The deprivileging of mankind's status continues apace.

From the "Nothing Special" Files -- Apes and Their Theory of Mind

David Klinghoffer

This is just in from the laboratories of Nothing Special that I wrote about here the other day. Reports Karen Kaplan in the Los Angeles Times, "[H]umans' thinking abilities aren't quite as special as we'd like to think" (emphasis added). She knows that because of a new study in Science, "Great apes anticipate that other individuals will act according to false beliefs."

Of all the creatures in the animal kingdom, only humans were given credit for being able to ascertain the unstated thoughts, beliefs and desires of others. (Of course, said credit was doled out by humans.) ...
Ask yourself: Why the sarcastic tone? She goes on:

A notable version of this skill is the ability to recognize when someone else believes something that's false....
A team led by evolutionary anthropologist Christopher Krupenye at Duke University and comparative psychologist Fumihiro Kano of Kyoto University chose 41 chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans. The researchers showed the apes a series of videos starring a regular person and a man dressed up as King Kong. In a variety of scenarios, King Kong would try to hide a rock-like object from the person. If the person saw what was going on, he'd find the rock in the expected place. If not, he didn't.

To test whether the apes understood what was going on, the scientists showed them additional videos in which King Kong tried to hide in one of two haystacks. Sometimes the person saw where King Kong went, and sometimes he didn't. Using an infrared eye-tracker, the researchers could see where the apes were looking -- and thus, where they expected the human to go.

In a second experiment, the apes watched more videos of King Kong trying to hide a rock from the person. Again, the researchers used eye-trackers to see if the apes could anticipate what the person would do.

In both cases, the chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans correctly anticipated the person's actions -- even when the person looked for King Kong or the rock in the wrong place.

The moral, of course, is that humans are Nothing Special:

Thanks to these results, the claim that only humans can ascertain the mental states of others "is starting to wobble," primatologist Frans de Waal of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University wrote in a commentary that accompanies the study....
De Waal seconded that notion, saying the results highlight "the mental continuity between great apes and humans."

It's a useful reminder that humans shouldn't be so quick to put themselves on a pedestal, he added.

The paper in Science is only a little more restrained in drawing the same lesson:

We humans tend to believe that our cognitive skills are unique, not only in degree, but also in kind. The more closely we look at other species, however, the clearer it becomes that the difference is one of degree. Krupenye et al. show that three different species of apes are able to anticipate that others may have mistaken beliefs about a situation.... The apes appear to understand that individuals have different perceptions about the world, thus overturning the human-only paradigm of the theory of mind.
Yet the business about knocking us down from a pedestal is based on a false premise: that we are at all surprised by these results. I'm not. Given that canines with their high emotional intelligence clearly intuit "unstated thoughts, beliefs and desires of others," as anybody with experience with dogs knows, why would the same not be true of apes?

That we share a limited capacity like this with chimps and orangutans comes as no shock. Therefore nothing is "starting to wobble." The results of the research do little to span the chasm between chimp and man. Instead the Nothing Special crowd uses the "pedestal" as a setup, a momentary fiction useful only for being immediately knocked over.

As Wesley Smith reminds us, dumping dirt on human exceptionalism is a preoccupation of popular science journalism -- not to mention professional science. It goes to show how powerful the will is among many smart and otherwise thoughtful people to believe humans are nothing special, and to convince others of the same thing. Where does that power come from?

An email correspondent notes the irony:

I have never been able to understand why so many people want so badly to believe there is Nothing Special about us, but they do. Only thing I can figure is that some of them just feel saying this makes them look special in the eyes of others.
Yes, right. Status is the key, but the psychology is very strange. Obviously I understand polishing your sense of self by advertising your accomplishments, associations, and possessions. But what drives this weird dynamic where feeling special depends on obsessively disclaiming specialness? We all know people who take pride in their humility. This is different. It seems to be more about sticking it -- "Nothing Special" -- in the face of others. That is the whole point of the L.A. Times article.


I am stumped. If you have any insights, please drop me an email and let me know. (Hit the orange button at the top of the page.)

Darwinism and mathematics are natural enemies.

