Ecclesiastes 3-7NASB

3)1There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven—
      2A time to give birth and a time to die;
            A time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted.

      3A time to kill and a time to heal;
            A time to tear down and a time to build up.

      4A time to weep and a time to laugh;
            A time to mourn and a time to dance.

      5A time to throw stones and a time to gather stones;
            A time to embrace and a time to shun embracing.

      6A time to search and a time to give up as lost;
            A time to keep and a time to throw away.

      7A time to tear apart and a time to sew together;
            A time to be silent and a time to speak.

      8A time to love and a time to hate;
            A time for war and a time for peace.

      9What profit is there to the worker from that in which he toils? 10I have seen the task which God has given the sons of men with which to occupy themselves.
God Set Eternity in the Heart of Man

      11He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.

      12I know that there is nothing better for them than to rejoice and to do good in one’s lifetime; 13moreover, that every man who eats and drinks sees good in all his labor—it is the gift of God. 14I know that everything God does will remain forever; there is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take from it, for God has so worked that men should fear Him. 15That which is has been already and that which will be has already been, for God seeks what has passed by.

      16Furthermore, I have seen under the sun that in the place of justice there is wickedness and in the place of righteousness there is wickedness. 17I said to myself, “God will judge both the righteous man and the wicked man,” for a time for every matter and for every deed is there. 18I said to myself concerning the sons of men, “God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts.” 19For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. 20All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust. 21Who knows that the breath of man ascends upward and the breath of the beast descends downward to the earth? 22I have seen that nothing is better than that man should be happy in his activities, for that is his lot. For who will bring him to see what will occur after him?
4)The Evils of Oppression

      1Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them. 2So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. 3But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun.
      4I have seen that every labor and every skill which is done is the result of rivalry between a man and his neighbor. This too is vanity and striving after wind. 5The fool folds his hands and consumes his own flesh. 6One hand full of rest is better than two fists full of labor and striving after wind.

      7Then I looked again at vanity under the sun. 8There was a certain man without a dependent, having neither a son nor a brother, yet there was no end to all his labor. Indeed, his eyes were not satisfied with riches and he never asked, “And for whom am I laboring and depriving myself of pleasure?” This too is vanity and it is a grievous task.

      9Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor. 10For if either of them falls, the one will lift up his companion. But woe to the one who falls when there is not another to lift him up. 11Furthermore, if two lie down together they keep warm, but how can one be warm alone? 12And if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three strands is not quickly torn apart.

      13A poor yet wise lad is better than an old and foolish king who no longer knows how to receive instruction. 14For he has come out of prison to become king, even though he was born poor in his kingdom. 15I have seen all the living under the sun throng to the side of the second lad who replaces him. 16There is no end to all the people, to all who were before them, and even the ones who will come later will not be happy with him, for this too is vanity and striving after wind.
5)Your Attitude Toward God

      1Guard your steps as you go to the house of God and draw near to listen rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools; for they do not know they are doing evil. 2Do not be hasty in word or impulsive in thought to bring up a matter in the presence of God. For God is in heaven and you are on the earth; therefore let your words be few. 3For the dream comes through much effort and the voice of a fool through many words.
      4When you make a vow to God, do not be late in paying it; for He takes no delight in fools. Pay what you vow! 5It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay. 6Do not let your speech cause you to sin and do not say in the presence of the messenger of God that it was a mistake. Why should God be angry on account of your voice and destroy the work of your hands? 7For in many dreams and in many words there is emptiness. Rather, fear God.

      8If you see oppression of the poor and denial of justice and righteousness in the province, do not be shocked at the sight; for one official watches over another official, and there are higher officials over them. 9After all, a king who cultivates the field is an advantage to the land.



The Folly of Riches

      10He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves abundance with its income. This too is vanity. 11When good things increase, those who consume them increase. So what is the advantage to their owners except to look on? 12The sleep of the working man is pleasant, whether he eats little or much; but the full stomach of the rich man does not allow him to sleep.

      13There is a grievous evil which I have seen under the sun: riches being hoarded by their owner to his hurt. 14When those riches were lost through a bad investment and he had fathered a son, then there was nothing to support him. 15As he had come naked from his mother’s womb, so will he return as he came. He will take nothing from the fruit of his labor that he can carry in his hand. 16This also is a grievous evil—exactly as a man is born, thus will he die. So what is the advantage to him who toils for the wind? 17Throughout his life he also eats in darkness with great vexation, sickness and anger.

      18Here is what I have seen to be good and fitting: to eat, to drink and enjoy oneself in all one’s labor in which he toils under the sun during the few years of his life which God has given him; for this is his reward. 19Furthermore, as for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them and to receive his reward and rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God. 20For he will not often consider the years of his life, because God keeps him occupied with the gladness of his heart.
6)The Futility of Life

      1There is an evil which I have seen under the sun and it is prevalent among men— 2a man to whom God has given riches and wealth and honor so that his soul lacks nothing of all that he desires; yet God has not empowered him to eat from them, for a foreigner enjoys them. This is vanity and a severe affliction. 3If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, “Better the miscarriage than he, 4for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. 5“It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he. 6“Even if the other man lives a thousand years twice and does not enjoy good things—do not all go to one place?”
      7All a man’s labor is for his mouth and yet the appetite is not satisfied. 8For what advantage does the wise man have over the fool? What advantage does the poor man have, knowing how to walk before the living? 9What the eyes see is better than what the soul desires. This too is futility and a striving after wind.

