The Watchtower Society's commentary on the bible's view of kingship.

KING:

A sovereign who has authority to rule over others. Jehovah is the supreme King, possessing unlimited power and authority. The kings of Judah were subordinate kings who represented His sovereignty on earth. Like them, Jesus Christ is a subordinate King, but with far greater power than those earthly kings, because Jehovah has put him in the position of ruling the universe. (Php 2:9-11) Jesus Christ has therefore been made “King of kings and Lord of lords.”—Re 19:16; see JESUS CHRIST; KINGDOM.

Early Kings. Among earthly rulers a king is a male sovereign invested with supreme authority over a city, a tribe, a nation, or an empire, and he usually rules for life. Nimrod, a descendant of Ham, was the first human king of Bible record. He ruled over a kingdom that included several cities in Mesopotamia. He was a rebel against Jehovah’s sovereignty.—Ge 10:6, 8-10.

Canaan and the countries surrounding it had kings in the days of Abraham, long before the Israelites did. (Ge 14:1-9) Kings are also found from the earliest times among the Philistines, Edomites, Moabites, Midianites, Ammonites, Syrians, Hittites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans. Many of these kings ruled over limited domains such as a city-state. Adoni-bezek, for example, boasted that he had conquered 70 of such kings.—Jg 1:7.

The first human king noted in the Bible as being righteous was Melchizedek, king-priest of Salem. (Ge 14:18) Aside from Jesus Christ, who is King and High Priest combined, Melchizedek is the only God-approved ruler to have held both offices. The apostle Paul points out that God used Melchizedek as a typical representation of Christ. (Heb 7:1-3; 8:1, 6) No other faithful servant of God, not even Noah, attempted to be a king, and God appointed none of them until Saul was anointed at His direction.

Israelite Kings. Initially Jehovah ruled Israel as an invisible King through various agencies, first through Moses and later through human Judges from Othniel to Samson. (Jg 8:23; 1Sa 12:12) Eventually the Israelites clamored for a king in order to be like the nations around them. (1Sa 8:5-8, 19) Under the legal provision embodied in the Law covenant for a divinely appointed human king, Jehovah appointed Saul of the tribe of Benjamin through the prophet Samuel. (De 17:14-20; 1Sa 9:15, 16; 10:21, 24) Because of disobedience and presumptuousness, Saul lost Jehovah’s favor and the opportunity to provide a dynasty of kings. (1Sa 13:1-14; 15:22-28) Turning then to the tribe of Judah, Jehovah selected David the son of Jesse to be the next king of Israel. (1Sa 16:13; 17:12) For faithfully supporting Jehovah’s worship and laws, David was privileged to establish a dynasty of kings. (2Sa 7:15, 16) The Israelites reached a peak of prosperity under the reign of Solomon, a son of David.—1Ki 4:25; 2Ch 1:15.

During the reign of Solomon’s son Rehoboam, the nation was split into two kingdoms. The first king of the northern, ten-tribe kingdom, generally spoken of as Israel, was Jeroboam the son of Nebat of the tribe of Ephraim. (1Ki 11:26; 12:20) Disobediently he turned the worship of his people to golden calves. For this sin he came under Jehovah’s disfavor. (1Ki 14:10, 16) A total of 20 kings ruled in the northern kingdom from 997 to 740 B.C.E., beginning with Jeroboam and ending with Hoshea the son of Elah. In the southern kingdom, Judah, 19 kings reigned from 997 to 607 B.C.E., beginning with Rehoboam and ending with Zedekiah. (Athaliah, a usurper of the throne and not a king, is not counted.)—See BURIAL, BURIAL PLACES; CHRONOLOGY.

Divinely appointed representatives. Jehovah appointed the kings of his people, and they were to act as his royal agents, sitting, not on their own thrones, but on “the throne of the kingship of Jehovah,” that is, as representatives of his theocratic rule. (1Ch 28:5; 29:23) Contrary to the practice of some Oriental peoples in those days, the nation of Israel did not deify their kings. All the kings of Judah were regarded as being the anointed ones of Jehovah, although the record does not specifically state that each individual king was literally anointed with oil when he ascended the throne. Literal anointing oil is recorded as being used when a new dynasty was established, when the throne was disputed in David’s old age as well as in the days of Jehoash, and when an older son was passed over for a younger son at the time Jehoahaz was enthroned. (1Sa 10:1; 16:13; 1Ki 1:39; 2Ki 11:12; 23:30, 31, 34, 36) It seems likely, nevertheless, that such anointing was the regular practice.

The king of Judah was chief administrator of national affairs, as a shepherd of the people. (Ps 78:70-72) He generally took the lead in battle. (1Sa 8:20; 2Sa 21:17; 1Ki 22:29-33) He also acted as the higher court in the judiciary, except that the high priest would consult Jehovah for decisions on some matters of state and on certain matters in which the decision was very difficult or evidence at the mouth of witnesses was insufficient.—1Ki 3:16-28.

Kingly restraints. The restraints placed upon the king in the exercise of his authority were his own fear of God, the law of God, which he was bound to obey, and the persuasive influence of the prophets and the priests as well as the advisory counsel of the older men. He was required to write for himself a copy of the Law and to read in it all the days of his life. (De 17:18, 19) He was, as Jehovah’s special servant and representative, responsible to Jehovah. There were, sad to relate, many Judean kings who broke through these restraints and ruled despotically and wickedly.—1Sa 22:12, 13, 17-19; 1Ki 12:12-16; 2Ch 33:9.

