of Eternity can reveal with accuracy. The march of world powers down through the centuries, even to the rise and ultimate demise of present-day institutions, was prophetically related in the Bible’s long-range prophecies.

God’s Word of truth in a very practical way sets men free from ignorance, superstitions, human philosophies, and senseless traditions of men. (Joh 8:32) “The word of God is alive and exerts power.” (Heb 4:12) Without the Bible we would not know Jehovah, would not know the wonderful benefits resulting from Christ’s ransom sacrifice, and would not understand the requirements that must be met in order to get everlasting life in or under God’s righteous Kingdom.

The Bible is a most practical book in other ways too, for it gives sound counsel to Christians on how to live now, how to carry on their ministry, and how to survive this anti-God, pleasure-seeking system of things. Christians are told to “quit being fashioned after this system of things” by making their minds over from worldly thinking, and this they can do by having the same mental attitude of humility “that was also in Christ Jesus” and by stripping off the old personality and putting on the new one. (Ro 12:2; Php 2:5-8; Eph 4:23, 24; Col 3:5-10) This means displaying the fruitage of God’s spirit, “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control”—subjects on which so much is written throughout the Bible.—Ga 5:22, 23; Col 3:12-14.

Authenticity. The veracity of the Bible has been assailed from many quarters, but none of these efforts has undermined or weakened its position in the least.

Bible history. Sir Isaac Newton once said: “I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.” (Two Apologies, by R. Watson, London, 1820, p. 57) Its integrity to truth proves sound on any point that might be tested. Its history is accurate and can be relied upon. For example, what it says about the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians cannot be successfully contradicted (Jer 51:11, 12, 28; Da 5:28), neither can what it says about people like Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 27:20; Da 1:1); Egyptian King Shishak (1Ki 14:25; 2Ch 12:2); Assyrians Tiglath-pileser III and Sennacherib (2Ki 15:29; 16:7; 18:13); the Roman emperors Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius (Lu 2:1; 3:1; Ac 18:2); Romans such as Pilate, Felix, and Festus (Ac 4:27; 23:26; 24:27); nor what it says about the temple of Artemis at Ephesus and the Areopagus at Athens (Ac 19:35; 17:19-34). What the Bible says about these or any other places, people, or events is historically accurate in every detail.—See ARCHAEOLOGY.

Races and languages. What the Bible says about races and languages of mankind is also true. All peoples, regardless of stature, culture, color, or language, are members of one human family. The threefold division of the human family into the Japhetic, Hamitic, and Semitic races, all descending from Adam through Noah, cannot be successfully disputed. (Ge 9:18, 19; Ac 17:26) Says Sir Henry Rawlinson: “If we were to be guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the Scriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar, as the focus from which the various lines had radiated.”—The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records, by G. Rawlinson, 1862, p. 287; Ge 11:2-9.

Practicality. The Bible’s teachings, examples, and doctrines are most practical for modern man. The righteous principles and high moral standards contained in this book set it apart as far above all other books. Not only does the Bible answer important questions but it also provides many practical suggestions which, if followed, would do much to raise the physical and mental health of earth’s population. The Bible lays down principles of right and wrong that serve as a straightedge for just business dealings (Mt 7:12; Le 19:35, 36; Pr 20:10; 22:22, 23), industriousness (Eph 4:28; Col 3:23; 1Th 4:11, 12; 2Th 3:10-12), clean moral conduct (Ga 5:19-23; 1Th 4:3-8; Ex 20:14-17; Le 20:10-16), upbuilding associations (1Co 15:33; Heb 10:24, 25; Pr 5:3-11; 13:20), good family relationships (Eph 5:21-33; 6:1-4; Col 3:18-21; De 6:4-9; Pr 13:24). As the famous educator William Lyon Phelps once said: “I believe a knowledge of the Bible without a college course is more valuable than a college course without a Bible.” (The New Dictionary of Thoughts, p. 46) Regarding the Bible, John Quincy Adams wrote: “It is of all books in the world, that which contributes most to make men good, wise, and happy.”—Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son, 1849, p. 9.

Scientific accuracy. When it comes to scientific accuracy the Bible is not lacking. Whether describing the progressive order of earth’s preparation for human habitation (Ge 1:1-31), speaking of the earth as being spherical and hung on “nothing” (Job 26:7; Isa 40:22), classifying the hare as a cud chewer (Le 11:6), or declaring, “the soul of the flesh is in the blood” (Le 17:11-14), the Bible is scientifically sound.