      10Whatever exists has already been named, and it is known what man is; for he cannot dispute with him who is stronger than he is. 11For there are many words which increase futility. What then is the advantage to a man? 12For who knows what is good for a man during his lifetime, during the few years of his futile life? He will spend them like a shadow. For who can tell a man what will be after him under the sun?
7)Wisdom and Folly Contrasted

1A good name is better than a good ointment,
            And the day of one’s death is better than the day of one’s birth.
      2It is better to go to a house of mourning
            Than to go to a house of feasting,
            Because that is the end of every man,
            And the living takes it to heart.

      3Sorrow is better than laughter,
            For when a face is sad a heart may be happy.

      4The mind of the wise is in the house of mourning,
            While the mind of fools is in the house of pleasure.

      5It is better to listen to the rebuke of a wise man
            Than for one to listen to the song of fools.

      6For as the crackling of thorn bushes under a pot,
            So is the laughter of the fool;
            And this too is futility.

      7For oppression makes a wise man mad,
            And a bribe corrupts the heart.

      8The end of a matter is better than its beginning;
            Patience of spirit is better than haughtiness of spirit.

      9Do not be eager in your heart to be angry,
            For anger resides in the bosom of fools.

      10Do not say, “Why is it that the former days were better than these?”
            For it is not from wisdom that you ask about this.

      11Wisdom along with an inheritance is good
            And an advantage to those who see the sun.

      12For wisdom is protection just as money is protection,
            But the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the lives of its possessors.

      13Consider the work of God,
            For who is able to straighten what He has bent?

      14In the day of prosperity be happy,
            But in the day of adversity consider—
            God has made the one as well as the other
            So that man will not discover anything that will be after him.

      15I have seen everything during my lifetime of futility; there is a righteous man who perishes in his righteousness and there is a wicked man who prolongs his life in his wickedness. 16Do not be excessively righteous and do not be overly wise. Why should you ruin yourself? 17Do not be excessively wicked and do not be a fool. Why should you die before your time? 18It is good that you grasp one thing and also not let go of the other; for the one who fears God comes forth with both of them.

      19Wisdom strengthens a wise man more than ten rulers who are in a city. 20Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins. 21Also, do not take seriously all words which are spoken, so that you will not hear your servant cursing you. 22For you also have realized that you likewise have many times cursed others.

      23I tested all this with wisdom, and I said, “I will be wise,” but it was far from me. 24What has been is remote and exceedingly mysterious. Who can discover it? 25I directed my mind to know, to investigate and to seek wisdom and an explanation, and to know the evil of folly and the foolishness of madness. 26And I discovered more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets, whose hands are chains. One who is pleasing to God will escape from her, but the sinner will be captured by her.

      27“Behold, I have discovered this,” says the Preacher, “adding one thing to another to find an explanation, 28which I am still seeking but have not found. I have found one man among a thousand, but I have not found a woman among all these. 29“Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices.”

A line in the sand XXIV

Donald Trump: 'Strongly consider' shutting mosques

By Gregory Krieg, CNN

(CNN)Donald Trump on Monday suggested he would "strongly consider" shutting down mosques in the U.S. as part of the response to the terror attacks in Paris.

"Well, I would hate to do it but it's something you're going to have to strongly consider," Trump said during an interview on MSNBC. "Some of the absolute hatred is coming from these areas...The hatred is incredible. It's embedded. The hatred is beyond belief. The hatred is greater than anybody understands."

RELATED: Trump warns that Syrian refugees could be a 'Trojan horse'

Trump's comments come a day after France's interior minister said he would pursue the "dissolution of mosques where hate is preached."

On Monday, Trump also took a shot at New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for his decision last year to halt a covert NYPD program used for surveillance on Muslim communities.


"You're going to have to watch and study the mosques," Trump said, "because a lot of talk is going on at the mosques...Under the old regime we had tremendous surveillance going around and in the mosques in New York City."

After this you'll never feel alone again.

An unmistakable signature.

Denying the Signature: A Response to Bishop and O'Connor
Stephen C. Meyer November 17, 2015 3:40 PM

Editor's note: Most readers of Evolution News likely know the central thesis of Stephen Meyer's bestseller, Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. Meyer argues that the functional biological information necessary to build the Cambrian animals is best explained by the activity of a designing intelligence, rather than an undirected, materialistic evolutionary process. Most reviews of Darwin's Doubt curiously omitted to address or even to accurately report this central claim. However, a review by philosophers Robert Bishop and Robert O'Connor in Books & Culture was a welcome exception. In this series, adapted from Debating Darwin's Doubt, edited by ENV's David Klinghoffer, Dr. Meyer responds to their critiques. This is Part 1 of the series.

Writing in Books & Culture, a supplement published by Christianity Today, philosophers Robert Bishop and Robert O'Connor offer a cleverly titled joint review of Darwin's Doubt and Signature in the Cell ("Doubting the Signature"). They seek to refute the central information-based argument for intelligent design of my books. Nevertheless, they do not provide a scientific refutation to the main thesis of either book. In particular, they do not offer a better (or even an alternative) causal explanation for the vast amounts of novel genetic (and epigenetic) information that arises in the Cambrian period -- i.e., the subject of Darwin's Doubt. Nor do they provide an alternative explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell -- the subject of Signature in the Cell. Instead, they lodge various philosophical objections to my argument for design. They either dispute (a) the validity of the argument for intelligent design as an explanation for the origin of biological information, or they dispute (b) my characterization of what needs to be explained.

Disputing the Validity of the Argument for Design

Bishop and O'Connor acknowledge that Darwin's Doubt and Signature in the Cell "deftly dispatch" the "misconception that [ID] engages in crude god-of-the-gaps reasoning" -- a misconception that scholars associated with the BioLogos Foundationsuch as Bishop and Alistair McGrath have frequently promulgated.