Religious leader. Although the king was prevented by law from being a priest, he was supposed to be the chief nonpriestly supporter of Jehovah’s worship. At times the king blessed the nation in Jehovah’s name and represented the people in prayer. (2Sa 6:18; 1Ki 8:14, 22, 54, 55) Besides being responsible for safeguarding the religious life of the people from idolatrous intrusions, he had the authority to dismiss an unfaithful high priest, as King Solomon did when High Priest Abiathar supported Adonijah’s seditious attempt to take the throne.—1Ki 1:7; 2:27.

Wives and property. The marriage and family customs of the Judean kings included the practice of having a plurality of wives and concubines, although the Law stipulated that the king was not to multiply wives to himself. (De 17:17) The concubines were considered to be crown property and were passed on to the successor to the throne along with the rights and property of the king. To marry or take possession of one of the deceased king’s concubines was tantamount to publishing a claim to the throne. Hence, Absalom’s having relations with the concubines of his father, King David, and Adonijah’s requesting as wife Abishag, David’s nurse and companion in his old age, were equivalent to claims on the throne. (2Sa 16:21, 22; 1Ki 2:15-17, 22) These were treasonable acts.

Aside from the king’s personal estate, spoils of war, and gifts (1Ch 18:10), other sources of revenue were developed. These included special taxation of the produce of the land for the royal table, tribute from subjugated kingdoms, toll on traveling merchants passing through the land, and commercial ventures, such as the trading fleets of Solomon.—1Ki 4:7, 27, 28; 9:26-28; 10:14, 15.

Instability of Northern Kingdom. In the northern kingdom of Israel the principle of hereditary succession was observed except when it was interfered with by assassination or revolt. The practice of false religion kept the northern kingdom in a constant state of unrest that contributed to frequent assassinations of its kings and usurpation of the throne. Only two dynasties lasted more than two generations, those of Omri and Jehu. Not being under the Davidic kingdom covenant, none of the kings of the northern kingdom sat on “the throne of the kingship of Jehovah” as the anointed of Jehovah.—1Ch 28:5.

Gentile Kings and Subordinate Kings. Babylonian kings were officially consecrated as monarchs over all the Babylonian Empire by grasping the hand of the golden image of Marduk. This was done by Cyrus the Great in order to gain control over the Babylonian Empire without having to conquer the entire empire by military action.

Other kings came to their thrones through appointment by a higher king, such as the one who conquered the territory. It was a frequent practice for kings to rule conquered domains through tributary native kings of lesser rank. By this process Herod the Great became a tributary king of Rome over Judea (Mt 2:1), and Aretas the king of the Nabataeans was confirmed by Rome in his tributary kingdom.—2Co 11:32.


Non-Israelite kings were less accessible to their subjects than those who ruled God’s people. The Israelite kings evidently mingled quite freely with their people. The Gentile kings were often very remote. To enter the inner court of the Persian king without express permission automatically made that one liable to death unless the king gave his specific approval by extending his scepter, as was done with Esther. (Es 4:11, 16) The Roman emperor, however, was available for audience on the appeal of a Roman citizen from a decision made by a lower judge, but only after a process of going through many lower officials.—Ac 25:11, 12.

Gamesmanship trumps sportsmanship?

Design in the line of fire.

A bedtime story.

Plate tectonics may have driven the evolution of life on Earth
July 16, 2015 by Ross Large And John Long, The Conversation.


When Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection in 1859, the world hadn't even heard of plate tectonics. The notion that continents drifted on molten rock currents deep in the Earth's mantle was unimaginable.

So it would have come as a shock to Darwin to think the movement of the Earth's continental plates could have been a major driver of evolutionary change in all life.
In our research, published this month in Gondwana Research, we suggest that the regular collision of tectonic plates over the past 700 million years has been a prime driver of evolutionary change on Earth.
The essentials for life
We used laser technology housed in the Earth Science laboratories at the University of Tasmania to analyse more than 4,000 pyrite grains from seafloor mudstone samples collected from around the globe.
This enabled us to determine how concentrations of trace elements in the oceans have varied over the 700 million years. Trace elements included copper, zinc, phosphorus, cobalt and selenium, which are necessary for nearly all life – from marine phytoplankton through to humans – to function.