Cultures and customs. On points relating to cultures and customs, in no regard is the Bible found to be wrong. In political matters, the Bible always speaks of a ruler by the proper title that he bore at the time of the writing. For example, Herod Antipas and Lysanias are referred to as district rulers (tetrarchs), Herod Agrippa (II) as king, and Gallio as proconsul. (Lu 3:1; Ac 25:13; 18:12) Triumphal marches of victorious armies, together with their captives, were common during Roman times. (2Co 2:14) The hospitality shown to strangers, the Oriental way of life, the manner of purchasing property, legal procedures in making contracts, and the practice of circumcision among the Hebrews and other peoples are referred to in the Bible, and in all these details the Bible is accurate.—Ge 18:1-8; 23:7-18; 17:10-14; Jer 9:25, 26.

Candor. Bible writers displayed a candor that is not found among other ancient writers. From the very outset, Moses frankly reported his own sins as well as the sins and errors of his people, a policy followed by the other Hebrew writers. (Ex 14:11, 12; 32:1-6; Nu 14:1-9; 20:9-12; 27:12-14; De 4:21) The sins of great ones such as David and Solomon were not covered over but were reported. (2Sa 11:2-27; 1Ki 11:1-13) Jonah told of his own disobedience. (Jon 1:1-3; 4:1) The other prophets likewise displayed this same straightforward, candid quality. Writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures showed the same regard for truthful reporting as that displayed in the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul tells of his former sinful course in life; Mark’s failure to stick to the missionary work; and also the apostle Peter’s errors are related. (Ac 22:19, 20; 15:37-39; Ga 2:11-14) Such frank, open reporting builds confidence in the Bible’s claim to honesty and truthfulness.

Integrity. Facts testify to the integrity of the Bible. The Bible narrative is inseparably interwoven with the history of the times. It gives straightforward, truthful instruction in the simplest manner. The guileless earnestness and fidelity of its writers, their burning zeal for truth, and their painstaking effort to attain accuracy in details are what we would expect in God’s Word of truth.—Joh 17:17.

Prophecy. If there is a single point that alone proves the Bible to be the inspired Word of Jehovah it is the matter of prophecy. There are scores of long-range prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled. For a partial listing, see the book “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial,” pp. 343-346.

Preservation. Today none of the original writings of the Holy Scriptures are known to exist. Jehovah, however, saw to it that copies were made to replace the aging originals. Also, from and after the Babylonian exile, with the growth of many Jewish communities outside Palestine, there was an increasing demand for more copies of the Scriptures. This demand was met by professional copyists who made extraordinary efforts to see that accuracy was attained in their handwritten manuscripts. Ezra was just such a man, “a skilled copyist in the law of Moses, which Jehovah the God of Israel had given.”—Ezr 7:6.

For hundreds of years handwritten copies of the Scriptures continued to be made, during which period the Bible was expanded with the addition of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Translations or versions of these Holy Writings also appeared in other languages. Indeed, the Hebrew Scriptures are honored as the first book of note to be translated into another language. Extant today are thousands of these Bible manuscripts and versions.—See MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE; VERSIONS.

The first printed Bible, the Gutenberg Bible, came off the press in 1456. Today distribution of the Bible (the whole or in part) has reached over four billion copies in upwards of 2,000 languages. But this has not been accomplished without great opposition from many quarters. Indeed, the Bible has had more enemies than any other book; popes and councils even prohibited the reading of the Bible under penalty of excommunication. Thousands of Bible lovers lost their lives, and thousands of copies of the Bible were committed to the flames. One of the victims in the Bible’s fight to live was translator William Tyndale, who once declared in a discussion with a cleric: “If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scripture than thou doest.”—Actes and Monuments, by John Foxe, London, 1563, p. 514.

All credit and thanksgiving for the Bible’s survival in view of such violent opposition is due Jehovah, the Preserver of his Word. This fact gives added meaning to the apostle Peter’s quotation from the prophet Isaiah: “All flesh is like grass, and all its glory is like a blossom of grass; the grass becomes withered, and the flower falls off, but the saying of Jehovah endures forever.” (1Pe 1:24, 25; Isa 40:6-8) We, therefore, do well to pay “attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place” in this 21st century. (2Pe 1:19; Ps 119:105) The man whose “delight is in the law of Jehovah, and in his law he reads in an undertone day and night” and who puts in practice the things he reads is the one who prospers and is happy. (Ps 1:1, 2; Jos 1:8) To him Jehovah’s laws, reminders, orders, commandments, and judicial decisions contained in the Bible are “sweeter than honey,” and the wisdom derived therefrom is “more to be desired than gold, yes, than much refined gold,” for it means his very life.—Ps 19:7-10; Pr 3:13, 16-18; see CANON.

[Chart on page 309]

TABLE OF BIBLE BOOKS IN ORDER COMPLETED

(The order in which the Bible books were written and where each stands in relation to the others is approximate; some dates [and places written] are uncertain. The symbol a. means “after”; b., “before”; and c., “circa” or “about.”)

Hebrew Scriptures (B.C.E.)