Oddly, though Bishop and O'Connor concede that Darwin's Doubt and Signature in the Cell do not make arguments from ignorance (or commit the "god-of-the-gaps" fallacy), they critique the books as if they did! True, they use slightly different terminology in developing their objection. Instead of saying my case for intelligent design is based on ignorance or gaps in knowledge, they claim the books are guilty of "begging the question" about what we may learn in the future. But the substance of the objection is the same. I argue that intelligent design provides the best explanation for the origin of the biological information necessary to produce the anatomical novelty and complexity that arises in the history of life. They respond that my argument begs the question, because some as-yet-unknown cause -- one of which we are presently ignorant -- may eventually be discovered that will explain the origin of biological information.

Of course, in the books I readily concede this as a possibility. Clearly, we do not know anything about causes that we have yet to discover or observe. Nevertheless, Bishop and O'Connor claim that Darwin's Doubt and Signature in the Cell argue that "we have positive knowledge that no other causes" (emphasis mine) could in principle explain the origin of life's information-rich systems. Yet neither of my books anywhere claims exhaustive knowledge of the causal powers of all possible material processes, including unknown or not-as-yet-postulated causes. The books only claim to demonstrate the inadequacy of known (or postulated) materialistic processes and the adequacy of intelligent agency based upon uniform and repeated human experience to this point. That is why I repeatedly insert the word "known" before "cause" in my arguments. I also claim to infer intelligent design as the best explanation based upon our present knowledge, rather than trying to prove the theory of intelligent design with apodictic certainty.

As I note in the books, critics if they like may choose to characterize this as an argument from ignorance (or "begging the question" about what we may discover in the future, as Bishop and O'Connor do), but all scientific arguments, especially competing evolutionary arguments about the causes of past events in the history of life, have a similar logical structure and are subject to similar limitations. Indeed, it is an unavoidable aspect of the human condition that we can make no claims about the adequacy of causal processes that we have neither observed nor imagined. Scientists can only make inferences based upon our past and current knowledge of the causal powers of various entities and processes. Alas, we have no other kind of scientific knowledge.

Moreover, my arguments do not have the logical structure of a fallacious argument from ignorance. Arguments from ignorance have the form:

Premise One:Cause X cannot produce or explain evidence E.

Conclusion:Therefore, cause Y produced or explains E.

Critics of intelligent design commonly claim that the argument for intelligent design takes this form as well. Michael Shermer, for example, insists that "intelligent design... argues that life is too specifically complex... to have evolved by natural forces. Therefore, life must have been created by... an intelligent designer." In short, critics claim that ID proponents argue as follows:

Premise One:Material causes cannot produce or explain functional (or specified) information.

Conclusion:Therefore, an intelligent cause produced functional (or specified) biological information.

If proponents of intelligent design were arguing in the preceding manner, we would be guilty of arguing from ignorance. But the arguments for intelligent design in Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt do not have this form. Instead, they assume the following form:

Premise One:Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered with the demonstrated capacity to produce the functional (or specified) information present in living systems.

Premise Two:Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of functional (or specified) information.

Conclusion:Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the functional (or specified) information in the cell.

As one can see, in addition to a premise about how material causes lack demonstrated causal adequacy, my arguments for intelligent design as a best explanation also affirm (and demonstrate) the causal adequacy of an alternative cause, namely, intelligent agency. As I explained in Signature in the Cell:

We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new specified information, namely, intelligence. We are not ignorant of how information arises. We know from experience that conscious intelligent agents can create informational sequences and systems. To quote [Henry] Quastler again, "The creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity." Experience teaches that whenever large amounts of specified complexity or [functional] information are present in an artifact or entity whose causal story is known, invariably creative intelligence -- intelligent design -- played a role in the origin of that entity. Thus, when we encounter such information in the large biological molecules needed for life, we may infer -- based on our knowledge of established cause-and-effect relationships -- that an intelligent cause operated in the past to produce the specified information necessary to the origin of life.1

Thus, my argument does not just demonstrate the inability of one type of cause to produce biological information and then fallaciously infer, on that basis alone, that another cause did so. In other words, my arguments do not fail to provide a premise offering positive evidence or reasons for preferring an alternative cause or proposition as critics say. Instead, my arguments specifically include and justify such a premise.

Bishop and O'Connor claim otherwise, stating that "Meyer offers very little substantive support for mind having unique causal properties." In fact, both of my books cite numerous examples from (a) ordinary experience, (b) computer "simulations" of evolutionary processes, and (c) origin-of-life simulation experiments showing that conscious and rational agents have the causal power to generate functional or specified information.

My argument for intelligent design not only includes a premise affirming the positive causal powers of an alternative cause (i.e., intelligent agency); it also justifies that premise with multiple examples of those causal powers at work. Therefore, it does not commit the informal logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance. Neither does it beg the question about what we may discover about causal processes in the future; instead, it makes no claims about such as yet unknown processes. It claims only that intelligent design provides the best explanation based upon what we know now.

It's worth noting that none of the reviews of Darwin's Doubt or Signature in the Cell have refuted (and few have even challenged) either of the two key empirical premises in my arguments for intelligent design as a best explanation -- as, indeed, Bishop and O'Connor themselves have not done. For obvious reasons, critics have not disputed my claim that intelligent agents have demonstrated the power to produce functional information and information-rich processing systems. (Bishop and O'Connor merely claim -- mistakenly -- that I did not justify that assertion.) Nor, perhaps surprisingly, have critics attempted to demonstrate that standard evolutionary mechanisms can account for the origin of biological information and information processing systems. Indeed, biologist Darrel Falk, one of O'Connor and Bishop's fellow theistic evolutionists (and with Bishop a BioLogos website contributor) has graciously conceded that Darwin's Doubt correctly claims that the neo-Darwinian mutation/selection mechanism has failed to account for the origin of major macro-evolutionary events such as the Cambrian explosion of animal life. Falk further concedes that none of the other more recently proposed models of evolutionary theory has yet succeeded in this endeavor.

