Black lives don't matter?:Pros and cons.

Would you buy a used theory from these people?

For Selling Evolution, a Little Knowledge Is a Glorious Thing

Jonathan Witt | @JonathanRWitt

The authors of a recent  Bioscience paper say their survey research shows “that Americans’ views on evolution are significantly influenced by their knowledge about this theory.” Many Americans reject evolution, the paper suggests, because they’re uniformed. 

But there are problems with the survey and the conclusions drawn from the results. I’ll get to those in a bit, but first I want to confess that I was suspicious of the paper’s claim from the outset because in my experience, many Americans accept evolution because they are uninformed. That is, they have heard the popular arguments for the theory but have encountered little if any of the strongest evidence against it. 

Even many highly educated evolutionists betray a curious ignorance of evidence against evolution, evidence that sits in plain sight both in and beyond the peer-reviewed literature. Jonathan Wells details a recent instance of that here. 

To be sure, one can know various facts that make trouble for evolution and still accept it. But the more of this eyebrow-raising information you know, the more mental gymnastics you’ll need to perform in order to embrace modern evolutionary theory — contortions that many Americans are either unable or unwilling to perform. 

Rendering evolution palatable for those Americans means serving them just the right concoction of evolution ed. — not too hot, not too cold, but just right. Call it the Goldilocks zone of evolutionary pedagogy. 

This, I think, is why the pro-Darwin lobby resists our recommended policy of teaching public high school biology students more rather than less about evolution — the evidence not only for it but also against it. 

Evolution Porridge

Like baby bear’s porridge in the Goldilocks tale, it’s just right to know that evolution is not a purely random process — that natural selection plays a clever role. But it’s too hot to know that studies of microbes such as E. coli suggest that there are severe limits to how far the random mutation/natural selection mechanism can evolve an organism, even given millions of years.

Pro-evolution educators also regard it as just right to know that beak size has “evolved” among the finches of the Galápagos Islands, a tidbit that regularly pops up in high school biology textbooks. But it’s not helpful to know — and thus rarely mentioned — that their beaks vary only within a narrow range,or that finches long viewed as separate species  actually interbreed. 

Again, it’s just right to know that the vertebrate eye is wired “backwards,” creating a tiny blind spot in our eyes, something one might neatly explain by reference to the trial-and-error process of evolution. Darwinists love to mention this. But too hot to touch is the knowledge that specialists in the vertebrate eye have shown decisively that the so-called “backward wiring” is actually a clever engineering solution to the vertebrate eye’s high demand for oxygen.

It’s also just right to know that the fossil record suggests that the history of life on Earth moves from microbes to larger, brainless life forms on the ocean floor, to sophisticated sea creatures in the Cambrian, to land animals and now humans. But it’s too much to further learn that the pattern of the fossil record is one in which new animal body plans appear suddenly. It’s equally unhelpful to learn that even some leading paleontologists view this as a major unsolved problem for evolution, not something to be blithely waved away be vague talk of an incomplete fossil record. 

This problem is so unhelpful for selling evolution that Darwinists in Texas tried to  remove it from the state biology standards last year. (I know, because I was there during the hearings) This information about the pattern of the fossil record, you see, makes for papa bear porridge — too hot for impressionable young minds to taste. 

So that’s my experience. And that’s the experience of scientists such as Michael Behe (professor, Lehigh University), Douglas Axe (former postdoc researcher at University of Cambridge), Jonathan Wells (PhD, UC Berkeley), and others. Time and again they’ve had their nuanced arguments against blind evolution reduced to unrecognizable strawmen, the better to blow the arguments over. 

Wells, in fact, has written two books on the Darwinists’ zeal for what I’m calling Goldilocks pedagogy. Both detail how evolutionists obsessively recycle debunked factoids about evolution, and resist including updated information in textbooks that would show why these icons of evolution collapse under scrutiny. 

The Survey on Evolution Acceptance

So, now let’s return to the new survey reported on in the journal Bioscience. Do the results really demonstrate that knowing more about science and evolution increases a student’s willingness to accept evolutionary theory? What follows are some things that heighten my skepticism.

First, the study’s conclusions run counter to some earlier studies. That doesn’t mean the study is wrong. But somebody got it wrong, and it might just as easily have been these researchers as the other ones. 

As for the survey itself, some of the wording, and some of the reasoning used to interpret the survey results, suggest to me that the authors are uninformed about important contours of the evolution debate. 

To be fair, there is one promising moment early on in their Bioscience paper describing their survey. “Extant surveys … may not fully capture Americans’ views about evolutionary theory,” they write. “For the current study, we therefore developed a new measure of acceptance.” 

Good! A lot of the older evolution surveys are simplistic, missing key options among the set of multiple choice answers.

The authors of the new study underscore the problem, citing one prominent older poll, then explain how they tried to fix things:

[The Gallup] poll asks which of three options comes closest to respondents’ views on the origin and development of human beings: (1) human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process; (2) human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process; and (3) God created human beings pretty much in their current form in the last 10,000 years or so. Because this question offers three possible answers, it is better than most. However, these three options do not allow for any nuance about God’s role in evolution; the “guidance” could take many forms. We thus added a fourth answer option, reflecting a deistic view: God set up the laws of nature, which then unfolded on their own.

