Space Jams?

Jehovah God's warning to the nations:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

Questions From Readers:

What is causing “the desirable things of all the nations” to come into the “house” of true worship?—Haggai 2:7.:

Through the prophet Haggai, Jehovah foretold: “I will rock all the nations, and the desirable things of all the nations must come in; and I will fill this house with glory.” (Haggai 2:7) Is the rocking “of all the nations” causing “the desirable things” of the nations—honesthearted individuals—to embrace true worship? The answer is no.

Consider what rocks, or shakes, the nations and what this shaking leads to. The Bible says that “the nations [have] been in tumult and the national groups themselves kept muttering an empty thing.” (Psalm 2:1) The “empty thing” they keep “muttering,” or meditating on, is the continuation of their own sovereignty. Nothing shakes them more than any threat to their rulership.

The worldwide preaching of the established Kingdom of God done by Jehovah’s Witnesses has become just such a threat to the nations. After all, the Messianic Kingdom of God in the hands of Jesus Christ is going to “crush and put an end to all [man-made] kingdoms.” (Daniel 2:44) The message of judgment included in our preaching work is sending out a tremor among the nations. (Isaiah 61:2) And the shaking gets more severe as the preaching work increases in scope and intensity. Of what is the rocking foretold at Haggai 2:7 a portent?

At Haggai 2:6, we read: “This is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘Yet once—it is a little while—and I am rocking the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry ground.’” Quoting from this verse, the apostle Paul wrote: “He has promised, saying: ‘Yet once more I will set in commotion not only the earth but also the heaven.’ Now the expression ‘Yet once more’ signifies the removal of the things being shaken as things that have been made, in order that the things not being shaken [the Kingdom] may remain.” (Hebrews 12:26, 27) Yes, the entire present system of things is going to be shaken out of existence to make room for the new world of God’s making.

Honesthearted people are drawn to true worship but not because the nations are rocked, or shaken. The action that is drawing them to Jehovah and his worship is the same action that is causing the nations to rock, namely the worldwide preaching of the established Kingdom of God. The declaration of the ‘glad tidings of everlasting good news’ draws rightly inclined individuals to the worship of the true God.—Revelation 14:6, 7.


The Kingdom message is one of judgment and of salvation. (Isaiah 61:1, 2) The results of preaching it worldwide are twofold: the rocking of the nations and the coming in of the desirable things of the nations to Jehovah’s glory.

The Watchtower Society's commentary on 'the Nations'.

NATIONS:

In the broad and general sense, a nation is made up of people who are more or less related to one another by blood and who have a common language. Such a national group usually occupies a defined geographic territory and is subject to some form of central governmental control. According to the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, “Hebrew evidences a tendency for goy to describe a people in terms of its political and territorial affiliation, and so to approximate much more closely to our modern term ‘nation.’ ʽam [people], conversely, always retains a strong emphasis on the element of consanguinity as the basis of union into a people.” (Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, Vol. 2, 1975, p. 427) The Greek terms eʹthnos (nation) and la·osʹ (people) are used similarly. In the Scriptures the plural forms of gohy and eʹthnos usually refer to Gentile nations.

Origin. The first notice of the forming of separate nations appears in the post-Flood period, in connection with the building of the Tower of Babel. Those sharing in this project were united in their opposition to God’s purpose. The principal factor facilitating united action was that “all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words.” (Ge 11:1-4) Jehovah took notice of this and, by confusing their language, “scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth.”—Ge 11:5-9; MAP Vol. 1, p. 329.

Separated now by communication barriers, each linguistic group developed its own culture, art, customs, traits, and religion—each its own ways of doing things. (Le 18:3) Alienated from God, the various peoples contrived many idols of their mythical deities.—De 12:30; 2Ki 17:29, 33.

There were three great branches of these nations stemming from the sons and grandsons of Noah’s sons Japheth, Ham, and Shem, and these were reckoned as the founding fathers of the respective nations called by their names. The listing in Genesis, chapter 10, therefore might be termed the oldest tabulation of nations, 70 in number. Fourteen were Japhetic, 30 Hamitic, and 26 Shemitic in origin. (Ge 10:1-8, 13-32; 1Ch 1:4-25) For more information regarding these national groups, see CHART, Vol. 1, p. 329, as well as articles on each of the 70 descendants of Noah.

Many changes, of course, came with the passing of time. Some nations were absorbed by their neighbors or disappeared altogether, because of weakness, disease, or war; others came into existence through new migrations and population increases. The spirit of nationalism at times became very strong among certain groups, and this, coupled with great military exploits, gave ambitious men the necessary thrust to build world empires at the expense of weaker nations.

A Father of Nations. God told Abram to leave Ur and move to a land He would show him, for as He said, “I shall make a great nation out of you.” (Ge 12:1-4) Later, God enlarged on his promise, saying, “You will certainly become a father of a crowd of nations. . . . And I will make you very, very fruitful and will make you become nations, and kings will come out of you.” (Ge 17:1-6) This promise was fulfilled. Abraham’s son Ishmael fathered “twelve chieftains according to their clans” (Ge 25:13-16; 17:20; 21:13, 18), and through the six sons of Keturah, other nations traced their ancestry back to Abraham. (Ge 25:1-4; 1Ch 1:28-33; Ro 4:16-18) From Abraham’s son Isaac sprang the Israelites and Edomites. (Ge 25:21-26) In a much larger, spiritual sense Abraham became “a father of many nations,” for persons of many national groups, including those of the Christian congregation in Rome, by reason of their faith and obedience could call Abraham their father, “the father of all those having faith.”—Ro 4:11, 16-18; see ISRAEL No. 2.

How God Views the Nations. As the Creator and Universal Sovereign, God is within his absolute rights in setting the nations’ territorial boundaries (if he chooses to do so), as he did with Ammon, Edom, and Israel. (De 2:17-22; 32:8; 2Ch 20:6, 7; Ac 17:26) The Most High and Lofty One over all the earth is not to be compared in greatness with nations of mankind. (Jer 10:6, 7) Actually the nations are as but a drop from the bucket in his sight. (Isa 40:15, 17) So when such nations rage and mutter against Jehovah, as when they put Jesus to death on a torture stake, He only laughs at them in derision and confounds and destroys their presumptuous counsel against Him.—Ps 2:1, 2, 4, 5; 33:10; 59:8; Da 4:32b, 34, 35; Ac 4:24-28.

