Tuesday, 30 May 2017
Getting past Darwinism's Rube Goldbergs.
Intelligent Design on Target:
Evolution News & Views
In his second major treatise on design theory, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, William Dembski discusses searches and targets. One of his main points is that the ability to reach a target in a vast space of possibilities is an indicator of design. A sufficiently complex target that satisfies an independent specification, he argues, creates a pattern that, when observed, satisfies the Design Filter. There are rigorous mathematical and logical proofs of this concept in the book, but at one point, he uses an illustration even a child can understand.
Consider the case of an archer. Suppose an archer stands fifty meters from a large wall with a bow and arrow in hand. The wall, let us say, is sufficiently large that the archer cannot help but hit it. Now suppose each time the archer shoots an arrow at the wall, the archer paints a target around the arrow so that the arrow sits squarely in the bull's-eye. What can be concluded from this scenario? Absolutely nothing about the archer's ability as an archer. Yes, a pattern is being matched; but it is a pattern fixed only after the arrow has been shot. The pattern is thus purely ad hoc. [No Free Lunch, pp. 9-10, emphasis added.]
Most people have experience with target shooting of some kind, whether with bows and arrows, guns (including squirt guns), snowballs, darts, or most sports like baseball, soccer, basketball, hockey, and football. Children laugh when they picture an archer who "couldn't even hit the broadside of a barn" and rushes up to the arrow and paints a bull's-eye around it. Grown-ups might compare that to a biologist looking at an irreducibly complex biological system and simply stating, "It evolved." In each of these cases, Dembski would say that since the pattern was not independently specified, therefore it is ad hoc. He continues:
But suppose instead the archer paints a fixed target on the wall and then shoots at it. Suppose the archer shoots 100 arrows, and each time hits a perfect bull's-eye. What can be concluded from this second scenario? Confronted with this occurrence, we are obligated to infer that here is a world-class archer, one whose shots cannot legitimately be attributed to luck but rather to the archer's skill and mastery. Skill and mastery are, of course, instances of design.
That last sentence is important. We often think of intelligent design in terms of information content, but a little reflection shows why skill and mastery are equivalent design indicators. Why does the archer practice so long and hard, shooting thousands of arrows, until he has mastered the mental and physical control required to hit the bull's-eye? Because he has a goal: he seeks to become a world-class champion at the sport. Darwinian evolution, by contrast, has no goal or purpose.
So when we see evidence of skill and mastery that could not be attributed to luck, we have a reliable indicator of design. Everyone "gets" the design inference in the archery illustration, and since target shooting is popular and fun, it gives us a great way to explain design principles. You could try this in the context of a discussion with your children. It might be illuminating for some of your adult friends and family too.
Get a blackboard or something similar. Buy Nerf balls and coat them with colored chalk. Now let a volunteer throw a ball at the board. Assuming she hits it somewhere, rush up and draw a target around the spot with the spot in the center of the bull's-eye. Immediately praise her for what a great shot she is until everyone is laughing. "That's cheating!" someone is bound to complain. You respond, "But she hit the bull's-eye, didn't she? Isn't that how we tell a good shooter?"
Now draw a large target after erasing the old one. Let others throw the balls at it. Ask what the difference was between this and the earlier contest. Whatever the age level or circumstances, there are three principles you want to convey that Dembski says are essential for inferring design:
A reference class of possible events (here the arrow hitting the wall at some specified place);
A pattern that restricts the reference class of possible events (here a target on the wall);
The precise event that has occurred (here the arrow hitting the target at some precise location).
Translating that into kid lingo, you might say, "You're not a good shot by hitting just anything. You have to hit a target set up beforehand."
Now it's time to up the ante a bit. Erase the large target and draw a smaller one. Undoubtedly fewer shooters will get their mark inside this new challenge. Proceed by narrowing the target until you have drawn one so small it is hardly visible, and require the marksman to stand a good distance away. Anyone hitting that is likely to get a standing ovation!
As a final demonstration, blindfold one of your subjects, spin him around, and have him take a random shot in any direction (best use an uncoated nerf ball this time). After two or three humorous attempts, ask what's the chance he would hit the microscopic target? Someone might say it's possible (and it is). Then ask, what are the chances he could hit it 100 times in a row? What would you think if you saw that?
Kids love videos of incredible feats of target shooting. You might put together a string of them from all walks of life:
Someone making a full-court buzzer-beater basketball shot.
A stuntman zipping between rocks in a wingsuit.
Odysseus shooting an arrow through 12 axe handles.
Annie Oakley shooting glass balls at Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, or splitting a card in two shooting over her shoulder while looking in a mirror.
A mountain man throwing tomahawks or knives from a distance.
A human cannonball.
Motorcycle jumper landing on a building.
Barnstorming pilots flying through a hangar.
But to conclude, we need to consider the cases where we didn't observe the target being hit. This is where we can use the design inference for life, the Earth, and the universe.
The key to this design inference is to characterize the "reference class of possibilities" Dembski spoke of. When you have a large range of possibilities, but only one or a few that will work, you can infer design when you see something that is working:
Of the possible amino acid sequences, only a small number will fold into a functional protein.
Of the possible orbiting bodies, only a small number can support complex intelligent life (see our film Privileged Species for examples).
Of the possible parameters of physics, only a small number can support a habitable universe.
When we observe functional proteins, inhabited planets, and a working universe, therefore, we are justified in inferring that an intelligent cause was involved in their origin -- provided the target is sufficiently small as to rule out luck or natural causes. Here's an illustration Jay Richards gives in the film The Case for a Creator that brings us back to the subject of target shooting. In a discussion of the finely tuned parameters that make our universe habitable, Dr. Richards points out that the cosmological constant is fine-tuned to 1 part in 1053 (one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion).
Such precision has been compared to traveling hundreds of miles into space, then throwing a dart at the Earth, hitting a bull's-eye measuring one trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter, an area less than the width of a single atom.
Rigorous evidential, mathematical, and philosophical justification for the design inference is published in scholarly books by Dembski, Meyer, Wells, and others. It's necessary to have that foundation for intelligent design to be a scientific theory, but some of it is above the pay grade of the layman. Consider using pithy illustrations like target shooting to help a range of people, including your kids, "get" the meaning of intelligent design.
Evolution News & Views
In his second major treatise on design theory, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, William Dembski discusses searches and targets. One of his main points is that the ability to reach a target in a vast space of possibilities is an indicator of design. A sufficiently complex target that satisfies an independent specification, he argues, creates a pattern that, when observed, satisfies the Design Filter. There are rigorous mathematical and logical proofs of this concept in the book, but at one point, he uses an illustration even a child can understand.
Consider the case of an archer. Suppose an archer stands fifty meters from a large wall with a bow and arrow in hand. The wall, let us say, is sufficiently large that the archer cannot help but hit it. Now suppose each time the archer shoots an arrow at the wall, the archer paints a target around the arrow so that the arrow sits squarely in the bull's-eye. What can be concluded from this scenario? Absolutely nothing about the archer's ability as an archer. Yes, a pattern is being matched; but it is a pattern fixed only after the arrow has been shot. The pattern is thus purely ad hoc. [No Free Lunch, pp. 9-10, emphasis added.]
Most people have experience with target shooting of some kind, whether with bows and arrows, guns (including squirt guns), snowballs, darts, or most sports like baseball, soccer, basketball, hockey, and football. Children laugh when they picture an archer who "couldn't even hit the broadside of a barn" and rushes up to the arrow and paints a bull's-eye around it. Grown-ups might compare that to a biologist looking at an irreducibly complex biological system and simply stating, "It evolved." In each of these cases, Dembski would say that since the pattern was not independently specified, therefore it is ad hoc. He continues:
But suppose instead the archer paints a fixed target on the wall and then shoots at it. Suppose the archer shoots 100 arrows, and each time hits a perfect bull's-eye. What can be concluded from this second scenario? Confronted with this occurrence, we are obligated to infer that here is a world-class archer, one whose shots cannot legitimately be attributed to luck but rather to the archer's skill and mastery. Skill and mastery are, of course, instances of design.
That last sentence is important. We often think of intelligent design in terms of information content, but a little reflection shows why skill and mastery are equivalent design indicators. Why does the archer practice so long and hard, shooting thousands of arrows, until he has mastered the mental and physical control required to hit the bull's-eye? Because he has a goal: he seeks to become a world-class champion at the sport. Darwinian evolution, by contrast, has no goal or purpose.
So when we see evidence of skill and mastery that could not be attributed to luck, we have a reliable indicator of design. Everyone "gets" the design inference in the archery illustration, and since target shooting is popular and fun, it gives us a great way to explain design principles. You could try this in the context of a discussion with your children. It might be illuminating for some of your adult friends and family too.
Get a blackboard or something similar. Buy Nerf balls and coat them with colored chalk. Now let a volunteer throw a ball at the board. Assuming she hits it somewhere, rush up and draw a target around the spot with the spot in the center of the bull's-eye. Immediately praise her for what a great shot she is until everyone is laughing. "That's cheating!" someone is bound to complain. You respond, "But she hit the bull's-eye, didn't she? Isn't that how we tell a good shooter?"
Now draw a large target after erasing the old one. Let others throw the balls at it. Ask what the difference was between this and the earlier contest. Whatever the age level or circumstances, there are three principles you want to convey that Dembski says are essential for inferring design:
A reference class of possible events (here the arrow hitting the wall at some specified place);
A pattern that restricts the reference class of possible events (here a target on the wall);
The precise event that has occurred (here the arrow hitting the target at some precise location).
Translating that into kid lingo, you might say, "You're not a good shot by hitting just anything. You have to hit a target set up beforehand."
Now it's time to up the ante a bit. Erase the large target and draw a smaller one. Undoubtedly fewer shooters will get their mark inside this new challenge. Proceed by narrowing the target until you have drawn one so small it is hardly visible, and require the marksman to stand a good distance away. Anyone hitting that is likely to get a standing ovation!
As a final demonstration, blindfold one of your subjects, spin him around, and have him take a random shot in any direction (best use an uncoated nerf ball this time). After two or three humorous attempts, ask what's the chance he would hit the microscopic target? Someone might say it's possible (and it is). Then ask, what are the chances he could hit it 100 times in a row? What would you think if you saw that?
Kids love videos of incredible feats of target shooting. You might put together a string of them from all walks of life:
Someone making a full-court buzzer-beater basketball shot.
A stuntman zipping between rocks in a wingsuit.
Odysseus shooting an arrow through 12 axe handles.
Annie Oakley shooting glass balls at Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, or splitting a card in two shooting over her shoulder while looking in a mirror.
A mountain man throwing tomahawks or knives from a distance.
A human cannonball.
Motorcycle jumper landing on a building.
Barnstorming pilots flying through a hangar.
But to conclude, we need to consider the cases where we didn't observe the target being hit. This is where we can use the design inference for life, the Earth, and the universe.
The key to this design inference is to characterize the "reference class of possibilities" Dembski spoke of. When you have a large range of possibilities, but only one or a few that will work, you can infer design when you see something that is working:
Of the possible amino acid sequences, only a small number will fold into a functional protein.
Of the possible orbiting bodies, only a small number can support complex intelligent life (see our film Privileged Species for examples).
Of the possible parameters of physics, only a small number can support a habitable universe.
