File under "well said" LXXVI.

 We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

Plato

System's biology:an overview.

 Systems biology can be considered from a number of different aspects.

As a field of study, particularly, the study of the interactions between the components of biological systems, and how these interactions give rise to the function and behavior of that system (for example, the enzymes and metabolites in a metabolic pathway or the heart beats).

As a paradigm, systems biology is usually defined in antithesis to the so-called reductionist paradigm (biological organisation), although it is consistent with the scientific method. The distinction between the two paradigms is referred to in these quotations: "the reductionist approach has successfully identified most of the components and many of the interactions but, unfortunately, offers no convincing concepts or methods to understand how system properties emerge ... the pluralism of causes and effects in biological networks is better addressed by observing, through quantitative measures, multiple components simultaneously and by rigorous data integration with mathematical models." (Sauer et al.) "Systems biology ... is about putting together rather than taking apart, integration rather than reduction. It requires that we develop ways of thinking about integration that are as rigorous as our reductionist programmes, but different. ... It means changing our philosophy, in the full sense of the term." (Denis Noble)

As a series of operational protocols used for performing research, namely a cycle composed of theory, analytic or computational modelling to propose specific testable hypotheses about a biological system, experimental validation, and then using the newly acquired quantitative description of cells or cell processes to refine the computational model or theory. Since the objective is a model of the interactions in a system, the experimental techniques that most suit systems biology are those that are system-wide and attempt to be as complete as possible. Therefore, transcriptomics, metabolomics, proteomics and high-throughput techniques are used to collect quantitative data for the construction and validation of models.

As the application of dynamical systems theory to molecular biology. Indeed, the focus on the dynamics of the studied systems is the main conceptual difference between systems biology and bioinformatics.

As a socioscientific phenomenon defined by the strategy of pursuing integration of complex data about the interactions in biological systems from diverse experimental sources using interdisciplinary tools and personnel.

More on why I.D may already be mainstream.

 

End of the Road for the Intelligent Design Debate?

Brian Miller

This past June, the Center for Science & Culture hosted the Conference on Engineering in Living Systems (CELS). The presenters demonstrated how applying engineering principles and tools to biological research yields profound insights into the operations of living systems and the logic behind their design. This content was fully anticipated by the attendees. The presentation that came as somewhat of a surprise showcased the extent to which the subdiscipline of systems biology has for the last few decades often operated within what is almost indistinguishable from a fully design-based framework. Much of the research within the field has effectively replaced evolutionary assumptions with design-based assumptions, language, and tools of investigation. This scientific revolution, which has only just begun, raises the question of whether the debate over intelligent design has come to an end. 

Changing Assumptions

At a philosophical level, the answer to this question is clearly no. The proponents of scientific materialism still maintain a stranglehold over researchers, so those who openly question the official orthodoxy face the constant threat of secular inquisitors undermining their reputations and careers. In addition, official media outlets and educational institutions continue to feed the public a steady diet of disinformation directed against anyone who speaks honestly about the clear evidence for design in biology. And any material put out by design proponents is immediately met by critics who consistently misrepresent the material’s content and the related science to undermine the authors’ credibility. This practice was well demonstrated by a recent critique of Stephen Meyer’s latest book (here, here, here, here). 

The Tide Shifts

Yet, at a practical level, the tide of the debate appears to be decisively shifting. A review of the journal articles generated by systems biologists reveals how design assumptions increasingly dominate research into the higher-level organization of life. Part and parcel with this trend has been the replacement of the materialist presumptions undergirding biology for the last century with design-based premises:

• Scientists and philosophers of science no longer reject the view that teleology (aka purpose/design) has any place in research. Instead, they explicitly recognize that exploring the purpose of living systems is central to their understanding. 
• Biological systems are no longer often assumed to represent suboptimal design or vestigial remnants of their evolutionary history. Instead, researchers increasingly recognize that assuming optimal design leads to accurate predictions. 
• Biologists no longer assume that biology only marginally resembles human engineering. Many now recognize that the most advanced and effective engineering motifs implemented in human technology are prevalent in life. 

Demise of Reductionism

This transformation in thinking reflects how the philosophical foundation of scientific materialism that has defined science is eroding in the face of the most recent biological data. The traditional approaches implemented in biological research were founded on reductionism — the belief that studying the physical and chemical interactions between biological molecules should eventually lead to an understanding of life’s higher-level operations and organization. This assumption was central to evolutionary thinking since natural selection can typically only operate on single changes to DNA, resulting in alterations of individual proteins or discrete tweaks to biological structures and processes. No evolutionary mechanism can engineer multiple components to seamlessly integrate in such a way as to achieve an overarching goal. 

More commonly today, systems biologists reject this reductionist approach since it has failed to yield any significant understanding of the complex organization of organisms. Instead, they have learned that they must look at life as a collection of integrated systems composed of integrated components where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts (aka holism). In other words, Michael Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity has implicitly become a central tenant of the field. Researchers would rarely use such language or acknowledge the implications, but this conclusion is unmistakable. 