That’s a step in the right direction. Many contemporary biologists fall squarely under this new deism option, while nevertheless styling themselves theistic evolutionists. Why? I hesitate to guess at motive, but many of them are church-going Christians, so it’s possible they want to minimize the difference between their deistic picture of origins, and orthodox Christian theism’s picture of a cosmic maker getting his hands dirty at multiple points in his fashioning of the world. 

The authors of this latest survey noticed the difference nonetheless. Good for them. It’s a better survey question thanks to the addition.

The Survey’s Big, Big Gap

Unfortunately, the researchers left out one major option. Call it option five: God made various plant and animal forms in a series of discrete creative bursts over many millions of years. God created human beings pretty much in their current form. Some microevolution, and some mass extinctions, occurred in the history of life, but there was no macroevolution giving rise to fundamentally new biological forms.

That is a major option to leave out of the survey! Some prominent intelligent design thinkers have made arguments that place them squarely in the option five category. Their work has put them in the national spotlight at times, and landed at least one of the books on the New York Times bestseller list. 

That this new survey doesn’t even offer a multiple choice option for this prominent view is telling. It tells us the survey makers either don’t understand, or don’t care to capture in their survey, this prominent part of the ID/evolution landscape. It also tells us we should view the survey and its results with a healthy measure of skepticism.

This is only the first of several things that get muddled in the survey. At another point the researchers write that “we asked people to choose which of the following options best described how they think animals and plants came to exist on Earth.” They give four options. The latter three represent deistic evolution, theistic evolution, and materialistic/naturalistic evolution respectively. What about the first of the four options? It reads: “Animals and plants were created by God in more or less their current form.”

But what if you reject the latter three options but don’t like this first option either. What if you are convinced that many creatures made directly by God have gone extinct? What if you think that all dog breeds are descended from wolves? Many people might consider it a real stretch to say that a wiener dog and a wolf have “more or less” the same form. What if you think that some pretty distinct cat species share a common ancestor, but that cats and dogs do not share a common ancestor? I’m describing a significant swath of the American public here, but there’s not a single answer option for them on this multiple choice question.

Those are glaring problems. There are subtler but still significant problems at other points in the survey. 

Conflating Understanding and Acceptance of Evolution

The authors ask if there’s a positive relation between acceptance of evolutionary theory and knowledge of the theory. They answer in the affirmative. But some of their questions conflate acceptance and understanding, thus invalidating any statistical results on this score.

One of the multiple choice questions reads:

Bats’ wings and dogs’ legs are made up of the same kinds of bones in the same arrangement. Scientists think this is because:

a.Bats’ wings and dogs’ legs work the same way.

b.Bats descended from dogs.

c.Bats and dogs descend from a common ancestor.

d.This arrangement is the best possible for all mammals.

This portion of the survey purports to tease out how well the respondent understands the theory of evolution, separate and apart from whether she actually accepts it. But any skeptic of modern evolutionary theory dialed into the debate knows that scientists do not all think alike on this matter. 

Most biologists would check off answer c, but thousands of scientists, including some biologists, reject option c. If you know this, you may bridle at this survey question. It smacks of the “science says” bluff that pro-evolution lobbyists habitually indulge in. (That suspicion is reinforced by the fact that none of the alternative options capture the standard ID position in an accurate, non-tendentious way.) 

So, if you came to this survey question and bridled at its slanted language, how might you respond? You might take a deep breath and remind yourself that the survey question is designed merely to determine if you know what evolutionists think is the right answer. Or you might be sufficiently annoyed by the misleading language that you refuse to fill in the answer c bubble, even knowing that this is what most biologists think.

Another set of questions tries to see if you are a slave to authority or, instead, are willing to think independently. But a slave to which authority? What if you view the authority of the “science says” and “scientists think” lobby as suspect? What if you insist on thinking independently about all that, too?  

If so, you might also bridle at this survey question:

Scientists think that DDT resistance evolved in mosquitos because:

a.Individual mosquitos learned to avoid DDT and passed that ability to their babies.

b.Individual mosquitos that did not have a resistance to DDT died, so only those that were resistant to DDT had babies. 

c.Individual mosquitos became resistant to DDT because they needed to be.

Answer b is right, taken in isolation, but it doesn’t quite fit the setup. The setup asks what caused DDT resistance to evolve in mosquitos. But under answer b, the DDT-resistant mosquitoes have already evolved. They already exist. All that happens in c is that they come to dominate a mosquito population. Recognizing this, a respondent could view all three answer options as flawed.

The respondent might then go fishing for the least wrong answer. Well, hmm, a dilemma. Option c might be referring to a random mutation event that conferred the DDT resistance. It incorrectly frames it as something the mosquitoes were striving toward, but at least option c mentions, however obscurely, the mutational event that generated the DDT resistance in the first place. So perhaps that’s the least wrong of the wrong answers, the respondent might conclude, and so pick option c. 

For this more nuanced and knowledgeable reflection and response, the respondent would get dinged as less knowledgeable.

Question Why One Might Question Authority

As for the section measuring your attitude towards authority, there is cause for concern here as well. A series of questions are designed to see if the respondent has a slavish regard for authority, which would compromise his ability to do science and therefore presumably mean he was less likely to accept evolution. Is it more important, this series of questions asked, for a kid to be “respectful of their elders or independent,” “creative or well behaved,” “good-mannered or curious,” “self-reliant or obedient”? 

The survey found that those who accept naturalistic evolution tilt away from the respectful/well-behaved/good mannered/obedient set of options (β = –1.68, p < .001). But is this because such people have been schooled in the scientific virtues of creativity, curiosity, independence, and self-reliance and so are better equipped to appreciate evolution? Maybe, but as every first-semester student of statistics or logic learns, correlation isn’t causation. 