Secular scientific critics of the argument in my book, for their part, have typically either (a) begged the question about the origin of genetic information by assuming the existence of other unexplained sources of information in order to account for specific informational increases in the history of life;2 or (b) simply ignored the central question posed by the books and quibbled about secondary scientific issues or philosophical matters.3

Though they do attempt a philosophical refutation of the main information-based argument of the books (as we have seen), Bishop and O'Connor conspicuously avoid offering, or even citing, an alternative scientific explanation for the origin of biological information during the history of life. Instead, in addition to their philosophical critique, they mainly attempt to deny my characterization of what needs to be explained. I will turn to this latter line of attack in the next installment.

References:

(1) Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 376-377.

(2) See Charles Marshall, "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship," Science 341, no. 6152 (September 20, 2013):1344.


(3) For example see Nick Matzke, "Meyer's Hopeless Monster Part II," Panda's Thumb, June 19, 2013; John Farrell, "How Nature Works," National Review, September 2, 2013.

The Design inference under the microscope.

In a Grain of Sand, a World of Design
Evolution News & Views November 18, 2015 3:26 AM

These familiar words by William Blake aptly conclude a TED talk by microscopist Gary Greenberg:

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower 
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour...


Greenberg photographs "the beautiful nano details of our world," particularly sand grains. Using innovative 3D techniques, he turns ordinary sand into artwoIn his talk, after showing and explaining some of the exquisite details of sand grains from different parts of the world, and demonstrating how each grain reveals something of its history, Greenberg sums up: "Things as ordinary as a grain of sand can be truly extraordinary if you look closely and if you look from a different and a new point of view."

What we're after here, however, is something more than aesthetics. Is there a way to distinguish grains by their information content? Can we infer design for some grains, as opposed to chance and natural law for others?

A summary of Greenberg's book The Secrets of Sand explains the significance of a sand grain's history:

Every grain of sand is a snapshot in time: Each grain originated somewhere and is headed somewhere else. [Emphasis added.]

In an article at Live Science, he describes the histories of some grains of sand:

Mineral sands originate from the erosion of rock into tiny grains. When granite rock erodes by the forces of wind, rain, ice and multiple freeze-thaw cycles, the angular grains of feldspar, quartz, mica and other minerals are liberated. They are transported to lakes via streams, rivers and glaciers, and on their journey, their original crystal shapes begin become more rounded by the forces of erosion. Many continental beaches have a high percentage of quartz sand grains because quartz survives the forces of erosion longer than other minerals. The pounding surf is responsible for rounding and polishing the rugged quartz grains.

These grains, as colorful and beautiful as they may be, are easily explained by natural laws acting on crystals in a random maner. But if you look closely at beach sand, you may find some grains that stand out. They are shaped like spirals, stars, or striated cones. These grains have a different history:

Biogenic sands often contain fragments of the hard tissues from marine organisms such as shells, corals, sponges, sea urchins, forams, and bryozoans. When these organisms die, the hard tissues that are left behind erode into some of the most spectacular grains of sand imaginable.

Greenberg adds:

Biological sands tell the story of the plants and animals that live along the shorelines. Fragments of coral, tube worms, barnacles and sea urchin spines get washed up onto the beach, along with the amazing, shell-like, minuscule bodies of foraminifera, tiny amoeboid protists.

He contrasts these sands with those found on the moon. The grains are made of the same minerals as on Earth, but you will not find the intricate geometric shapes there.

As human observers, we are already familiar with the reason for the two classes of sand grains, the biogenic ones and the mineral ones. Examining Greenberg's photos, we readily detect the ones that came from living organisms. But could we explain intelligent design to an intelligent alien unfamiliar with Earth life?

A robust design inference requires more than complexity. Sand grains from the moon look very complicated. A design inference also requires more than simple geometry. Some crystal grains retain their mineral packing structures in the shapes of rhomboids, spheres, and cubes. Finally, a design inference must go beyond chance. One grain in the photos looks like a crystal heart fit for a necklace, but that's coincidence. Each of these examples can easily be explained by unguided natural law.

The grains that pass the Design Filter are those that required coded instructions to make. The biogenic grains came from complex specified information encoded in DNA. That information, under the control of molecular machines, directed the manufacture of specified shapes that would never have been produced by unguided natural law. Coded instructions imply purpose -- something that has its origin in mental activity, even if the code operates in a programmatic way. This difference would allow even a child to separate the designed grains from the non-designed grains.

To be sure, there's a fuzzy line between the categories. Biogenic sand grains no longer contain any of the DNA that produced them. A broken spicule from a sponge might not be distinguishable from a rod-shaped mineral grain. Our alien interlocutor, though, upon learning what natural processes (like erosion and wind) are capable of achieving, could look upon diatoms or forams and know something is special about them. Being sentient itself, the alien would appreciate the special capabilities of purposeful intelligent activity. Alongside the child, therefore, the alien could sort its pile into designed grains and non-designed grains.

Brains are material, but minds transcend brains. Since minds are not made of particles acting under unguided natural law, they could be considered transcendent of nature; we might say "super"-natural. Blake was right; when you look closely, you can find a world in a grain of sand, eternity in an hour.rks of color, light, and shape (see examples on his Sand Grains website).

On The biblical 'Amen' the Watchtower Society's commentary.

AMEN:
This word in both English and Greek is a transliteration from the Hebrew ʼa·menʹ. The meaning is “so be it,” or “surely.” The Hebrew root word from which it is drawn (ʼa·manʹ) means “be faithful; be trustworthy.”