When we observe functional proteins, inhabited planets, and a working universe, therefore, we are justified in inferring that an intelligent cause was involved in their origin -- provided the target is sufficiently small as to rule out luck or natural causes. Here's an illustration Jay Richards gives in the film The Case for a Creator that brings us back to the subject of target shooting. In a discussion of the finely tuned parameters that make our universe habitable, Dr. Richards points out that the cosmological constant is fine-tuned to 1 part in 1053 (one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion).
Such precision has been compared to traveling hundreds of miles into space, then throwing a dart at the Earth, hitting a bull's-eye measuring one trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter, an area less than the width of a single atom.
Rigorous evidential, mathematical, and philosophical justification for the design inference is published in scholarly books by Dembski, Meyer, Wells, and others. It's necessary to have that foundation for intelligent design to be a scientific theory, but some of it is above the pay grade of the layman. Consider using pithy illustrations like target shooting to help a range of people, including your kids, "get" the meaning of intelligent design.
How intelligent is the design in the natural world?
Are Our Bodies the Product of "Unintelligent Design"?
Ann Gauger February 5, 2016 4:25 AM
A couple of years ago prominent evolutionary biologist David Barash opened a remarkable window on his classroom teaching. Writing in the New York Times, he described a yearly talk -- "The Talk" -- he gives to his students at the University of Washington. In The Talk, he explains why Darwinian theory, if faced squarely, undermines belief in a "benevolent, controlling creator."
His candor is to be commended. Many biology students likely receive a similar message, perhaps more implied than explicit, from their teachers. But what about the conclusion he draws? Does what we know about biology run counter to the idea of purpose or design behind life?
In the Wall Street Journal, the prolific Dr. Barash recently highlighted a particular challenge, as he sees it, to "intelligent design." I put the phrase in quotation marks because the only example of design thinking he gives goes back well over a century and a half, to the Bridgewater Treatises (1833-1840), while skipping over modern evidence of intelligent design altogether. But leave that aside.
In the article, he reviews two new books that describe the evolutionary mess that our bodies are -- a hodgepodge, so this argument goes, of barely good enough solutions to physiological problems, a collection of compromises that leave us prone to injury and disease, according to the authors and according to him. I haven't read the books in question, but Barash's piece provides an occasion to examine the often-heard argument for "unintelligent design."
There's an undercurrent that runs through that argument, sometimes visible on the surface, sometimes below the water, tugging our feet out from under us. That ripple on the surface goes something like this: our design isn't perfect. That's the visible part. Then there's the undercurrent: If there were an intelligent designer he would have made perfect things. Barash, ever frank, says this directly. Giving examples like the optic nerve and the prostate gland, he says, "An intelligent designer wouldn't have proceeded this way." Therefore we are the product of patchwork evolution and there is no designer.
Note, that undercurrent is an assumption. Who knows what an intelligent designer capable of creating life would have done? Theologians who believe the designer is God may argue about that, but science provides no insight.
It's another assumption that good design never breaks down. Not many human machines can last seventy years without breaking down sometime. A 1940 Cadillac, top of the line, in continuous use, would have needed considerable refurbishing by now to keep it running and looking decent. Its leather seats would likely have cracked and its paint job cracked and dimmed, numerous sets of tires worn out, its brakes replaced numerous times, and its valves and pistons either machined or replaced.
At the same age, many human beings look pretty good by comparison, since we generally keep running without replacement parts long after our warranty has expired.
Any human designer knows that good design often means finding a way to meet multiple constraints. Consider airplanes. We want them to be strong, but weight is an issue, so lighter materials must be used. We want to preserve people's hearing and keep the cabin warm, so soundproofing and insulation are needed, but they add weight. All of this together determines fuel usage, which translates into how far the airplane can fly. In 1986, the Rutan Voyager made its flight around the world without stopping or refueling, the first aircraft ever to do so. To carry enough fuel to make the trip, the designers had to strip the plane of everything except the essentials. That meant no soundproofing and no comfortable seats. But the airplane flew all the way. This was very special design.
Last, despite what some, like Dr. Barash, would tell you, our bodies are marvels of perfection in many ways. The rod cells in our eyes can detect as little as one photon of light; our brains receive the signal after just nine rods have responded. Our speech apparatus is perfectly fit for communication. Says linguist Noam Chomsky, "Language is an optimal way to link sound and meaning." Our brains are capable of storing as much information as the World Wide Web.
We can run long distances, better than a horse and rider sometimes. For an amusing comparison of our fastest times compared to various animals, have a look here. But bear in mind, not one of those animals can run, swim, and jump as well as we can.
Then there are our incredible fine-motor skills -- think concert pianist -- and our capacity for abstract thought, an activity you and I are engaged in right now.
Before allowing some evolutionists to drag us under, let's remember and be grateful for all the things that go right and work well. Intelligent design does not mean "perfect design," or "design impervious to aging, injury, and disease." It means being a product of intelligence, whatever the source might be, giving evidence of care, intention, and forethought, as our bodies surely do.
Ann Gauger February 5, 2016 4:25 AM
A couple of years ago prominent evolutionary biologist David Barash opened a remarkable window on his classroom teaching. Writing in the New York Times, he described a yearly talk -- "The Talk" -- he gives to his students at the University of Washington. In The Talk, he explains why Darwinian theory, if faced squarely, undermines belief in a "benevolent, controlling creator."
His candor is to be commended. Many biology students likely receive a similar message, perhaps more implied than explicit, from their teachers. But what about the conclusion he draws? Does what we know about biology run counter to the idea of purpose or design behind life?
In the Wall Street Journal, the prolific Dr. Barash recently highlighted a particular challenge, as he sees it, to "intelligent design." I put the phrase in quotation marks because the only example of design thinking he gives goes back well over a century and a half, to the Bridgewater Treatises (1833-1840), while skipping over modern evidence of intelligent design altogether. But leave that aside.
In the article, he reviews two new books that describe the evolutionary mess that our bodies are -- a hodgepodge, so this argument goes, of barely good enough solutions to physiological problems, a collection of compromises that leave us prone to injury and disease, according to the authors and according to him. I haven't read the books in question, but Barash's piece provides an occasion to examine the often-heard argument for "unintelligent design."
There's an undercurrent that runs through that argument, sometimes visible on the surface, sometimes below the water, tugging our feet out from under us. That ripple on the surface goes something like this: our design isn't perfect. That's the visible part. Then there's the undercurrent: If there were an intelligent designer he would have made perfect things. Barash, ever frank, says this directly. Giving examples like the optic nerve and the prostate gland, he says, "An intelligent designer wouldn't have proceeded this way." Therefore we are the product of patchwork evolution and there is no designer.
Note, that undercurrent is an assumption. Who knows what an intelligent designer capable of creating life would have done? Theologians who believe the designer is God may argue about that, but science provides no insight.
It's another assumption that good design never breaks down. Not many human machines can last seventy years without breaking down sometime. A 1940 Cadillac, top of the line, in continuous use, would have needed considerable refurbishing by now to keep it running and looking decent. Its leather seats would likely have cracked and its paint job cracked and dimmed, numerous sets of tires worn out, its brakes replaced numerous times, and its valves and pistons either machined or replaced.
At the same age, many human beings look pretty good by comparison, since we generally keep running without replacement parts long after our warranty has expired.
Any human designer knows that good design often means finding a way to meet multiple constraints. Consider airplanes. We want them to be strong, but weight is an issue, so lighter materials must be used. We want to preserve people's hearing and keep the cabin warm, so soundproofing and insulation are needed, but they add weight. All of this together determines fuel usage, which translates into how far the airplane can fly. In 1986, the Rutan Voyager made its flight around the world without stopping or refueling, the first aircraft ever to do so. To carry enough fuel to make the trip, the designers had to strip the plane of everything except the essentials. That meant no soundproofing and no comfortable seats. But the airplane flew all the way. This was very special design.
Last, despite what some, like Dr. Barash, would tell you, our bodies are marvels of perfection in many ways. The rod cells in our eyes can detect as little as one photon of light; our brains receive the signal after just nine rods have responded. Our speech apparatus is perfectly fit for communication. Says linguist Noam Chomsky, "Language is an optimal way to link sound and meaning." Our brains are capable of storing as much information as the World Wide Web.
We can run long distances, better than a horse and rider sometimes. For an amusing comparison of our fastest times compared to various animals, have a look here. But bear in mind, not one of those animals can run, swim, and jump as well as we can.
Then there are our incredible fine-motor skills -- think concert pianist -- and our capacity for abstract thought, an activity you and I are engaged in right now.
Before allowing some evolutionists to drag us under, let's remember and be grateful for all the things that go right and work well. Intelligent design does not mean "perfect design," or "design impervious to aging, injury, and disease." It means being a product of intelligence, whatever the source might be, giving evidence of care, intention, and forethought, as our bodies surely do.
Monday, 29 May 2017
Darwin apologists' dyslexia re:academic freedom remains untreated.
From Vice, the Usual Baloney on Academic Freedom Laws
David Klinghoffer | @d_klinghoffer
David Klinghoffer | @d_klinghoffer
An article in the online rag Vice is full of the usual baloney about how academic freedom legislation pushes “religion” or “creationism” or “intelligent design” into public schools. It’s a holiday weekend so out of mercy I will spare you a point-by-point response.
There are a few novelties. The author, Emmalina Glinskis, takes the commendable step of quoting a bit of the language in these bills. Many articles like hers don’t bother. She writes:
Along with a favorable conservative political climate, the Discovery Institute’s carefully worded tactics are a key factor in the recent adoption of its mock bill. For example, the bill makes no mention of the words “creationism” and “intelligent design” and only permits, rather than requires, disparagement of evolution and global warming. Section D also makes it clear that the law “shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine.” [Emphasis added.]
Teaching about evidence for and against an idea is not to “disparage” the idea. Doing so takes it seriously, as being worthy of and perhaps even able to stand up to critical examination. Protecting it from objective consideration amounts, by contrast, to a vote of no confidence.
More importantly, teaching about creationism, a religious doctrine, is ruled out by the language she quotes. For a different reason, teaching about ID is also not protected as it is not “already part of the required science curriculum” in any state and the model legislation she cites unambiguously excludes protecting discussion of “new topics.” Here is that language:
This Act only protects discussion of the scientific strengths and weaknesses of topics that are already part of the required science curriculum and is not intended to authorize a teacher to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of new topics that are not already part of the required science curriculum.
Why legislation intended to push religion would explicitly exclude religion from its protection is a question that critics of these laws can never answer. And why would a law intended to sanction teaching about a “new topic” like ID expressly exclude “new topics” from its sanction? It doesn’t make any sense.
She credits us with “carefully worded tactics,” a strange formulation. It’s even stranger that our purported secret goals should be excluded by the “carefully worded” language we advocate.
These are all standard misrepresentations. You won’t be surprised to learn that Miss Glinskis consulted Glenn Branch of the Darwin-lobbying National Center for Science Education. Did Branch help her with her understanding of the U.S. Constitution? She writes:
In most states, teaching religion in public schools violates the separation of church and state.
“Most states”? In what states, exactly, is it constitutional to indoctrinate students with religion in public school?
The reporter’s credibility further dissolves when she turns, inevitably, to the Dover case. We read:
Since their adoption, none of the academic freedom laws have faced a direct legal challenge. In fact, the Discovery Institute was caught pushing a religious agenda only once — in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, one of the most high-profile legal cases ever about teaching evolution in 2005. According to the case, the Discovery Institute had advised a Pennsylvania school board that required teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
Discovery Institute “advised a Pennsylvania school board”? She leaves out that we advised strongly and publicly against the Dover policy.