Book Writer Date Time Place Written

Completed Covered

Genesis Moses 1513 “In the Wilderness

beginning”

to 1657

Exodus Moses 1512 1657-1512 Wilderness

Leviticus Moses 1512 1 month Wilderness

(1512)

Job Moses c. 1473 Over 140 Wilderness

years

between

1657 and

1473

Numbers Moses 1473 1512-1473 Wilderness/

Plains of Moab

Deuteronomy Moses 1473 2 months Plains of Moab

(1473)

Joshua Joshua c. 1450 1473– Canaan

c. 1450

Judges Samuel c. 1100 c. 1450– Israel

c. 1120

Ruth Samuel c. 1090 11 years Israel

of Judges’

rule

1 Samuel Samuel; c. 1078 c. 1180-1078 Israel

Gad;

Nathan

2 Samuel Gad; c. 1040 1077–c. 1040 Israel

Nathan

Song of Solomon c. 1020 Jerusalem

Solomon

Ecclesiastes Solomon b. 1000 Jerusalem

Jonah Jonah c. 844

Joel Joel c. 820 (?)  Judah

Amos Amos c. 804 Judah

Hosea Hosea a. 745 b. 804– Samaria

a. 745 (District)

Isaiah Isaiah a. 732 c. 778– Jerusalem

a. 732

Micah Micah b. 717 c. 777-717 Judah

Proverbs Solomon; c. 717 Jerusalem

Agur;

Lemuel

Zephaniah Zephaniah b. 648 Judah

Nahum Nahum b. 632 Judah

Habakkuk Habakkuk c. 628 (?)  Judah

Lamentations Jeremiah 607 Nr. Jerusalem

Obadiah Obadiah c. 607

Ezekiel Ezekiel c. 591 613–c. 591 Babylon

1 and 2 Jeremiah 580 c. 1040-580 Judah/Egypt

Kings

Jeremiah Jeremiah 580 647-580 Judah/Egypt

Daniel Daniel c. 536 618–c. 536 Babylon

Haggai Haggai 520 112 days Jerusalem

(520)

Zechariah Zechariah 518 520-518 Jerusalem

Esther Mordecai c. 475 493–c. 475 Shushan, Elam

1 and 2 Ezra c. 460 After Jerusalem (?)

Chronicles 1 Chronicles 9:44,

1077-537

Ezra Ezra c. 460 537–c. 467 Jerusalem

Psalms David c. 460

and others

Nehemiah Nehemiah a. 443 456–a. 443 Jerusalem

Malachi Malachi a. 443 Jerusalem

[Chart on page 310]

Christian Greek Scriptures (C.E.)

Book Writer Date Time Place Written

Completed Covered

Matthew Matthew c. 41 2 B.C.E.– Palestine

33 C.E.

1 Thessalonians

Paul c. 50 Corinth

2 Thessalonians

Paul c. 51 Corinth

Galatians Paul c. 50-52 Corinth or

Syr. Antioch

1 Corinthians

Paul c. 55 Ephesus

2 Corinthians

Paul c. 55 Macedonia

Romans Paul c. 56 Corinth

Luke Luke c. 56-58 3 B.C.E.– Caesarea

33 C.E.

Ephesians Paul c. 60-61 Rome

Colossians Paul c. 60-61 Rome

Philemon Paul c. 60-61 Rome

Philippians Paul c. 60-61 Rome

Hebrews Paul c. 61 Rome

Acts Luke c. 61 33–c. Rome

61 C.E.

James James b. 62 Jerusalem

Mark Mark c. 60-65 29-33 C.E. Rome

1 Timothy Paul c. 61-64 Macedonia

Titus Paul c. 61-64 Macedonia (?)

1 Peter Peter c. 62-64 Babylon

2 Peter Peter c. 64 Babylon (?)

2 Timothy Paul c. 65 Rome

Jude Jude c. 65 Palestine (?)

Revelation John c. 96 Patmos

John John c. 98 After Ephesus, or near

prologue,

29-33 C.E.

1 John John c. 98 Ephesus, or near

2 John John c. 98 Ephesus, or near


3 John John c. 98 Ephesus, or near

Darwinism Vs. the real world XVI

Blood Pressure and the Goldilocks Principle

Howard Glicksman October 16, 2015 11:38 AM

Editor's note: Physicians have a special place among the thinkers who have elaborated the argument for intelligent design. Perhaps that's because, more than evolutionary biologists, they are familiar with the challenges of maintaining a functioning complex system, the human body. With that in mind, Evolution News & Views is delighted to present this series, "The Designed Body." Dr. Glicksman practices palliative medicine for a hospice organization.

My previous article in this series showed that having enough blood pressure is required to have sufficient blood flow to the organs so they can work properly. However, having too high of a blood pressure can be problematic as well. When it comes to blood pressure, and most of the other chemical and physiological parameters of life, the body must follow the Goldilocks principle. The numbers have to be "just right," not too high and not too low, for the body to survive within the laws of nature, a vital aspect of life that evolutionary biologists never seem to address.