Virologist Derek Gatherer comments, 

The broadening of molecular biology into systems biology has created a situation where researchers have a vague inkling that their underlying philosophy is in need of refurbishment, and holism appears to offer much of what is wanted.

Similarly, philosopher of science Michel Morange describes critiques of the traditional approach to biology in his provocatively titled article “The Death of Molecular Biology?” He asks,

[D]oes it mean that molecular biology is dead, and has been displaced by new emerging disciplines such as systems biology and synthetic biology? Maybe its reductionist approach to living phenomena has been substituted by one that is more holistic…Some even consider the age of molecular biology as having been a period of extreme misorientation of biological research, an error that it is high time to repair.

Explicit Design Language 

Many systems biologists have replaced reductionist approaches with design-based methodologies. Science philosopher P. A. Braillard comments,

More and more scientists are claiming that systems biology constitutes a fundamental change or even a revolution in the life sciences…. Although some aspects of systems biology fit the mechanistic framework, explanations used by working scientists do not always correspond to the traditional definitions of mechanistic explanations provided by philosophers. … I refer to this kind of explanation as design explanation.

Philosophers and complexity theorists Pam Mantri and John Thomas are equally candid about both the need for and the resistance against this trend, 

Unfortunately, research in the world of modern biology is currently divorced from that of design-theory. Yet each discipline could benefit from studying the other. From a design perspective (and subject to environment/precedent constraints), form seems to be following function (e.g., the elbow joint of the fore-arm for bringing food to the mouth). The fundamental problem associated with design in biology, is that of agency. … In this paper, we try to bridge the seemingly insurmountable gap between design-theory and biological “designs,” without getting derailed by “intelligent design” polemics. 

Mantri and Thomas desperately attempt to reframe “design-theory” within the confines of evolutionary assumptions, but their efforts amount to little more than invoking such phrases as “stigmergic teleology” and “emergence” without providing any substantive details of what such concepts would look like in an actual evolutionary scenario. 

Given this trend in the increasingly explicit use of design language, a key question is how long biologists wedded to scientific materialism can argue that life looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but it is actually a cat. 

A Human of the gaps argument?

  A party of biologists studying a troupe of macaques that have colonised an abandoned scrapyard stumble across a functional refrigerator,one of their number suggest that members of the macaque troupe  may have inadvertently assembled the device while playfully tinkering with the available scrap.His colleagues naturally pour scorn on the idea maintaining that despite the isolated state of the location it is far more likely that humans are responsible for both the manufacture and the transport of fridge to its present location.

  They voice the opinion that monkeys simply lack the intellectual wherewithal to ever(even with all the time and luck in the world) produce even a suboptimal  refrigerator.

  Would our lone dissenter be justified in referring to such reasoning as a human of the gaps argument?

In the beginning of what?

  John1:1The BibLE"At first there was the word,and the word was where(the) God was,and the word was God ."

On the face of it this does appear to be referring to the absolute beginning of the creation spoken of at proverbs8:22_30. As indeed does 1John1:1,Revelation3:14.

Our Socinian friends assure us however that this is  merely a reference to the beginning of the new creation see 2Corinthians5:17

John1:14The BibLE"And the word became flesh and abode among us and we saw his glory,glory such as that of an only Son from the Father,full of grace and truth."

 How could John1:1 possibly be a reference to Jesus becoming the beginning of the new creation when ver.14 speaks of him as becoming flesh. Surely the beginning of the new creation would speak of flesh becoming spirit not the other way around 

John3:6,7The BibLE "What is born from flesh is flesh and what is born from spirit is spirit. Do not wonder at my telling you 'you must be born over'"

Even worse than I thought.

  Trinitarians are now telling me that each member of their trinity is equal to the entire trinity.

If this turns out to be a majority opinion .It would mean that the trinity is an even more egregious violation of the principle of occam's razor than I previously thought. For in Christendom's trinity one would have an example of a whole that is less than the some of its parts

 Psalms83:18KJV"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth."

Thus not even the trinity as a whole would correspond to the JEHOVAH of psalms 83:18 in as much as each of his/its three constituents would be equal to him/it.

He is not a God of the dead.:Why not?

  Mark12:27:“He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken.”

psalm6:5"For there is no mention of You in death;

            In Sheol who will give You thanks?"

Psalm115:17"The dead do not praise the LORD(i.e Jehovah),

            Nor do any who go down into silence;"

Dare I hope for a straight answer as to why the souls of the righteous having been divested of the physical form that supposedly prevented direct interaction with the inhabitants of the spirit world and subjected them to all manner of torments would not be even more likely to praise Their God?

  If as some maintain,the account at Luke ch.16 v.19-31 is to be taken literally ,the notion of the blessed not engaging in constant thanksgiving or of Jehovah not acknowledging their devotion seems inconceivable.