And there is another possible cause the survey makers appear to ignore. Atheist Richard Dawkins has said that Darwin’s theory of evolution made it possible to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Some people may be attracted to evolutionary theory precisely because they want to cast off the authority of a religious upbringing, and of a father God they view as morally constricting. Such people, particularly if they were raised in a religious home, might well put less stock in being “obedient” and “respectful of their elders.”

I am not advocating here for one cause over the other. My point is more modest: The survey makers should have considered both possible causes and not merely assumed the one over the other. 

What we are advocating for is more evolution education in our schools — exposing students to evidence not just for modern evolutionary theory but also to evidence from the peer-reviewed literature that challenges aspects of the theory. Let students grapple critically with the evidence pro and con. That’s good science education. 

Tiny homes; The next big thing?

Paradise stolen?

Another display of Darwinism's immunity to falsification?

Hunter: With Darwinism, “The Theory Is Always Driving the Ideas In Spite of the Evidence”
Evolution News | @DiscoveryCSC

Here on a new episode of ID the Future is a quite a neat and even charming conversation between biologist Ray Bohlin and biophysicist Cornelius Hunter. Dr. Hunter offers another instance illustrating how with Darwinism, “the theory is always driving the ideas in spite of the evidence.” It’s this “religious” motivation behind the theory that Hunter notes as a theme in his writing here at Evolution News.

Listen to the podcast or download it here.

Hunter explains how mitochondria, the powerhouse of eukaryotic cells, pose a powerful and newly acute problem for evolution. For years evolutionists thought that some early cells must somehow have brought other cells inside of them, “gobbled them up” in technical terms, and those other cells then mysteriously evolved into mitochondria. 

But recent research undermines that notion. Why do many evolutionists then still cling to the idea? Because, as Hunter says, in many ways, religion not empiricism drives science. Evidence is interpreted to fit the theory, rather the theory being driven by the evidence. Funny state of affairs.

All data is created equal?:pros and cons.

Been there done that and then some.

The undead continue to wander Darwinism's badlands.

There You Go Again, Nathan Lents
Jonathan Wells

Nathan Lents is professor of biology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. In 2015, Dr. Lents wrote  on his “Human Evolution” blog” blog, “The human eye is a well-tread [sic] example of how evolution can produce a clunky design.” It’s clunky because

the photoreceptor cells of the retina appear to be placed backward, with the wiring facing the light and the photoreceptor facing inward…. This is not an optimal design for obvious reasons. The photons of light must travel around the bulk of the photoreceptor cell in order to hit the receiver tucked in the back. It’s as if you were speaking into the wrong end of a microphone.

According to Lents, “there are no working hypotheses about why the vertebrate retina is wired in backwards. It seems to have been a random development that then ‘stuck’ because a correction of that magnitude would be very difficult to pull off with random mutations” in the course of evolution.

In 2017, I published a book titled  Zombie Science, which included a chapter on the human eye showing why the “clunky design” claim doesn’t fit the evidence. The claim is false because the photoreceptor cells in the human retina are so active that they must be nourished by a dense network of blood vessels and constantly renewed by a layer of specialized epithelial cells. If the blood vessels and epithelial cells were in front of the photoreceptor cells, where Lents thinks they should be, we would be almost blind. Instead, human eyes (and the eyes of other animals with backbones) are  very well designed.

Apparently, Dr. Lents didn’t read my book. That’s OK; I don’t have time to read every book written even by my own colleagues. Instead, Dr. Lents just published his own book titled Human Errors , in which he repeats on page 5 his claim that the human eye is badly designed because the photoreceptor cells “appear to be installed backward.”

Over thirty years ago, Richard Dawkins had used this claim as an argument for Darwinian evolution in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker. Since then the argument has been repeated by evolutionary biologists George Williams, Kenneth R. Miller, Douglas Futuyma, and Jerry Coyne, among others.

But even before Dawkins published his claim in 1986, scientists writing in standard textbooks on eye physiology had shown why the “backwards retina” is functionally better than its opposite. Those scientists and textbooks included Gordon Walls in The Vertebrate Eye (Hafner, 1963); Sidney Futterman in Adler’s Physiology of the Eye (Mosby, 1975); and Paul Henkind, Richard Hansen, and Jeanne Szalay in Physiology of the Human Eye and the Visual System (Harper & Row, 1979). Abundant evidence that Dawkins’s claim was false had also been published in scientific journals in  1967, 1969, 1973, and 1985.

Obviously, Dawkins didn’t bother to check the scientific literature before claiming that the human eye is badly designed. He simply assumed that Darwinian evolution is true and that he knew how an eye should be designed. Williams, Miller, Futuyma, Coyne, and Lents also neglected to check the scientific literature when they repeated Dawkins’s false claim.

For most people (myself included), science is an enterprise that pursues truth by comparing hypotheses with evidence. For some people, science is an enterprise that searches for natural explanations on the assumption that everything can be explained in terms of material objects and the forces among them. Mind, spirit, free will, and God are excluded from consideration. The first is empirical science; the second is applied materialistic philosophy. When people persist in defending materialistic explanations even when they don’t fit the evidence (and are thus empirically dead), I call this enterprise  “zombie science.” 

The argument that the bad design of human eyes provides evidence for Darwinian evolution and against intelligent design is an example of zombie science. 