Biologic Institute's Groundbreaking Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins

Casey Luskin January 22, 2015 10:51 AM

 

Ann Gauger already provided an excellent series of articles discussing her recent paper co-authored in BIO-Complexity. She explains why it is important for demonstrating intelligent design (see here, here, here, here, and here). However, I wanted to give a slightly different framing of the new data. My purpose here and in a follow-up post will be to explain how this latest ID research (as well as prior work in the field) addresses fundamental questions in the debate over Darwinian evolution and ID -- and comes up with very positive results.When Michael Behe published Darwin's Black Box in 1996, he outlined the concept of irreducible complexity as a biochemical challenge to Darwinian evolution. According to his argument, some structures require all of their parts (or a certain core minimum number) in order to function. In this game of all or nothing, such "irreducibly complex" structures cannot be built in the step-by-step manner of Darwinian evolution because they provide no advantage, of the kind evolution requires, until all their parts are present.
At the time and since, evolutionists responded by arguing that irreducibly complex features can be built through co-option. Under this view, biological parts might exist elsewhere in an organism where they are used for a different function. Sometimes, when a gene is duplicated, the extra copy could then be borrowed, retooled, and "co-opted" to perform a new function in a new system. Sounds easy, right?
Not so fast. Darwin observed that his theory "breaks down" when large leaps of complexity are needed in order to provide some advantage. What if retooling proteins to perform new functions requires such leaps? What if multiple mutations are needed to convert a protein to perform some new function? Should we follow many evolutionists and simply wave our hands and assume the co-option model of protein evolution is sufficient, or should we behave like scientists and test the viability of that model? Researchers at Biologic Institute have decided to take the latter approach, and to test the co-option model of protein evolution.
In 2011, Ann Gauger and Douglas Axe published a paper in BIO-Complexity, "The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway." They reported results of their laboratory experiments trying to convert one enzyme (Kbl₂) to perform the function of a very similar enzyme (BioF₂), thought to be very closely related to Kbl₂. Because these proteins are both members of the GABA-aminotransferase-like (GAT) family, and are believed to be very closely related, this is the sort of evolutionary conversion that evolutionists say ought to be easily accomplished under the standard co-option model. However, after trying multiple combinations of different mutations, they found otherwise:

We infer from the mutants examined that successful functional conversion would in this case require seven or more nucleotide substitutions.

This presents a serious problem for Darwinian evolution since a 2010 paper by Axe found that a feature that would require more than two maladaptive mutations, or more than six neutral mutations, before providing an advantage could not arise in the entire history of the earth. Gauger and Axe (2011) concluded:

[E]volutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth. Considering that Kbl₂ and BioF₂ are judged to be close homologs by the usual similarity measures, this result and others like it challenge the conventional practice of inferring from similarity alone that transitions to new functions occurred by Darwinian evolution.

Their 2011 study thus provided a "disproof of concept" of the co-option model. However, it only looked at two proteins. What if other proteins are more easily convertible? Last December, in a landmark peer-reviewed paper published in BIO-Complexity, Axe, Gauger, and biologist Mariclair Reeves presented new research on additional proteins in the same family. They showed that these proteins too are not amenable to an evolutionary conversion to perform the function of BioF₂.
Now in their new study, "Enzyme Families-Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design? A Study of the GABA-Aminotransferase [GAT] Family," Reeves, Gauger, and Axe examine nine other enzymes from the same GAT family. Once again, the idea was to see if it is possible to convert them to perform the function of BioF₂. They tested proteins that are closer to BioF₂, or more distant from BioF₂, than the enzyme they tested in their prior study (Kbl₂). But all of the proteins studied are in the same family, and are thought to be closely related.
First, they sought to determine if the enzymes could be converted to perform the function of BioF₂ through a single mutation. They created mutation libraries with every single possible mutation in those nine enzymes. No BioF₂ function was ever detected. As they explain:

The present study has added to our previous examination of these problems in several respects. We have shown, based on sequence alignment of α-oxoamine synthases (a subset of the GAT family), that our previous use of rational design did indeed target regions of Kbl₂ that are likely to be functionally significant. Furthermore we have now shown that the lack of a simple evolutionary transition to BioF₂ function is not at all unique to our initial choice of Kbl₂ as the starting point. Single mutations cannot convert any of eight other members of the GAT family to that function, despite the fact that all of these enzymes are regarded as close evolutionary relatives.