 May the answer be here?: 

Ecclesiastes3:19,20:"For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. 20All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust."

Seeking a straight answer re:Christ resurrection.

  Hebrews2:9BibLE"But him who was made a little inferior to the angels,Jesus,we do see garlanded with glory and honor so that by God's grace he may taste death for everyone." How could almighty God in whole or in part ever be inferior to any creature. Of course we know the standard fudge his created human body altered  the creators eternal nature. The finite changed the infinite.

Hebrews1:4BibLE" Becoming as much better than the angels as he has inherited a more transcendent name than  they" now if the created human form made the creator inferior to the angels prior to his resurrection why does not the same human form keep him inferior to them after his resurrection. A straight answer please.

The Holy Bible:an overview.

 The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books") is a collection of religious texts, writings, or scriptures sacred to Jews, Samaritans, Christians, Muslims, and others. It appears in the form of an anthology, a compilation of texts of a variety of forms that are all linked by the belief that they are collectively revelations of God. These texts include theologically-focused historical accounts, hymns, prayers, proverbs, parables, didactic letters, admonitions, essays, poetry, and prophecies. Believers also generally consider the Bible to be a product of divine inspiration.

Those books that are included in the Bible by a tradition or group are called canonical, indicating that the tradition/group views the collection as the true representation of God's word and will. A number of biblical canons have evolved, with overlapping and diverging contents from denomination to denomination. The Hebrew Bible shares most of its content with its ancient Greek translation, the Septuagint, which in turn was the base for the Christian Old Testament. The Christian New Testament is a collection of writings by early Christians, believed to be Jewish disciples of Christ, written in first-century Koine Greek. Among Christian denominations there is some disagreement about what should be included in the canon, primarily about the biblical apocrypha, a list of works that are regarded with varying levels of respect or recognition.

Attitudes towards the Bible also differ among Christian groups. Roman Catholics, High Church Anglicans, Methodists and Eastern Orthodox Christians stress the harmony and importance of both the Bible and sacred tradition, while many Protestant churches focus on the idea of sola scriptura, or scripture alone. This concept rose to prominence during the Reformation, and many denominations today support the use of the Bible as the only infallible source of Christian teaching. Others, though, advance the concept of prima scriptura in contrast, meaning scripture primarily or scripture mainly.

The Bible has had a profound influence on literature and history, especially in the Western world, where the Gutenberg Bible was the first book printed using movable type. According to the March 2007 edition of Time, the Bible "has done more to shape literature, history, entertainment, and culture than any book ever written. Its influence on world history is unparalleled, and shows no signs of abating." With estimated total sales of over five billion copies, it is widely considered to be the best-selling book of all time. As of the 2000s, it sells approximately 100 million copies annually.

Annihilationism:an overview.

 In Christianity, annihilationism (also known as extinctionism or destructionism) is the belief that those who are wicked will perish or cease to exist. It states that after the final judgment, all unsaved human beings, all fallen angels (all of the damned) and Satan himself will be totally destroyed so as to not exist, or that their consciousness will be extinguished rather than suffer everlasting torment in hell (often synonymized with the lake of fire).

Annihilationism is directly related to the doctrine of conditional immortality, the idea that a human soul is not immortal unless it is given eternal life. Annihilationism asserts that God will eventually destroy the wicked, leaving only the righteous to live on in immortality. Some annihilationists (e.g. Seventh-day Adventists) believe God's love is scripturally described as an all-consuming fire and that sinful creatures cannot exist in God's presence. Thus those who do not repent of their sins are eternally destroyed because of the inherent incompatibility of sin with God's holy character. Seventh-day Adventists posit that living in eternal hell is a false doctrine of pagan origin, as the wicked will perish in the Lake of fire. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that there can be no punishment after death because the dead cease to exist.

Annihilationism stands in contrast to both belief in eternal torture and suffering in the lake of fire and the belief that everyone will be saved (universal reconciliation or simply "universalism").

The belief in Annihilationism has appeared throughout Christian history and was defended by several church fathers, but it has often been in the minority. It experienced a resurgence in the 1980s when several prominent theologians including John Stott were prepared to argue that it could be held sincerely as a legitimate interpretation of biblical texts (alternative to the more traditional interpretation of them) by those who give supreme authority to scripture. Earlier in the 20th century, some theologians at the University of Cambridge including Basil Atkinson supported the belief. Twentieth-century English theologians who favor annihilation include Bishop Charles Gore (1916), William Temple, 98th Archbishop of Canterbury (1924); Oliver Chase Quick, Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury (1933), Ulrich Ernst Simon (1964), and G. B. Caird (1966).

Some Christian denominations that are annihilationist were influenced by the Millerite/Adventist movement of the mid-19th century. These include the Seventh-day Adventists, Bible Students, Christadelphians and various Advent Christian churches. Additionally, some Protestant and Anglican writers have also proposed annihilationist doctrines. The Church of England's Doctrine Commission reported in 1995 that "[h]ell is not eternal torment", but "non-being".