The most surprising finding was that there were certain periods in Earth's history when nutrient trace elements were highly enriched in the oceans, and other periods when levels of these critical trace elements were very low.
The nutrient-rich periods promoted rapid plankton growth in the short term, and this appears to correlate with periods of increased evolutionary change. An example of this is the rapid rise in trace elements preceding the Ediacaran (635 to 542 million years ago) and Cambrian (541 to 485 mya) periods, a time when multicellular animal life took off in a big way.
The Cambrian explosion, around 540 million years ago, is when most major groups of living animals appeared. This corresponds to a time when essential trace elements were peaking in the oceans, thus nutrient levels were very high.
The nutrient-poor periods caused depletion of plankton and promoted a slow-down in rates of diversification and ultimately could have played a role in three major mass extinction events. These occurred at the end of the Ordovician, Devonian and Triassic periods.
Although several possible explanations are given for these extinctions events, depletion in oceanic trace elements might be another plausible factor. Work is currently underway demonstrating that these events are tied to rapid declines in certain essential trace elements, particularly selenium.
Plate tectonics and nutrient cycles
Nutrients in the oceans ultimately come from weathering and erosion of rocks on thecontinents. Weathering breaks down the minerals in the rocks and releases thenutrient trace elements, which nourish life. Thus when weathering and erosion rates increase for extended periods, more nutrients are supplied to the oceans.
In the long term of geological history, erosion rates rise dramatically duringmountain building events caused by the gradual collision of tectonic plates.
Geologists have known since the 1960s that collisions of tectonic plates lead to the formation of huge mountain ranges. The Himalayas were formed when India, drifting northwards after splitting off from the supercontinent of Gondwana, slammed into Asia and pushed up the Tibetan Plateau. These collisions are called called orogenic events and their timing through Earth's history is now well established.
Continued erosion eventually depletes the surface of nutrients, causing a drop in the ocean's nutrients. This might have led to extinction events in the seas.
This is the first time nutrient trace element curves have been developed that demonstrate the relationship between tectonic collisions and the generation of cycles of nutrients.
While the link between these nutrient cycles as drivers of evolution and factors in mass extinction events remains to be proven, it really makes us think about evolution in a broad sense. Plate tectonics and evolution both operate on the same time scale of millions of years, and it seems logical that they could be causally related.
The relationship between increased nutrients in the oceans with bursts of evolutionary change are clearly correlated for the early part of the cycles, but less clear is the correlation with the evolution of advanced land animals.
Life out of the oceans
The origin of the first land animals, tetrapods about 370 million years ago, corresponds with a decrease in oceanic nutrients and a series of mass extinction events in the oceans. This could explain why certain sarcopterygian fishes with robust limbs left the seas when they did in order to leave the nutrient-poor ocean and make out on land.
But the first appearance of dinosaurs and mammals in the early Triassic, about 225 million years ago, has no correlation with trace element abundance.
Perhaps the cycles pertain mainly to biodiversity in the oceans. There is certainly a close correlation with the drop in nutrients and some global oceanic mass extinctions. These events are being tested and explored further in further research on selenium, to be released soon.

We can call it "how we all got our body plans"

Yet more strawmen bite the dust courtesy of Darwinism's vanguard.

The Sad Decline of Karl Giberson

John G. West November 9, 2015 3:11 AM 

Physicist Karl Giberson used to be a serious participant in discussions of issues related to science and faith. A co-founder of the BioLogos Foundation with Francis Collins and Darrel Falk, and a frequent contributor to Books & Culture, Giberson is the author of several notable books. But of late it's getting hard to take him seriously. It's rather sad.

First, there was the controversy over Giberson's use during public lectures of a fake photo purporting to show a human baby born with a tail. Giberson used the photo to illustrate his claim that human babies are occasionally "born with perfectly formed, even functional tails," which is supposed to provide evidence of humans' shared evolutionary ancestry with lower animals.

It turned out that not only was Giberson's scientific claim bogus -- so was his photo. The picture was a Photoshopped concoction he downloaded from a humor website, apparently thinking it was real. Giberson's use of the photo in public lectures may say something about his lack of skepticism when it comes to claims made in the name of evolution, but I don't think he was intentionally trying to mislead people. And after the photo was exposed, he did eventually apologize -- albeit with very poor grace and a stream of self-justifications. He even accused my colleague David Klinghoffer, who helped expose the fake photo, of "willful lies," which was itself a patent falsehood. The whole episode was a sorry example of Giberson's scorched-earth and fact-free approach to those he disagrees with.

Now Giberson has posted an over-the-top bromide against Discovery Institute at The Huffington Post under the overwrought title (cue the sinister music!), "Discovery Institute Still Undermining Science." The article makes Giberson's statements about humans born with tails seem a model of probity. Inveighing against Discovery Institute's "teach the controversy" education policy, Giberson asserts that the "controversies" the Institute wants taught in science classes include a 10,000-year-old earth, Noah's Ark, and Adam and Eve:

For starters, the "controversies" they want to teach don't even exist. In their minds the possibility that the earth is 10,000 years old is an open question, even though geologists settled that one in the 18th century. They still think that Adam and Eve were real people and Noah may have rescued all the animals in the ark -- claims settled in the 19th century.

Notably, Giberson doesn't provide any documentation for these claims. That's because they are absolutely false. As in, made up. As in, completely untrue. I've been involved with Discovery Institute before the Institute even had its program on intelligent design, and we've never advocated teaching the things he says in science class.

To be perfectly clear, we don't even favor teaching about intelligent design in K-12 classes. Still less do we support banning the teaching of evolution, despite Giberson's additional false claim that our "real agenda" is "to get evolution out of the public schools."

On the contrary, we think science students should learn more about evolutionary theory, not less. That includes the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but it also includes scientific disputes over key evolutionary claims already being aired in mainstream peer-reviewed science journals. These include disputes over the creative power of the mutation-selection mechanism: How much can natural selection acting on random mutations actually accomplish?