Using electrical devices without destroying them depends on having the right amount of electricity going through them. The same applies to the organs and tissues of the body as blood flows into the capillaries to supply them with the water and nutrients they need to live and work properly.

To get energy to your home, generating stations send out electricity along transmission lines that carry hundreds of thousands of volts. This electrical energy is scaled down for consumer use by passing through substations and transformers, finally entering the home through wires carrying a safe voltage. Similarly, the mean arterial pressure (MAP) as the blood leaves the left ventricle and enters the aorta is about 100 mmHg, and by the time it travels through the arteries and arterioles to the capillaries, has been scaled down to about 35 mmHg. This reduction in pressure is accomplished by the vascular resistance applied to the blood as it flows from the larger arteries through the smaller branching arteries and in particular, the microscopic arterioles which lead into the capillaries.

As the blood enters the capillaries under pressure, this causes some fluid to be pushed out of the circulation into the tissues, just like how water is squeezed out of a sponge. As noted previously, when the pressure on entering the capillary is about 35 mmHg, most of this filtered fluid is brought back into the circulation by the osmotic pull of albumin. This usually keeps the amount of fluid between the cells where it should be for proper organ function. Also, as noted a couple of articles back, if the MAP rises above 100 mmHg, the brain is at risk of having too high of a pressure as blood enters its capillaries, so the body protects itself by using autoregulation to contract the muscles surrounding its arterioles.

But, there are definite limits to how much vascular resistance the arterioles in the brain can apply to protect itself. In fact, if the MAP persistently stays above 170 mmHg (BP of 250/130) this can result in a hypertensive crisis. When this happens, too much fluid from the capillaries can enter the tissues and cause swelling of the brain. This usually manifests as headache and dizziness followed soon after by confusion and lethargy. If not quickly relieved, it can progress to coma and can be fatal.

Another way that too high of a blood pressure can quickly cause severe debility and even death, is related to the physical limitations of the blood vessels. After all, life doesn't take place within a vacuum or within the imaginations of evolutionary biologists. Just like in pipelines carrying water or oil, real numbers have real consequences, and when the pressure inside them is higher than what their walls can withstand, an acute rupture can take place. Probably the commonest location for this type of hemorrhage is within the brain. The brain is located in the skull, which protects it from physical injury. However, since bone is harder and less compliant than soft tissue, bleeding within the brain can cause a quick buildup of pressure, since the blood has nowhere to go.

Nerve cells do not like being put under pressure. Think of what happens when you hit your funny bone and feel tingling in your pinky for several seconds. The tingling takes place because the nerve traveling inside the bony channel of the elbow has suffered a pressure injury and malfunctions temporarily. When pressure like this builds up in the brain, it often causes headache and dizziness which, depending on the severity and location of the bleed, can quickly progress to confusion, lethargy, and coma.

For our earliest ancestors to survive long enough to reproduce, their blood pressure would have had to have stayed within a specific range. The brain generally doesn't have to use autoregulation when the MAP is between 70 and 100 mmHg (BP of 90/60 - 140/80). However, chronic elevations of MAP above 110 mmHg (BP of 140/90) can often lead to heart disease, stroke and kidney disease. A chronically elevated MAP causes an increased strain on the inner lining of the arteries, eventually resulting in endothelial damage and hardening of the arteries.

Over 95 percent of people with high blood pressure have primary idiopathic essential hypertension, which means we really don't know what causes it. It is a silent and serious condition that is very prevalent in our modern society, even in teenagers as the incidence of obesity rises within this age group. The remaining five percent have secondary hypertension, usually related to kidney disease. The higher the chronic elevation in blood pressure, the more likely and faster these complications of heart and kidney disease and stroke can occur. People with hypertension are also at increased risk of having episodes of hypertensive urgency and crisis, which, as noted above, can be fatal.

Rembember, the three main factors that affect blood pressure are how strong and fast the heart pumps, how much blood is in the arteries, and the peripheral vascular resistance applied by the downstream arterioles. It is interesting to note that the treatment of hypertension usually consists of medication that reduces the rate and force of heart contraction (beta blockers), pushes sodium and water out of the body through the kidneys (diuretics), and relaxes the muscles surrounding the arterioles to reduce the peripheral vascular resistance (vasodilators). It would appear that it is only in this modern age that medical science been finally been able to figure out what the human body has already inherently known since it first came on the scene.

Since the various functions of the body must follow the Goldilocks principle, being "just right" when it comes to the numbers, evolutionary biology's explanation for how life came into being by just looking at its various parts without considering what it takes for it to survive within the laws of nature should be viewed as, not only inadequate but also unscientific.