Annihilationists base the doctrine on their exegesis of scripture, some early church writing, historical criticism of the doctrine of hell, and the concept of God as too loving to torment his creations forever. They claim that the popular conceptions of hell stem from Jewish speculation during the intertestamental period, belief in an immortal soul which originated in Greek philosophy and influenced Christian theologians, and also graphic and imaginative medieval art and poetry.

Did our Lord ever say it is better to give.

 Acts20:35NIV" In everything I did I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak,remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said:'it is more blessed to give than to receive.'"

Recently some atheist apologists have taken issue with our beloved brother Paul's paraphrase of our lords teaching. Where in the gospels (they ask) is there any record of Jesus saying any such thing? I don't expect the following to have much purchase among the more hypercritical members of that camp, but hopefully some of the more measured constituents of the tribe would be edified.

Luke14:13,14NIV"But when you give a banquet,invite the poor,the crippled,the lame,the blind,and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you,you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous".

Is the prophet Enoch in heaven?

  Hebrews11:5The BibLE"It was by faith Enoch was translated so as not to see death,and was not to be found because God translated him;for before the translation he was vouch for as having pleased God."

Does this mean that Enoch went straight to heaven without dying (a privilege denied our Lord himself) . Here are some scriptures to consider.

John3:3The BibLE "Jesus replied" verily,verily I tell you,if a man is not born over,he cannot see the reign of God."" (So no entry to heaven apart from sharing in Jesus death and resurrection)

John3:13The BibLE"And NOBODY has gone up to heaven but he who came down out of heaven,the Son of Man." (Need we say more?)

Hebrews11:13The BibLE"In faith ALL (i.e those previously mentioned in the chapter) these died not having received the promised things,.."

As the scriptures say at the mouth of three witnesses  every matter is established see Matthew 18:16

More scrutinizing of JEHOVAH'S thumb print.

 

Croft, Continued: I’m Not Saying It’s Aliens

Elizabeth Whately

Continuing to address a new Substack piece by James Croft where he objects to some of my comments on his debate with Stephen Meyer, today we turn to a hot topic: aliens!

He’s Not Saying It’s Aliens

In my article on the God hypothesis and the problem of background knowledge, I said that were Croft to apply his demand for background knowledge consistently, it would mean we couldn’t indirectly infer our way to non-divine alien entities either. Croft doesn’t concede this, but he does say there would be a “degree” of hampering from a lack of such knowledge:

How could someone responsibly construct a hypothesis that a new, non-human intelligent agent might exist? Does the lack of background knowledge that I’ve pointed to on the part of God also hamper attempts to abductively infer that aliens are the cause of some phenomenon, for instance? To some degree, it does — and of course it does.

He illustrates with an example: Suppose a crew lands on Mars and finds a perfectly spherical floating orb of unknown make and origin. If this crew had independent background knowledge of alien races with means and motive to build floating spheres,  this would make the inference to aliens stronger than if they didn’t. 

This is true! Trivially true, in fact. Neither Meyer nor any other ID-friendly philosopher would disagree with Croft that background knowledge can make a good inference to the best explanation better. But the question at hand is whether it’s always needed to make it good.

In this specific case, Croft happens to think that absent background knowledge, “Aliens!” would be a weakly justified hypothesis. Here, my mind immediately went to the scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey where moon colonists discover a monolith — not a floating sphere, but a grounded rectangular prism, which emits a high-pitched sound when the sun comes out:

The scene is shot and scored in a very ominous way, where the ominousness lies precisely in the sense that the monolith is, well, alien. And in fact, as the story unfolds, we learn that it is. 

Maybe for Croft, it wouldn’t be so ominous. But maybe it would. I would be curious to know if he thinks it’s analogous to his floating sphere or not. A more interesting question, though, would be to ask him what our Mars landers should conclude if they find, say, a cave wall displaying the digits of pi. Or perhaps a friendly garbage-collection robot, with a design unknown to any human designer on Earth at the time. Those sorts of discoveries would be much more analogous to what we observe as we examine human and animal bodies on a micro and macro scale — code, function, moving parts in service of a whole, and so on and so forth.

It’s the Things You Know…

But Croft believes he can say more. The inference to aliens behind the floating orb is weak, but “Meyer’s inference to God is even weaker [emphasis Croft’s].” He then gives a proof-of-concept argument based on the “background knowledge about human beings, evolution and astronomy” our Mars landers could still appeal to:

1. We know that intelligent life can evolve on particular kinds of planets, because we did.

2. We know that there are lots of potentially life-permitting planets in the universe, because we have found many of them, and we can tell from our understanding of astronomy and physics that there must be many more out there.

3. It is reasonable to conclude, given what we know about the evolution of life on our planet, that intelligent life may have evolved on one of these other worlds.

4. It is plausible, given what we know about humans and other animals, that such life would also want to create technologies (as we and other animals do), and also that they might want to contact other species.