Yet more on avoiding the ranks of the insane.

On avoiding the ranks of the insane.

On trinitarians' shifting of the goalposts.

The relationship between God and his people is frequently described by God as one of marriage. He is the “husband” and his true worshipers are the “wife.” As in a scriptural marriage the true worshipers (“the wife”) must be completely faithful to their head, Jehovah alone. When the worshiper(s) are unfaithful to him, God describes them as “adulterous,” “adulteresses,” “harlots.” He rejects or “divorces” such ones, and they are to be destroyed for their “adultery.” In spite of wanting to be in favor with the one true God, many of His people throughout history have also become enamored with false gods and philosophies and want to add these things to their worship. They have used different rationalizations to justify their infidelity or “adultery.” One of these rationalizations may be called “redefinition” since it takes a well-known term or concept and gives it a new meaning to help justify their “adultery.” 

To illustrate, let’s imagine a country where men are in a 3-to-one majority over women. Women, however, have come to dominate in all areas including government. One of the laws of the land handed down through the ages is - “Monogamy must be maintained: One man can have only one wife, and one woman can have only one husband.” 

Imagine, then, that Christina is married to Abbot. She knows the law of the land, but she secretly marries Sonny anyway. Later she also secretly marries Hollis. When all this is exposed, she declares that Abbott, Sonny, and Hollis are all her husband. In the one husband, she declares, there are three persons (all equally her one husband). The one woman became “one flesh” with her first husband. The two became one flesh. In like manner, therefore, the three men have become “one flesh” with the woman. Obviously, then, the 3 persons are actually one “husband” (one flesh) to the woman. 

The women of this land really like Christina’s interpretation of the law (which is actually based on a redefinition of the terms “husband” and “monogamy”), so they declare that it is the correct legal definition. The law, then, appears to remain the same: only one husband for a woman. But now each woman can marry more than one man. It is still “monogamy” and she still has only one “husband” according to the redefinition. Of course up until this time the term “husband” had always meant one man, and “monogamy” had always meant “one man married to one woman.” 

So everyone is happy now! Or are they? 

If this law were simply made by humans to satisfy a need at the time, then it certainly can (and should) be changed as needed as time passes. But if this law were a command from the Almighty Supreme Deity and Creator of mankind, His creatures have absolutely no right to change its original meaning to suit their desires. 

So this redefinition is, in reality, adultery. It is literal adultery on Christina’s part no matter how she redefines terms. It is literal adultery no matter what the rest of the nation says --- no matter what the “orthodox” is defined (or redefined) to be by the human judges, the spiritual leaders, etc. It is an adultery of the clear meaning of the original terms. It is an adultery of God’s law. It is “adultery” and “harlotry” in the nation’s relationship to God. And it is “adultery” in an individual’s relationship to God if she accepts this new “orthodox”redefinition of God’s law and marries more than one person (or even merely quietly condones this redefinition of God’s word for her fellows)! 

The very same kind of redefinition has been used by trinitarians from the beginning (fourth century A.D.) to commit adultery in their relationship to the one true God. In order to ‘legally’ change the ‘orthodox’ knowledge of the only true God and Jesus Christ (which means eternal life - John 17:3), they have made up new meanings for (redefined) “God” and “monotheism”! And in the process they also had to redefine other terms such as (1) “beginning,” (2) “firstborn,” (3) “only-begotten,” (4) “image” [eikon and charakter], (5) “substance/essence,” (6) “eternal generation,” (7) echad, (8) ego eimi, (9) ehyeh, (10)harpagmos, (11) huparchon, (12) morphe, (13) Logos, (14) theos, (15) and even God’s only personal name (%&%*, “Jehovah” or “Yahweh”). 

The only true God had always been revealed to His people as a single person. The word “God” as applied to the Creator had no other meaning than one single person! He was known as the Father, and his singular, personal name was “Jehovah”! There was no other meaning for “God” among the Israelites and all their sects (including Christians) untilChristendom began to desire a “God” that conformed to the understanding of the very influential, “intellectual” pagan religions and philosophies of the time - (see the ISRAEL and HIST studies). 

At this time (around the fourth century A.D. - hundreds of years after the deaths of the Apostles and even the “Apostolic Fathers”) Christendom developed and “legalized” the trinity doctrine of three persons being equally the one God - (see HIST study). To do this (and still claim to keep the Scriptures as the word of God) they tried to change portions of the Scriptures by adding and deleting certain portions as they made new copies. This was only partly successful for them. Over the centuries many of these have been discovered and restored to their original wording. But they also redefined and reinterpreted many parts of the Holy Scriptures. This was more successful for them, although they still had to claim the new doctrine as a “Mystery” that could not be understood since it was still so contradictory, confusing, and unreasonable. 

First, of course, the word “God” was redefined by them from the originally intended and understood “single-person” meaning to a “multiple-person” meaning. (This, of course is parallel with our example of the adulterous woman above. She redefined “husband” from the originally intended and understood “single person” meaning to a “multiple-person” meaning.) 

Along with this the term “monotheism” had to be redefined (much as “monogamy” in the example above )[A]. What had been considered from the first as “the belief in one person only as the only Most High God” was now redefined as “the belief in one God (who is composed of many individuals).” Now Christendom could have as many persons who were “God” as they liked - the very essence of the highly influential “upper class” polytheistic pagan religions surrounding them - see the HIST study. 