See “Discovery Calls Dover Evolution Policy Misguided, Calls For its Withdrawal,” a statement dated December 14, 2004. More helpful public resources on Dover are here. Miss Glinskis would have been well advised to spend more time reading up on her subject there, and less time corresponding with Glenn Branch.
A good death?
Euthanasia Is Not About Ending Uncontrollable Pain
Wesley J. Smith
The fear-mongering euthanasia movement pushes its solution as a means of preventing an agonizing death in pain that cannot be controlled. It’s all a false pitch. That’s not why it’s actually done.
Rather, existential anguish drives people to seek doctor-administered or prescribed termination. That has been the experience in Oregon. Now too, Canada. From a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine:
Those who received MAiD [medical aid in dying] tended to be white and relatively affluent and indicated that loss of autonomy was the primary reason for their request.
Other common reasons included the wish to avoid burdening others or losing dignity and the intolerability of not being able to enjoy one’s life.
Few patients cited inadequate control of pain or other symptoms.
These are important issues that need to be addressed through vigorous suicide prevention and other mental health interventions.
But they are not provided. Instead, the desire to die for fear of being a burden or losing autonomy is validated with the lethal jab or the poison pills. And then, that type of death is pushed toward normalization.
Not providing vigorous interventions for existential anguish is like depriving a cancer patient of morphine, and then helping her die because she is in so much pain.
Wesley J. Smith
The fear-mongering euthanasia movement pushes its solution as a means of preventing an agonizing death in pain that cannot be controlled. It’s all a false pitch. That’s not why it’s actually done.
Rather, existential anguish drives people to seek doctor-administered or prescribed termination. That has been the experience in Oregon. Now too, Canada. From a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine:
Those who received MAiD [medical aid in dying] tended to be white and relatively affluent and indicated that loss of autonomy was the primary reason for their request.
Other common reasons included the wish to avoid burdening others or losing dignity and the intolerability of not being able to enjoy one’s life.
Few patients cited inadequate control of pain or other symptoms.
These are important issues that need to be addressed through vigorous suicide prevention and other mental health interventions.
But they are not provided. Instead, the desire to die for fear of being a burden or losing autonomy is validated with the lethal jab or the poison pills. And then, that type of death is pushed toward normalization.
Not providing vigorous interventions for existential anguish is like depriving a cancer patient of morphine, and then helping her die because she is in so much pain.
Saturday, 27 May 2017
In our own words.
What Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe?
As Jehovah’s Witnesses, we strive to adhere to the form of Christianity that Jesus taught and that his apostles practiced. This article summarizes our basic beliefs.
God. We worship the one true and Almighty God, the Creator, whose name is Jehovah. (Psalm 83:18; Revelation 4:11) He is the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.—Exodus 3:6; 32:11; John 20:17.
Bible. We recognize the Bible as God’s inspired message to humans. (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16) We base our beliefs on all 66 of its books, which include both the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament.” Professor Jason D. BeDuhn aptly described it when he wrote that Jehovah’s Witnesses built “their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there.” *
While we accept the entire Bible, we are not fundamentalists. We recognize that parts of the Bible are written in figurative or symbolic language and are not to be understood literally.—Revelation 1:1.
Jesus. We follow the teachings and example of Jesus Christ and honor him as our Savior and as the Son of God. (Matthew 20:28; Acts 5:31) Thus, we are Christians. (Acts 11:26) However, we have learned from the Bible that Jesus is not Almighty God and that there is no Scriptural basis for the Trinity doctrine.—John 14:28.
The Kingdom of God. This is a real government in heaven, not a condition in the hearts of Christians. It will replace human governments and accomplish God’s purpose for the earth. (Daniel 2:44; Matthew 6:9, 10) It will take these actions soon, for Bible prophecy indicates that we are living in “the last days.”—2 Timothy 3:1-5; Matthew 24:3-14.
Jesus is the King of God’s Kingdom in heaven. He began ruling in 1914.—Revelation 11:15.
Salvation. Deliverance from sin and death is possible through the ransom sacrifice of Jesus. (Matthew 20:28; Acts 4:12) To benefit from that sacrifice, people must not only exercise faith in Jesus but also change their course of life and get baptized. (Matthew 28:19, 20; John 3:16; Acts 3:19, 20) A person’s works prove that his faith is alive. (James 2:24, 26) However, salvation cannot be earned—it comes through “the undeserved kindness of God.”—Galatians 2:16, 21.
Heaven. Jehovah God, Jesus Christ, and the faithful angels reside in the spirit realm. * (Psalm 103:19-21; Acts 7:55) A relatively small number of people—144,000—will be resurrected to life in heaven to rule with Jesus in the Kingdom.—Daniel 7:27; 2 Timothy 2:12; Revelation 5:9, 10; 14:1, 3.Earth. God created the earth to be mankind’s eternal home. (Psalm 104:5; 115:16; Ecclesiastes 1:4) God will bless obedient people with perfect health and everlasting life in an earthly paradise.—Psalm 37:11, 34.
Evil and suffering. These began when one of God’s angels rebelled. (John 8:44) This angel, who after his rebellion was called “Satan” and “Devil,” persuaded the first human couple to join him, and the consequences have been disastrous for their descendants. (Genesis 3:1-6; Romans 5:12) In order to settle the moral issues raised by Satan, God has allowed evil and suffering, but He will not permit them to continue forever.
Death. People who die pass out of existence. (Psalm 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10) They do not suffer in a fiery hell of torment.
God will bring billions back from death by means of a resurrection. (Acts 24:15) However, those who refuse to learn God’s ways after being raised to life will be destroyed forever with no hope of a resurrection.—Revelation 20:14, 15.Family. We adhere to God’s original standard of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, with sexual immorality being the only valid basis for divorce. (Matthew 19:4-9) We are convinced that the wisdom found in the Bible helps families to succeed.—Ephesians 5:22–6:1.
Our worship. We do not venerate the cross or any other images. (Deuteronomy 4:15-19; 1 John 5:21) Key aspects of our worship include the following:
Praying to God.—Philippians 4:6.
Reading and studying the Bible.—Psalm 1:1-3.
Meditating on what we learn from the Bible.—Psalm 77:12.
Meeting together to pray, study the Bible, sing, express our faith, and encourage fellow Witnesses and others.—Colossians 3:16; Hebrews 10:23-25.
Preaching the “good news of the Kingdom.”—Matthew 24:14.
Helping those in need.—James 2:14-17.
Constructing and maintaining Kingdom Halls and other facilities used to further our worldwide Bible educational work.—Psalm 127:1.
Sharing in disaster relief.—Acts 11:27-30.Our organization. We are organized into congregations, each of which is overseen by a body of elders. However, the elders do not form a clergy class, and they are unsalaried. (Matthew 10:8; 23:8) We do not practice tithing, and no collections are ever taken at our meetings. (2 Corinthians 9:7) All our activities are supported by anonymous donations.
The Governing Body, a small group of mature Christians who serve at our world headquarters, provides direction for Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide.—Matthew 24:45.
Our unity. We are globally united in our beliefs. (1 Corinthians 1:10) We also work hard to have no social, ethnic, racial, or class divisions. (Acts 10:34, 35; James 2:4) Our unity allows for personal choice, though. Each Witness makes decisions in harmony with his or her own Bible-trained conscience.—Romans 14:1-4; Hebrews 5:14.
Our conduct. We strive to show unselfish love in all our actions. (John 13:34, 35) We avoid practices that displease God, including the misuse of blood by taking blood transfusions. (Acts 15:28, 29; Galatians 5:19-21) We are peaceful and do not participate in warfare. (Matthew 5:9; Isaiah 2:4) We respect the government where we live and obey its laws as long as these do not call on us to disobey God’s laws.—Matthew 22:21; Acts 5:29.
Our relationships with others. Jesus commanded: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” He also said that Christians “are no part of the world.” (Matthew 22:39; John 17:16) So we try to “work what is good toward all,” yet we remain strictly neutral in political affairs and avoid affiliation with other religions. (Galatians 6:10; 2 Corinthians 6:14) However, we respect the choices that others make in such matters.—Romans 14:12.
If you have further questions about the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, you can read more about us on our website, contact one of our offices, attend a meeting at a Kingdom Hall near you, or speak to one of the Witnesses in your area.
Education v. indoctrination.
Should Students “Accept” Evolution – Or Think Critically About It?
Sarah Chaffee
Sarah Chaffee
How should evolution be taught in public schools? It depends on who you ask. Discovery Institute advocates teaching the scientific controversy over evolution. I have detailed in the past what that looks like.
I would like to take this opportunity to clarify our position in light of a recent study in PLOS Biology, “Teaching genetics prior to teaching evolution improves evolution understanding but not acceptance,” and the accompanying interview with one of its authors.
The authors advocate a genetics-first approach. That sounds great! If schools teach genetics correctly, and teach evolution correctly (citing mainstream sources, including Third Way views and ideas about alternative mechanisms to neo-Darwinism). We want students to understand more about science and evolution, not less.
main finding of the study is that lower-ability students who learned genetics first demonstrated better understanding of evolution. Corresponding author Laurence Hurst notes:
There appears to be a tendency to consider evolution as a separate and distinct subject and so teach it in isolation. In some cases we found teachers rather marginalize it, teach it last and prefer not to give it much attention. This seemed very odd to me. To my mind microevolution is simply a branch of genetics. If you understand DNA, you can understand mutation and the concept of the allele. It is then a very small leap to understanding that alleles change frequency and, bingo, you have arrived into population and evolutionary genetics. This logical order is also there in “On the Origin of Species” although Darwin, naturally, was rather fuzzy on the genetics. In addition, there had been a news piece in Science that mentioned in passing that understanding of evolution was correlated with understanding of genetics. Naturally there could be many explanations for this, but it laid a seed of curiosity in my head. [Emphasis added.]
Unfortunately, the extrapolation from micro- to macroevolution is in fact fraught with difficulties – a theme of Tom Bethell’s recent book, Darwin’s House of Cards.
Hurst also focuses on whether students agree with evolution:
Why do you think there is a weak correlation between understanding and acceptance of evolution? What were some of the factors that you found might increase a student’s acceptance of evolution?
LH: We were very struck by this result. Indeed, in our pilot survey the correlation between evolution acceptance and understanding was negative! In our experimental data set the correlation is positive but weak, both before and after teaching. Indeed, genetics understanding is a much better predictor of acceptance of evolution. In short, we found students who understood evolution very well but didn’t accept it and others who accepted it but didn’t understand it all that well. The qualitative data repeatedly pointed to a role for authority figures with both tacit approval by teachers and parents being important. But external figures, be these TV personalities such as David Attenborough and religious figures, were also important to some. Indeed, in one school the teacher reassured the class that the pope approved of evolution and students told us what a relief this was. For some schools, a simple word like that might help.
What struck us most, however, was that while many students accepted the scientific view of evolution (over 80 percent after teaching), few could provide the evidence when quizzed in focus groups. We wonder if the act of teaching the subject in a scientific context by trusted people who provide tacit approval (i.e., teachers), is actually more important than understanding per se. In the primary school context, a study we are currently in the middle of, our analysis to date suggests that teacher acceptance of evolution is the only class-level predictor of student improvement in understanding. This fits with the notion of tacit approval/disapproval from the teacher as being a key parameter. This is a worry for countries were [sic] many teachers reject the scientific view of evolution.
I find myself slightly confused by the alternating use of the terms “understanding” and “acceptance” here. He speaks of the role of influence, and of course, there is no way to completely remove this factor from education.