5. Sufficiently advanced alien technologies might be inexplicable to us, just as the technologies we have today would be inexplicable to our ancestors were they to view them. And, therefore:

6. It is not unreasonable to postulate that this phenomenon (the floating orb) is a technology created by an alien intelligence.

The second half of this argument is good (hurray, agreement)! However, I find it ironic that Croft’s Premise 4 appeals to the creativity, drive, and, well, intelligence that we observe in ourselves to design things. He appears to believe this is a legitimate stepping stone on the way to aliens, but in his frame, it abruptly loses all legitimacy on the way to God. His Premise 5 also shows deference to things that might be beyond our ken from our currently limited human perspective, also wise! But are doctors and scientists likewise not still stymied by many mysteries within creation itself? Have there not been numerous times when they declared something “useless,” only to discover they’d been too hasty?

But of course, the really eyebrow-raising premise here is the first one: “We know that intelligent life can evolve on particular kinds of planets, because we did.” Is that a fact? Obviously, I’m not here to recap the entire debate over the evolution process, nor the origin of life process. The origin of life debate is especially heated, as Meyer shows in his latest book, and as other excellent scientists like Brian Miller and James Tour have done elsewhere. I won’t repeat their arguments (though I’ll link to just one article by Miller treating a critical review of Meyer’s book at length), but I will say it’s cheeky of Croft to simply help himself to this statement as his own Premise 1 in a hypothetical case for aliens, when it’s the very question at issue in the debate over the God hypothesis. If this is how he defines “background knowledge,” perhaps we simply have different standards for “knowledge”!

The extreme improbability that life would originate by chance is a good note on which to pause and pick up next time, as I address Croft’s more technical objections to Meyer’s Bayesian inference.

On Hebrews 2:14 and conditional immortality.

  Hebrews2:14NIV"since the children have flesh and blood,he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of death-that is,the devil- and free those  who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels (spirit beings) he helps,but Abraham's descendants." The sacrifice of flesh and blood can only redeem lives sustained by flesh and blood. Not spirit beings and definitely not immortal spirit beings.

Leviticus17:10NIV"for the life (lit.soul) of a creature is in the blood,and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar, it is the blood that makes atonement for ones life."  Surely there is no question that the souls of those animals offered upon Jehovah's altar in ancient Israel were sustained by blood and that the loss of blood was fatal to those souls. Jehovah clearly indicates that this necessity in the sustenance of the lives of the victims is what conferred a redemptive quality to the blood of these victims. So too the Christ, his blood could only have redemptive value if it was essential to the perpetuating of his soul. If he had an immortal soul or was the immortal God moving around in a tent of flesh his blood would have no redemptive value.

Revelation ch.5 and the supremacy of the Father (JEHOVAH)

  Revelation5:1-3NIV"Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals. And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice,"Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll? But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it." The identity of the one on the throne is not in doubt he is repeatedly referred to in revelation as the God (ho theos) not merely the Father. At revelation 1:8 he self identifies as the existing one (ho on) he ALONE is self existent. Interestingly according to the septuagint this is the title (ho on)by which Moses is told to identify the God of Abraham to his nation (not ego eimi) see exodus 3:14. So of course he is worthy to open his own scroll. Thus almighty God is obviously excluded as a subject of the mighty angel's inquiry. Thus when we are told that no one was found worthy of the assignment to open the scroll and reveal its contents, we readily understand this to mean no one other than JEHOVAH.

Revelation5:5NIV"Then one of the elders said to me,"Do not weep! See ,the lion of the tribe of Judah,the root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals." Maintaining our consistency and clarity. When we are told that someone has at last been found worthy to reveal the contents of JEHOVAH's scroll,we properly understand it to mean that someone other than JEHOVAH is being referred to. Thus we can add revelation5:1-5 to the vast corpus of testimony from sacred scripture confirming the supremacy of the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

On coming to know JEHOVAH'S name.

 Exodus6:3ASV"and I appeared unto Abraham,unto Isaac,and unto Jacob,as God almighty;but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them." 

Does the above quoted statement imply that the patriarchs of the ancient Hebrew nation did not call on their God by name? This is what some are claiming. What is the bible's answer

Genesis22:14ASV"And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah Jireh. As it is said to this day,in the mount of JEHOVAH it will be provided."

Genesis21:33ASV"And Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba,and called there on the name of JEHOVAH,the everlasting God."

Genesis49:18ASV"I have waited for thy salvation, O JEHOVAH"

The fact that this patently false claim continues to circulate,shows the importance of restoring the sacred name to its proper place in the text. But how do we reconcile the the seeming discrepancy between the Genesis texts and exodus6:3.  The Hebrew word (shem) rendered name can refer to either a proper noun identifying a specific person, place or thing or it can refer to ones reputation i.e ones fame/notoriety. That is why for instance at Genesis chapter 6:4 the expression men of renown/fame can literally be rendered men of shem/name.