Now that you understand how the body makes sure its cells get what they need through the circulation of blood by way of the cardiovascular system with the right amount of blood pressure, it's time to consider another dilemma. Remember, life is a dynamic process that must come up with innovations to survive within the laws of nature. When our earliest ancestors were literally fighting to win the battle for survival, how did their bodies make sure that the necessary increase in cardiac output would result in it going where it was needed, to organs like the heart and tissues like the muscles, while at the same time preserving it within the brain?

Next time we'll answer this question and you can ask yourself why students aren't being taught these "facts of life."

Darwin defenders have got ad hominem attacks down to a science.

Using Scientific-Sounding Language to Psychoanalyze ID Proponents
Casey Luskin November 30, 2011 6:00 AM 

Earlier this year David Klinghoffer commented on a paper that tried to psychoanalytically link support for ID to the fear of death. As I noted in my recent analysis of law professor Frank Ravitch's 2011 Cambridge University Press book attacking ID, we commonly see attempts to dress up otherwise uncivil dismissals of ID with scholarly rhetoric.

Interestingly, another Cambridge University Press book that does much the same thing as Ravitch's book is the 2010 volume Evolution, Creationism, and the Battle to Control America's Classroom, by Penn State professors Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer. (Berkman and Plutzer are the same pair who co-authored the recent survey of evolution-education published in Science, which suggested students should not "should make up their own minds" on evolution.) They deemed it appropriate to undertake a scientific evaluation of whether people who support teaching criticisms of evolution in public schools are "rational." Thankfully, they found that those people are "rational," although they suggested some suffer from "science illiteracy" (p. 52), and many are not "highly educated." (p. 79)

Then, they felt it worthwhile to scientifically investigate the attacks of Richard Dawkins on Darwin-skeptics. This is an amusing read:

The second part of the anti-evolutionist stereotype suggests that those who do not accept the evidence for evolution are poorly educated, ignorant, and unintelligent. ... Richard Dawkins ... writes, for example: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)" (Dawkins, 1989). In this section, we will see whether there is some truth to this stereotype by examining three potential indicators of ignorance and knowledge: general cognitive ability, general scientific literacy, and formal educational attainment. (p. 75)
While these scholars are kind enough to rule out a lack cognitive ability, and feel that scientific illiteracy is only a minor factor, they do conclude that "education is a strong predictor of attitudes toward teaching evolution." (p. 83) But isn't the mere fact that they felt obliged to scientifically investigate Richard Dawkins-style stereotypes and insults just a bit disconcerting?
Apparently scientifically investigating the intellectual abilities of Darwin-critics is now a legitimate scholarly exercise for opponents of intelligent design. This approach was also taken in a 2011 book from Routledge titled Epistemology and Science Education: Understanding the Intelligent Design Controversy. This volume contains various essays that attack ID as unscientific, joined by a wholesale refusal to acknowledge the scientific accomplishments and research of ID proponents.

The opening chapter of Epistemology and Science Education: Understanding the Intelligent Design Controversy has zero citations to any ID literature yet managed to conclude that "there are numerous examples of how scientific discourse and practices are perverted by proponents of 'intelligent design.'" (p. 18)

The third chapter, titled "Differences in Epistemic Practices Among Scientists, Young Earth Creationists, Intelligent Design Creationists, and the Scientist-Creationists of Darwin's Era," by Clark A. Chinn and Luke A. Buckland, offers inaccurate but scholarly sounding attacks on what it blithely refers to as "intelligent design creationists." Much like Josh Rosenau or Frank Ravitch, the authors find it convenient to simply deny that ID's scientific research program exists, making statements like:

"IDCs perform no experiments to verify their claims ... nor do they propose and test hypotheses regarding potential alternatives" (p. 54) 
"IDCs have not launched empirical research initiatives to investigate their claims" (p. 63) 
"The Discovery Institute has no such journals of new empirical research." (p. 63)
Apparently they haven't heard of BIO-Complexity, which is not a "Discovery Institute journal" but rather a venue where Discovery Institute fellows and other scientists not affiliated with Discovery Institute have published peer-reviewed papers describing new empirical research testing and investigating the claims of intelligent design. Nor have they followed much of the research published by pro-ID scientists supporting pro-ID claims.

These critics find it easier to respond to a body of scientific findings when you just claim that it doesn't exist. What's most ironic, therefore, is that these same authors charge that "IDCs have had to actively ignore an enormous body of empirical evidence" (p. 58).

One of the book's authors (Chinn) is a psychology professor at Rutgers, so it's not surprising that the book delves into the psyche of ID proponents, claiming that "IDCs hold a heavily overconfident view of their own cognitive capabilities" (p. 60) The book further claims that ID proponents "have refused to acknowledge criticisms and contrary evidence when it is placed before them" (p. 62), "ignore or radically reinterpret almost all lines of empirical evidence supporting evolutionary theory" (p. 70), have ideological goals "rather than truth-seeking" (p. 65), and "continue to make assertions that are refuted." (p. 70) Again, what an irony given the falsity of these same authors' confident claims about the non-existence of ID empirical research!