However, it’s strange to speak of “acceptance” of a scientific theory, as if it were something very different, like a religious doctrine. Evolution should stand on its own like any other theory. It should not require monitoring for “acceptance.”
It would be more fruitful to inculcate critical reasoning skills in science classrooms. That’s why Discovery Institute advocates teaching the scientific controversy about evolution in public schools.
Schools would do better to consider teaching the role of genetics, and its limitations, in neo-Darwinism. Thinking like scientists, taking strengths and weaknesses of the evidence into account, will help prepare young people for success in whatever field they choose to pursue.
A fuse for the Cambrian explosion.
A Thousand Dickinsonia Specimens Don’t Change the Ediacaran Story
Evolution News | @DiscoveryCSC
Dickinsonia is one of the enigmatic creatures classed in the Ediacaran biota, a group of Precambrian macrofossils taking its name from the type section in the Ediacaran hills of South Australia. Growing from an inch to several feet long, this air-mattress-like creature has been variously interpreted as anything from a fungus to an animal, according to Stephen Meyer in Darwin’s Doubt (see Figure 4.1 on p. 80).
Most paleontologists have concluded, Meyer says, that whatever it was, Dickinsonia was not an ancestor to the bilaterian animals that appeared in the Cambrian explosion, having lacked the essential traits that characterize bilaterians, such as a head, gut, sensory organs, or limbs (see pp. 81-86). It’s not even clear that it has bilateral symmetry at all, or the triploblastic structure (three distinct tissue layers; see p. 93) characteristic of true animals.
Three researchers from the University of California, Riverside, went to Australia and examined a thousand specimens of Dickinsonia. Did they find anything to change its status as a possible ancestor? The spin-prone NASA rag Astrobiology Magazine tries to make it seem so, announcing “New Study Sheds Light on Earth’s First Animals.” They include a large color picture of the creature.
More than 550 million years ago, the oceans were teeming with flat, soft-bodied creatures that fed on microbes and algae and could grow as big as bathmats. Today, researchers at the University of California, Riverside are studying their fossils to unlock the secrets of early life.
In their latest study, published today in the journal PLOS ONE, Scott Evans, a graduate student in the Department of Earth Sciences, and Mary Droser, a professor of paleontology, both in UCR’s College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, show that the Ediacaran-era fossil animal Dickinsonia developed in a complex, highly regulated way using a similar genetic toolkit to today’s animals. The study helps place Dickinsonia in the early evolution of animal life, and showcases how the large, mobile sea creature grew and developed. [Emphasis added.]
But what the article asserts in these opening paragraphs, it undermines at the end, showing that Dickinsonia could not have been in the evolutionary chain to the phyla that appeared in the Cambrian explosion (530-525 million years ago). They conclude:
The study showed that Dickinsonia’s development, and particularly that of the modules, was complex and systematic to maintain the oval shape of the animal. The accumulation of new modules, by a process called terminal addition, suggests that Dickinsonia developed in a related way to bilaterians, a complex group that display bilateral symmetry, including animals ranging from flies and worms to humans. However, the researchers do not believe Dickinsonia was ancestrally related to bilaterians, since it lacked other features that most bilaterians share, most notably a mouth, gut and anus.
“Although we saw some of the hallmark characteristics of bilateral growth and development, we don’t believe Dickinsonia was a precursor to today’s bilaterians, rather that these are two distinct groups that shared a common set of ancestral genes that are present throughout the animal lineage,” Evans said. “Dickinsonia most likely represents a separate group of animals that is now extinct, but can tell us a lot about the evolutionary history of animals.”
What can it tell about the evolutionary history of animals, however, if it (1) was not a precursor, (2) lacked the notable features of bilaterian animals, and (3) grew by “terminal addition” of new modules? Snowflakes and bubble mats can do that. Let’s see if the paper in PLOS ONE can shed any more light.
The Ediacara Biota represents the oldest fossil evidence for the appearance of animals but linking these taxa to specific clades has proved challenging. Dickinsonia is an abundant, apparently bilaterally symmetrical Ediacara fossil with uncertain affinities. We identified and measured key morphological features of over 900 specimens of Dickinsonia costata from the Ediacara Member, South Australia to characterize patterns in growth and morphology. Here we show that development in Dickinsonia costata was surprisingly highly regulated to maintain an ovoid shape via terminal addition and the predictable expansion of modules. This result, along with other characters found in Dickinsonia suggests that it does not belong within known animal groups, but that it utilized some of the developmental gene networks of bilaterians, a result predicted by gene sequencing of basal metazoans but previously unidentified in the fossil record. Dickinsonia thus represents an extinct clade located between sponges and the last common ancestor of Protostomes and Deuterostomes, and likely belongs within the Eumetazoa.
Did they find genes? No. Did they observe developmental gene networks? No. Did they find “stomes” (mouths) on these creatures? No. The connection to Protostomes (first mouth) and Deuterostomes (two mouths) is all inference. They had nearly a thousand of these creatures to look at, and only inferred that they lie somewhere between sponges and animals. And yet they admit that whatever Dickinsonia was, it went extinct.
Droser et al. place this creature within “an extinct lineage that split somewhere between sponges and the LCA [last common ancestor] of Protostomes and Deuterostomes,” meaning that it really has nothing to do with animals, which without exception have a mouth. For a transitional form, Dickinsonia is a pretty sad contender.
The highly regulated growth of Dickinsonia, along with features such as posterior addition, bilateral symmetry and organization around an anterior-posterior axis are characteristics found in bilaterians. However, most bilaterians are triploblastic and have a through gut and there is no evidence for the number of tissue layers or the presence of a mouth, anus or any type of gut in Dickinsonia. Some highly derived modern bilaterians do not have a through gut and many studies have demonstrated the importance of the secondary loss of characters in phylogenetic reconstructions, but it is unlikely that Dickinsonia is highly derived and our results suggest that it does not have the suite of characters necessary to be considered a crown group bilaterian.
If they had a better contender, they surely would offer it up. They do mention Kimberella as an incipient mollusk, and Helminthoidichnites as a hopeful bilaterian, acknowledging Graham Budd’s criticisms (Meyer, p. 85). But after combing through a thousand of these air mattress lookalikes, they can’t even bring themselves to postulate that Dickinsonia was a more complex (“derived”) animal that lost traits.
The only feature they try to attribute to evolution is apparent “highly regulated growth” of the organism to maintain its ovoid shape as it grows. But you can’t watch fossils grow, so that’s an inference, too. Nor can you watch fossils move, as they claim it did (again, by inference only, based on the slight difference between front and back ends). There’s no clear evidence of a second tissue layer, let alone a third. And they can’t even call the repeated structures “segments” which would presage a worm of some type. They call them “modules” instead. But do these modules really show a pattern of “highly regulated growth” and development?
We therefore conclude that the number of modules is not solely determined by overall size and that similarly sized specimens can have vastly different module numbers. The reasons for large differences in module number between specimens may simply be random…. This suggests that there was likely little functional significance in maintaining a specific number of modules with respect to size and highlights that conserving an ovoid shape and consistent length to width ratio was critical for D. costata.
What about the creature’s anatomy? Earlier reports “have suggested that Dickinsonia possessed complex internal structures,” but that idea got shot down, too:
No evidence for internal structures was observed in any specimens analyzed herein. All previous reports of features such as a through gut are likely due to deformation or the draping of Dickinsonia over irregular features present on the Ediacaran seafloor.
Perhaps that rules out claims of locomotion as well. We don’t see any evidence that Dickinsonia did much at all but sit there on the ocean floor. And if it grew, it didn’t grow like any other animal we know:
The plasticity of module number with respect to overall size between specimens of D. costata, despite the tight regulation on modular growth, suggests that module number is not a reliable proxy for age and that different specimens add and inflate modules at variable rates. This suggests that growth in Dickinsonia is fundamentally different from that of truly segmented animals.
We are not currently aware of any modern or extinct organism, segmented or otherwise, that grows in the same manner as D. costata. Any convergence between the growth of D. costata and modern organisms would likely reflect the importance of maintaining an ovoid shape and not phylogenetic ancestry.
Whatever similarities this creature might have had to other organisms, living or extinct, they chalk up to a familiar Darwinian magic wand, “convergent evolution.” It’s just out there, unique, distinct, unrelated — and extinct.
By the way, the paper never mentions a “genetic toolkit” that the NASA article bragged about. The authors only suggest that if the creature grew in a predictable way, it must have had “gene regulatory networks” like animals have. But if it did, it got those by convergent evolution, too, since it wasn’t on the line to the Cambrian animals.
In short, Dickinsonia doesn’t change the situation with the Cambrian explosion. We wonder if those putting out the money for this study are pleased with these pitiful results (the authors received funds from the NSF, NASA, National Geographic, and half a dozen other institutions). It’s worth knowing more about these creatures, but they don’t seem to offer any consolation for Darwinists.
The authors end by stating that more studies will be needed on other Ediacaran creatures in order “to gain further insight into the evolutionary history of early animals.” Translation: More funding, please. Meanwhile, Steve Meyer’s challenge stands.
Evolution News | @DiscoveryCSC
Dickinsonia is one of the enigmatic creatures classed in the Ediacaran biota, a group of Precambrian macrofossils taking its name from the type section in the Ediacaran hills of South Australia. Growing from an inch to several feet long, this air-mattress-like creature has been variously interpreted as anything from a fungus to an animal, according to Stephen Meyer in Darwin’s Doubt (see Figure 4.1 on p. 80).
Most paleontologists have concluded, Meyer says, that whatever it was, Dickinsonia was not an ancestor to the bilaterian animals that appeared in the Cambrian explosion, having lacked the essential traits that characterize bilaterians, such as a head, gut, sensory organs, or limbs (see pp. 81-86). It’s not even clear that it has bilateral symmetry at all, or the triploblastic structure (three distinct tissue layers; see p. 93) characteristic of true animals.
Three researchers from the University of California, Riverside, went to Australia and examined a thousand specimens of Dickinsonia. Did they find anything to change its status as a possible ancestor? The spin-prone NASA rag Astrobiology Magazine tries to make it seem so, announcing “New Study Sheds Light on Earth’s First Animals.” They include a large color picture of the creature.
More than 550 million years ago, the oceans were teeming with flat, soft-bodied creatures that fed on microbes and algae and could grow as big as bathmats. Today, researchers at the University of California, Riverside are studying their fossils to unlock the secrets of early life.
In their latest study, published today in the journal PLOS ONE, Scott Evans, a graduate student in the Department of Earth Sciences, and Mary Droser, a professor of paleontology, both in UCR’s College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, show that the Ediacaran-era fossil animal Dickinsonia developed in a complex, highly regulated way using a similar genetic toolkit to today’s animals. The study helps place Dickinsonia in the early evolution of animal life, and showcases how the large, mobile sea creature grew and developed. [Emphasis added.]
But what the article asserts in these opening paragraphs, it undermines at the end, showing that Dickinsonia could not have been in the evolutionary chain to the phyla that appeared in the Cambrian explosion (530-525 million years ago). They conclude:
The study showed that Dickinsonia’s development, and particularly that of the modules, was complex and systematic to maintain the oval shape of the animal. The accumulation of new modules, by a process called terminal addition, suggests that Dickinsonia developed in a related way to bilaterians, a complex group that display bilateral symmetry, including animals ranging from flies and worms to humans. However, the researchers do not believe Dickinsonia was ancestrally related to bilaterians, since it lacked other features that most bilaterians share, most notably a mouth, gut and anus.