Yet for all of Jehovah’s superlative greatness and power, no one can rightly charge him with being unjust in his treatment of national groups. It makes no difference whether God is dealing with a single man or a whole nation, he never compromises his righteous principles. (Job 34:29) If a nation is repentant, as were the people of Nineveh, he blesses them. (Jon 3:5-10) But if they turn to doing bad, even though in a covenant with him, he destroys them. (Jer 18:7-10) When an issue arises, Jehovah sends his prophets with a message of warning. (Jer 1:5, 10; Eze 2:3; 33:7) God is not partial toward any, great or small.—De 10:17; 2Ch 19:7; Ac 10:34, 35.

Therefore, when whole nations refuse to recognize and obey Jehovah, or they cast him out of their minds and hearts, Jehovah executes his judgments upon them. (Ps 79:6; 110:6; 149:7-9) He devotes them to destruction and turns them back to Sheol. (Ps 9:17; Isa 34:1, 2; Jer 10:25) In descriptive language God says that the wicked nations will be turned over to his Son, the one called “Faithful and True . . . The Word of God,” to be dashed to pieces.—Ps 2:7-9; Re 19:11-15; compare Re 12:5.

The New Nation of Spiritual Israel. For centuries Jehovah God dealt exclusively with natural Israel, time and again sending his prophets to the nation so that the people might turn from their wayward course. Finally he sent his Son, Christ Jesus, but the majority rejected him. Therefore, Jesus said to the unbelieving chief priests and Pharisees: “The kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits.”—Mt 21:33-43.

The apostle Peter clearly identified that “nation” as one composed of persons who had accepted Christ Jesus. (1Pe 2:4-10) In fact, Peter applied to fellow Christians the very words that had been directed to natural Israel: “You are ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession.’” (1Pe 2:9; compare Ex 19:5, 6.) All of them recognized God as Ruler and his Son as Lord and Christ. (Ac 2:34, 35; 5:32) They possessed heavenly citizenship (Php 3:20) and were sealed with the holy spirit, which was an advance token of their heavenly inheritance. (2Co 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13, 14) Whereas natural Israel was constituted a nation under the Law covenant, the “holy nation” of spirit-begotten Christians became such under the new covenant. (Ex 19:5; Heb 8:6-13) For these reasons it was most appropriate that they be called “a holy nation.”

When God’s spirit was first poured out upon about 120 disciples of Jesus (all natural Jews) on the day of Pentecost in the year 33 C.E., it became evident that God was dealing with a new spiritual nation. (Ac 1:4, 5, 15; 2:1-4; compare Eph 1:13, 14.) Later, beginning in the year 36 C.E., membership in the new nation was extended to uncircumcised Gentiles, who likewise received God’s spirit.—Ac 10:24-48; Eph 2:11-20.

Regarding the preaching of the good news to all nations, see GOOD NEWS.


Gog and Magog. The Bible book of Revelation (20:7, 8) states that, after Christ’s Thousand Year Reign, Satan “will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog.” Evidently such nations are the product of rebellion against Christ’s administration.—See GOG No. 3.

On how Darwinism is taught

Darwinism vs. the real world. XXX

You Are What You Eat: The Beginnings of the Digestive Process:
Howard Glicksman February 21, 2016

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 is delighted to offer this series, "The Designed Body." For the complete series, see here. Dr. Glicksman practices palliative medicine for a hospice organization.


Take a good look at yourself. Everything you see (and can't see) is made up of chemicals that had to be taken into your body before they could be formed into organs and tissues. These chemicals are things like water, glucose and other sugars, amino acids, cholesterol, sodium, potassium, calcium, iron, and vitamins, just to name a few. In fact, other than molecular oxygen (O2), which is used for energy and is taken in through the lungs, all the other atoms and molecules the body needs to live, grow, and work properly enter through the gastrointestinal system. In other words, you are, quite literally, what you eat.

Since the body is made of matter, it must follow the laws of nature. Many of the nutrients the body needs are chemically locked up inside more complex molecules that cannot enter the body through the gastrointestinal system because they are too big. These include carbohydrates, which consist of chains of sugar molecules; proteins, which are made up of many different types of amino acids joined together; and fats, which consist of fatty acids and glycerol. To procure what the body needs, the gastrointestinal system must use enzymes to first breakdown these complex molecules into smaller ones in a process called digestion. Then it absorbs these simpler molecules so the body can use them to construct the complex molecules it needs to survive.

The gastrointestinal system depends on many different parts to digest and absorb the necessary nutrients for life and excrete what is not needed. These include the mouth, teeth, tongue, salivary glands, pharynx, esophagus, stomach, intestine, pancreas, liver, gall bladder, colorectum, and anus. Here's how it all works. The gastrointestinal tract is basically a long, muscular, hollow tube that contracts to push its contents along. Food and drink enter the mouth and are swallowed into the tract. The contents are then slowly transported at a speed that allows for optimal digestion.

Fluids, containing various chemicals and different enzymes to help breakdown the complicated chemical structures within its contents, are secreted into the lumen. These fluids break down the molecules into simpler ones, like glucose, amino acids, free fatty acids, and cholesterol. Once the complex molecules have been broken down, the cells that line the lumen of the gastrointestinal tract absorbs them into the body and places them in the blood. From here they are transported to where they are needed. Let's consider how the body follows the rules and takes control to begin this process.

The process of digestion is similar to how a pulp and paper mill works. The mill uses mechanics and chemicals to take huge logs and chop and mash them into pulp for paper and other products. Similarly, the first job of the gastrointestinal system is to use mechanical and chemical means to take in complex molecules and unlock the nutrients within them so the nutrients can be absorbed into the body. However, the equipment and the chemicals at the mill don't do anything unless there are actually logs to be processed, otherwise it would be wasting energy and other resources. So too, the gastrointestinal system begins the process of digestion in earnest only when you eat or drink.

There are many different sensors in the body that stimulate the hunger center, which is the integrator that analyzes the data, and then notifies the conscious mind to take in calories. By responding to this urge the body activates the gastrointestinal system, the effector that actually does something about the situation. The process of digestion begins as soon as food enters the mouth. Its presence, along with its taste and smell, are detected by the nervous system, which stimulates the release of saliva from glands in the mouth. Saliva is a fluid that contains many different chemicals that not only help oral and dental health, but also the swallowing of food. Saliva also contains digestive enzymes, like amylase and lipase, which are the first enzymes to start working on the complex molecules that have been ingested. Amylase breaks the chemical bonds between sugar molecules, like glucose, that are joined together in large carbohydrate molecules, like starch. And lipase breaks the chemical bonds between molecules, like fatty acids and glycerol that are joined together in large fat molecules.