If Giberson disagrees with the criticisms of Darwinian theory raised by scientists in the intelligent design community, he should take the time to respond to those criticisms rather than spread falsehoods.

For example, Giberson could respond to the scientific claims made in Stephen Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt. Giberson may think Meyer raises no serious scientific claims, but a number of other scientists disagree, ranging from Harvard geneticist George Church to paleontologist Mark McMenamin, co-author of The Emergence of Animals (Columbia University Press). McMenamin even called Meyer's book "a game changer for the study of evolution and points us in the right direction as we seek a new theory for the origin of animals." Neither Church nor McMenanim is affiliated with the intelligent design movement, so it took a great deal of courage for them to recommend Meyer's book.

But rather than respond to the real issues raised by those affiliated with Discovery Institute, Giberson simply knocks down straw men. That's the sort of intellectual evasion I've grown to expect from the hard-core partisans of modern evolutionary theory. I had thought that Giberson was better than that. At one point, I think he was.

As I said earlier, it's sad. Giberson's fact-free attacks may play well with the Darwin Amen chorus at The Huffington Post and The Daily Beast, but surely he is capable of something more.

Perhaps Giberson has convinced himself he lives in an alternate universe -- a universe where a Discovery Institute exists that actually promotes the things he claims. But for those of us who live in the real universe, I wish he'd rejoin us. He might be an interesting discussion partner.

Psalm36-42NASB

36)For the choir director. A Psalm of David the servant of the LORD.

1Transgression speaks to the ungodly within his heart;
            There is no fear of God before his eyes.
      2For it flatters him in his own eyes
            Concerning the discovery of his iniquity and the hatred of it.

      3The words of his mouth are wickedness and deceit;
            He has ceased to be wise and to do good.

      4He plans wickedness upon his bed;
            He sets himself on a path that is not good;
            He does not despise evil.

      5Your lovingkindness, O LORD, extends to the heavens,
            Your faithfulness reaches to the skies.

      6Your righteousness is like the mountains of God;
            Your judgments are like a great deep.
            O LORD, You preserve man and beast.

      7How precious is Your lovingkindness, O God!
            And the children of men take refuge in the shadow of Your wings.

      8They drink their fill of the abundance of Your house;
            And You give them to drink of the river of Your delights.

      9For with You is the fountain of life;
            In Your light we see light.

      10O continue Your lovingkindness to those who know You,
            And Your righteousness to the upright in heart.

      11Let not the foot of pride come upon me,
            And let not the hand of the wicked drive me away.

      12There the doers of iniquity have fallen;
            They have been thrust down and cannot rise.

37)A Psalm of David.

1Do not fret because of evildoers,
            Be not envious toward wrongdoers.
      2For they will wither quickly like the grass
            And fade like the green herb.

      3Trust in the LORD and do good;
            Dwell in the land and cultivate faithfulness.

      4Delight yourself in the LORD;
            And He will give you the desires of your heart.

      5Commit your way to the LORD,
            Trust also in Him, and He will do it.

      6He will bring forth your righteousness as the light
            And your judgment as the noonday.

      7Rest in the LORD and wait patiently for Him;
            Do not fret because of him who prospers in his way,
            Because of the man who carries out wicked schemes.

      8Cease from anger and forsake wrath;
            Do not fret; it leads only to evildoing.

      9For evildoers will be cut off,
            But those who wait for the LORD, they will inherit the land.

      10Yet a little while and the wicked man will be no more;
            And you will look carefully for his place and he will not be there.

      11But the humble will inherit the land
            And will delight themselves in abundant prosperity.

      12The wicked plots against the righteous
            And gnashes at him with his teeth.

      13The Lord laughs at him,
            For He sees his day is coming.

      14The wicked have drawn the sword and bent their bow
            To cast down the afflicted and the needy,
            To slay those who are upright in conduct.

      15Their sword will enter their own heart,
            And their bows will be broken.

      16Better is the little of the righteous
            Than the abundance of many wicked.

      17For the arms of the wicked will be broken,
            But the LORD sustains the righteous.

      18The LORD knows the days of the blameless,
            And their inheritance will be forever.

      19They will not be ashamed in the time of evil,
            And in the days of famine they will have abundance.

      20But the wicked will perish;
            And the enemies of the LORD will be like the glory of the pastures,
            They vanish—like smoke they vanish away.

      21The wicked borrows and does not pay back,
            But the righteous is gracious and gives.

      22For those blessed by Him will inherit the land,
            But those cursed by Him will be cut off.

      23The steps of a man are established by the LORD,
            And He delights in his way.

      24When he falls, he will not be hurled headlong,
            Because the LORD is the One who holds his hand.

      25I have been young and now I am old,
            Yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken
            Or his descendants begging bread.

      26All day long he is gracious and lends,
            And his descendants are a blessing.

      27Depart from evil and do good,
            So you will abide forever.

      28For the LORD loves justice
            And does not forsake His godly ones;
            They are preserved forever,
            But the descendants of the wicked will be cut off.

      29The righteous will inherit the land
            And dwell in it forever.

      30The mouth of the righteous utters wisdom,
            And his tongue speaks justice.

      31The law of his God is in his heart;
            His steps do not slip.

      32The wicked spies upon the righteous
            And seeks to kill him.