“Although we saw some of the hallmark characteristics of bilateral growth and development, we don’t believe Dickinsonia was a precursor to today’s bilaterians, rather that these are two distinct groups that shared a common set of ancestral genes that are present throughout the animal lineage,” Evans said. “Dickinsonia most likely represents a separate group of animals that is now extinct, but can tell us a lot about the evolutionary history of animals.”
What can it tell about the evolutionary history of animals, however, if it (1) was not a precursor, (2) lacked the notable features of bilaterian animals, and (3) grew by “terminal addition” of new modules? Snowflakes and bubble mats can do that. Let’s see if the paper in PLOS ONE can shed any more light.
The Ediacara Biota represents the oldest fossil evidence for the appearance of animals but linking these taxa to specific clades has proved challenging. Dickinsonia is an abundant, apparently bilaterally symmetrical Ediacara fossil with uncertain affinities. We identified and measured key morphological features of over 900 specimens of Dickinsonia costata from the Ediacara Member, South Australia to characterize patterns in growth and morphology. Here we show that development in Dickinsonia costata was surprisingly highly regulated to maintain an ovoid shape via terminal addition and the predictable expansion of modules. This result, along with other characters found in Dickinsonia suggests that it does not belong within known animal groups, but that it utilized some of the developmental gene networks of bilaterians, a result predicted by gene sequencing of basal metazoans but previously unidentified in the fossil record. Dickinsonia thus represents an extinct clade located between sponges and the last common ancestor of Protostomes and Deuterostomes, and likely belongs within the Eumetazoa.
Did they find genes? No. Did they observe developmental gene networks? No. Did they find “stomes” (mouths) on these creatures? No. The connection to Protostomes (first mouth) and Deuterostomes (two mouths) is all inference. They had nearly a thousand of these creatures to look at, and only inferred that they lie somewhere between sponges and animals. And yet they admit that whatever Dickinsonia was, it went extinct.
Droser et al. place this creature within “an extinct lineage that split somewhere between sponges and the LCA [last common ancestor] of Protostomes and Deuterostomes,” meaning that it really has nothing to do with animals, which without exception have a mouth. For a transitional form, Dickinsonia is a pretty sad contender.
The highly regulated growth of Dickinsonia, along with features such as posterior addition, bilateral symmetry and organization around an anterior-posterior axis are characteristics found in bilaterians. However, most bilaterians are triploblastic and have a through gut and there is no evidence for the number of tissue layers or the presence of a mouth, anus or any type of gut in Dickinsonia. Some highly derived modern bilaterians do not have a through gut and many studies have demonstrated the importance of the secondary loss of characters in phylogenetic reconstructions, but it is unlikely that Dickinsonia is highly derived and our results suggest that it does not have the suite of characters necessary to be considered a crown group bilaterian.
If they had a better contender, they surely would offer it up. They do mention Kimberella as an incipient mollusk, and Helminthoidichnites as a hopeful bilaterian, acknowledging Graham Budd’s criticisms (Meyer, p. 85). But after combing through a thousand of these air mattress lookalikes, they can’t even bring themselves to postulate that Dickinsonia was a more complex (“derived”) animal that lost traits.
The only feature they try to attribute to evolution is apparent “highly regulated growth” of the organism to maintain its ovoid shape as it grows. But you can’t watch fossils grow, so that’s an inference, too. Nor can you watch fossils move, as they claim it did (again, by inference only, based on the slight difference between front and back ends). There’s no clear evidence of a second tissue layer, let alone a third. And they can’t even call the repeated structures “segments” which would presage a worm of some type. They call them “modules” instead. But do these modules really show a pattern of “highly regulated growth” and development?
We therefore conclude that the number of modules is not solely determined by overall size and that similarly sized specimens can have vastly different module numbers. The reasons for large differences in module number between specimens may simply be random…. This suggests that there was likely little functional significance in maintaining a specific number of modules with respect to size and highlights that conserving an ovoid shape and consistent length to width ratio was critical for D. costata.
What about the creature’s anatomy? Earlier reports “have suggested that Dickinsonia possessed complex internal structures,” but that idea got shot down, too:
No evidence for internal structures was observed in any specimens analyzed herein. All previous reports of features such as a through gut are likely due to deformation or the draping of Dickinsonia over irregular features present on the Ediacaran seafloor.
Perhaps that rules out claims of locomotion as well. We don’t see any evidence that Dickinsonia did much at all but sit there on the ocean floor. And if it grew, it didn’t grow like any other animal we know:
The plasticity of module number with respect to overall size between specimens of D. costata, despite the tight regulation on modular growth, suggests that module number is not a reliable proxy for age and that different specimens add and inflate modules at variable rates. This suggests that growth in Dickinsonia is fundamentally different from that of truly segmented animals.
We are not currently aware of any modern or extinct organism, segmented or otherwise, that grows in the same manner as D. costata. Any convergence between the growth of D. costata and modern organisms would likely reflect the importance of maintaining an ovoid shape and not phylogenetic ancestry.
Whatever similarities this creature might have had to other organisms, living or extinct, they chalk up to a familiar Darwinian magic wand, “convergent evolution.” It’s just out there, unique, distinct, unrelated — and extinct.
By the way, the paper never mentions a “genetic toolkit” that the NASA article bragged about. The authors only suggest that if the creature grew in a predictable way, it must have had “gene regulatory networks” like animals have. But if it did, it got those by convergent evolution, too, since it wasn’t on the line to the Cambrian animals.
In short, Dickinsonia doesn’t change the situation with the Cambrian explosion. We wonder if those putting out the money for this study are pleased with these pitiful results (the authors received funds from the NSF, NASA, National Geographic, and half a dozen other institutions). It’s worth knowing more about these creatures, but they don’t seem to offer any consolation for Darwinists.
The authors end by stating that more studies will be needed on other Ediacaran creatures in order “to gain further insight into the evolutionary history of early animals.” Translation: More funding, please. Meanwhile, Steve Meyer’s challenge stands.
War,Just and otherwise:The Watchtower Society's Commentary.
WAR:
A state of hostility accompanied by actions designed to subjugate or to destroy those viewed as the enemy. A number of Hebrew words involve waging war; one of these, from the verb root qa·ravʹ, means basically “come near,” that is, to fight. The Greek noun poʹle·mos means “war”; and the verb stra·teuʹo is from a root that refers to an encamped army.
The Bible says that Nimrod “went forth into Assyria,” which was evidently an act of aggression, into the territory of Asshur the son of Shem. There Nimrod built cities. (Ge 10:11) In Abraham’s day Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, subjected a number of cities (all apparently around the southern end of the Dead Sea) for a period of 12 years, forcing them to serve him. After they rebelled, Chedorlaomer and his allies warred against them, vanquishing the forces of Sodom and Gomorrah, taking their possessions, and capturing Abraham’s nephew Lot and his household. At that Abraham mustered 318 trained servants and, together with his three confederates, pursued Chedorlaomer and recovered the captives and the plunder. However, Abraham did not take any of the booty for himself. This is the first record of a war waged by a servant of God. Abraham’s warring to recover his fellow servant of Jehovah had Jehovah’s approval, for, on Abraham’s return, he was blessed by Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God.—Ge 14:1-24.
God-Ordained Warfare. Jehovah is “a manly person of war,” “the God of armies,” and “mighty in battle.” (Ex 15:3; 2Sa 5:10; Ps 24:8, 10; Isa 42:13) Not only has he the right as Creator and Supreme Sovereign of the universe but he is also obligated by justice to execute or authorize execution of the lawless, to war against all obstinate ones who refuse to obey his righteous laws. Jehovah was therefore just in wiping out the wicked at the time of the Flood, in destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, and in bringing destruction upon Pharaoh’s forces.—Ge 6:5-7, 13, 17; 19:24; Ex 15:4, 5; compare 2Pe 2:5-10; Jude 7.
Israel used as God’s executioner. Jehovah assigned the Israelites the sacred duty of serving as his executioners in the Promised Land to which he brought them. Prior to Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, the nation had not known warfare. (Ex 13:17) By victoriously directing Israel against “seven nations more populous and mighty” than they were, God magnified his name as “Jehovah of armies, the God of the battle lines of Israel.” This proved that “neither with sword nor with spear does Jehovah save, because to Jehovah belongs the battle.” (De 7:1; 1Sa 17:45, 47; compare 2Ch 13:12.) It also gave the Israelites the opportunity to demonstrate obedience to God’s commandments to the point of endangering their lives in God-ordained warfare.—De 20:1-4.
No aggression beyond the God-given limits. However, God strictly commanded Israel that they were not to engage in wars of aggression or conquest beyond the territory that he granted to them and that they were not to fight any nations except the ones he ordered them to fight. They were not to engage in strife with the nations of Edom, Moab, or Ammon. (De 2:4, 5, 9, 19) But they were attacked by these nations in later times and were forced to defend themselves against them in warfare. In this they had God’s help.—Jg 3:12-30; 11:32, 33; 1Sa 14:47.
When, during the period of the Judges, the king of Ammon tried to justify his aggressions against Israel by falsely charging Israel with taking Ammonite land, Jephthah refuted him by recalling the historical facts. Jephthah then proceeded to fight against these aggressors, on the principle that ‘every one whom Jehovah dispossesses before us we will dispossess.’ Jephthah would not relinquish an inch of Israel’s God-given land to any intruder.—Jg 11:12-27; see JEPHTHAH.
Sanctified warfare. Anciently, the fighting forces, before they entered battle, were customarily sanctified. (Jos 3:5; Jer 6:4; 51:27, 28) During warfare Israel’s forces, including non-Jews (for example, Uriah the Hittite, who was probably a circumcised proselyte), had to remain ceremonially clean. They could not have sexual relations, even with their own wives, during a military campaign. Accordingly, there were no prostitutes who followed Israel’s army. Moreover, the camp itself had to be kept clean from defilement.—Le 15:16, 18; De 23:9-14; 2Sa 11:11, 13.
When it was necessary to punish unfaithful Israel, those foreign armies bringing the destruction were viewed as ‘sanctified,’ in the sense that they were ‘set apart’ by Jehovah for the execution of his righteous judgments. (Jer 22:6-9; Hab 1:6) Similarly, those military forces (principally the Medes and Persians) who brought destruction on Babylon were spoken of by Jehovah as “my sanctified ones.”—Isa 13:1-3.
The false prophets in Israel, in their greediness, were said to “sanctify war” against anyone who did not put something into their mouths. Undoubtedly they sanctimoniously claimed divine sanction for their acts of oppression, which included sharing in the responsibility for the persecution and even the death of true prophets and servants of God.—Mic 3:5; Jer 2:8; La 4:13.
Conscription. At Jehovah’s command Israel’s able-bodied males 20 years old and upward were conscripted for military service. According to Josephus, they served up to the age of 50 years. (Jewish Antiquities, III, 288 [xii, 4]) The fearful and fainthearted were rejected because Israel’s wars were wars of Jehovah, and those displaying weakness of faith in fearfulness would tend to weaken the army’s morale. Exemptions were given to men who had just completed a new house, as well as to those who had planted a vineyard and had not used its fruitage. These exemptions were based on the right of a man to enjoy the fruitage of his work. The newly married man was exempt for one year. During this time the man might be able to have and to see an heir. Here Jehovah revealed his concern and consideration for the family. (Nu 1:1-3, 44-46; De 20:5-8; 24:5) The Levites, who took care of the service at the sanctuary, were exempt, showing that Jehovah considered the spiritual welfare of the people more important than military defense.—Nu 1:47-49; 2:32, 33.