This is exactly what the adulterous nation in our example did: “monogamy” was redefinedfrom its original meaning of “marriage of one person to another single person” to “marriage of one person to one multiple-person ‘husband’”!) 

In reality, of course, this is merely a method of applying the word “monogamy” to the paganistic practice of polygamy[B]

In the very same way the redefining of the word “monotheism” by Christendom is merely a method of applying the word “monotheism” to the paganistic practice of polytheism![C] 

Some Examples of Trinitarian Redefinition 

 (1) “Beginning” (arkhe in NT Greek). In the writings of the Apostle John there was only one meaning for the NT word arkhe: “beginning.” True, a few NT writers (Paul and Luke) occasionally gave different meanings (“magistrate,” “power,” “principality,” “principle,” “rule” according to Strong’s Concordance) for this word, but John, in all his writings, did not. And he always used other words for “ruler” and “source.” 

Many trinitarians, however, had to redefine John’s intended meaning for this NT Greek word because of one scripture: Rev. 3:14. Since the doctrine of Jesus and God that they had invented insisted that Jesus had always existed, they could not allow the originally-intended meaning of John that Jesus was the “beginning of God’s creation.” Instead, theyredefined John’s intended meaning of arkhe as either “source” or “ruler” - see NIV; NEB;NAB; LB; GNB. For evidence that this is a false interpretation of John’s intended meaning for this scripture see the BWF study. 

(2) “Firstborn” (prototokos in NT Greek). This word in the scriptures has never meant anything but what it literally says: “the one born (or produced) first”! In fact, it is even paralleled in scripture by “the beginning of his father’s [creative or procreative] power” (e.g. Gen. 49:3, which of course also parallels the description of Jesus in #1 above: “Thebeginning of God’s [Jesus’ Father’s] creation”). Instead, some trinitarians have redefinedthis word as “the pre-eminent one.” They did this, again, because of one scripture: Col. 1:15. Paul here calls Jesus: “the firstborn of creation”! Since this also clearly means Jesus was the first creation of God (like Rev. 3:14 above), they were forced to redefine prototokos(but only at Col. 1:15). For evidence of the impropriety of this interpretation see the BWF study. 

(3) “Only-begotten” (monogenes in NT Greek). This word in the scriptures has never meant anything but what it literally says: “the only one born (or generated)”! It is used in scripture to describe one who is the only offspring of a parent. It would not be applied to an adopted child, for instance, but only to the one who, alone, was actually produced, generated, or created by that parent. Instead, some trinitarians have redefined this word as “only” so that “the only-begotten Son” can now be interpreted as “the only Son.” This was done in an attempt to allow for the interpretation that Jesus has always existed and was never created or produced by the Father (although the clear significance of the word ‘Son’ itself even testifies otherwise). For evidence of the impropriety of this trinitarian redefinitionsee the OBGOD study. 

(4) “Image” (eikon and charakter). These words are sometimes applied to Jesus Christ as the “image of God” or the “stamp of God” (as in the stamped impression of a king, president, etc. found on a coin). - 2 Cor. 4:4 and Heb. 1:3. 

As any objective person would immediately admit, an image (or stamped impression) of something is merely a representation of the real thing. It cannot actually be the real thing itself simply because it is an image of the real thing! The Greek words above that are applied to Jesus mean, then, that Jesus cannot actually be God! 

But trinitarians have “redefined” these terms to mean (only when applied to Jesus, of course) that somehow the image really is the thing it represents! See the IMAGE study (section #2 and endnote #6).

(5) “Substance/essence” (substantia, ousia, and homoousia [“same substance/essence”]).Ousia is used only twice in scripture and means “estate” as in the sense of “possessions, property” - Luke 15:12, 13, NASB; “property,” RSV; cf. NIV. However, those who actually invented the trinity doctrine and forced it upon the rest of the world of Christendom (Council of Nicaea - 325 A. D. and Council of Constantinople - 381 A. D.) desperately sought for justification of their theory of God. So they appealed to the writings of earlier Christians, in particular the extremely influential Origen. Homoousia (never used in Scripture at all!) was apparently used in the paganistic Gnostic religion to describe how “the heavenly powers shared in the divine fullness,” but Origen used it (before 231 A.D.) in the sense of “a unity ofwill” (see #7, “one,” below). So when the trinitarians appealed to the writings of Origen to justify their “unity of substance” of the Father and Son, they were actually redefiningOrigen’s well-known (at that time) intended meaning for the term. They also appealed to the writings of Tertullian and his use of “unity of substantia” of the Son of God with God. But, again, trinitarians actually redefined Tertullian’s intended meaning for the word. See the HIST study, notes #86-88 and #105-108. 

As an example, here’s a quote from Origen’s Origen De Principiis, IV, 1, 36: 

“Everyone who participates in anything, is unquestionably of one essence and nature with him who is a partaker of the same thing. For example, as all eyesparticipate in the light, so accordingly all eyes which partake of the light are of one nature.” - p. 381, Vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans Publishing, 1989 printing.

So according to Origen’s own example of “one nature”: the bird, cat, man, and angel who are all watching the same light are “of one essence and nature”! All it means is that two or more things have something in common! My dog and I enjoying a swim in the same pond are “of one ‘essence’ and nature” according to Origen’s usage! My beautiful daughter and her cat, Moose, who are both frightened by the same vicious dog are “of one ‘essence’ and nature”! 