So at Exodus 6:3 Jehovah was simply letting Moses know that he was about to give his people more cause to praise and exalt his sacred name than their founding fathers ever had. 

On the New World Translation's rendering of 2Peter3:15

  

1 Peter 3:15 (Refuting Countess' Accusations Against the NWT)

The following is a reply to a major accusation made by Robert H. Countess in his book defaming the Bible translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses: "The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament - A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures [NWT]," Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1982 (2nd ed. 1987).

Countess attacks the NWT's usage of "Jehovah" in many places in the New Testament (NT). But more important to him is the NWT's "dishonest" non-usage of "Jehovah" in certain places in the NT! His three primary targets (1 Pet. 2:3 [pp. 34-35]; 1 Pet. 3:15a [pp. 36-37]; and Zech. 12:10/John 19:37 [pp. 37-38]) were chosen by him simply because the NWT translates these three scriptures in a way that denies some standard trinitarian "proofs" that Jesus is Jehovah. As he admits on p. 33, this is "The Real Issue: The Identification of Jesus with Jehovah"!

1 Peter 3:15

"But in your hearts sanctify [hagiasate] Christ as Lord." - 1 Pet. 3:15a, NRSV.

"Sanctify [hagiasate] ye the Lord [Jehovah] himself" - Is. 8:13, Septuagint.

Mr. Countess' attack continues with a similar charge made about 1 Peter 3:15a in the NWT. He claims the NWT translators are being dishonest by not replacing "Lord" with "Jehovah" at this verse since it is another place where "the Apostle Peter quotes the Old Testament .... (Isa. 8:13)" and it would show that Jesus is Jehovah.

The answer to Mr. Countess' charge is basically the same as that for 1 Pet. 2:3 above. Many, if not most, of trinitarian scholars and translators themselves do not consider 1 Pet. 3:15a to be a quote from the OT !

The NT text of the United Bible Societies (3rd ed.) does not indicate a quote from the OT here (as it does at 1 Pet. 2:6, 7, 8, 9, and 22, for example). And many trinitarian Bible translators and editors also do not believe this to be a quote from the OT: NKJV; RSV; NRSV; NAB (1991); NAB (1970); REB; NASB; NIV; MLB. (A few of them, however, consider a portion of 1 Pet. 3:14 to be a quote from the OT: NKJV; NAB (1970); NASB; NIV.) Only JB; NJB; Moffatt; and Beck consider 1 Pet 3:15a to be a quote from the OT.

Of the only two Hebrew New Testaments that I have, the trinitarian United Bible Societies' 1983 edition uses "Jehovah" (Yhwh) twice in 1 Pet. 3:12 which shows the translators' belief that it is a quotation by Peter from the OT. But at 1 Peter 3:15 it does not use "Jehovah" but instead uses "Lord" (adon)!

The other Hebrew New Testament in my possession, the Trinitarian Bible Society's 1981 edition of Lutheran Delitzsch's Hebrew New Testament, does use "Jehovah" at 1 Pet. 3:15, which may indicate a quote from the OT. However, what it says is: "Sanctify Jehovah God [not `Christ'] in your heart."

The reason for this translation by trinitarian Delitzsch is the NT Greek text he used. He used the Received Text, the very same one that the KJV (and KJIIV and NKJV and Young's Literal Translation) is based on. This text was made by using the majority of existing NT Greek manuscripts without weighing the value of the very oldest manuscripts. As a result it does not use "Christ" at 1 Pet. 3:15a at all, but says "sanctify the Lord God in your heart." (Also note how these modern trinitarian Bibles based on modern trinitarian-developed texts render 1 Pet. 3:15 - "concentrate on being completely devoted to Christ in your hearts" - Phillips; "have reverence for Christ in your hearts, and make him your Lord" - TEV [3rd ed., 1971]; "trust yourself to Christ your Lord" - Living Bible.)

Yes, even the KJV itself does not say what Countess wants it to say! If the NWT had used the same Greek text that the KJV did, it could have said "Sanctify Jehovah God in your hearts" (since the phrase "Lord God" in the Septuagint usually means "Jehovah God" as found in the Hebrew OT)! But since it used a more accurate text (based on the oldest NT manuscripts still in existence), it properly says: "Sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts."

But in either case there is no evidence here for Jesus being called "Jehovah"! Many trinitarian scholars indicate that it is not a quote from the OT, and some even use a Greek NT text which does not use "Christ" here in the first place!

So when you have a better look at the facts, how can any honest person insist that the NWT is being dishonest here? If the majority of trinitarian Bible translators do not consider 1 Pet. 3:15a to be a quote from the OT, why in the world should the NWT translators be called dishonest for doing exactly the same thing?

[Incidentally, it is incredibly strange that this "critical analysis" which "was successfully defended for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in New Testament Text" in 1966, carefully reviewed and published in 1982, carefully reviewed again and printed as a second edition in 1987, has so many glaring errors. In this section (1 Peter 3:15a, p. 36), for example, Countess has stated that the NWT footnote for 1 Pet. 3:15 lists 7 "medieval" Hebrew translations for one of several alternate translations.