Laws concerning assault and siege of cities. Jehovah instructed Israel as to military procedure in the conquest of Canaan. The seven nations of Canaan, named at Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, were to be exterminated, including women and children. Their cities were to be devoted to destruction. (De 20:15-17) According to Deuteronomy 20:10-15, other cities were first warned and terms of peace extended. If the city surrendered, the inhabitants were spared and put to forced labor. This opportunity to surrender, together with the assurance that their lives would be spared and their women would not be raped or molested, was an inducement to such cities to capitulate to Israel’s army, thus avoiding much bloodshed. If the city did not surrender, all males were killed. Killing the men removed danger of later revolt by the city. “The women and the little children” were spared. That “women” here no doubt means virgins is indicated by Deuteronomy 21:10-14, where prospective war brides are described as mourning for parents, not for husbands. Also, earlier, when Israel defeated Midian, it is specifically stated that only virgins were spared. Such sparing of only virgins would serve to protect Israel from false worship and no doubt from sexually transmitted diseases. (Nu 31:7, 17, 18) (As to the justice of God’s decree against the Canaanite nations, see CANAAN, CANAANITE [Conquest of Canaan by Israel].)
Food-producing trees were not to be cut down for siegeworks. (De 20:19, 20) Horses of the enemy were hamstrung during the heat of battle to incapacitate them; after the battle they undoubtedly were killed.—Jos 11:6.
Not All of Israel’s Wars Were Proper. Israel’s lapsing into a course of unfaithfulness was accompanied by conflicts that were little more than power struggles. This was the case with Abimelech’s warring against Shechem and Thebez in the time of the Judges (Jg 9:1-57), as well as Omri’s warfare against Zimri and Tibni, which led to his being firmly established in the kingship over the ten-tribe kingdom. (1Ki 16:16-22) Also, instead of relying on Jehovah for protection from their enemies, the Israelites began to trust in military might, horses and chariots. Thus, in the time of Isaiah, the land of Judah was “filled with horses” and there was “no limit to their chariots.”—Isa 2:1, 7.
Ancient War Strategy and Tactics. Spies were sometimes sent out ahead of the attack to ascertain conditions existing in the land. Such spies were not sent to initiate unrest, revolt, or subversive underground movements. (Nu 13:1, 2, 17-19; Jos 2:1; Jg 18:2; 1Sa 26:4) Special trumpet calls were employed for mustering forces, for war calls, and for signaling unified action. (Nu 10:9; 2Ch 13:12; compare Jg 3:27; 6:34; 7:19, 20.) On occasion forces were divided and deployed in flanking attacks, or in ambush and decoy operations. (Ge 14:15; Jos 8:2-8; Jg 7:16; 2Sa 5:23, 24; 2Ch 13:13) In at least one instance, at Jehovah’s direction, singers of praise to God were put in the vanguard, ahead of the armed forces. God fought that day for Israel, throwing the camp of the enemy into confusion so that the enemy soldiers killed one another.—2Ch 20:20-23.
Fighting was to a great extent hand to hand, man against man. A variety of weapons were used—swords, spears, javelins, arrows, slingstones, and so forth. During the conquest of the Promised Land, Israel did not rely on horses and chariots; their trust was in the saving power of Jehovah. (De 17:16; Ps 20:7; 33:17; Pr 21:31) Not until later times did the armies of Israel employ horses and chariots, as did the Egyptians and others. (1Ki 4:26; 20:23-25; Ex 14:6, 7; De 11:4) Foreign armies were sometimes equipped with war chariots having iron scythes extending from their axles.—Jos 17:16; Jg 4:3, 13.
War tactics changed during the course of the centuries. Generally, Israel did not concentrate on developing instruments of offensive warfare, though considerable attention was given to fortification. King Uzziah of Judah is noted for building “engines of war, the invention of engineers,” but these were primarily for the defense of Jerusalem. (2Ch 26:14, 15) In order to be able to attack the higher and weaker part of a city’s wall, the Assyrian and Babylonian armies, particularly, were known for their siege walls and their siege ramparts. These ramparts served as inclined planes up which towers with battering rams were brought; from these towers, the archers and slingers fought. Along with these were other forms of siege engines, including giant rock throwers. (2Ki 19:32; Jer 32:24; Eze 4:2; Lu 19:43) At the same time the defenders of the city attempted to hold off the attack by means of archers, slingers, as well as by soldiers who would throw firebrands from their walls and towers and from missile-throwing engines inside the city. (2Sa 11:21, 24; 2Ch 26:15; 32:5) In assaulting walled fortifications, one of the first things attempted was the cutting off of the city’s water supply, while the city about to be besieged often stopped up water sources around the city to deprive the attackers of their use.—2Ch 32:2-4, 30.
On defeating an enemy, the victors sometimes stopped up wells and springs in the area and spread stones over the ground, occasionally sowing the ground with salt.—Jg 9:45; 2Ki 3:24, 25; see ARMS, ARMOR; FORTIFICATIONS.
Jesus Foretells War. Jesus, the man of peace, observed that “those who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Mt 26:52) He declared to Pilate that, had his Kingdom been of this world, his attendants would have fought to prevent his being delivered up to the Jews. (Joh 18:36) Yet he foretold that Jerusalem, because of rejecting him as the Messiah, would in time suffer siege and desolation, during which her “children” (inhabitants) would be dashed to the ground.—Lu 19:41-44; 21:24.
Shortly before his death, Jesus gave prophecies that applied to that generation and also to the time when his presence in Kingdom power would begin: “You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars; see that you are not terrified. For these things must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom.”—Mt 24:6, 7; Mr 13:7, 8; Lu 21:9, 10.
Christ Wages War as “King of Kings.” The Bible reveals that the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, with ‘all authority in heaven and on earth’ granted to him by his Father, will engage in a warfare that will destroy all of God’s enemies and establish everlasting peace, as his title “Prince of Peace” implies.—Mt 28:18; 2Th 1:7-10; Isa 9:6.
The apostle John had a vision of things to take place after Christ’s enthronement in heaven. The words of Psalms 2:7, 8 and 110:1, 2 had foretold that God’s Son would be invited to ‘ask of Jehovah the nations as his inheritance,’ and that Jehovah would respond by sending him forth to ‘go subduing in the midst of his enemies.’ (Heb 10:12, 13) John’s vision depicted a war in heaven in which Michael, that is, Jesus Christ (see MICHAEL No. 1), led the armies of heaven in a war against the Dragon, Satan the Devil. The outcome of that war was the hurling of the Devil and his angels to the earth. This war immediately followed the ‘birth of the male child’ who was to rule the nations with a rod of iron. (Re 12:7-9) A loud voice in heaven then announced: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ.” This brought relief and joy to the angels; but it presaged troubles, including wars, for the earth, as the declaration continued: “Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time.”—Re 12:10, 12.
After Satan was hurled to the earth, he made God’s servants on earth, the remaining ones of the ‘seed of the woman,’ “who observe the commandments of God and have the work of bearing witness to Jesus,” his chief target. Satan initiated warfare against them that included both a spiritual conflict and actual persecution, even resulting in death for some. (Re 12:13, 17) Succeeding chapters of Revelation (13, 17-19) describe the agents and instruments Satan uses against them, as well as the victorious outcome for God’s holy ones under their Leader Jesus Christ.
‘War of the great day of God Almighty.’ The 19th chapter of Revelation gives a view of the greatest war of all human history, surpassing anything that men have ever witnessed. Earlier in the vision it is called “the war of the great day of God the Almighty.” Aligned against Jehovah and the Lord Jesus Christ as the Commander of God’s armies, the hosts of heaven, are the symbolic “wild beast and the kings of the earth and their armies” assembled to the site of this war by “expressions inspired by demons.” (Re 16:14; 19:19) None of God’s earthly servants are pictured as having part in this battle. The earthly kings “will battle with the Lamb, but, because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them.” (Re 17:14; 19:19-21; see HAR–MAGEDON.) Following this fight, Satan the Devil himself is to be bound for a thousand years, “that he might not mislead the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended.”—Re 20:1-3.
With the conclusion of this war, the earth will enjoy peace for a thousand years. The psalm that declares “[Jehovah] is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth. The bow he breaks apart and does cut the spear in pieces; the wagons he burns in the fire,” had initial fulfillment in God’s bringing peace to Israel’s land by wrecking the enemy’s war instruments. After Christ defeats the promoters of war at Har–Magedon, the extremity of this earthly globe will enjoy full and satisfying peace. (Ps 46:8-10) Persons favored with eternal life will be those who have beaten “their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears” and who do not “learn war anymore.” “For the very mouth of Jehovah of armies has spoken it.”—Isa 2:4; Mic 4:3, 4.
War threat forever ended. Revelation’s vision goes on to show that at the end of the thousand years Satan the Devil will be brought back from his binding in the abyss and will again induce many to come up to wage war against those remaining loyal to God. But no damage will be done, for ‘fire will come down out of heaven’ and devour these enemies, thereby removing all threat of war forever.—Re 20:7-10.
Christian Warfare. While the Christian does not engage in a physical war against blood and flesh (Eph 6:12), he is engaged in warfare nonetheless, a spiritual fight. The apostle Paul describes the war waged within the Christian between “sin’s law” and “God’s law,” or ‘the law of the mind’ (the Christian mind in harmony with God).—Ro 7:15-25.
This warfare of the Christian is an agonizing one, requiring the exertion of every effort for a person to come off winner. But he can be confident of victory through the undeserved kindness of God through Christ and the help of God’s spirit. (Ro 8:35-39) Jesus said of this fight: “Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door” (Lu 13:24), and the apostle Peter counseled: “Keep abstaining from fleshly desires, which are the very ones that carry on a conflict [or, “are doing military service” (stra·teuʹon·tai)] against the soul.”—1Pe 2:11, Int; compare Jas 4:1, 2.
Against wicked spirits. In addition to this warfare against sin’s law, the Christian has a fight against the demons, who take advantage of the tendencies of the flesh by tempting the Christian to sin. (Eph 6:12) In this warfare the demons also induce those under their influence to tempt or to oppose and persecute Christians in an effort to get them to break their integrity to God.—1Co 7:5; 2Co 2:11; 12:7; compare Lu 4:1-13.
Against false teachings. The apostle Paul also spoke of a warfare that he and his associates were waging, in carrying out their commission as those appointed to care for the Christian congregation. (2Co 10:3) The congregation at Corinth had been wrongly influenced by presumptuous men called by Paul “false apostles” who, by giving undue attention to personalities, had caused divisions, sects, in the congregation. (2Co 11:13-15) They became, in effect, followers of men such as Apollos, Paul, and Cephas. (1Co 1:11, 12) The members of the congregation lost the spiritual viewpoint, that these men were merely representatives of Christ, unitedly serving the same purpose. They became fleshly. (1Co 3:1-9) They viewed men in the congregation ‘according to what they were in the flesh,’ their appearance, natural abilities, personalities, and so forth, instead of regarding them as spiritual men. They failed to recognize that God’s spirit was operating in the congregation, and that men such as Paul, Peter, and Apollos were accomplishing what they did by God’s spirit, for His glory.
Therefore, Paul was impelled to write them: “Indeed I beg that, when present, I may not use boldness with that confidence with which I am counting on taking bold measures against some who appraise us as if we walked according to what we are in the flesh. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God; and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ.”—2Co 10:2-5.