Conclusion: Be Encouraged
The examples cited in the recent articles I've written here on anti-ID rhetoric show that books and articles by leading ID critics often amount to little more than the kinds of inaccurate and uncivil arguments we commonly see in blog rants. They argue that ID proponents and Darwin-skeptics are uneducated, scientifically illiterate, "intellectually dishonest," and have overinflated intellectual egos as well as a myriad of other faults and failings. Of course, these critics simply deny the existence of ID research, but then ironically charge that "IDCs have had to actively ignore an enormous body of empirical evidence."

Their charges against ID are demonstrably false, of course. But what is really going on here? Well, returning to the observations of Inna Kouper and Dale L. Sullivan, they are using "mockery," "ridicule," "emotional and insulting evaluations," and public scorn in displays of derision" in order to "demonstrate not only their rightness, but also to distinguish their group of reasonable and worthy individuals from others, who are wrong, unintelligent, and overall worthless" and "de-authorize publications that could be perceived as dangerous to the community."

This is the level of rigor and civility we're seeing in many anti-ID publications from highly respected publishing houses like Cambridge University Press and Routledge, and numerous other ID critics not discussed here.


ID proponents who really do care about truth-seeking should find strong reasons in all this to be encouraged: If these are the quality of counter-arguments coming from some of the top scholarly critics of intelligent design, then we can be confident that ID arguments are strong. If our opponents had something else to say, anything of greater substance, you can assume we would have heard it by now.

Darwinists continue to wander from one dead end to another re:the Cambrian explosion.

In Allaying Darwin's Doubt, Two Cambrian Experts Still Come Up Short
Evolution News & Views October 16, 2015 3:16 AM


Perceptive readers will find hints of worry in a journal's one-sided presentation of the Cambrian explosion. Darwin's Doubt? What doubt would that be? Current Biology's senior reviews editor, Florian Maderspacher, is too enraptured with "The Tree View of Life" to pay any attention to doubt. Waltzing through the grass, he ponders the distant relatives under his feet.

Whatever we see moving and growing around us is a member of our extended family. The mighty eagle and the ugly slug, the sequoia, the grass and the green slime on the beach -- all are our relatives. And also what we don't see -- the microbes on our skin and in our guts, the bacteria that can kill us and the fungi that provide antibiotics -- it's all in the family. [Emphasis added.]
Though earlier biologists had noted the nested hierarchies in life, it was Charles Darwin who organized the leaves into a tree, he explains. Maderspacher ponderss the power of that vision.

This is powerful stuff. Not only because it is so evocative of this "greatest show on Earth", but also because there is a great deal of apparent truth in it. Trees not only reflect the hierarchies of traits naturalists used to classify the diversity of life. The bifurcations in the tree's branches also echo the bifurcations that are a hallmark of life on all levels of biological organization. Populations split, sometimes leading to separate species, cells divide -- so each multicellular organism is its own Bonsai tree of life -- and most profoundly the bifurcations of the tree reflect the splitting of the DNA strand during replication. So, the tree is more than a metaphor, it mirrors real biological processes. No wonder then that to this day trees pervade biological thinking. This is probably most evident in the family tree of animals, which fascinates us not only because it's our immediate arboreal neighbourhood, but also because it provides the framework within which we can now begin to try to understand the processes that gave rise to the staggering diversity of animal forms.
But what if it's not true? What if the evidence shows abrupt appearance of complex life without a tree-like pattern of ancestry? Perhaps he should read two other papers in the special issue, The History of Life on Earth, more carefully. They're updates on the problems of the Cambrian explosion.

Graham Budd

The first, Graham Budd of Uppsala University, is co-author with Maximilian Telford and Hervé Philippe in an article on "Phylogenetic Insights into Animal Evolution." We met Graham Budd in Darwin's Doubt denying that alleged trace fossils in the Precambrian represented animal remains (p. 85), and confirming Meyer's denial that alleged Precambrian ancestors of bilaterians, like Vernanimalcula, represented animal ancestors (pp. 90-91). Does he have any news since these citations from 2008 and 2004?