In the Hebrew Scriptures the word is used as a solemn expression to obligate oneself legally to an oath or covenant and its consequences (Nu 5:22; De 27:15-26; Ne 5:13), also as a solemn expression to subscribe to an expressed prayer (1Ch 16:36), to an expression of praise (Ne 8:6), or to an expressed purpose (1Ki 1:36; Jer 11:5). Each of the first four books, or collections, of the Psalms concludes with this expression, perhaps indicating that it was customary for the congregation of Israel to join in at the end of the song or psalm with an “Amen.”—Ps 41:13; 72:19; 89:52; 106:48.

The Hebrew word ʼa·manʹ is applied to Jehovah as “the faithful God” (De 7:9; Isa 49:7) and describes his reminders and promises as “trustworthy” and “faithful.” (Ps 19:7; 89:28, 37) In the Christian Greek Scriptures the title “Amen” is applied to Christ Jesus as “the faithful and true witness.” (Re 3:14) Jesus made singular use of the expression in his preaching and teaching, using it very often to preface a statement of fact, a promise, or a prophecy, thereby emphasizing the absolute truthfulness and reliability of what he said. (Mt 5:18; 6:2, 5, 16; 24:34) In these cases the Greek word (a·menʹ) is translated as “truly” (KJ, “verily”) or, when doubled, as throughout the book of John, “most truly.” (Joh 1:51) Jesus’ use of “amen” in this way is said to be unique in sacred literature, and it was consistent with his divinely given authority.—Mt 7:29.

However, as Paul shows at 2 Corinthians 1:19, 20, the title “Amen” applies to Jesus not merely as a truth speaker or as a true prophet and spokesman of God but also as the one in whom all of God’s promises find fulfillment. His course of faithfulness and obedience even to a sacrificial death confirms and makes possible the bringing to reality of all the promises and declarations of God’s purpose. He was the living Truth of those revelations of God’s purpose, the things to which God had sworn.—Compare Joh 1:14, 17; 14:6; 18:37.

The expression “Amen” is used many times in letters, especially those of Paul, when the writer has expressed some form of praise to God (Ro 1:25; 16:27; Eph 3:21; 1Pe 4:11) or expresses the wish that God’s favor be manifested in some manner toward the recipients of the letter. (Ro 15:33; Heb 13:20, 21) It is also used where the writer earnestly subscribes to what is expressed.—Re 1:7; 22:20.


The prayer expressed at 1 Chronicles 16:36 and those contained in the Psalms (41:13; 72:19; 89:52; 106:48), as well as the expressions contained in the canonical letters, all indicate the correctness of the use of “Amen” at the close of prayers. It is true that not all the prayers recorded show such conclusion, such as David’s closing prayer for Solomon (1Ch 29:19) or Solomon’s dedication prayer at the inauguration of the temple (1Ki 8:53-61), although such expression may well have been made. (Note 1Ch 29:20.) Similarly, its use is not recorded in Jesus’ prayers (Mt 26:39, 42; Joh 17:1-26) or in the prayer of the disciples at Acts 4:24-30. However, the weight of the prior evidence presented strongly indicates the rightness of the use of “Amen” as a conclusion to prayer, and Paul’s statement at 1 Corinthians 14:16 in particular shows that it was customary for those in Christian assembly to join in the Amen to a prayer. Additionally, the examples of those in heaven, recorded at Revelation 5:13, 14; 7:10-12; and 19:1-4, all give support to its use in subscribing to prayers or solemn statements and thereby, through the use of this one word, expressing the confidence, strong approval, and earnest hope that is in their hearts.

Yet more on reality's antidarwinian bias

Missing the Goal: Realistic Mutation Rates Stop Evolutionary Algorithms
Ann Gauger November 17, 2015 7:29 AM

Winston Ewert of Biologic Institute has just published a new article in the peer-reviewed journal BIO-Complexity ("Overabundant mutations help potentiate evolution: The effect of biologically realistic mutation rates on computer models of evolution").

He and his colleagues have been engaged in a series of critiques of evolutionary algorithms for the last several years. In case you don't know what an evolutionary algorithm is, it's a computer model that seeks to represent evolution in some way, so that mutation and natural selection can be tested for their ability to produce meaningful change.

The advantage of these computer simulations is that they can be run many, many times and thus approximate the long time necessary for biological evolution. The disadvantage is that they do not replicate true biological evolutionary processes, but use "analogous" algorithms. Typically these models, such as Ev and Avida, are purported to solve complex problems.

Yet Ewert and his colleagues have shown that in every case the necessary information for the models to find their targets was smuggled in, whether intentionally or not, by the respective programmers. You can read some of Ewert and coauthors' critiques here, here, and here.

Here is the abstract of the new paper:

Various existing computer models of evolution attempt to demonstrate the efficacy of Darwinian evolution by solving simple problems. These typically use per-nucleotide (or nearest analogue) mutation rates orders of magnitude higher than biological rates. This paper compares models using typical rates for genetic algorithms with the same models using a realistic mutation rate. It finds that the models with the realistic mutation rates lose the ability to solve the simple problems. This is shown to be the result of the difficulty of evolving mutations that only provide a benefit in combination with other mutations.

Ewert shows that even taking the models as they are, when they are tested using realistic scenarios they fail to accomplish their goals. In fact, they accomplish little beyond their starting positions. He determines the reason for this failure -- the models can only go as far as one step will take them. They can't evolve anything that requires two or more mutations, unless mutation rates are unrealistically high.


This is a showstopper, since making just about anything new requires more than one mutation. Take a look..

Darwinism Vs. the real world XX

How Clotting Factors Form a Fibrin Clot, Completing Hemostasis
Howard Glicksman November 17, 2015 3:04 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.