Paul wrote to Timothy, whom he had left in Ephesus to care for the congregation there: “This mandate I commit to you, child, Timothy, in accord with the predictions that led directly on to you, that by these you may go on waging the fine warfare; holding faith and a good conscience.” (1Ti 1:18, 19) Not only did Timothy have before him conflicts because of sinful flesh and because of the opposition of the enemies of the truth but he also had to wage warfare against the infiltration of false doctrine and of those who would corrupt the congregation. (1Ti 1:3-7; 4:6, 11-16) His actions would fortify the congregation against the apostasy that Paul knew would occur after the apostles passed off the scene. (2Ti 4:3-5) So it was a real fight that Timothy had to wage.
Paul was able to say to Timothy: “I have fought the fine fight, I have run the course to the finish, I have observed the faith.” (2Ti 4:7) Paul had maintained his faithfulness to Jehovah and Jesus Christ by right conduct and service in the face of opposition, suffering, and persecution. (2Co 11:23-28) He had additionally discharged the responsibility of his office as an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, fighting the war to keep the Christian congregation clean and spotless, as a chaste virgin, and as “a pillar and support of the truth.”—1Ti 3:15; 1Co 4:1, 2; 2Co 11:2, 29; compare 2Ti 2:3, 4.
God’s material support of the Christian. In the warfare of the Christian, God views the Christian as His soldier and, therefore, provides him with the necessary material things. The apostle argues, with regard to the authority of one serving as a minister to others: “Who is it that ever serves as a soldier at his own expense?”—1Co 9:7.
Christians and Wars of the Nations. Christians have always maintained strict neutrality as to fleshly warfare between nations, groups, or factions of any kind. (Joh 18:36; Eph 6:12) For examples of the attitude of the early Christians in this respect, see ARMY (Those Known As Early Christians).
Other Uses. In the song of Barak and Deborah, after the victory over the army of Jabin, king of Canaan, a circumstance is recalled that sets forth a principle: “They [Israel] proceeded to choose new gods. It was then there was war in the gates.” (Jg 5:8) As soon as they forsook Jehovah for false worship, trouble came, with the enemy pressing at the very gates of their cities. This is in harmony with the psalmist’s declaration: “Unless Jehovah himself guards the city, it is to no avail that the guard has kept awake.”—Ps 127:1.
At Ecclesiastes 8:8, Solomon wrote: “There is no man having power over the spirit to restrain the spirit; . . . nor is there any discharge in the war.” In the day of death the dying person cannot restrain the spirit, or force of life, and keep it from returning to God the Giver and Source, so as to live longer. Dying humans cannot control the day of death and prevent it from ever reaching them. They cannot, by any human efforts, be discharged from the war that the enemy Death wages against all mankind without exception. Sinful man cannot get some other sinful man to substitute for him in death and thus enjoy a furlough from death. (Ps 49:6-9) Only through Jehovah’s undeserved kindness by means of Jesus Christ is relief possible. “Just as sin ruled as king with death, likewise also undeserved kindness might rule as king through righteousness with everlasting life in view through Jesus Christ our Lord.”—Ro 5:21.
A state of hostility accompanied by actions designed to subjugate or to destroy those viewed as the enemy. A number of Hebrew words involve waging war; one of these, from the verb root qa·ravʹ, means basically “come near,” that is, to fight. The Greek noun poʹle·mos means “war”; and the verb stra·teuʹo is from a root that refers to an encamped army.
The Bible says that Nimrod “went forth into Assyria,” which was evidently an act of aggression, into the territory of Asshur the son of Shem. There Nimrod built cities. (Ge 10:11) In Abraham’s day Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, subjected a number of cities (all apparently around the southern end of the Dead Sea) for a period of 12 years, forcing them to serve him. After they rebelled, Chedorlaomer and his allies warred against them, vanquishing the forces of Sodom and Gomorrah, taking their possessions, and capturing Abraham’s nephew Lot and his household. At that Abraham mustered 318 trained servants and, together with his three confederates, pursued Chedorlaomer and recovered the captives and the plunder. However, Abraham did not take any of the booty for himself. This is the first record of a war waged by a servant of God. Abraham’s warring to recover his fellow servant of Jehovah had Jehovah’s approval, for, on Abraham’s return, he was blessed by Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God.—Ge 14:1-24.
God-Ordained Warfare. Jehovah is “a manly person of war,” “the God of armies,” and “mighty in battle.” (Ex 15:3; 2Sa 5:10; Ps 24:8, 10; Isa 42:13) Not only has he the right as Creator and Supreme Sovereign of the universe but he is also obligated by justice to execute or authorize execution of the lawless, to war against all obstinate ones who refuse to obey his righteous laws. Jehovah was therefore just in wiping out the wicked at the time of the Flood, in destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, and in bringing destruction upon Pharaoh’s forces.—Ge 6:5-7, 13, 17; 19:24; Ex 15:4, 5; compare 2Pe 2:5-10; Jude 7.
Israel used as God’s executioner. Jehovah assigned the Israelites the sacred duty of serving as his executioners in the Promised Land to which he brought them. Prior to Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, the nation had not known warfare. (Ex 13:17) By victoriously directing Israel against “seven nations more populous and mighty” than they were, God magnified his name as “Jehovah of armies, the God of the battle lines of Israel.” This proved that “neither with sword nor with spear does Jehovah save, because to Jehovah belongs the battle.” (De 7:1; 1Sa 17:45, 47; compare 2Ch 13:12.) It also gave the Israelites the opportunity to demonstrate obedience to God’s commandments to the point of endangering their lives in God-ordained warfare.—De 20:1-4.
No aggression beyond the God-given limits. However, God strictly commanded Israel that they were not to engage in wars of aggression or conquest beyond the territory that he granted to them and that they were not to fight any nations except the ones he ordered them to fight. They were not to engage in strife with the nations of Edom, Moab, or Ammon. (De 2:4, 5, 9, 19) But they were attacked by these nations in later times and were forced to defend themselves against them in warfare. In this they had God’s help.—Jg 3:12-30; 11:32, 33; 1Sa 14:47.
When, during the period of the Judges, the king of Ammon tried to justify his aggressions against Israel by falsely charging Israel with taking Ammonite land, Jephthah refuted him by recalling the historical facts. Jephthah then proceeded to fight against these aggressors, on the principle that ‘every one whom Jehovah dispossesses before us we will dispossess.’ Jephthah would not relinquish an inch of Israel’s God-given land to any intruder.—Jg 11:12-27; see JEPHTHAH.
Sanctified warfare. Anciently, the fighting forces, before they entered battle, were customarily sanctified. (Jos 3:5; Jer 6:4; 51:27, 28) During warfare Israel’s forces, including non-Jews (for example, Uriah the Hittite, who was probably a circumcised proselyte), had to remain ceremonially clean. They could not have sexual relations, even with their own wives, during a military campaign. Accordingly, there were no prostitutes who followed Israel’s army. Moreover, the camp itself had to be kept clean from defilement.—Le 15:16, 18; De 23:9-14; 2Sa 11:11, 13.
When it was necessary to punish unfaithful Israel, those foreign armies bringing the destruction were viewed as ‘sanctified,’ in the sense that they were ‘set apart’ by Jehovah for the execution of his righteous judgments. (Jer 22:6-9; Hab 1:6) Similarly, those military forces (principally the Medes and Persians) who brought destruction on Babylon were spoken of by Jehovah as “my sanctified ones.”—Isa 13:1-3.
The false prophets in Israel, in their greediness, were said to “sanctify war” against anyone who did not put something into their mouths. Undoubtedly they sanctimoniously claimed divine sanction for their acts of oppression, which included sharing in the responsibility for the persecution and even the death of true prophets and servants of God.—Mic 3:5; Jer 2:8; La 4:13.
Conscription. At Jehovah’s command Israel’s able-bodied males 20 years old and upward were conscripted for military service. According to Josephus, they served up to the age of 50 years. (Jewish Antiquities, III, 288 [xii, 4]) The fearful and fainthearted were rejected because Israel’s wars were wars of Jehovah, and those displaying weakness of faith in fearfulness would tend to weaken the army’s morale. Exemptions were given to men who had just completed a new house, as well as to those who had planted a vineyard and had not used its fruitage. These exemptions were based on the right of a man to enjoy the fruitage of his work. The newly married man was exempt for one year. During this time the man might be able to have and to see an heir. Here Jehovah revealed his concern and consideration for the family. (Nu 1:1-3, 44-46; De 20:5-8; 24:5) The Levites, who took care of the service at the sanctuary, were exempt, showing that Jehovah considered the spiritual welfare of the people more important than military defense.—Nu 1:47-49; 2:32, 33.
Laws concerning assault and siege of cities. Jehovah instructed Israel as to military procedure in the conquest of Canaan. The seven nations of Canaan, named at Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, were to be exterminated, including women and children. Their cities were to be devoted to destruction. (De 20:15-17) According to Deuteronomy 20:10-15, other cities were first warned and terms of peace extended. If the city surrendered, the inhabitants were spared and put to forced labor. This opportunity to surrender, together with the assurance that their lives would be spared and their women would not be raped or molested, was an inducement to such cities to capitulate to Israel’s army, thus avoiding much bloodshed. If the city did not surrender, all males were killed. Killing the men removed danger of later revolt by the city. “The women and the little children” were spared. That “women” here no doubt means virgins is indicated by Deuteronomy 21:10-14, where prospective war brides are described as mourning for parents, not for husbands. Also, earlier, when Israel defeated Midian, it is specifically stated that only virgins were spared. Such sparing of only virgins would serve to protect Israel from false worship and no doubt from sexually transmitted diseases. (Nu 31:7, 17, 18) (As to the justice of God’s decree against the Canaanite nations, see CANAAN, CANAANITE [Conquest of Canaan by Israel].)
Food-producing trees were not to be cut down for siegeworks. (De 20:19, 20) Horses of the enemy were hamstrung during the heat of battle to incapacitate them; after the battle they undoubtedly were killed.—Jos 11:6.
Not All of Israel’s Wars Were Proper. Israel’s lapsing into a course of unfaithfulness was accompanied by conflicts that were little more than power struggles. This was the case with Abimelech’s warring against Shechem and Thebez in the time of the Judges (Jg 9:1-57), as well as Omri’s warfare against Zimri and Tibni, which led to his being firmly established in the kingship over the ten-tribe kingdom. (1Ki 16:16-22) Also, instead of relying on Jehovah for protection from their enemies, the Israelites began to trust in military might, horses and chariots. Thus, in the time of Isaiah, the land of Judah was “filled with horses” and there was “no limit to their chariots.”—Isa 2:1, 7.
Ancient War Strategy and Tactics. Spies were sometimes sent out ahead of the attack to ascertain conditions existing in the land. Such spies were not sent to initiate unrest, revolt, or subversive underground movements. (Nu 13:1, 2, 17-19; Jos 2:1; Jg 18:2; 1Sa 26:4) Special trumpet calls were employed for mustering forces, for war calls, and for signaling unified action. (Nu 10:9; 2Ch 13:12; compare Jg 3:27; 6:34; 7:19, 20.) On occasion forces were divided and deployed in flanking attacks, or in ambush and decoy operations. (Ge 14:15; Jos 8:2-8; Jg 7:16; 2Sa 5:23, 24; 2Ch 13:13) In at least one instance, at Jehovah’s direction, singers of praise to God were put in the vanguard, ahead of the armed forces. God fought that day for Israel, throwing the camp of the enemy into confusion so that the enemy soldiers killed one another.—2Ch 20:20-23.