As the contents of the mouth mixes with saliva, it is mashed by the teeth and the tongue, formed into a small mushy lump called a bolus, and moved back toward the throat (pharynx). Up until this point everything the body has done, bringing in food and drink, chewing, and moving it into the pharynx, has been voluntary. But once the bolus reaches the pharynx, the body must automatically take control to be sure that it goes into the esophagus and not the lungs. Sensors in the pharynx detect the bolus and send information to the brain where it is integrated. The brain then initiates the swallow reflex by sending out nerve messages that cause coordinated muscle contraction to propel the bolus into the esophagus. The esophagus is a muscular passageway that propels the bolus in a wave-like movement, called peristalsis, down through the chest cavity toward the stomach that is located within the abdomen.

Anyone who has ever had something "go down the wrong tube" can attest to the extremely sensitive cough reflex that prevents accidental aspiration (inhalation). If enough food or water goes down the trachea toward the lungs, instead of the esophagus, this can quickly lead to respiratory failure. So, merely trying to explain how all of the above parts came together, as evolutionary biologists claim to do, without explaining how coordinated swallowing developed, is not sufficient to explain the systems development. After all, once the bolus goes over the precipice of the pharynx and by the power of gravity and muscular action moves downward, there is only so much time available for the body to react.

While looking in a mirror, if you gently place your fingers on the front of your neck just below the jaw and swallow a few times, you will see and feel the tissue in the neck move up and down. What you are feeling and seeing are the upper parts of your respiratory system being moved up and out of the way so the airway can be protected from what is being sent down into your esophagus. This requires about twenty-five different pairs of muscles under the direction of the swallow center in the brain, and is carried out in about a second, usually a thousand times a day.


Because some people with neuromuscular conditions (like brainstem stroke, Multiple Sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease) have problems with swallowing, they are at high risk for aspiration. Clearly, for our earliest ancestors to survive would have required them to have had all of the right parts working in a coordinated fashion. But we have only shown how the body is able to safely move what it eats and drinks from the mouth to the esophagus. What then? Next time we will look at what happens within the stomach and beyond to complete digestion and allow for the absorption of the nutrients the body needs to live, grow, and work properly.

The Watchtower Society's Commentary on Conscience.

CONSCIENCE:

The word is translated from the Greek sy·neiʹde·sis, which is drawn from syn (with) and eiʹde·sis (knowledge) and thus means co-knowledge, or knowledge with oneself. Conscience is a capacity to look at oneself and render judgment about oneself, bear witness to oneself. The apostle Paul expresses the operation of his conscience in this manner: “My conscience bears witness with me in holy spirit.”—Ro 9:1.

Conscience is inherent in man, having been made part of him by God. It is an inward realization or sense of right and wrong that excuses or accuses one. Hence, conscience judges. It also can be trained by the thoughts and acts, convictions and rules that are implanted in a person’s mind by study and experience. Based on these things, it makes a comparison with the course of action being taken or contemplated. Then it sounds a warning when the rules and the course conflict, unless the conscience is “seared,” made unfeeling by continued violations of its warnings. Conscience can be a moral safety device, in that it imparts pleasure and inflicts pain for one’s own good and bad conduct.

From the very start, man has had a conscience. Adam and Eve manifested this as soon as they broke God’s law and hid themselves. (Ge 3:8) In Romans 2:14, 15 we read: “For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused.” Thus it can be seen that conscience has not been wiped out even among non-Christians. This is because all mankind descended from Adam and Eve, in whom conscience was inherent. Many laws of the nations are in harmony with a Christian’s conscience, yet such nations and lawmakers may not have been influenced by Christianity at all. The laws were according to the leadings of their own consciences. All persons have the faculty of conscience, and it is to this that the life course and preaching of Christians appeal.—2Co 4:2.

Conscience must be enlightened; if not, it can mislead. It is an unsafe guide if it has not been trained in right standards, according to the truth. Its development can be wrongly influenced by local environment, customs, worship, and habits. It might judge matters as being right or wrong by these incorrect standards or values. An example of this is shown in John 16:2, where Jesus foretold that men would even kill God’s servants, thinking that they were doing Him a service. Saul (later Paul the apostle) actually went out with murderous intent against Christ’s disciples, believing he was zealously serving God. (Ac 9:1; Ga 1:13-16) The Jews were seriously misled into fighting against God because of lack of appreciation of God’s Word. (Ro 10:2, 3; Ho 4:1-3; Ac 5:39, 40) Only a conscience properly trained by God’s Word can correctly assess and set matters of life thoroughly straight. (2Ti 3:16; Heb 4:12) A Christian must have a stable, right standard—God’s standard.

Good Conscience. One must approach Jehovah with a cleansed conscience. (Heb 10:22) A Christian must constantly strive for an honest conscience in all things. (Heb 13:18) When Paul stated: “I am exercising myself continually to have a consciousness of committing no offense against God and men” (Ac 24:16), he meant that he continually steered and corrected his course of life according to God’s Word and Christ’s teachings, for he knew that in the final analysis God, and not his own conscience, would be his ultimate judge. (1Co 4:4) Following a Bible-trained conscience may result in persecution, but Peter comfortingly counsels: “For if someone, because of conscience toward God, bears up under grievous things and suffers unjustly, this is an agreeable thing.” (1Pe 2:19) A Christian must “hold a good conscience” in the face of opposition.—1Pe 3:16.

The Law with its animal sacrifices could not so perfect a person as regards his conscience that he could consider himself free from guilt; however, through the application of Christ’s ransom to those having faith, a person’s conscience can be cleansed. (Heb 9:9, 14) Peter indicates that those who receive salvation have to have this good, clean, right conscience.—1Pe 3:21.

Consideration for Consciences of Others. In view of the fact that in order to make proper evaluations a conscience must be fully and accurately trained in God’s Word, an untrained conscience may be weak. That is, it may be easily and unwisely suppressed, or the person may become offended by the actions or words of others, even in instances where no wrongdoing may exist. Paul gave examples of this in connection with eating, drinking, and the judging of certain days as above others. (Ro 14:1-23; 1Co 8:1-13) The Christian with knowledge and whose conscience is trained is commanded to give consideration and allowance to the one with a weak conscience, not using all his freedom or insisting on all his personal “rights” or always doing just as he pleases. (Ro 15:1) One who wounds the weak conscience of a fellow Christian is “sinning against Christ.” (1Co 8:12) On the other hand, Paul implies that while he would not want to do something by which the weak brother would be offended, thereby causing him to judge Paul, the weak one should likewise consider his brother, striving for maturity by getting more knowledge and training so that his conscience will not be easily offended, causing him to view others wrongly.—1Co 10:29, 30; Ro 14:10.