To follow the laws of nature the cardiovascular system must pump enough blood with enough pressure throughout the body to provide its trillions of cells with what they need to live, grow, and work properly. But life is a dynamic process, for us as for our earliest ancestors. When we do things like run, jump, or climb, the effects of these same laws can result in injury to our blood vessels followed by bleeding when we trip and fall or bump and hurt ourselves. Clinical experience shows that, depending on location and severity, if the body can't stop the bleeding fast enough it runs the risk of serious debility and even death. Thus, the body had to develop a mechanism to prevent disabling and life-threatening blood loss from blood vessel injury. This process is called hemostasis.

As I showed in a previous article, hemostasis involves mainly three almost simultaneous actions that take place upon blood vessel injury to stop the bleeding and allow healing to take place. These are; vasoconstriction, platelet aggregation, and activation of the clotting factors. But when it comes to preventing significant blood loss from blood vessel injury, the body faces another dilemma. A well-placed clot in a major blood vessel like an artery supplying blood to the brain, or the heart, or the lungs, can result in permanent debility and even instant death. In other words, hemostasis and the clots it forms must turn on only when it's actually needed and must turn off and stay off when it's not.

My last article looked at the role the injured blood vessel and the platelets play in helping to stop bleeding. I noted that normally the tissue that lines the inside of the blood vessel (endothelium) provides a chemical environment to maintain blood flow by keeping the muscle surrounding the blood vessel relatively relaxed and preventing the platelets from sticking to it and each other. Blood vessel injury and endothelial damage disrupt this chemical milieu, which triggers vasoconstriction and platelet aggregation to form a soft plug to fill the defect. This may be enough to stop the bleeding for some minor injuries, but many others require a stronger substance to fill the gap permanently. Let's consider how activation of the clotting factors to form a fibrin clot completes the process of hemostasis.

The final products from activation of the clotting factors are long protein strands called fibrin. These fibrin strands consist of small identical fibrin molecules that are able to chemically bond with each other to form very large molecular chains. Like thousands of sticky threads, these long strands of fibrin attach to the platelet plug and wrap around it to form a molecular meshwork that entraps red blood cells and plasma to form a fibrin clot. Once the fibrin clot is large and strong enough to fill the defect in the blood vessel wall, the bleeding stops.

But where do the fibrin strands come from? After all, the muscle around the blood vessel is already in place, ready to contract and close it down to prevent further blood loss and help clot formation when the time is right. And the platelets are already in the blood that flows past the injured site, ready to stick to the vessel wall and to each other to form a plug when called for. So what about fibrin? Think about it! If long sticky fibrin strands were always present throughout the bloodstream, they would tend to attach to the walls of small blood vessels and block the flow of blood, which would result in multi-system organ failure and death. So, fibrin must somehow be in the blood and remain inactive until the right time.

In fact, the liver produces a protein called fibrinogen, also known as (clotting) Factor I. Fibrinogen remains in solution being prevented from becoming fibrin and joining together to form large insoluble strands by specific chemical groups at each end of the molecule. Platelets have receptors for fibrinogen and when activated, thousands of fibrinogen molecules attach to them. What causes the conversion of fibrinogen to fibrin and the formation of clot forming strands of fibrin is the presence of an enzyme called thrombin.

Thrombin removes the chemical groups at the ends of the fibrinogen molecule, thereby exposing bonding sites that allow the fibrin molecules to join together end to end to form the long insoluble strands needed for clotting. Thrombin also activates Factor XIII, which allows the fibrin strands to link up across each other as well, which significantly strengthens the clot.

But where does thrombin come from? Again, think about it! If thrombin quickly converts soluble fibrinogen into long insoluble strands of fibrin, resulting in clot formation, then if it were always present throughout the bloodstream, that would result in generalized clotting, multi-system organ failure, and death. In fact, the liver produces another protein called prothrombin, also known as (clotting) Factor II. Under the right set of circumstances an enzyme called prothrombinase forms and breaks two chemical bonds in prothrombin to convert it to thrombin which then goes on to convert fibrinogen to fibrin to form a fibrin clot.

But where does prothrombinase come from? Think about that too! If prothrombinase quickly converts prothrombin to thrombin which then quickly converts fibrinogen to fibrin, then if it were always present throughout the bloodstream that would result in generalized clotting, multi-system organ failure, and death. In fact, just as vasoconstriction and platelet aggregation take place due to changes in the chemical environment brought on by injury to the blood vessel, so too does activation of the clotting factors. Medical science has determined that there are two different pathways involved in the activation of the clotting factors to form prothrombinase.

One, called the Tissue Factor (extrinsic) pathway, works very quickly. With vessel damage, the blood, containing inactive Factor VII, comes in contact with Tissue Factor, a protein on the surface of the tissue that supports the blood vessel, and activates it into a protease, an enzyme that can break the chemical bonds within proteins. Activated Factor VII then breaks chemical bonds in Factor X to activate it, and when it joins to activated Factor V it forms prothrombinase.

The slower pathway, called the contact activation (intrinsic) pathway, takes place due to the direct contact of blood with the damaged tissue and involves other clotting factors. The contact first activates Factor XII, which becomes a protease that breaks chemical bonds to activate Factor XI. Activated Factor XI is also a protease that then activates Factor IX. Activated Factor IX, with the help of Factor VIII, then activates Factor X, which as noted above, joins with activated Factor V to form prothrombinase.

So, after blood vessel injury, whether prothrombinase comes about from either pathway, it then activates prothrombin into thrombin which then activates fibrinogen into fibrinand clot formation takes place. All of this together is known as the coagulation cascade.