Fighting was to a great extent hand to hand, man against man. A variety of weapons were used—swords, spears, javelins, arrows, slingstones, and so forth. During the conquest of the Promised Land, Israel did not rely on horses and chariots; their trust was in the saving power of Jehovah. (De 17:16; Ps 20:7; 33:17; Pr 21:31) Not until later times did the armies of Israel employ horses and chariots, as did the Egyptians and others. (1Ki 4:26; 20:23-25; Ex 14:6, 7; De 11:4) Foreign armies were sometimes equipped with war chariots having iron scythes extending from their axles.—Jos 17:16; Jg 4:3, 13.
War tactics changed during the course of the centuries. Generally, Israel did not concentrate on developing instruments of offensive warfare, though considerable attention was given to fortification. King Uzziah of Judah is noted for building “engines of war, the invention of engineers,” but these were primarily for the defense of Jerusalem. (2Ch 26:14, 15) In order to be able to attack the higher and weaker part of a city’s wall, the Assyrian and Babylonian armies, particularly, were known for their siege walls and their siege ramparts. These ramparts served as inclined planes up which towers with battering rams were brought; from these towers, the archers and slingers fought. Along with these were other forms of siege engines, including giant rock throwers. (2Ki 19:32; Jer 32:24; Eze 4:2; Lu 19:43) At the same time the defenders of the city attempted to hold off the attack by means of archers, slingers, as well as by soldiers who would throw firebrands from their walls and towers and from missile-throwing engines inside the city. (2Sa 11:21, 24; 2Ch 26:15; 32:5) In assaulting walled fortifications, one of the first things attempted was the cutting off of the city’s water supply, while the city about to be besieged often stopped up water sources around the city to deprive the attackers of their use.—2Ch 32:2-4, 30.
On defeating an enemy, the victors sometimes stopped up wells and springs in the area and spread stones over the ground, occasionally sowing the ground with salt.—Jg 9:45; 2Ki 3:24, 25; see ARMS, ARMOR; FORTIFICATIONS.
Jesus Foretells War. Jesus, the man of peace, observed that “those who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Mt 26:52) He declared to Pilate that, had his Kingdom been of this world, his attendants would have fought to prevent his being delivered up to the Jews. (Joh 18:36) Yet he foretold that Jerusalem, because of rejecting him as the Messiah, would in time suffer siege and desolation, during which her “children” (inhabitants) would be dashed to the ground.—Lu 19:41-44; 21:24.
Shortly before his death, Jesus gave prophecies that applied to that generation and also to the time when his presence in Kingdom power would begin: “You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars; see that you are not terrified. For these things must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom.”—Mt 24:6, 7; Mr 13:7, 8; Lu 21:9, 10.
Christ Wages War as “King of Kings.” The Bible reveals that the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, with ‘all authority in heaven and on earth’ granted to him by his Father, will engage in a warfare that will destroy all of God’s enemies and establish everlasting peace, as his title “Prince of Peace” implies.—Mt 28:18; 2Th 1:7-10; Isa 9:6.
The apostle John had a vision of things to take place after Christ’s enthronement in heaven. The words of Psalms 2:7, 8 and 110:1, 2 had foretold that God’s Son would be invited to ‘ask of Jehovah the nations as his inheritance,’ and that Jehovah would respond by sending him forth to ‘go subduing in the midst of his enemies.’ (Heb 10:12, 13) John’s vision depicted a war in heaven in which Michael, that is, Jesus Christ (see MICHAEL No. 1), led the armies of heaven in a war against the Dragon, Satan the Devil. The outcome of that war was the hurling of the Devil and his angels to the earth. This war immediately followed the ‘birth of the male child’ who was to rule the nations with a rod of iron. (Re 12:7-9) A loud voice in heaven then announced: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ.” This brought relief and joy to the angels; but it presaged troubles, including wars, for the earth, as the declaration continued: “Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time.”—Re 12:10, 12.
After Satan was hurled to the earth, he made God’s servants on earth, the remaining ones of the ‘seed of the woman,’ “who observe the commandments of God and have the work of bearing witness to Jesus,” his chief target. Satan initiated warfare against them that included both a spiritual conflict and actual persecution, even resulting in death for some. (Re 12:13, 17) Succeeding chapters of Revelation (13, 17-19) describe the agents and instruments Satan uses against them, as well as the victorious outcome for God’s holy ones under their Leader Jesus Christ.
‘War of the great day of God Almighty.’ The 19th chapter of Revelation gives a view of the greatest war of all human history, surpassing anything that men have ever witnessed. Earlier in the vision it is called “the war of the great day of God the Almighty.” Aligned against Jehovah and the Lord Jesus Christ as the Commander of God’s armies, the hosts of heaven, are the symbolic “wild beast and the kings of the earth and their armies” assembled to the site of this war by “expressions inspired by demons.” (Re 16:14; 19:19) None of God’s earthly servants are pictured as having part in this battle. The earthly kings “will battle with the Lamb, but, because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them.” (Re 17:14; 19:19-21; see HAR–MAGEDON.) Following this fight, Satan the Devil himself is to be bound for a thousand years, “that he might not mislead the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended.”—Re 20:1-3.
With the conclusion of this war, the earth will enjoy peace for a thousand years. The psalm that declares “[Jehovah] is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth. The bow he breaks apart and does cut the spear in pieces; the wagons he burns in the fire,” had initial fulfillment in God’s bringing peace to Israel’s land by wrecking the enemy’s war instruments. After Christ defeats the promoters of war at Har–Magedon, the extremity of this earthly globe will enjoy full and satisfying peace. (Ps 46:8-10) Persons favored with eternal life will be those who have beaten “their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears” and who do not “learn war anymore.” “For the very mouth of Jehovah of armies has spoken it.”—Isa 2:4; Mic 4:3, 4.
War threat forever ended. Revelation’s vision goes on to show that at the end of the thousand years Satan the Devil will be brought back from his binding in the abyss and will again induce many to come up to wage war against those remaining loyal to God. But no damage will be done, for ‘fire will come down out of heaven’ and devour these enemies, thereby removing all threat of war forever.—Re 20:7-10.
Christian Warfare. While the Christian does not engage in a physical war against blood and flesh (Eph 6:12), he is engaged in warfare nonetheless, a spiritual fight. The apostle Paul describes the war waged within the Christian between “sin’s law” and “God’s law,” or ‘the law of the mind’ (the Christian mind in harmony with God).—Ro 7:15-25.
This warfare of the Christian is an agonizing one, requiring the exertion of every effort for a person to come off winner. But he can be confident of victory through the undeserved kindness of God through Christ and the help of God’s spirit. (Ro 8:35-39) Jesus said of this fight: “Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door” (Lu 13:24), and the apostle Peter counseled: “Keep abstaining from fleshly desires, which are the very ones that carry on a conflict [or, “are doing military service” (stra·teuʹon·tai)] against the soul.”—1Pe 2:11, Int; compare Jas 4:1, 2.
Against wicked spirits. In addition to this warfare against sin’s law, the Christian has a fight against the demons, who take advantage of the tendencies of the flesh by tempting the Christian to sin. (Eph 6:12) In this warfare the demons also induce those under their influence to tempt or to oppose and persecute Christians in an effort to get them to break their integrity to God.—1Co 7:5; 2Co 2:11; 12:7; compare Lu 4:1-13.
Against false teachings. The apostle Paul also spoke of a warfare that he and his associates were waging, in carrying out their commission as those appointed to care for the Christian congregation. (2Co 10:3) The congregation at Corinth had been wrongly influenced by presumptuous men called by Paul “false apostles” who, by giving undue attention to personalities, had caused divisions, sects, in the congregation. (2Co 11:13-15) They became, in effect, followers of men such as Apollos, Paul, and Cephas. (1Co 1:11, 12) The members of the congregation lost the spiritual viewpoint, that these men were merely representatives of Christ, unitedly serving the same purpose. They became fleshly. (1Co 3:1-9) They viewed men in the congregation ‘according to what they were in the flesh,’ their appearance, natural abilities, personalities, and so forth, instead of regarding them as spiritual men. They failed to recognize that God’s spirit was operating in the congregation, and that men such as Paul, Peter, and Apollos were accomplishing what they did by God’s spirit, for His glory.
Therefore, Paul was impelled to write them: “Indeed I beg that, when present, I may not use boldness with that confidence with which I am counting on taking bold measures against some who appraise us as if we walked according to what we are in the flesh. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God; and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ.”—2Co 10:2-5.
Paul wrote to Timothy, whom he had left in Ephesus to care for the congregation there: “This mandate I commit to you, child, Timothy, in accord with the predictions that led directly on to you, that by these you may go on waging the fine warfare; holding faith and a good conscience.” (1Ti 1:18, 19) Not only did Timothy have before him conflicts because of sinful flesh and because of the opposition of the enemies of the truth but he also had to wage warfare against the infiltration of false doctrine and of those who would corrupt the congregation. (1Ti 1:3-7; 4:6, 11-16) His actions would fortify the congregation against the apostasy that Paul knew would occur after the apostles passed off the scene. (2Ti 4:3-5) So it was a real fight that Timothy had to wage.
Paul was able to say to Timothy: “I have fought the fine fight, I have run the course to the finish, I have observed the faith.” (2Ti 4:7) Paul had maintained his faithfulness to Jehovah and Jesus Christ by right conduct and service in the face of opposition, suffering, and persecution. (2Co 11:23-28) He had additionally discharged the responsibility of his office as an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, fighting the war to keep the Christian congregation clean and spotless, as a chaste virgin, and as “a pillar and support of the truth.”—1Ti 3:15; 1Co 4:1, 2; 2Co 11:2, 29; compare 2Ti 2:3, 4.
God’s material support of the Christian. In the warfare of the Christian, God views the Christian as His soldier and, therefore, provides him with the necessary material things. The apostle argues, with regard to the authority of one serving as a minister to others: “Who is it that ever serves as a soldier at his own expense?”—1Co 9:7.
Christians and Wars of the Nations. Christians have always maintained strict neutrality as to fleshly warfare between nations, groups, or factions of any kind. (Joh 18:36; Eph 6:12) For examples of the attitude of the early Christians in this respect, see ARMY (Those Known As Early Christians).
Other Uses. In the song of Barak and Deborah, after the victory over the army of Jabin, king of Canaan, a circumstance is recalled that sets forth a principle: “They [Israel] proceeded to choose new gods. It was then there was war in the gates.” (Jg 5:8) As soon as they forsook Jehovah for false worship, trouble came, with the enemy pressing at the very gates of their cities. This is in harmony with the psalmist’s declaration: “Unless Jehovah himself guards the city, it is to no avail that the guard has kept awake.”—Ps 127:1.
At Ecclesiastes 8:8, Solomon wrote: “There is no man having power over the spirit to restrain the spirit; . . . nor is there any discharge in the war.” In the day of death the dying person cannot restrain the spirit, or force of life, and keep it from returning to God the Giver and Source, so as to live longer. Dying humans cannot control the day of death and prevent it from ever reaching them. They cannot, by any human efforts, be discharged from the war that the enemy Death wages against all mankind without exception. Sinful man cannot get some other sinful man to substitute for him in death and thus enjoy a furlough from death. (Ps 49:6-9) Only through Jehovah’s undeserved kindness by means of Jesus Christ is relief possible. “Just as sin ruled as king with death, likewise also undeserved kindness might rule as king through righteousness with everlasting life in view through Jesus Christ our Lord.”—Ro 5:21.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)