Bad Conscience. The conscience can be so abused that it no longer is clean and sensitive. When that happens it cannot sound out warnings or give safe guidance. (Tit 1:15) Man’s conduct is then controlled by fear of exposure and punishment rather than by a good conscience. (Ro 13:5) Paul’s reference to a conscience that is marked as with a branding iron indicates that it would be like seared flesh that is covered over with scar tissue and void of nerve endings and, therefore, without sense of feeling. (1Ti 4:2) Persons with such a conscience cannot sense right or wrong. They do not appreciate the freedom God grants them and, rebelling, become slaves to a bad conscience. It is easy to defile one’s conscience. A Christian’s aim should be as shown in Acts 23:1: “Brothers, I have behaved before God with a perfectly clear conscience down to this day.”

File under "well said" XXI

Don't join the book burners. Don't think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER,

The menace of 'settled science' III.

New and Old Eugenics United by Rejecting Human Exceptionalism:
Wesley J. Smith February 20, 2016 3:27 AM

Buck v. Bell was one of the most pernicious Supreme Court decisions ever written. Authored by the odious social Darwinist Oliver Wendell Holmes, the 1927 8-1 ruling permitted an innocent woman named Carrie Buck to be involuntarily sterilized.

There is a book about the case just out, Imbeciles, the title taken from Holmes's infamous statement in the ruling: "Three generations of imbeciles is enough." The issue is discussed by Charles Lane in the Washington Post:

At its peak, in the years before, during, and just after World War I, the pseudo-science of "eugenics" was a national fad, almost a mania. Advocates were not only or even especially right wing; state sterilization laws emerged first in the North and West, and many progressives embraced "racial hygiene" along with pure food and drug laws or urban sanitation.

Lane makes a big mistake. The "right wing" was not the driving force behind eugenics. Progressives were, and those in the ruling class.

Indeed, the progressive elite and ruling class of the era almost unanimously and enthusiastically embraced the pernicious notion with authoritarian zeal that human beings could be invidiously divided between the so-called "fit" and "unfit."​ Think Theodore Roosevelt. Think Margaret Sanger. Think even -- good grief! -- Helen Keller. Think the Carnegie Institution that funded the evil Charles Davenport at Cold Spring Harbor. Think George Bernard Shaw.

Eugenics was also that era's scientific consensus. Those who opposed it were branded as anti-progress, perhaps even anti-science.

We see similar agendas at work today; in the sex selection and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis practiced in the assisted reproductive industry; transhumanism's push for developing "post-human" genetic enhancement technologies, eugenic abortion of fetuses testing positive for Down syndrome and dwarfism, the push for infanticide of babies born with disabilities, among other supposedly progressive causes.

These "new eugenics" ideas will end up as tyrannical as the original version was. Here's why: All eugenics, new and old, spring from the same toxic well -- the denial of human exceptionalism and of the intrinsic and equal dignity of each and every one of us. Once that dark vision is embraced, the weak come into mortal danger.


The best book I have read on eugenics is War Against the Weak, by Edwin Black.

Pre Darwinian design.

Is It a "Pumpjack"? An "Unsewing" Machine? In Search of the Right Metaphor for a New Molecular Wonder:
Evolution News & Views February 19, 2016 12:11 PM

Never presume that the list of molecular machines in the cell is exhausted by the bacterial flagellum, kinesin, and ATP synthase. Those are just three that we have animated thus far. There are so many thousands of machines in living cells, we don't stand a chance of running out of examples to talk about. Here's a new one: the "eukaryotic replicative CMG helicase." Call it CMG helicase for short (the -ase suffix indicates that it operates on a helix, namely the DNA double helix).

Of the many kinds of helicase enzymes that operate on nucleic acids, this one is important right before cell division, when the cell must replicate all of its genetic code. Since DNA consists of two strands, something needs to break them apart so that spare nucleotides can pair up with each side, producing two strands. That's the job of CMG helicase. You could also compare it to a sewing machine, but an "unsewing" machine would be more accurate. As it passes by, it unzips the DNA strand with a unique rocking mechanism.

Research from Stony Brook University describes how it works. The authors' preferred metaphor is a "pumpjack" like those machines that rock up and down as they pump oil out of a well. New close-up images of the helicase showed that it takes on two shapes as it moves down the DNA:

Using computer software to sort out the images revealed that the helicase has two distinct conformations -- one with components stacked in a compact way, and one where part of the structure is tilted relative to a more "fixed" base.

The atomic-level view allowed the scientists to map out the locations of the individual amino acids that make up the helicase complex in each conformation. Then, combining those maps with existing biochemical knowledge, they came up with a mechanism for how the helicase works.

"One part binds and releases energy from a molecule called ATP. It converts the chemical energy into a mechanical force that changes the shape of the helicase," Li said. After kicking out the spent ATP, the helicase complex goes back to its original shape so a new ATP molecule can come in and start the process again.

"It looks and operates similar to an old style pumpjack oil rig, with one part of the protein complex forming a stable platform, and another part rocking back and forth," Li said. Each rocking motion could nudge the DNA strands apart and move the helicase along the double helix in a linear fashion, he suggested. [Emphasis added.]

They also liken the action to an inchworm. To each his own. Since pumpjacks don't go anywhere, and inchworms move but don't change anything, probably a sewing machine analogy is more appropriate. Video clips in the article show how the enzyme moves along the helix, rocking as it goes.

As the helicase moves along, it interacts with other parts similarly to how a sewing machine interacts with the thread, the needle, and the cloth. Notice the complexity described in the paper in Nature Structural and Molecular Biology.

The CMG helicase is composed of Cdc45, Mcm2-7 and GINS. Here we report the structure of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae [yeast] CMG, determined by cryo-EM at a resolution of 3.7-4.8 Å. The structure reveals that GINS and Cdc45 scaffold the N tier of the helicase while enabling motion of the AAA+ C tier. CMG exists in two alternating conformations, compact and extended, thus suggesting that the helicase moves like an inchworm. The N-terminal regions of Mcm2-7, braced by Cdc45-GINS, form a rigid platform upon which the AAA+ C domains make longitudinal motions, nodding up and down like an oil-rig pumpjack attached to a stable platform. The Mcm ring is remodeled in CMG relative to the inactive Mcm2-7 double hexamer. The Mcm5 winged-helix domain is inserted into the central channel, thus blocking entry of double-stranded DNA and supporting a steric-exclusion DNA-unwinding model.

The Stony Brook research team studied this molecular machine in yeast cells, but all eukaryotes rely on it, including humans. Is it important? You bet. More:

"DNA replication is a major source of errors that can lead to cancer," explained Li, a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry & Cell Biology at Stony Brook University, a scientist at Brookhaven Lab, and lead author of the paper. "The entire genome -- all 46 chromosomes -- gets replicated every few hours in dividing human cells," Li said, "so studying the details of how this process works may help us understand how errors occur."