It is the liver that produces most of the clotting factors. In fact, the total absence of fibrinogen, or prothrombin, or Tissue Factor, or Factor V, or Factor VII, or Factor VIII, or Factor IX, or Factor X, or Factor XI, or Factor XIII would have made it impossible for our earliest ancestors to have lived long enough to reproduce. Evolutionary biologists seem to think that just showing how each of these factors could have come about from some other protein by a natural process (such as gene duplication) is enough to prove that the coagulation cascade itself came about solely by chance and the laws of nature.

But one can see that since each of these ten factors must be present so the two different pathways can work properly, this is preposterous notion. When comparing invertebrates to vertebrates, they speculate how intermediate organisms must have had intermediate systems with fewer clotting factors without accounting for the extremely high improbability of each new protein fitting perfectly into the right pathway. Since invertebrate circulations are low pressure systems they can seal their injuries by using a softer gel-like material, much like the platelet plugs, whereas for the high pressure systems of the vertebrates, it must have been serendipity that the final product (fibrin) had the exact physical properties to do the job.

Nowhere does evolutionary biology even mention how the high-pressure circulatory system of the vertebrate, which required this more sophisticated clotting mechanism in the first place, could have gradually developed within intermediate forms while the coagulation cascade was evolving as well.


But we're not finished yet. Remember, to keep the blood flowing throughout the circulatory system, the body has to make sure that hemostasis only turns on when it's actually needed and turns off and stays off when it's not. Failure in this respect can lead to widespread clotting, multi-system organ failure, and death. My last article showed that it is the endothelium that provides a chemical environment to prevent the activation of vasoconstriction and platelet aggregation, the first two components of hemostasis. Next time we'll look at what it takes to prevent activation of the clotting factors so the body can control the intricate process of hemostasis.

Disagreeably agreeing?

REC Becomes a Design Proponent
November 16, 2015 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design

In the comment thread to a recent post we were discussing the following biological design inference Dr. Moran had made:

Moran:

Craig Venter and his colleagues constructed a synthetic genome and inserted it into a cell. The DNA determined the structure and properties of the organism that grew and after many subsequent generations we have a new species that behaves exactly like it was supposed to based on the genes that the scientists built.

Barry:

Now Dr. Moran, suppose that new species escaped the lab and was captured by a researcher who had no idea about Venter’s work.  Suppose further that researcher concluded that the genome of the creature had been intelligently designed.  Would that researcher’s design inference be the true and best explanation of the creature’s genome’s provenance?

Moran:

The answer is “yes,” the researcher correctly observed that the genome of the synthetic organism is nothing like the genomes of real species. It lacks pseudogenes, transposons, and any trace of junk DNA and the sequence of its genes and regulatory regions is far too perfect to have evolved naturally.

Long time ID critic REC joined the discussion.  REC agreed that Dr. Moran’s design inference was valid.  I decided to take this opportunity to ask REC how he would respond to many of the typical objections to biological design inferences, and I asked him this series of questions:

Suppose someone pushed back at you and said, “REC, your design inference is a scientific show stopper. You have committed the designer-of-the-gaps fallacy. All scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism, and you violate the principle of methodological naturalism when you make a design inference in biology. Besides all that, it all just a cop out unless you can tell me who designed the designer.”  What would you say?

REC responded that the objections could be valid against certain design inferences, but for reasons he did not explain they were “obviously invalid” against his design inference (which he had made based on the scenario provided by Dr. Moran).

I thought this was more than a little hypocritical and thought that he would back off this line if I pointed the hypocrisy out to him, so I provided a summary of his argument that I thought would have made the hypocrisy obvious:

Barry:

Translation: I accept the indicia of design that I accept and I reject those I reject, for my own idiosyncratic reasons. Therefore, the objections are invalid with respect to my design inference, because my design inference is a good one, and yours is not.  Does that pretty much capture it REC?

I was wrong when I assumed REC would walk back his hypocrisy when it was pointed out to him.  Instead, he doubled down:

REC:

“Therefore, the objections are invalid with respect to my design inference, because my design inference is a good one, and yours is not.”

Correct, except that you haven’t even stated your design inference in this thread. I do feel my statements regarding the human-designed synthetic genome are valid and well evidenced. I don’t think any ID inference comes even close.

Shouldn’t we evaluate design inferences based on their validity and the evidence supporting them? Isn’t it illogical and absurd to say ALL design inferences are valid because ONE design inference is?

Let’s explore what is going on here.  First, we have made significant progress.  Notice what Dr. Moran did:

He identified certain indicia of design in the genome of an organism.

He stated that when these indicia of design are present, “design” is the best explanation of the provenance of the features of the genome under consideration.

He went one step further and excluded natural causes as a likely cause.

This is the general approach to biological design detection advocated by ID proponents for the last two decades.  In other words, Dr. Moran admitted that the general approach and methodology of biological design detection advocated by proponents of ID theory is valid.

THIS IS HUGE!

Professor of biochemistry Dr. Laurence A. Moran is an arch-atheist, materialist, super-advocate of modern evolutionary theory and one of the most prominent critics of design theory on the planet.  If even he agrees that the general methodology advocated by ID proponents can lead to a valid design inference, the matter seems to be settled.

We have come to the point where even our most vociferous critics agree that ID proponents’ general methodology is valid.  The dispute is no longer whether ID theory generally is valid; the only dispute is whether particular design inferences are valid.

Which brings us to REC.  The point of the “typical objections” I brought to REC’s attention is that if they are valid with respect to any design inference, they are just as valid against his particular design inference.

For example, consider this typical objection:  “All scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism, and you violate the principle of methodological naturalism when you make a design inference in biology.”

If that objection is valid (it is not, but set that aside for now), it is just as valid against REC’s and Dr. Moran’s design inferences as it is against any other design inference.

The point sailed right over REC’s head.  He responded that the objections were not valid as to his design inference, because his design inference (opposed to ID’s design inferences) was “valid and well evidenced.”