      33The LORD will not leave him in his hand
            Or let him be condemned when he is judged.

      34Wait for the LORD and keep His way,
            And He will exalt you to inherit the land;
            When the wicked are cut off, you will see it.

      35I have seen a wicked, violent man
            Spreading himself like a luxuriant tree in its native soil.

      36Then he passed away, and lo, he was no more;
            I sought for him, but he could not be found.

      37Mark the blameless man, and behold the upright;
            For the man of peace will have a posterity.

      38But transgressors will be altogether destroyed;
            The posterity of the wicked will be cut off.

      39But the salvation of the righteous is from the LORD;
            He is their strength in time of trouble.

      40The LORD helps them and delivers them;
            He delivers them from the wicked and saves them,
            Because they take refuge in Him.

38)A Psalm of David, for a memorial.

1O LORD, rebuke me not in Your wrath,
            And chasten me not in Your burning anger.
      2For Your arrows have sunk deep into me,
            And Your hand has pressed down on me.

      3There is no soundness in my flesh because of Your indignation;
            There is no health in my bones because of my sin.

      4For my iniquities are gone over my head;
            As a heavy burden they weigh too much for me.

      5My wounds grow foul and fester
            Because of my folly.

      6I am bent over and greatly bowed down;
            I go mourning all day long.

      7For my loins are filled with burning,
            And there is no soundness in my flesh.

      8I am benumbed and badly crushed;
            I groan because of the agitation of my heart.

      9Lord, all my desire is before You;
            And my sighing is not hidden from You.

      10My heart throbs, my strength fails me;
            And the light of my eyes, even that has gone from me.

      11My loved ones and my friends stand aloof from my plague;
            And my kinsmen stand afar off.

      12Those who seek my life lay snares for me;
            And those who seek to injure me have threatened destruction,
            And they devise treachery all day long.

      13But I, like a deaf man, do not hear;
            And I am like a mute man who does not open his mouth.

      14Yes, I am like a man who does not hear,
            And in whose mouth are no arguments.

      15For I hope in You, O LORD;
            You will answer, O Lord my God.

      16For I said, “May they not rejoice over me,
            Who, when my foot slips, would magnify themselves against me.”

      17For I am ready to fall,
            And my sorrow is continually before me.

      18For I confess my iniquity;
            I am full of anxiety because of my sin.

      19But my enemies are vigorous and strong,
            And many are those who hate me wrongfully.

      20And those who repay evil for good,
            They oppose me, because I follow what is good.

      21Do not forsake me, O LORD;
            O my God, do not be far from me!

      22Make haste to help me,
            O Lord, my salvation!

39)For the choir director, for Jeduthun. A Psalm of David.

1I said, “I will guard my ways
            That I may not sin with my tongue;
            I will guard my mouth as with a muzzle
            While the wicked are in my presence.”
      2I was mute and silent,
            I refrained even from good,
            And my sorrow grew worse.

      3My heart was hot within me,
            While I was musing the fire burned;
            Then I spoke with my tongue:

      4“LORD, make me to know my end
            And what is the extent of my days;
            Let me know how transient I am.

      5“Behold, You have made my days as handbreadths,
            And my lifetime as nothing in Your sight;
            Surely every man at his best is a mere breath. 

Selah.
      6“Surely every man walks about as a phantom;
            Surely they make an uproar for nothing;
            He amasses riches and does not know who will gather them.

      7“And now, Lord, for what do I wait?
            My hope is in You.

      8“Deliver me from all my transgressions;
            Make me not the reproach of the foolish.

      9“I have become mute, I do not open my mouth,
            Because it is You who have done it.

      10“Remove Your plague from me;
            Because of the opposition of Your hand I am perishing.

      11“With reproofs You chasten a man for iniquity;
            You consume as a moth what is precious to him;
            Surely every man is a mere breath. 

Selah.
      12“Hear my prayer, O LORD, and give ear to my cry;
            Do not be silent at my tears;
            For I am a stranger with You,
            A sojourner like all my fathers.

      13“Turn Your gaze away from me, that I may smile again
            Before I depart and am no more.”

40)For the choir director. A Psalm of David.

1I waited patiently for the LORD;
            And He inclined to me and heard my cry.
      2He brought me up out of the pit of destruction, out of the miry clay,
            And He set my feet upon a rock making my footsteps firm.

      3He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God;
            Many will see and fear
            And will trust in the LORD.

      4How blessed is the man who has made the LORD his trust,
            And has not turned to the proud, nor to those who lapse into falsehood.

      5Many, O LORD my God, are the wonders which You have done,
            And Your thoughts toward us;
            There is none to compare with You.
            If I would declare and speak of them,
            They would be too numerous to count.

      6Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired;
            My ears You have opened;
            Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.

      7Then I said, “Behold, I come;
            In the scroll of the book it is written of me.

      8I delight to do Your will, O my God;
            Your Law is within my heart.”

      9I have proclaimed glad tidings of righteousness in the great congregation;
            Behold, I will not restrain my lips,
            O LORD, You know.

      10I have not hidden Your righteousness within my heart;
            I have spoken of Your faithfulness and Your salvation;
            I have not concealed Your lovingkindness and Your truth from the great congregation.