Fortunately, errors are very rare. Lee Spetner in his book Not by Chance says that because of molecular proofreading, the error rate is one in a hundred billion. That's "like one error in fifty million pages of typescript," he says. "Fifty million pages are the lifetime output of about a hundred professional typists" (p. 39).

Yet the machinery is much more rapid than the best typist. It rocks! -- not like the slow, lumbering mechanism of the oil pumpjack, but at blinding speed. Jonathan M. wrote here at Evolution News that DNA replication works at 749 bases per second with an error rate of 10-7 to 10-8. Yet the cell performs this feat in just hours, trillions of times in your body. Nor does it work alone. All the other machines in the DNA replication factory keep up with it, bringing in nucleotides, proofreading them, and fastening the new helices together.

There are other helicases that have inspired machine analogies:

The torque wrench that repairs DNA

The train engine that exposes a broken section of track

The oscillator that pulls bacteriophage DNA strands apart like a rotary engine

The jackhammer zipper that opens up double-stranded RNA

What's fundamentally important for philosophy of biology is that these really are machines. They may not look like man-made machines, but they fit the definition. They use energy to perform work in a highly detailed and specific manner. These are not your normal chemical reactions, where molecules simply bump into each other and exchange electrons. These machines have precise shapes with moving parts. They operate on other structures. And most importantly, their parts and functions are dictated by coded instructions. It's phenomenal that those instructions code for the creation of machines that come back to work on the coded instructions, making sure they are intact and error-free. How cool is that?

Think about these machines at work in your own body right now. Somewhere in your brain, a cell is dividing. That cell needs to continue operating while its DNA is being replicated at about 750 bases per second. Multiple CMG helicases have to know where to unzip the DNA without interrupting genes that other machines are transcribing. Machines keep track of what parts are done and what parts remain to be done. Other machines check for errors in the copies. Machines supervise the operation, setting checkpoints that don't let cell division proceed until all requirements are met.


This is all happening while the cell is at work. It's mind-boggling. Could humans duplicate every part of a factory while it is in full operation? Could they duplicate every thread in a suit of clothes while it is being worn? Word pictures fail to capture the complexity of such things. They don't just indicate design; they scream design.

A clash of Titans. IX

Reason and commonsense in retreat on the Russian front.

Russian Customs Officials Seize Shipments of Bibles and Bible Literature:

Over the past year, Russian authorities have taken another step in restricting religious freedom by refusing to allow Bibles published by Jehovah’s Witnesses to be imported. The Witnesses were astounded to learn that the Vyborg Customs Office claimed that the Bibles may contain signs of “extremism.” This has broad implications not only for the Witnesses but also for Russian citizens who consider the Bible to be a sacred text and integral to their faith.

Alarming Allegations Against the Bible

On July 13, 2015, Russian customs officials in the border city of Vyborg stopped a shipment of 2,013 Russian-language copies of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. * The authorities confiscated three of the Bibles, sent them to an “expert” to determine whether they contained “extremist” language, and impounded the rest of the Bibles. Customs officials initiated an administrative case in August against the Finland branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses (as the carrier of the literature into Russia).

Earlier, on May 5, 2015, customs authorities seized a shipment of religious literature that contained Ossetian-language Bibles published by Jehovah’s Witnesses. This has had a profound impact on Ossetian-speaking Christians in Russia because the New World Translation is currently the only complete Bible translation in the Ossetian language.

Although Russian officials have misapplied Russia’s Federal Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity to publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses before, this marks the first time authorities have alleged that a translation of the Bible could be linked to extremism. * If the courts declare these Bibles to be extremist, they will be banned from distribution in Russia.

Unlawful Blocking of Other Publications

Some of the literature denied import
In addition to blocking the importation of Bibles, customs officials have unlawfully blocked shipments of the Witnesses’ religious literature since March 2015. * Officials have followed the same procedure each time they seize a shipment. They first perform an unlawful search to obtain sample publications for an “expert study,” * and then the prosecutor’s office initiates proceedings to declare the publications extremist. Complicated legal battles are inevitable, since nearly every shipment will require litigation in administrative and arbitration courts.

In an attempt to release one of the shipments, Jehovah’s Witnesses presented the customs authorities with positive court decisions, expert studies, and other documentation showing that the government has already declared these publications to be nonextremist. Yet, customs officials ignored the evidence and seized the shipment.

The blocking of the Witnesses’ print publications comes amid fresh restrictions on access to their electronic publications. On July 21, 2015, Russia became the only nation in the world to ban jw.org—the official website of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Internet providers throughout Russia have blocked access to the site, and anyone in Russia who promotes the website faces administrative or criminal charges.

The ban severely impedes the Witnesses’ ability to obtain religious publications in electronic form, a loss particularly felt among Jehovah’s Witnesses who are deaf or blind. Since Bible education is fundamental to the Witnesses’ religious services, restricting access to their literature interferes with their worship.

Jehovah’s Witnesses Ask That Reason Prevail

Russian courts have dismissed or overturned previous attempts to ban other texts that are considered sacred. In 2011, a Russian court in Tomsk dismissed a claim to ban an edition of the Hindu Bhagavad Gita. In 2013, an appeal court overturned a decision that had declared a translation of the Koran to be extremist.

Jehovah’s Witnesses hope that Russian courts will reject the absurd claim made by the customs authorities that a translation of the Bible is extremist and order the release of the Bibles and other religious literature published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Time Line of Seized Shipments
March 1, 2015
Customs officials stop a shipment of literature and illegally confiscate copies of the publications.
May 4, 2015
Authorities stop a shipment intended for Russia. They later search the load and confiscate several items—including Ossetian-language Bibles—to investigate whether these contain signs of “extremism.”
May 28, 2015
Court assigns an institution in St. Petersburg to conduct an “expert study” of the items in the March 1, 2015, shipment.
June 2015
Customs officials stop two shipments at the border in Vyborg.
July 13, 2015
Customs officials stop a shipment containing only Russian-language Bibles.
August 13, 2015
Vyborg customs officials rule to seize all 2,013 Bibles in the July 13 shipment, claiming that they may contain signs of “extremism.” Officials initiate an administrative case against the Finland branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
September 1, 2015
In a hearing regarding the May 4 shipment of Ossetian-language Bibles and other literature, the judge denies the Witnesses’ motions and prevents their attorneys from presenting concluding arguments.
October 30, 2015
The Vyborg City Court rules that customs officials unlawfully searched the May 4 shipment.
November 17, 2015

Court holds a hearing regarding the July 13 shipment of Bibles and adjourns.