Apparently even as early as 268 A.D. this term had come to have a different meaning for some Christians. Noted scholar (and trinitarian) Robert M. Grant tells us that the Bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, “seems to have been willing to speak of the Logos [the Word] ashomoousios with the Father; this notion too was condemned at the final synod of 268.” Grant tells us that this same Council or Synod of 268 A.D. also excommunicated Paul of Samosata! - Augustus to Constantine, p. 218, Harper and Row, 1970. 

It would be strange indeed if those Christians who condemned this doctrine believed thathomoousios was intended to mean by Paul what it had meant for Origen (and other early Christians). They surely would not have disagreed with the statement that the Word (Logos) was united in will [homoousios] with the Father as Origen and others taught. 

Therefore these Christians must have known that the heretical Bishop was intending a newmeaning that God and the Word were of one substance in a more literal sense that suggested that Jesus was equally God (and they most emphatically denied that teaching!). At any rate, it is certainly significant that this council so strongly condemned the concept that the Logos was homoousios in a new literal sense with God as late as 268 A.D.!

“The trinity of persons within the unity of nature [substance/essence] is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[reek] philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.” - Dictionary of the Bible by trinitarian J. L. McKenzie (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1965), p. 899.

(6) “Eternal generation.” This, also, is a completely non-scriptural term. However, many trinitarians were unable to deny that Scripture showed that the Son was generated or produced by the Father. They needed a redefinition of this idea to protect their “the Son has existed eternally” idea. So they turned to Origen, again, pointed to his use of the term “eternal generation,” and claimed that this, somehow, meant that, although the Son had been “generated” by the Father, he, nevertheless, had existed eternally. However, as they well knew at that time, Origen did not intend such a meaning. Trinitarian Church historian, Bernard Lohse admits that Origen intended a different meaning for “eternally generated” from what later trinitarians changed it to: 

“It has thus an entirely different foundation from that of a similar idea found in the later theology of the Trinity” - p. 47, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, 1985, Fortress Press.

(7) “One” (echad in OT Hebrew). This ancient Hebrew word was used, in this form, echad, to mean numerical oneness. For example, “one cow” would be written as “echad cow.” It was used hundreds of times in scripture and, in this form, never meant “a multiple unity,” “aplural oneness,” etc. However, trinitarians were worried about the clear statement at Deut. 6:4 - “Jehovah is our God, Jehovah is one [echad].” God’s chosen people from the time of Moses to the time of the first Christians (in fact Judaism from its beginning down to today still has the same understanding) understood this as meaning God is one person only - Jehovah, the Father! So some trinitarians redefined the clear meaning of echad as “multiple oneness” so they could “interpret” this scripture as “Jehovah [or the LORD] is a multipleoneness” or “a plural unity.” This is a completely false and dishonest translation of echad. - See the ECHAD study.

Also “one” in the NT Greek at John 10:30 has been redefined by many trinitarians. When Jesus said ‘the Father and I are one,’ he clearly meant ‘we are one (or united) in purposeand will.’ - see the ONE study. But you know, of course, what many (most?) trinitarians say this means. 

(8) ego eimi (literally, “I am”). There is no doubt that this term is usually translated into English as “I am” (occasionally “I was,” “I have been,” or “it is I”). But at John 8:58 trinitarians want it to mean much more. Among other claims they make for this term at this scripture, many trinitarians claim that since the clause ends with the words “I am” in this scripture this, somehow, makes it “Absolute”! Being “Absolute” causes it to mean, they claim, “I ameternally existent” or “I have existed eternally.” There is absolutely no valid reason to invent such a meaning (or redefine “I am”)! We only have to look at other places where egoeimi is “Absolute” to see that this redefinition is absolute nonsense. 2 Kings (2 Samuel in English Bibles) 15:26 - King David uses the “Absolute” ego eimi “Behold, I AM” - Septuagint. Is. 6:8 - Isaiah identifies himself with the same “Absolute” ego eimi “Behold, I AM” - Septuagint. And, in the New Testament, John 9:9 - The ex-blind man identifies himself with the “Absolute” ego eimi “I am he” - KJV, ASV. 

And even when we examine Jesus’ use of this “Absolute” ego eimi, we find the same thing. John 6:20 - Jesus identifies himself to his frightened disciples, who think he is an apparition, by using the “Absolute” ego eimi “It is I” - KJV, RSV. No trinitarian Bible ever interprets Jesus’ identification of himself here as “I am eternal” (and it would be incredibly ludicrous if it did)! Also see John 18:5,8. These (and many other instances of the “Absolute” ego eimi)plainly do not mean “I am eternal,” so why should any honest, rational Bible student claim it must mean that at John 8:58? - See the I AM study. 

Some trinitarians have used this same redefinition for another “be” verb: en (hn in NT Greek characters) which is usually translated “was.” They insist that the “was” (hn) found in Jn 1:1 must be defined as meaning that the Word (Jesus) was “eternally” with God and “eternally” was God. This is as ludicrous and dishonest as the above redefinition. -see "Was" and "Beginning" in John 1:1 .

(9) Ehyeh in OT Hebrew. This word means (and is nearly always rendered into English) “I will be” every time it is used in the Scriptures. More important, for discussions of Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58, It is ALWAYS rendered as “I will be” in all of Moses writings! However, trinitarians have redefined this word to mean “I Am” (at Exodus 3:14 only). They have done this in an attempt to provide some basis for a trinitarian “I Am” reasoning for John 8:58. But the word simply does not mean “I am” at Ex. 3:14, and its Greek translation at Ex. 3:14 in the ancient Septuagint (ca. 200 B.C.) also does not mean “I am” (even though some dishonest trinitarians claim it is the very same Greek wording used by Jesus at John 8:58)! - See the I AM study. 