But medieval times (or the Middle Ages) extended from the fall of the Roman Empire to "about the year 1550" (Americana) or up to "the close of the 15th century [1500 A.D.]" (Universal Standard Encyclopedia). Some authorities choose 1400 A.D. as the approximate date for the end of the medieval period (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary), but I don't believe any historian extends the Middle Ages up into the 1600's! And yet here are the dates of the "Medieval Hebrew translations" that Countess (and apparently all the many scholarly reviewers, including the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.) has downgraded: 1599; 1661; 1831; 1838; 1846; 1866; and 1877! Undoubtedly the word "medieval" was chosen by Countess because it generally connotes an older, less scholarly, more ignorant era. But to keep using such an obviously erroneous label through many revisions over 21 years strictly for propaganda reasons is unacceptable! We should also note that the respected United Bible Societies published its Hebr5ew New Testament in 1982 and also uses "adonai" ("lord") rather than YHWH at 1 Peter 3:15!

Lamarck gets the last word?

 

Non-Mendelian Inheritance Undermines Neo-Darwinism

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC

  

Few beside historians know about the crisis of evolution in the late 19th century continuing into the early 20th century. At the time, most intellectuals had been convinced of evolution in some form, but critics of Darwin’s natural selection were many. Neil Thomas writes about that period in his new book, Taking Leave of Darwin. Even before Darwin died in 1882, he was feeling the pressure of critics against his theory and was relying more on the Lamarckian notions he had tried to supplant. Doubts about natural selection increased well after the rediscovery of Mendel’s laws of heredity. Finally in the 1930s the “Neo-Darwinists” breathed a sigh of relief when they found a way to incorporate Mendelism. Their relief led to strong confidence in Darwinian evolution that roared into overconfidence at the Darwin Centennial and still reigns today. New findings are unraveling that confidence. 

More scientists are realizing that organisms have other ways to inherit traits. In 2017, some of those methods were introduced here. Last month, Emily Reeves categorized some of the sources of genetic change. In her table, “random copy errors” and “chemically induced mutagenesis” were only two of them. At the CELS conference in June, engineers and biologists mooted some cutting-edge ideas of internal reprogramming by organisms enabling them to adapt to changing environments. That almost sounds Lamarckian: if an organism can “learn” adaptations and pass them on, is that “inheritance of acquired characteristics” due to “use and disuse”? Whatever it is, it is not unguided variation in the sense Darwin taught. Any process that shares existing information is also anti-Darwinian. That includes horizontal gene transfer (HGT), hybridization and introgression.

Flinch at Beak Evolution

Of all things, Darwin’s finches are coming up for debate again. Lifetime finchologists Peter and Rosemary Grant just published a paper in PNAS that conjures up “Morphological ghosts of introgression in Darwin’s finch populations.” The ghosts spooked them.

We discovered a surprisingly large reduction in average beak size from samples of G. fortis collected roughly 30 y apart in the period after the disappearance of mega-magnirostris. Reduction was expected in the absence of gene flow, but was not expected to be restricted to the beak depth dimension, nor was the magnitude expected. Without observations or measurements of living birds from that time, it is not possible to do more than speculate on the causes. Unlike the situation with G. fortis in response to mega-magnirostris, we have no a priori hypothesis and no basis for invoking a bias in the collecting of samples. Selection alone is not likely to be a viable post hoc explanation for a major trait-specific change in fewer than 10 generations, in view of the strong positive genetic correlations between beak depth and the other two beak dimensions in the related G. fortis population on Daphne Island (28). A possible explanation is hybridization with the smaller G. fuliginosa…. However, there is no negative skew in the distribution of the late G. fortis sample … that would indicate introgressive hybridization. Genetic data from specimens in museums may help to resolve the question of whether the morphological ghost of introgression from mega-magnirostris in the early sample was almost completely exorcised by selection, replaced by a different ghost of hybridization with G. fuliginosa, or both. [Emphasis added.]

The ghost of hybridization is scaring them into changing their view of finch evolution by natural selection. The information on beak size from an extinct species apparently is showing up in some living species. This can only be due to information-sharing between the islands. If this happens in one of the most famous icons of evolution, where else is it occurring?

Resistance Is Futile

Nature reports that “Massive DNA ‘Borg’ structures perplex scientists.” These unexpected structures appear to be a library of information accessible to microbes.

The Borg have landed — or, at least, researchers have discovered their counterparts here on Earth. Scientists analysing samples from muddy sites in the western United States have found novel DNA structures that seem to scavenge and ‘assimilate’ genes from microorganisms in their environment, much like the fictional Star Trek ‘Borg’ aliens who assimilate the knowledge and technology of other species.

It’s one of the largest extrachromosomal elements (ECEs) ever found. 