      11You, O LORD, will not withhold Your compassion from me;
            Your lovingkindness and Your truth will continually preserve me.

      12For evils beyond number have surrounded me;
            My iniquities have overtaken me, so that I am not able to see;
            They are more numerous than the hairs of my head,
            And my heart has failed me.

      13Be pleased, O LORD, to deliver me;
            Make haste, O LORD, to help me.

      14Let those be ashamed and humiliated together
            Who seek my life to destroy it;
            Let those be turned back and dishonored
            Who delight in my hurt.

      15Let those be appalled because of their shame
            Who say to me, “Aha, aha!”

      16Let all who seek You rejoice and be glad in You;
            Let those who love Your salvation say continually,
            “The LORD be magnified!”

      17Since I am afflicted and needy,
            Let the Lord be mindful of me.
            You are my help and my deliverer;
            Do not delay, O my God.

41)For the choir director. A Psalm of David.

1How blessed is he who considers the helpless;
            The LORD will deliver him in a day of trouble.
      2The LORD will protect him and keep him alive,
            And he shall be called blessed upon the earth;
            And do not give him over to the desire of his enemies.

      3The LORD will sustain him upon his sickbed;
            In his illness, You restore him to health.

      4As for me, I said, “O LORD, be gracious to me;
            Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You.”

      5My enemies speak evil against me,
            “When will he die, and his name perish?”

      6And when he comes to see me, he speaks falsehood;
            His heart gathers wickedness to itself;
            When he goes outside, he tells it.

      7All who hate me whisper together against me;
            Against me they devise my hurt, saying,

      8“A wicked thing is poured out upon him,
            That when he lies down, he will not rise up again.”

      9Even my close friend in whom I trusted,
            Who ate my bread,
            Has lifted up his heel against me.

      10But You, O LORD, be gracious to me and raise me up,
            That I may repay them.

      11By this I know that You are pleased with me,
            Because my enemy does not shout in triumph over me.

      12As for me, You uphold me in my integrity,
            And You set me in Your presence forever.

      13Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel,
            From everlasting to everlasting.
            Amen and Amen.

42)For the choir director. A Maskil of the sons of Korah.

1As the deer pants for the water brooks,
            So my soul pants for You, O God.
      2My soul thirsts for God, for the living God;
            When shall I come and appear before God?

      3My tears have been my food day and night,
            While they say to me all day long, “Where is your God?”

      4These things I remember and I pour out my soul within me.
            For I used to go along with the throng and lead them in procession to the house of God,
            With the voice of joy and thanksgiving, a multitude keeping festival.

      5Why are you in despair, O my soul?
            And why have you become disturbed within me?
            Hope in God, for I shall again praise Him
            For the help of His presence.

      6O my God, my soul is in despair within me;
            Therefore I remember You from the land of the Jordan
            And the peaks of Hermon, from Mount Mizar.

      7Deep calls to deep at the sound of Your waterfalls;
            All Your breakers and Your waves have rolled over me.

      8The LORD will command His lovingkindness in the daytime;
            And His song will be with me in the night,
            A prayer to the God of my life.

      9I will say to God my rock, “Why have You forgotten me?
            Why do I go mourning because of the oppression of the enemy?”

      10As a shattering of my bones, my adversaries revile me,
            While they say to me all day long, “Where is your God?”

      11Why are you in despair, O my soul?
            And why have you become disturbed within me?
            Hope in God, for I shall yet praise Him,
            The help of my countenance and my God.

File under 'well said' XIII

The spectacle of what is called religion, or at any rate organised religion, in India and elsewhere has filled me with horror, and I have frequently condemned it and wished to make a clean sweep of it. Almost always it seems to stand for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition and exploitation, and the preservation of vested interests.

Jawaharlal Nehru.

More aspirational hoodoo re:the Darwinian narrative on the origin of sight.

Optimistic Optics: Scientific American Makes Bold Claims About the Origin of the Eye
Jonathan M. June 23, 2011 6:00 AM 

A couple of weeks ago, an interesting article appeared in Scientific American, titled "Evolution Of The Eye." The subheading of the article makes the bold claim, "Scientists now have a clear vision of how our notoriously complex eye came to be." When I saw that this article had been published, I was immediately filled with a sense of intrigue. I looked forward to reading a proposed solution to a fiendishly vexing problem. What the article actually provided, however, was largely disappointing. There was nothing particularly new or original, and (though coated with our modern scientific understanding) the argument took, more or less, the same basic form that has been rehashed for the last century and a half since the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species.

The article actually makes explicit mention of intelligent design (ID) and offers the pertinent argument as a rebuttal to the concept of irreducible complexity. The author of the article, Trevor D. Lamb, claims that

... [B]iologists have recently made significant advances in tracing the origin of the eye--by studying how it forms in developing embryos and by comparing eye structure and genes across species to reconstruct when key traits arose. The results indicate that our kind of eye--the type common across vertebrates--took shape in less than 100 million years, evolving from a simple light sensor for circadian (daily) and seasonal rhythms around 600 million years ago to an optically and neurologically sophisticated organ by 500 million years ago. More than 150 years after Darwin published his groundbreaking theory, these findings put the nail in the coffin of irreducible complexity and beautifully support Darwin's idea. They also explain why the eye, far from being a perfectly engineered piece of machinery, exhibits a number of major flaws--these flaws are the scars of evolution. Natural selection does not, as some might think, result in perfection. It tinkers with the material available to it, sometimes to odd effect.
In a nutshell, the claims made by Lamb are as follows:

1. By comparing eye structures and embryological development of the eye in vertebrate species, one can infer that our camera eye has very ancient evolutionary roots.
2. Prior to acquiring the elements required for its operation as a visual organ, its function was simply the detection of light for modulating the circadian rhythms of our distant ancestors.