While the Cambrian yields a continuous and diverse fossil record, the fossil record before is discontinuous (i.e. fossil finds rely on rare instances of exceptional preservation) and few taxa can be seen to cross into the Cambrian. The fossils from the Precambrian are generally problematic and no clear consensus exists about their status, even though some have been claimed to be animals or even bilaterians and members of crown-group phyla. These problems of interpreting the Precambrian record have led to wide variations in charts that attempt to plot animal phylogeny against the fossil record....
Some control exists though. For example, despite the general patchiness of the fossil record, some remarkable discoveries of microscopic fossils have been made in the Precambrian (e.g. Doushantou Formation from South China), yet none of these can be confidently assigned to bilaterians. In contrast, the emerging field of studies of microscopic organic fragments in the Cambrian reveals many such fragments that are clearly bilaterian in origin. Even if bilaterians were tiny in the Precambrian, they would be capable of being preserved in the microfossil record, suggesting that their absence is real.

Thank you for that update. Dr. Budd and his colleagues still believe in the tree view, in spite of the evidence, but they just admitted the Precambrian has no precursors of bilaterians. They should be there if they existed. "Their absence is real." So what is more real, the tree view or the sudden emergence of most of the animal phyla?

Doug Erwin

In Darwin's Doubt (2013) and Debating Darwin's Doubt (2015), Douglas Erwin of the National Museum of Natural History is one of the most frequently cited Cambrian experts. The latter book cites Erwin as agreeing that the main burst of biological innovation was short, about 5 to 6 million years, not 20 or 50 million as some others have claimed. His book with James Valentine, The Cambrian Explosion (2013), is cited frequently in Debating Darwin's Doubt. Casey Luskin reviewed it favorably in Chapter 44, noting that Erwin and Valentine admitted the brevity of the explosion and the current lack of evolutionary "uniformitarian" mechanisms to explain it.

Like all the other contributors to Current Biology's special issue, though, Erwin completely ignores Meyer. His entry, "Novelty and Innovation in the History of Life," provides him a platform to answer Meyer's critique -- assuming he knows about it (and how could he not?). In particular, Erwin should be able in this article to answer Meyer's primary challenge, the origin of biological information required to build new animal body plans, also the subject of our new short documentary, The Information Enigma.

Here, I begin with an overview of adaptive radiations and ecological opportunity, and provide examples of the variety of evolutionary diversifications identified from the fossil record. The limitations of the adaptive radiation model lead to the recognition of a broader array of patterns of evolutionary diversifications. Next, I turn to the historical contingency of the processes leading to some phenotypic novelties. Thus, one cannot simply assume that novel phenotypes will be available whenever ecological opportunity arises. Macroevolutionary lags and the contingent nature of novelty demand that we consider the processes generating phenotypic novelty separately from the ecological and evolutionary processes that regulate their success. Finally, I turn to the processes generating morphological novelties.
Remember, we're looking for fossil evidence of gradually increasing complexity, or for a theory about how biological information can arise by unguided natural processes. It will not be satisfying to hear restatements of belief in the evolutionary tree view of life.

Has Erwin come across anything new since his 2013 book? Here are his mentions of the Cambrian:

"Striking morphological novelties appeared during some of these evolutionary diversifications, from appendages and eyes in the Cambrian to feathers in the Cretaceous."
"In the case of the Ediacaran to Cambrian appearance and diversification of animals, many lineages were involved that had diverged tens of millions of years earlier. Morphological novelty was pervasive, but describing this as an adaptive radiation stretches the definition of the term beyond reason."
"Several challenges have arisen to claims that adaptive radiations are responsible for most evolutionary diversifications. For one, many events have been identified among both living and fossil clades that cannot be explained as the outcome of diversification from a single species. Examples range from the Cambrian explosion of animals, which involved many major clades but relatively few species, to the diversification of grasses."
"The sudden appearance of numerous bilaterian lineages in the fossil record at the base of the Cambrian is a paradigmatic example of a novelty event: the appearance of morphological novelties (individuation of new characters) and thus an increase in morphological disparity, but these novelties generally were unaccompanied by increases in taxonomic diversity or ecological abundance."
These remarks show that he still believes the Cambrian explosion is real. Now, does he have a theory for the origin of information to build novel body plans as seen in the Cambrian animals?

Maybe we'll find it in this subsection: "Phenotypic Novelty and Innovation." He begins, "The focus on ecological opportunity as the driving factor in adaptive radiation led to a neglect of the mechanisms underlying the generation of novel phenotypes." We search eagerly for the mechanism.

Surprisingly, Erwin turns to Lenski's E. coli experiment with bacteria that adapted to digest citrate (Cit+). But wait -- bacteria are not multicellular animals!

A scenario emerges for the four aspects of novelty and innovation: potentiation, novelty, adaptation and innovation (Box 2). This model is an extension and generalization of the Cit+ mutant example discussed previously. The distinction between novelty and innovations borrows from economics, where invention, the origin of a new technology, is distinguished from innovation, the spread or diffusion of such a technology so that it has an economic effect. A critical aspect of this scenario is that some environmental and ecological potentiating events may actually occur after the novelty emerges, thus creating the conditions for the macroevolutionary lags described earlier. The final stage of innovation following refinement distinguishes the ecological events associated with the success of novelties.
It's hard to see how any evolutionist can take comfort from this proposal. What is the vera causa behind economics, invention, or technology? Clearly it is intelligence. That's Meyer's point. When we observe these features, we know the cause able to produce them. Erwin seems to assume that novelties arise by accident, and turn into innovations when they become economically successful. That begs the question.