But that is exactly what ID proponents have been saying for decades REC!  We have been saying all along that the various “typical objections” are invalid if the evidence leads to a design inference.

REC, the only difference between you and us is that you are persuaded by the evidence in a particular case and not in our case.  But you are missing the point.  If what is important is the EVIDENCE, then th “typical objections” lose all force all the time.

In other words, the objection “all scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism” is invalid in principle, not in application, if it is even possible to make a valid design inference based on the EVIDENCE.

You agree with us that it is the EVIDENCE that is important, and objections thrown up for the purpose of ruling that evidence out of court before it is even considered are invalid.

REC, welcome to the design movement.

Teliophobia?

Fear of Intelligent Design Prevents Some Biologists from Accepting ENCODE's Results
Casey Luskin November 16, 2015 3:11 AM

Evolutionists who accept ENCODE's results have tried to comprehend why other biologists steadfastly challenge the project's experimentally demonstrated conclusions. Many have suggested that a major force driving anti-ENCODE attitudes is fear of lending credence to intelligent design.

In his retrospective on ENCODE in Nature, Philip Ball acknowledges that there is an "anxiety that admitting any uncertainty about the mechanisms of evolution will be exploited by those who seek to undermine it."1 Likewise, pro-ENCODE biochemists John Mattick and Marcel Dinger observe that "resistance to [ENCODE's] findings is further motivated in some quarters by the use of the dubious concept of junk DNA as evidence against intelligent design."2 Writing in a slightly different context, eight biologists published a Nature article in 2014 recognizing that scientists self-censor criticisms of neo-Darwinism because, "haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front."3

It's disturbing that scientists oppose empirically based research results or suppress their own doubts about the neo-Darwinian paradigm simply because they don't like the perceived alternative -- ID. These admissions show that evolutionary biology is in an incredibly unhealthy state, where devotion to the paradigm trumps the evidence. A 2003 paper in Science observed that "the term 'junk DNA' for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA,"4 but even now that junk DNA has finally been overturned, evolutionary dogmatism still hinders scientific advancement.

In fact, ENCODE proponents aren't the only ones to have acknowledged how ID phobia plays a role in scientists' responses. Even ENCODE-critics have admitted it. The journal Science explained how University of Houston biologist Dan Graur opposes ENCODE because he doesn't like its ID-friendly implications:

Graur's atheism inflamed his anger at ENCODE. He perceives an echo of intelligent design in the consortium's "80% [of the genome is functional] claim," which he takes to imply that most of the genome exists because it serves a purpose.5
But the bluntest summary of why scientists oppose ENCODE came when Graur declared: "If ENCODE is right, then Evolution is wrong."6 With ENCODE's empirical data now showing that the vast bulk of the genome has an important purpose, we can safely say that the fears of ENCODE critics are entirely justified.
Future Forecast

Since 2012, research has continued to uncover specific functions for non-coding DNA, and the case for ENCODE grows stronger and stronger with each passing month.7 Eventually, even the evolutionary holdouts will be unable to deny that virtually our entire genome is functional. Or so you'd like to think.

Evolutionists who believe their paradigm stands only if ENCODE falls have careers, reputations, and deeply held worldviews invested in the view that humans were created by purposeless processes that filled our genomes with useless DNA. Thus, after famously saying, "If ENCODE is right, then Evolution is wrong," Dan Graur's action plan was, in his own words: "Kill ENCODE."8 Human nature may never allow such critics to concede defeat. For them, too much is on the line. Win or lose, they're going down fighting.

The good news is that most scientists aren't evolutionary ideologues. Rank-and-file biologists know compelling empirically based experimental data when they see it. Because they see it in ENCODE, they will build (and may have already built) a new consensus that rejects "junk DNA" and views ENCODE-critics as a footnote -- perhaps one that cautions against putting the paradigm before the evidence.

Some of these biologists are now exploring what they call "post-Darwinian"9 models of evolution, often adopting the same critiques of Darwinism that ID proponents offer. They still seek unguided material evolutionary explanations of life and are resistant to design. But that resistance is weakening. Indeed, widespread fears about aiding intelligent design show that many biologists understand how ENCODE's results represent a major breakthrough for ID. As William Dembski eloquently put it some 14 years pre-ENCODE:

[D]esign is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. ... Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.10
Imagine if scientists had embraced an ID paradigm when Dembski wrote those words in 1998, how much more advanced would molecular biology -- unhindered by evolutionary assumptions -- be today? This much is clear: ID boldly predicted ENCODE's results, and evolutionary biology didn't. This puts ID in a strong position to lead science forward into a post-Darwinian world.
References:

[1.] Philip Ball, "Celebrate the Unknowns," Nature, 496:419-420 (April 25, 2013).

[2.] John Mattick and Marcel Dinger, "The extent of functionality in the human genome," The HUGO Journal, 7:2 (2013).

[3.] Laland et al., "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently," Nature, 514:161-164 (October 9, 2014).

[4.] Wojciech Makalowski, "Not Junk After All," Science, 300:1246-1247 (May 23, 2003).

[5.] Yudhit Bhattercharjee, "The Vigilante," Science, 343:1306-1309 (March 21, 2014).

[6.] Dan Graur, "How To Assemble a Human Genome?" (2013).

[7.] The website www.lncrnablog.com documents scientific papers showing function for non-coding DNA.

[8.] Dan Graur, "How To Assemble a Human Genome?" (2013).

[9.] For example, see Simon Conway Morris, "Walcott, the Burgess Shale and rumours of a post-Darwinian world," Current Biology, 19:R927-R931 (2009).


[10.] William Dembski, "Intelligent Science and Design," First Things, 86: 21-27 (October, 1998).