3. The eye has various design flaws and this is evidence for its evolutionary / dysteleological origin.

4. There are clues in developing embryos which indicate how the eye formed from a light-sensing but nonvisual organ into an image-forming one by around 500 million years ago.

Lamb's article is chiefly concerned with rebuffing intelligent design (and not merely demonstrating common ancestry). In this critique of the article, therefore, I want to focus primarily on the fourth of those points (which I deem to be the crux of the matter), and will also weigh in briefly on the apparent suboptimality of the eye's design.

Folding A Patch Of Photoreceptors
Lamb tells us,
Early in development, the neural structure that gives rise to the eye bulges out on either side to form two sacs, or vesicles. Each of these vesicles then folds in on itself to form a C-shaped retina that lines the interior of the eye. Evolution probably proceeded in much the same way. We postulate that a proto-eye of this kind--with a C-shaped, two-layered retina composed of ciliary photoreceptors on the exterior and output neurons derived from rhabdomeric photoreceptors on the interior--had evolved in an ancestor of vertebrates between 550 million and 500 million years ago, serving to drive its internal clock and perhaps help it to detect shadows and orient its body properly.
This insight is hardly novel. The idea has been espoused by many of the great evolutionary biologists of the 20th century (e.g. Richard Dawkins). Nilsson and Pelger (1994) also articulated a very similar argument (see David Berlinski's critique here).

In such models, it is thought that visual acuity might be improved first by the initially flat patch of photoreceptors becoming concave, and subsequently by increasing the level of indentation. The argument is, of course, predicated on the critical assumption that the change is both hereditable and able to be continued indefinitely (no matter how much indentation and selection has occurred previously).

Moreover, once the indented patch of photoreceptors is equally as deep as it is wide, visual acuity is most effectively enhanced, not by becoming deeper, but by constricting the orifice of the depression until an optimum is achieved with respect to the trade off between visual acuity (as a result of the narrowing of the angle of incident light to each respective photocell) and the reduction in light admitted to the photocells.

The Development And Evolution Of The Lens
Lamb continues,
In the next stage of embryological development, as the retina is folding inward against itself, the lens forms, originating as a thickening of the embryo's outer surface, or ectoderm, that bulges into the curved empty space formed by the C-shaped retina. This protrusion eventually separates from the rest of the ectoderm to become a free-floating element. It seems likely that a broadly similar sequence of changes occurred during evolution. We do not know exactly when this modification happened, but in 1994 researchers at Lund University in Sweden showed that the optical components of the eye could have easily evolved within a million years. If so, the image-forming eye may have arisen from the nonvisual proto-eye in a geologic instant.
This is all based upon one big assumption: that biological tissues are innately plastic. Little attention is given to the biochemical and molecular conundrums which confront such scenarios. In other words, all that we have learned in the last 50 years of genetics and biochemistry is totally ignored. One cannot help but wonder whether the details of biochemistry are ignored as a result of oversight or whether it is, rather, because it presents such a formidable challenge to conventional evolutionary explanations that to pay it due attention would radically undermine the Darwinian paradigm.

Lamb's choice of words in the above seems to imply a spontaneous embryological development of the lens, and he suggests that perhaps evolution happened in much the same manner. The problem is that lens formation does not, in reality, possess such spontaneity -- far from it. Rather, it is triggered by the release of several chemicals, called "inducers," from the optic vesicle. In epithelial cells, release of these chemicals triggers the expression of the genes which are involved in implementing lens development. The inducer triggers the epithelial cells to start producing a transcription factor, which is often called the "master control gene" of eye development (known as Pax6). Pax6 subsequently activates the genes that cause the epithelium to form a lens placode and then a lens vesicle.

Pax6 also plays a role in the initial formation of the optic vesicle, and in differentiation of retinal cells. This gives rise to an interesting question -- how does the same transcription factor perform different roles in different cell types? Its action is carefully modulated by an array of other factors which are particular to the respective tissues and cell types. In the case of epithelial cells, Pax6 works in collaboration with another transcription factor called Sox2. When these two proteins bind together on a specific DNA sequence, it literally acts as a genetic switch -- triggering lens differentiation.

As Lamb himself explains, lens morphogenesis results from "a thickening of the embryo's outer surface, or ectoderm, that bulges into the curved empty space formed by the C-shaped retina. This protrusion eventually separates from the rest of the ectoderm to become a free-floating element."

The lens vesicle subsequently morphs into a lens. The cells of the vesicle's posterior wall become lens fibers, which grow substantially to a length dozens of times greater than their original size (meaning they completely cover the vesicle cavity). There are several important changes which these cells need to undergo in order to take up their role as lens fibers. For one thing, they have to lose their internal organelles to allow the incoming light to be successfully transmitted through them. The lens fibers are also packed very tightly together -- hexagonal in cross-section, and aligned parallel to the axis of the eye.