These extra-long DNA strands, which the scientists named in honour of the aliens, join a diverse collection of genetic structures — circular plasmids, for example — known as extrachromosomal elements (ECEs). Most microbes have one or two chromosomes that encode their primary genetic blueprint. But they can host, and often share between them, many distinct ECEs. These carry non-essential but useful genes, such as those for antibiotic resistance.

These large ECEs can have a million DNA base pairs and can be as large as a third of the main chromosome in microbes. Do they function as collections of genetic information available to microbes?

Borgs seem to house many genes needed for entire metabolic processes, including digesting methane, says Banfield. She describes these collections as “a toolbox” that might super-charge the abilities of Methanoperedens.

Claire Ainsworth at New Scientist says that the Borgs have “huge potential for new information” that could be shared between organisms.

The large number of protein-coding genes that Borgs contain is also remarkable. While the majority of these are unknown, about a fifth resemble genes found in archaea — particularly those of a methane-consuming genus called Methanoperedens in which the Borgs replicate. As well as assimilating host genes, there are signs that different kinds of Borg can swap DNA with each other and possibly move between hosts, potentially allowing Methanoperedens to acquire new genes from elsewhere.

Banfield found some examples of this “novel form of giant, extrachromosomal DNA” in mud on her own property, says The Scientist. Imagine discovering a new form of genetic information- sharing right under one’s feet! Lamarck, Darwin, and early geneticists knew nothing about this.

In one mud sample, recovered from Banfield’s own property, they discovered a colossal linear stretch of DNA: nearly 1 million base pairs long and carrying mostly genes previously unreported in the literature. The sequence had unique characteristics, including distinct base pair patterns on both ends and sites for DNA replication, leading the authors to conclude the genetic behemoth might be playing some sort of functional role.

In addition to genetic information for genes, the Borgs may also contain tools like CRISPR for inserting the information into hosts. Banfield considers this find an example of “new mechanisms for processes that as yet, we don’t even know exist.”

Internal Reprogramming

Here’s another report that sounds downright Lamarckian. The University of Copenhagen reports that “Exercise improves health through changes on DNA.” Previously it was thought that exercise strengthened only the tissues and organs. This finding extends the benefits to the genetic code itself.

Now scientists at the University of Copenhagen have discovered that the beneficial effects of physical exercise may in part result from changes to the structure of our DNA. These changes are referred as ‘epigenetic’.

The news does not say that the resulting DNA changes are heritable, but who knows? If exercise can cause changes in the body distant from muscle, what else might be going on?

The scientists found that exercise benefited organs that are distant from muscle, like the brain. They speculate that these benefits might result from signals released by muscles into the bloodstream. In particular, they found that exercise remodels enhancer activity in skeletal muscle that are [sic] linked to cognitive abilities, which opens for the identification of exercise training-induced secreted muscle factors targeting the brain.

Their work was published in Molecular Metabolism by Williams et al., “Epigenetic rewiring of skeletal muscle enhancers after exercise training supports a role in whole-body function and human health.” Can epigenetic signals also reach the gametes? It is too early to tell, but what a thought.

Have scientists been overlooking obvious facts about inheritance? When watching a cell divide under a microscope, clearly much more goes into each daughter cell than just the chromosomes. Organelles that may have been modified or adapted by epigenetic mechanisms also enter the daughter cells. This occurs in gametes, too; sperm cells, for instance, deliver more than DNA. They bring proteins and transcription factors that play a role in fitting the genetic information to the zygote. Offspring inherit not just the genome. They get the epigenome, too.

Widespread Information Sharing

A team of 33 scientists reports in bioRxiv about “Within-Arctic horizontal gene transfer as a driver of convergent evolution in distantly related microalgae.” HGT may explain instances of so-called “convergence” by sharing of information instead of chance. Wasn’t it dubious to think that “distantly related” organisms could converge on the same solutions by chance anyway? The possibilities for rethinking convergence are at hand: if organisms can reprogram their genetic networks in response to a changing environment, they can quickly spread this information to other species through shared libraries which may include toolkits for incorporating the information into the genome or epigenome.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that large amounts of genetic information can be shared in previously undiscovered ways. A scientific revolution about inheritance may be afoot. Neo-Darwinism will be seen as antiquated and simplistic. Darwin’s picture of vertical inheritance of accidental variations did not consider ways that information can be swapped and shared, as is coming to light now. Design scientists have an opportunity to consider the functional implications of widespread hybridization and introgression, epigenetic modifications of DNA, “Borg” libraries, and even perhaps viruses and retrotransposons. What about those nasty secretion systems like the TTSS in bacteria that inject material into target cells? Could the disease-causing ones be examples of information-sharing machines gone rogue?

Exciting days may be ahead for design science. Long-standing questions about adaptation — the precise fit of organisms to their habitats — would be seen as internalized, engineered responses, not caused or “driven” by the environment. That would presuppose foresight, and foresight would presuppose intelligent design.