Does Erwin explain it under the subsection "Evolutionary Novelty"? No; he begs the question again, merely assuming that novelties, like feathers, "arise" somehow. He adopts G.P. Wagner's "restrictive view of novelty" that "the origin of a morphological novelty is the evolutionary process through which a novel character identity arises." Let's understand this: the evolution of novelty is the evolutionary process by which a novel character arises. Isn't this what we're trying to find out?

Maybe developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRNs) can explain it:

This restrictive definition of novelty links the appearance of novel characters to the structure of developmental gene regulatory networks. Specifically, it proposes that small networks of transcription factors within larger gene regulatory networks are responsible for these novel characters. Such recursively wired subnetworks of developmentally significant genes have been identified for characters ranging from feathers to heart formation. They have been described as character homology identity networks, or CHiNs and kernels (Figure 3). CHiNs were first identified in the formation of patterns associated with new cell types, while kernels are associated with regional patterning mechanisms in developing embryos. Each concept reflects the significance of structured, hierarchical developmental gene regulatory networks in underpinning novel morphological structures. During development, character identity involves these recursively wired regulatory subnets. Positional information determines where the characters form, while the downstream components of the network are responsible for localized cell differentiation. The focus on novel individuated structures is particularly helpful as these can, in principle, be recognized in the fossil record. Novel individuated structures also feature in major evolutionary transitions, critical events in the history of life including the origin of eukaryotes, multicellularity and social systems.
More question-begging. Where do the "new cell types" come from? Did they just "arise" too? Where did "structured, hierarchical... networks" come from? Where did "positional information" come from? And where is the evidence in the fossil evidence that "in principle" can be recognized? The very things we are looking for are the very things he fails to provide.

Meyer addressed the "developmental gene regulatory network" theory of novelty in detail in Debating Darwin's Doubt, since it was the centerpiece of Charles Marshall's critical review. Meyer showed how it assumes the very thing it needs to prove: that genetic information can arise by unguided processes. It's hard to imagine Erwin being unaware of this interchange, but he writes as if he thought of this himself and nobody ever challenged it.

Maybe Erwin can explain the origin of biological information in the subsection, "Innovation and Morphological Disparity." The disparity of animal body plans is a key feature of the Cambrian explosion. Here, sadly, he only makes his problem worse:

A recent analysis of disparity in 98 metazoan clades through the Phanerozoic found a preponderance of clades with maximal disparity early in their history. Thus, whether or not taxonomic diversification slows down most studies of disparity reveal a pattern in which the early evolution of a clade defines the morphological boundaries of a group which are then filled in by subsequent diversification. This pattern is inconsistent with that expected of a classic adaptive radiation in which diversity and disparity should be coupled, at least during the early phase of the radiation.
What this admits is that disparity is a worse problem than evolutionists had realized: it's ubiquitous, not just in the Cambrian.

We see from his conclusion that he knows neo-Darwinism has a serious problem. If he had answers, he wouldn't be calling on fellow evolutionists to get together and solve it.

Does evolutionary biology need a new research program in evolutionary novelty distinct from the existing work on adaptation and speciation? Some evolutionary biologists view morphological novelty as built upon the variation existing within a species. Others, particularly many evolutionary developmental biologists, view novelty as based on evolutionary changes distinct from standing variation. Considerable experimental work will be required to test the hypothesis that evolutionary novelties are underpinned by the origin of particular gene regulatory network structures. I suspect that novel individuated morphological structures will be identified that are not associated with such gene network structures, which will draw attention to the developmental mechanisms that ensure their evolutionary stability. Turning from novelty to innovation, there is great opportunity for carefully documenting the environmental and ecological circumstances under which innovations arise, how closely they are linked to morphological novelty, and whether there are particular conditions that foster increased innovation.
Erwin just danced around Meyer's challenge by speculating that gene regulatory networks, or unspecified developmental mechanisms, or the environment can create the high levels of information necessary to build new animal body plans. If he had anything better than idle speculations or promissory notes since Meyer's books came out, or if he had better fossils to muffle the explosion, this was a prime opportunity to share them.


The strength of a theory can be gauged by how well it stands up to attacks and how well it incorporates new evidence. If Current Biology's "History of Life on Earth" issue represents the best evolutionary thought on the Cambrian explosion to date, by the world's most knowledgeable experts, with access to the best fossil evidence, Meyer's thesis is doing pretty well. His critics would do well to stop ignoring the challenge and address its claims directly.