These lens fibers also produce proteins known as crystallins, and Pax6 (the transcription factor which I mentioned previously) is involved in activating the crystallin genes. The high level of production of these proteins confers an extraordinary high density and hence a high refractive index which is responsible for the lens' light-bending properties.

Now, at this point we potentially run into a problem.

In the case of most proteins, if they accumulated in such a high concentration as this, they would have a tendency to agglomerate and denature. This would entail that the lens would become cloudy and thus lose its transparency. The proteins which are used -- crystallins -- however, are exceptionally stable, and the largest class of these proteins actually serves to stabilise the other crystallins. This class is known as α-crystallin, and these molecules interact to form hollow balls which are connected by other proteins called CP49 and filensin. This forms a structure called a "beaded filament". These structures predominate within the lens fibers. They are absolutely critical for facilitating such a dense concentration of proteins to actually enhance visual capabilities. Even more remarkable is the fact that these proteins are never recycled. Unlike most other proteins, these crystallin molecules do not degrade and thereby result in the lens becoming cloudy. The beaded filament structures actually protect the proteins from such degradation and denaturation. Actually, one of the causes of eye cataracts is a faulty beaded filament structure.

But here's the bottom line: This is not the type of system which one might intuitively expect to be the product of trial-and-error Darwinian-type tinkering. To simply appeal to the addition of a lens is to fundamentally trivialise the matter at hand.

Chicken And Egg
I have really only scratched the surface here. Molecular morphogenesis of the eye extends far deeper than this. Once the optic vesicle has contacted the epithelium, it spreads outwards and folds in on itself. This forms the hollow eyeball. The inner layer of this will develop into the retina. What is particularly remarkable is that, while the optic vesicle is absolutely fundamental for the induction of lens development, subsequent development of the eye depends, in large measure, on factors which are secreted by the developing lens! This casts even further doubt on the sorts of scenarios commonly offered to us by Darwinians such as Lamb, wherein the lens is viewed as a relatively late addition to the eye structure.

Further Problems
In his review of Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable, David Berlinski makes the following additional observations:

Light strikes the eye in the form of photons, but the optic nerve conveys electrical impulses to the brain. Acting as a sophisticated transducer, the eye must mediate between two different physical signals. The retinal cells that figure in Dawkins' account are connected to horizontal cells; these shuttle information laterally between photoreceptors in order to smooth the visual signal. Amacrine cells act to filter the signal. Bipolar cells convey visual information further to ganglion cells, which in turn conduct information to the optic nerve. The system gives every indication of being tightly integrated, its parts mutually dependent.
The very problem that Darwin's theory was designed to evade now reappears. Like vibrations passing through a spider's web, changes to any part of the eye, if they are to improve vision, must bring about changes throughout the optical system. Without a correlative increase in the size and complexity of the optic nerve, an increase in the number of photoreceptive membranes can have no effect. A change in the optic nerve must in turn induce corresponding neurological changes in the brain. If these changes come about simultaneously, it makes no sense to talk of a gradual ascent of Mount Improbable. If they do not come about simultaneously, it is not clear why they should come about at all.

The same problem reappears at the level of biochemistry. Dawkins has framed his discussion in terms of gross anatomy. Each anatomical change that he describes requires a number of coordinate biochemical steps. "[T]he anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple," the biochemist Mike Behe remarks in a provocative new book (Darwin's Black Box), "actually involve staggeringly complicated biochemical processes." A number of separate biochemical events are required simply to begin the process of curving a layer of proteins to form a lens. What initiates the sequence? How is it coordinated? And how controlled? On these absolutely fundamental matters, Dawkins has nothing whatsoever to say.

Is The Vertebrate Eye Bad Design?
Lamb tells us that,
The vertebrate eye, far from being intelligently designed, contains numerous defects that attest to its evolutionary origin. Some of these flaws degrade image quality, including an inside-out retina that focus light to pass through cell bodies and nerve bodies before hitting the photoreceptors; blood vessels that sprawl across the retina's inner surface, casting undesirable shadows onto the retina; nerve fibers that gather together to push through a single opening in the retina to become the optic nerve, creating a blind spot.
This argument has been addressed many a time. The bottom line is this: Retinal cells require a very large oxygen supply, and hence a very large blood supply. Blood cells absorb light. If blood cells invade retinal cells, the consequence can be blindness. This entails that the retinal cells need to receive a blood supply from vessels which do not block the light. Since red blood cells readily absorb light, this demand requires that the retina be wired in the manner in which it is. As is often pointed out, squids and octopuses have 'correctly' wired retinas that face outward. But these organisms are exothermic -- they do not require the same blood supply to the retina.

For a slightly different perspective on this topic, I refer readers to Richard Sternberg's essay here.

Summary and Conclusions

I have only provided a sketchy overview of a few of the key processes which undergird eye development. I have not even discussed the biochemical and molecular details of vision (for that, I refer readers to Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, or this article). In addition, Casey Luskin has an excellent critique of the Darwinian account of the eye's origin here. Nonetheless, I hope that this article has given readers a sense for why Darwinists are going to have to do a lot better than they are currently doing if they are to convince us of the plausibility of their model.