The royal society declares the codes in living cells literal?

Is the Royal Society Finally Catching Up with Our Own Upright Biped?:
February 16, 2016 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design

For some time now Upright Biped has been arguing that information cannot be reduced to chemistry, and last year he started his own website to further his key idea that when information is translated by cellular machinery, it organizes inanimate matter (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc) into all the living things on earth.  See biosemiosis.org  Essentially, UB says all of life is an artifact created by the manipulation of chemicals according to the information embedded in the cell.

Now comes the March 2016 issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society with a special issue on DNA as Information.  The table of contents is here.

We would like to draw special attention to the article What is Information by Marcello Barbieri.  The abstract (but for the English spellings) could have been written by UB:

Molecular biology is based on two great discoveries: the first is that genes carry hereditary information in the form of linear sequences of nucleotides; the second is that in protein synthesis a sequence of nucleotides is translated into a sequence of amino acids, a process that amounts to a transfer of information from genes to proteins. These discoveries have shown that theinformation of genes and proteins is the specific linear order of their sequences. This is a clear definition of information and there is no doubt that it reflects an experimental reality. What is not clear, however, is the ontological status of information, and the result is that today we have two conflicting paradigms in biology. One is the ‘chemical paradigm’, the idea that ‘life is chemistry’, or, more precisely, that ‘life is an extremely complex form of chemistry’. The other is the ‘information paradigm’, the view that chemistry is not enough, that ‘life is chemistry plus information’. This implies that there is an ontological difference between information and chemistry, a difference which is often expressed by saying that information-based processes like heredity and natural selection simply do not exist in the world of chemistry. Against this conclusion, the supporters of the chemical paradigm have argued that the concept of information is only a linguistic metaphor, a word that summarizes the result of countless underlying chemical reactions. The supporters of the information paradigm insist that information is a real and fundamental component of the living world, but have not been able toprove this point. As a result, the chemical view has not been abandoned and the two paradigms both coexist today. Here, it is shown that a solution to the ontological problem of information does exist. It comes from the idea that life is artefact-making, that genes and proteins are molecular artefacts manufactured by molecular machines and that artefacts necessarily require sequences and coding rules in addition to the quantities of physics and chemistry. More precisely, it is shown that the production of artefacts requires new observables that are referred to as nominable entities because they can be described only by naming their components in their natural order. From an ontological point of view, in conclusion, information is a nominable entity, a fundamental but not-computable observable.



And then there is The Meaning of Biological Information by Eugene Koonin.  Abstract:


Biological information encoded in genomes is fundamentally different from and effectively orthogonal to Shannon entropy. The biologically relevant concept of information has to do with ‘meaning’, i.e. encoding various biological functions with various degree of evolutionary conservation. Apart from direct experimentation, the meaning, or biological information content, can be extracted and quantified from alignments of homologous nucleotide or amino acid sequences but generally not from a single sequence, using appropriately modified information theoretical formulae. For short, information encoded in genomes is defined vertically but not horizontally. Informally but substantially, biological information density seems to be equivalent to ‘meaning’ of genomic sequences that spans the entire range from sharply defined, universal meaning to effective meaninglessness. Large fractions of genomes, up to 90% in some plants, belong within the domain of fuzzy meaning. The sequences with fuzzy meaning can be recruited for various functions, with the meaning subsequently fixed, and also could perform generic functional roles that do not require sequence conservation. Biological meaning is continuously transferred between the genomes of selfish elements and hosts in the process of their coevolution. Thus, in order to adequately describe genome function and evolution, the concepts of information theory have to be adapted to incorporate the notion of meaning that is central to biology.

Design debate:Coming soon to a theatre near you?

Disinherit the Wind: An Interview with Matt Chait About His Play
John G. West February 16, 2016 11:08 AM

I recently reviewed the intriguing new play Disinherit the Wind, which explodes many of the stereotypes about the current debate over Darwin and design. As a follow-up, I thought it would be interesting to talk with actor and playwright Matt Chait (pictured above right) about what inspired him to write and produce the play, which now can be watched on Vimeo and purchased as a book. Below is my interview with him.

Matt is interested in mounting the play again, so if you are interested in bringing it to your city, consider contacting him at complexhollywood@gmail.com.

John West: What is your background in the theater?

Matt Chait: I fell in love with acting during college and attended a wonderful acting conservatory right after graduation, the Neighborhood Playhouse. After the Playhouse I did acting work in New York and on tours, repertory companies, and summer stock. As much as I loved acting, the lifestyle of an actor was very difficult for me. I struggled with the insecurity of it, never knowing before hand if I would be working or where that work would take me. In an attempt to get more stability in my life, I got a masters degree in counseling psychology.

To support myself during this time I began working as an acting teacher at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in their evening school. When I got my degree, the administrator of the evening school became the director of the entire Academy and offered me full time work teaching and directing. I did that for several years and then moved to Los Angeles where I taught acting at UCLA and began teaching private classes. My classes were successful and I bought the theater complex where I was renting space for my classes. I still own and operate that complex, called The Complex (catchy name), 25 years later. During all of this I have been acting, and producing and directing plays. Aside from a few sketches and adapting a British play for an American audience, however, I had never written a full-length play before Disinherit The Wind.

JW: What inspired you to write Disinherit the Wind? How did you get the idea?

MC: I was touring in a show in 1968 and was in the habit of calling my girlfriend back in New York about once a week (pay phones were much more expensive than cell phones, so daily calls were financially out of the question). During one of these calls she mentioned to me that she had begun doing exercises that "made you high." I couldn't imagine it. I was never fond of drugs -- acting being my drug of choice at the time -- but the notion that exercises could make you high really aroused my curiosity.

The exercises were called yoga (a word that I had never heard before) and I resolved to take some yoga classes as soon as I returned to New York. The classes that I found were taught by someone named Swami Satchidananda or by young people that had been studying with Swami, and they did make you high; at least for me they did. It was a kind of intoxication without toxins and I shortly found myself adapting a vegetarian diet, as Swami suggested, attending his lectures, and going on weekend yoga retreats that he ran from a place in upstate New York. This began a spiritual odyssey for me that lasted eight years and brought me in contact with a number of wonderful teachers.

At the end of this time I felt that I had a strong framework for understanding myself, my relationship to others, and to the universe and a strong sense of why we were here on this planet. I was very comfortable, within myself, with this framework, but not comfortable at all with sharing it with people that did not have a spiritual background.