(10) Harpagmos in NT Greek. This word occurs only once in the NT at Phil. 2:6. However, it occurs 16 times in the ancient OT Greek Septuagint. In every case it means “taking something by force” or “something taken by force.” We know that the NT Greek word from which harpagmos derived (harpazo) means the “act of seizing or something seized.” It invariably has the meaning of “forceful seizure”: taking something forcefully from someoneagainst his will. 

But many trinitarians have redefined this word at Phil. 2:6 because its true meaning disproves the trinity doctrine. So they give harpagmos the new meaning of “cling to,” “held onto,” “retained,” “grasped,” etc. - See the PHIL study.

(11) Huparchon in NT Greek. Although this NT Greek word literally means “under abeginning,” it is commonly translated as one of the “be” verbs (“is,” “was,” “being,” “existed”). However, some trinitarians insist that it means an endless existence! The onlytime they insist on this meaning is when it is found at Phil. 2:6! It is not difficult to find other uses of this term in the NT. They not only never mean “an eternal pre-existence” or “continuing to exist eternally,” but they clearly are speaking of things that have come intoexistence. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (trinitarian) even defines huparchon as “toBEGIN under (quietly). i.e. come into existence” - #5225. 

In other words, the honest, intended meaning for huparchon could be brought out by translating it into English as “came into existence” but not as “always existed” (or anything comparable)! This means that Phil. 2:6 could be honestly translated “Who, though he came into existence [huparchon] in the form of God (or ‘a god’), did not even consider forcefully seizing [harpagmos] equality with God.” It cannot be honestly translated (with the trinitarian-redefined huparchon) as “he always [huparchon] had the nature [form] of God.” - TEV. See the PHIL study. 

(12) Morphe in NT Greek. A few trinitarian “scholars” even attempt to redefine morphe(again, only at Phil. 2:6) as including the idea of absolute “essence” or “nature”! The word actually is defined in NT lexicons of respected trinitarian scholars as “form in the sense ofoutward appearance” and “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision” (cf. Mark 16:12).

So morphe is not honestly translated with its trinitarian-redefined meaning: “he always had the nature [morphe] of God.” - TEV. Instead, an honest translation of Phil. 2:6 could be “he came into existence [huparchon] with the outward appearance [“form” - morphe] of God [or ‘a god’].” - See the PHIL study. 

(13) Logos (“Word” in NT Greek). This NT Greek word is used by John in the prologue of his Gospel (Jn 1:1-18). He uses it in a way that is not used elsewhere in the New or Old Testament, but he assumes that his readers (late first century Jews) already understand that term since he does not explain it. It is obvious from the way John uses this Logos that it is meant to describe Jesus’ heavenly pre-existence. Jn 1:1 tells us that the Logos (“the Word”) was with God in the beginning. And it even says that the Logos was theos (“God” or “a god” in NT Greek). Trinitarians have interpreted this to mean that John was using theLogos concept of Greek paganism. Therefore, many of them say, John really meant “TheLogos was God”! They say that the paganistic Greek Logos was understood to be God, so John, likewise, used the term in that way.

However, it is unlikely that John would use such a pagan term or that he would expect his Jewish readers (who were forbidden by the Holy Scriptures to even read or study such things) to understand such a meaning for that term. But even if he did, the Logos was still not equally God, even in Greek paganism. 

There is a meaning for Logos, however, that was popularly known by first and second century Jews. This is the Logos concept taught by the famed first century Jewish scholar Philo. Philo accepted the Holy Scriptures as the infallible, inspired word of God. He tried to teach all men (including the Greeks and Romans) that the Scriptures were the teachings of the only true God, the Father alone. So he adapted (redefined) some of the terms the Greeks were already familiar with (including Logos) to conform to the truth of the Bible. His teachings became very popular among Jews throughout the ancient world. 

It is very important to know that the Logos of Philo which most Jews were familiar with,unlike the Logos of paganism, was described by such terms as John used to describe hisLogos. These terms include “Son of God” [Jn 1:34]; one who is “with God” [Jn 1:1]; “light” [Jn 1:4]; “manna” [Jn 6:31-51]; “shepherd” [Jn 10:11]; “Paraclete” (‘Comforter,’ ‘Advocate,’ ‘Helper’) [1 Jn 2:1]; one “through [dia] which the cosmos originated” [Jn 1:3]; and one “from which drawing water one may find eternal life instead of death” [Jn 4:14], etc. 

But most important, for this discussion, the well-known Jewish Logos of Philo specifically called the “the Word” theos. As all commentators on Philo’s Logos doctrine will attest (including all trinitarians who are willing to discuss it at all), Philo never used the definite article with theos when he intended it to be used for the Logos. Furthermore, he intended the meaning of “a god” by this usage, whereas he always used the definite article with theoswhen he intended it to be used for God! 

So when trinitarians say John intended the meaning of “the Word (Logos) was God” at John 1:1, they are redefining John’s original meanings of both Logos and theos.

(14) the anarthrous (without the definite article) theos (see the BOWGOD study) as found at John 1:1. - Also see the LOGOS and PRIMER studies. 