When I met my wife and, especially, after we had children, we met a lot of people who had none of the spiritual background or experiences that I had had. Some of these people were scientists, as was my brother-in-law. They would say things casually in conversation regarding life and the body and the relationship between the two that made no sense to me at all. Sometimes when I interjected they would look at me as if I were delusional.

Evidently the things that I was saying were as nonsensical to them as their pronouncements were nonsensical to me. Not able to explain myself in a sound bite I held my peace, but as time went by it was not a very peaceful peace. I felt I was holding too much in and, although I was polite and friendly with these people, in a fairly shallow way, I wished that I could explain myself at a deeper level and have more open relationships with them.

I had a phone conversation once with a friend of mine who was a brain scientist. He was trying to explain to me the neo-Darwinian understanding of the beginning of life. It made no sense to me at all. I kept questioning him about it and he kept trying to put it to rest, since it was fairly late and well past his bedtime. I felt I just couldn't let him off the phone, however. I wanted my questions answered and everything that he said was just increasing my bewilderment.

Finally, as a last ditch effort to get me off the phone, he told me to read Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene, that Dawkins could explain it much better than he could, and before I had a chance to say anything else he said good night and quickly hung up the phone.

The Selfish Gene was the most infuriating piece of nonsense I had ever read. I could be silent no longer. I had heard about blogs and, although I had never read one, I thought that might be a good way to get my ideas out there in the open. One day I asked my assistant at work if he knew how I could go about starting a blog.

"Sure," he said, "you could start one right now."

"How long would it take?"

"About five minutes."

"You're kidding! How much would it cost?"

"It doesn't cost anything."

So, sure enough, within five minutes -- this was 2006, I believe -- I was the author of a blog. The title of the blog was, and still is, Beyond Evolution; Is There God After Dawkins? This is the origin of the following exchange in Disinherit the Wind, as Dr. Cates, acting as his own lawyer, questions the expert witness, Dr. Robert Hawkins:

CATES: It's a pleasure to meet you Robert. May I call you Robert?

HAWKINS: Not really.

CATES: Okay, Dr. Hawkins, then. It's still a pleasure. I'm familiar with many of your books, your lectures and interviews.

HAWKINS: And how did you find them?

CATES: Inspirational.

HAWKINS: Really? In what way?

CATES: Oh, much in the way that your King George inspired our Declaration of Independence or that Adolf Hitler inspired the United Nations Charter.

The more I wrote the blog, the more I discovered about the specific workings of science.

It really is remarkable how much you can learn, starting with almost no scientific background at all, just by using Google and Wikipedia. The first few years of writing this blog were a very fertile time for me. It wasn't just the excitement of learning all this new biological information but of finding ways to reframe it in a spiritual context.

It was a very natural step from this to Disinherit the Wind, which combined this new passion for writing about the relationship between spirituality and science with my old passion for theater.

JW: In the published script for your play, you thank "scientists Michael Denton, Michael Behe, Stephen C. Meyer, Jonathan Wells, and William Dembski both for their brilliance and for their indomitable courage to speak truth to power." I wondered if you could share with us how these scientists influenced you.

MC: As I said, in the beginning of writing my blog I was getting most of my scientific information from the Internet. I first heard of Discovery Institute when one reader commented that he was sure I was a member of it, with the same emotional intensity that one would accuse someone of being a member of the Nazi Party. I assured him, at that time, that not only was I not a member of DI, but that I had never heard of it until that moment. I don't think he believed me.

My readership was increasing and I was having a ball, fielding comments and expanding my knowledge of new areas of biology and physics. One reader introduced me to another blog with a wider readership called Michael Prescott's Blog: Occasional Thoughts on Matters of Life and Death. Michael became very enthused about my blog and published whole articles from it on his blog. I became an avid reader of Prescott's blog where I always found a lively discussion of important spiritual and scientific issues. Each week Michael had a feature article that first he discussed and then his readers continued to discuss. One week it was an excerpt from Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box.

I read Behe, then Denton, Stephen C. Meyer, etc. Each of these books was a revelation. Here was science explained in a way that made perfect sense to me. While Dawkins's writings undermined my spirituality, the writings of the scientists of Discovery Institute enhanced it. So I am greatly indebted to them for all the knowledge and insights that their wonderful, and wonderfully detailed and researched books have provided. They also exposed me to the role that politics plays in the world of science, particularly in the public face of science, and who gets to present that public face, especially in the area of evolution and the origin of life.

When I say that I honor the indomitable courage of the scientists of DI, I am not speaking hyperbolically. I have read enough to understand what happens. I can write whatever I want. I own theaters. No one is going to avoid any theater of mine because the owner does not believe in Darwinian evolution. Peer-reviewed journals will not publish my articles, but they wouldn't publish them anyway. Prestigious universities will not allow me to teach science or lecture there, but that was not part of the future that I envisioned for myself anyway. The scientists of Discovery Institute have put their careers, their financial futures, and their credibility at risk. I have no doubt that in twenty years' time their views will be the predominant ones and neo-Darwinian evolutionary biologists will be as rare as pay phones, but for the moment I believe that it is an act of enormous personal courage for a professional scientist to espouse any idea that challenges Darwinian orthodoxy.

JW: One of the intriguing things about your play is how it breaks stereotypes. For example, in our culture, people often think that there are no scientists who are skeptical of modern Darwinism. They also think that the only religious people are fundamentalist Christians. How does your play subvert those stereotypes?

MC: Before I ever started writing the play, my life experience itself had subverted all these stereotypes. The people that I have met whose words make the most sense to me and whose demeanor and bearing seem to reveal a deep understanding of life; all these wonderful people have deep concerns about neo-Darwinism and all reject materialist philosophy out of hand. I made sure to establish in my play that Dr. Cates and Howard Blair, both of whom present a scientific view in a spiritual context, were unquestionably brilliant scientists. Many religions are mentioned, but not Christian fundamentalism or any kind of fundamentalism.

There is one scene where Dr. Cates talks about some of his spiritual insights and experiences. In that scene I tried to turn the stereotype on its head. Here was the spiritual proponent making perfect sense and the "Darwinian" proponent incapable of hearing a word that the other one was saying. This inability to listen, to even consider another point of view is what we usually thing of as characteristic of fundamentalists. My point is that neo-Darwinism has become just as fundamentalist, just as resistant to change, just as fearful of new information, as the biblical orthodoxy that it replaced.