Of course trinitarians have had to redefine many other terms. Perhaps the worst of all trinitarian redefinitions, however, is the actual changing of God’s Most Holy Personal Name. Men may have many titles: President; Boss; Judge; Senator; Doctor; Admiral; Lord; Brother; etc. But every individual person has only one personal name: Theodore Roosevelt; Isaac Newton (“Sir” is a title); Thomas Jefferson; Moses; Joshua; Jesus. Yes, “Jesus” is the only personal name of the Christ (title), the Son of God (title), our Savior (title) and King (title). This personal name has the literal meaning of “Jehovah is the Savior” or “Jehovah Saves.” Think of the sacrilege, the blasphemy of actually redefining Jesus’ very own personal name. 

What should we think of anyone who actually rewrote the original manuscripts of the NT by “translating” every instance of the thousands of uses of the personal name “Jesus” found in the inspired scriptures as “LAMB”? Then the name “Jesus” would no longer appear in the thousands of places it was originally written at God’s direction and command. For example Luke 1:31 would now read: 

“And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name the LAMB,”

and Phil. 2:10, 11 would now read: 

“That at the name of the LAMB every knee should bow .... and that every tongue should confess the Christ, the LAMB is Lord”!

Wouldn’t this be an obvious example of blasphemous redefinition? 

(15) Well, then, the very same thing is even more blasphemous when it concerns the only personal name of God himself, “Jehovah” (which has the literal meaning of “He Who Will Be”)! Of the nearly 7000 times the inspired Bible writers used God’s only personal name in the Scriptures, most trinitarian Bibles (e.g., RSV, NASB, NIV, GNB) have redefined them all as the LORD. Some, such as the KJV, have used the proper translation of “Jehovah” (English form) or “Yahweh” (possible Hebrew form) fewer than ten times and then redefinedthe 6000 (plus) other instances as “the LORD”! They have done this in spite of the fact that God has commanded that his holy personal name be known and used forever! 

“Yes, tell [the Israelites], JEHOVAH, the God of your ancestors .... This is my eternal name, to be used throughout all generations.” - Ex. 3:15, Living Bible. 

“Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name O LORD [“Jehovah”]. Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.” - Ps. 83:16-18, KJV. 

True, such redefinition helps trinitarians “interpret” scriptures which would otherwise disprove the trinity, but think of the consequences! 

* * * * * * 

The real effect of redefining the words used in the inspired Holy Scriptures is that of spiritual adultery. We must be no part of such blasphemous disobedience, dishonesty, and deceit. Those early fourth century Christians who desired the attractive trappings of the world (which included the multiple godhead favored by the surrounding very powerful, very influential pagan nations) became “adulteresses” to the one true God, their “husband and owner”! - See the HIST study paper.

“Do you not realize, you adulteresses, that friendship with the world is enmity toward God? Therefore, whoever determines to be a friend of the world becomesGod’s enemy.” - James 4:4, The Modern Language Bible.

 We must not participate in the process of blasphemous redefinition, of course. But we must also not continue to teach them or even seem to condone them by our silence or passivity. If we remain (with the “many”) members of an organization that teaches such things, we are condoning those things. Our very presence (or even our name on the membership list) is reinforcing that blasphemy. 

And, certainly, if we participate in (or even condone by our silence or passivity) theredefining of the very knowledge of God Himself, we are committing “adultery” in the highest sense and establishing ourselves with the “many” in the middle of the broad road that leads to eternal destruction. 

“...those who are real worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth.... God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.” - Jn 4:23, 24, NEB.

“Father, .... this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God...” - Jn 17:1, 3, KJV.

“The Lord Jesus shall be revealed ... taking vengeance on them that know not God ... with everlasting destruction” - 2 Thess. 1:7, 8, 9, KJV. 

“Go in by the narrow gate; for broad and roomy is the road that leads to destruction, and many are going in by it. But narrow is the gate and hard is the road that leads to life, and few are they that find it.... Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will get into the kingdom of heaven, but only those whopractice doing the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, was it not in your name that we prophesied ... and did many wonder-works?’ And then I will say to them openly, ‘I never knew you at all. Go away from me, you who practiced doing wrong.’” - Matt. 7:13, 21-23, CBW.

As in our original example we can easily give our own new meanings, which we and themany around us prefer, but the result is still spiritual adultery. 

* * * * *

  

NOTES 

A           The word “monotheism” does not refer to a single God (or even “God-nature”) which is composed of many persons! It means, instead, a religion which has one and only one [monos] single person who is worshiped as the Most High God. This really has nothing to do with a “God-nature”! Contrast the word “polytheism” with “monotheism.” 

Polytheism is a religion with many persons sharing the worship which is properly due the Most High God Alone. For one function (war, for example) one deity receives the worship and sacrifices. On another occasion another deity (the goddess of love, for example) may receive the worship and sacrifices. It doesn’t matter whether they all share the same nature (as gods), as they most often did. What mattered was the position or authority and power each one held.

B        Also note that the NT word for “onlybegotten” (monogenes) means asingle individual who alone was directly created (or procreated) by someone. You would not even properly call one twin (or one out of a set of triplets who had somehow all been born at the same instant) “the only begotten”(monogenes) ! Actually they would have to be described as part of a group of “many-begotten” (polygenes) ! 

C          Some ancient Hindus took their polytheism another step. They said thatall Hindu gods are really one in nature (and being) with the Supreme God, therefore they were all True God. This did not, however, make them actual monotheists!

In exactly the same way, trinitarians are not monotheists! They could be described as polytheists or, like those ancient Hindus, as having a form of pantheistic polytheism.