Discovery Institute is described on Wikipedia as " a non-profit public policy think tank ... best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscience intelligent design." Pseudoscience, indeed! People wonder how I can sustain an intensity of passion throughout the performance of this full-length and wordy play. It is precisely because of this kind of nonsense and all the acts of repression of anti-Darwinian information that I know of, and the demonizing of any one who questions Darwin, and the fraud committed by scientists in their attempts to prove Darwin's theories, and even the suppression before the public of the magnificent complexity of molecular biological life, for fear that it might engender wonder and awe, leading to a belief in design by a transcendent intelligence. All of this nonsense makes my blood boil. Just thinking about it before I perform keeps me razor-focused on unmasking the shallowness and inconsistencies of Hawkins (aka Dawkins) and the defense lawyer's neo-Darwinian thinking.

JW: You premiered the play in a six-week run in Los Angeles last year. What was the general reaction to the play?

MC: Amazing! There were a few fundamentalists, both religious and scientific, who literally could not hear the play. They were there to judge, not to listen. Even before the play began, someone refused to do technical work on it because it went against his neo-Darwinian views. On the other hand, an actor who auditioned for the play, and was effusive about the two pages that he had auditioned with, came back the next day to tell me that, now that he had read the whole thing, he realized that he couldn't do it because it went against his fundamentalist religious beliefs.

The argument of the play, however, is, I think, more compelling when you watch it than when you read it. So many people responded effusively, from atheists, who told me that the play had gotten them thinking and questioning in new ways, to religious people who told me that the play deepened their commitment and understanding of their own religious beliefs.

The biggest surprise was the number of people who told me that I was articulating and making more specific thoughts and feelings that they had entertained for years, but had never expressed. I think in our Darwinian/Freudian/Marxian environment, discussion of the deepest issues about the nature of ourselves and the universe rarely take place. We are under the false impression that omniscient "experts" have already answered these questions and our speculations might seem foolish or childish in a world in which we have been given the impression that these questions have already been answered and that we just don't know enough "scientific" or "psychological" or "economic" information to understand these answers. The "experts" are intentionally culpable, I believe, in giving this impression of omniscience. That is to the detriment of awe and wonder and the free discussion of these most profound issues, which, I think, are really part of our human birthright.

In the newest version of the play, Amanda, who is both the daughter of the chairman of the biology department and the love interest of Howard, the brilliant graduate student, is struck by the familiarity of Howard's ideas. She remembers that when she was a child she often thought about the connectivity of herself with others and the universe and about a sense of herself that was very distinct from her body. Rather than trusting in Howard's intelligence and background as an "expert," she accepts his ideas because they feel so right. They articulate thoughts and intimations that she had already had when she was a young girl, but never expressed in her "scientific" household, for fear that she would sound foolish.

JW: In watching the video of the play, I thought you were outstanding as Professor Bertram Cates. But I also loved the actor you had who played arch-Darwinist Robert Hawkins (above left), who was clearly a stand-in for Richard Dawkins. It's eerie just how much like Dawkins your actor was! Where did you find him?

MC: Two years earlier my friend and I were auditioning actors for a piece that he wrote based on hearings of the House Un-American Activities Committee. The two main roles were Whittaker Chambers, a staunch anti-Communist, who I was playing, and Alger Hiss, a statesman who worked with Roosevelt on the Yalta Agreements at the end of World War II and on the organization of the United Nations. Hiss was suspected of secretly being a Communist and of working to promote the interests of Joseph Stalin over our American interests. Like Dawkins, he was a real person and footage of him in interviews and hearings was available on the Internet. Although the project never got off the ground, there was one actor who made an indelible impression at his audition. He walked in as Alger Hiss; looked like him, talked like him, dressed like him, carried himself like him. It was really remarkable.

Two years later, when I was casting Disinherit the Wind, I contacted Circus-Szalewski, the actor who had impressed me two years earlier, and told him that I would like him to audition for Robert Hawkins who was modeled after Richard Dawkins and that footage existed on the Internet of Dawkins giving lectures and interviews. When he came in for his audition he arrived as Richard Dawkins. Just like he did with Hiss, he walked like him, dressed like him, talked like him. I confessed to him later that I had already cast him in the part before he started the actual audition.

Circus is a great guy and a total pleasure to work with and he is also wonderfully eccentric. He changed his name to Circus because he felt that he embodied a whole circus full of characters within him. He even refers to himself as a circus. For instance, if you ask him how things are going, he will say something like, "The circus has been very busy lately."

He also spoke with an English accent through the entire rehearsal and performance of the play. We kept asking him if he really was from England but he refused to tell us. I did find out his true origins from a friend of his who attended the play and said he had known Circus from childhood. I hope he will forgive me if I let you know that Circus is from Indiana. He is also about one hundred pounds lighter than Dawkins and looks nothing like him. His resemblance to Dawkins is not really eerie as much as it is a product of Circus's skill and hard work.

JW: Did you have any scientists who responded to the play? If so, how did they react?

MC: I can only tell you about the scientists that I spoke with after the play. That may not be a fair sampling, because if there were scientists who did not like the play they probably wouldn't have hung around afterward to talk. But the ones that I do know loved it! It seemed to me like the more they knew about science, the more they appreciated the play. We had several people from Caltech and from the Jet Propulsion Lab who gave us standing ovations. I just had dinner at Caltech two weeks ago with someone who had seen the play and who wants to have it performed there, where it would most likely be viewed by the head of the Jet Propulsion Lab and NASA. Now wouldn't that be exciting!

I find it quite remarkable that the world of theoretical physics is so rich and imaginative and exciting, while the world of theoretical biology does not even exist, because we have been given the impression that Darwin has moved us past the theoretical stage. It seems that physicists are having none of that nonsense.

I should mention two different women who told me, both in tears, almost the identical story after seeing the play. In both cases, their fathers were prominent scientists who, in later life, began to put their scientific understanding in a spiritual framework. Both of them were condemned by the scientific community that had embraced them. The pain inflicted on both these gentlemen was evident in the emotion that their daughters experienced as they told their stories. What they discovered from watching the play and what I discovered from doing the play, is that these ideas are not so "weird" or "isolating" as we once thought. I no longer have any hesitancy in letting people know, if asked, that neo-Darwinian materialist philosophy is myopic nonsense in my opinion and I am happy to explain why.

JW: What are your hopes for the play for the future?

MC: Well, I do hope that it has a future. As I said, I have already rewritten it. We received a couple of sensational reviews that I think will help promote it. I, personally, cannot afford to mount another production, so hopefully I can find another person or some institution that would be interested in producing it. You had suggested, John, that I might rework it into the format of a radio or television debate. That way we would have a cast of three or four as opposed to ten and it would be a much easier play to tour with. It would also open up the possibility of an audio version. If there is anyone reading this who might be interested in mounting a production, please contact me. You can reach me at complexhollywood@gmail.com.

Thank you, John, for giving me this opportunity and thank you, readers, for hearing me out.