Then they tried double-mutation libraries. They were able to try 70 percent of the double-mutations in two enzymes that are thought to be the most likely candidates for conversion to function like BioF₂: Kbl₂ and another enzyme, BIKB, which is said to have both BioF₂ and Kbl₂ functions. They write:

[W]e have demonstrated that converting either Kbl₂ or BIKB to perform the function BioF₂ with two DNA base substitutions is at least mildly unlikely, in that neither conversion was found after examining over two thirds of the possibilities. Of course, many possibilities remain unexamined. Although it is certainly possible for a working combination to be among those unchecked possibilities, we think it is more informative at this point to ask the fundamental question of whether the available evidence as a whole really supports the idea that evolutionary recruitment is the cause of functional diversity in enzyme families.

This suggests that at least two mutations would be necessary to convert a protein in this family to perform the function of BioF₂. But it's likely that additional mutations would be necessary for these evolutionary conversions. To be specific, the co-option model requires that a gene become duplicated, and then overexpressed before it can evolve some new function. Thus, at least two more mutations are needed -- one to duplicate the gene and another to overexpress it.
However, one of their citations makes a compelling case that the gene duplication step poses a major obstacle to gene recruitment via gene duplication and mutation. They cite a paper from PLOS Genetics, "The Extinction Dynamics of Bacterial Pseudogenes," which notes:

In bacteria, however, pseudogenes are deleted rapidly from genomes, suggesting that their presence is somehow deleterious. The distribution of pseudogenes among sequenced strains of Salmonella indicates that removal of many of these apparently functionless regions is attributable to their deleterious effects in cell fitness, suggesting that a sizeable fraction of pseudogenes are under selection.

It concludes, "Although pseudogenes have long been considered the paradigm of neutral evolution, the distribution of pseudogenes among Salmonella strains indicates that removal of many of these apparently functionless regions is attributable to positive selection."
Don't miss the profound importance of this. What it means is that there is very likely a fitness cost associated with carrying an extra, useless copy of a gene, and therefore it can be advantageous to delete duplicate version. This has major implications for the co-option model of protein evolution, because it shows that producing a new protein does not involve "neutral evolution," but rather requires steps that very likely will impose a deleterious effect upon the organism.
Similar results were obtained in a 2010 BIO-Complexity paper reporting ID research, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness," by Gauger and biologist Ralph Seelke. This paper found that when merely two mutations along a stepwise pathway were required to restore function to a bacterial gene, even then the Darwinian mechanism failed. But the reason why Darwinism failed is important.
Although one mutation restored partial function, the function was very slight. In the experiments, the gene was deleted before the second mutation could occur and restore full function. It was more advantageous to delete a weakly functional gene than to continue to express it in the hope that it would "find" the mutations that fixed the gene. This means that carrying a weakly functional gene is disadvantageous, and that it's more advantageous to just get rid of a gene duplicate that isn't contributing very much to the success of the organism.
So a fundamental component of the co-option model -- duplicating a gene -- very likely involves a deleterious step. What does that say about the potential for evolving complex traits? ID research has already addressed that question.
In a 2010 research paper that Douglas Axe published in BIO-Complexity, "The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations," he determined that when deleterious mutations are involved, a trait that requires more than two disadvantageous mutations could never form over the history of the earth. In other words, if you are trying to evolve a trait that requires more than two deleterious mutations, it's not going to evolve.
Let's return now to the 2014 paper by Reeves, Gauger, and Axe. They experimentally found that at least two mutations would be necessary to convert the most likely co-option candidates in this enzyme family to function like BioF₂. But other mutations would be necessary as well -- at least one to duplicate the enzyme and another to overexpress it. This suggests at least four mutations would be required for this conversion. Given that, as we just saw, some of these mutations (such as duplication) would initially impose a disadvantage, the math says it would take some 10¹⁵ years for the necessary mutations to arise to co-opt a protein to function like BioF₂ -- over 100,000 times longer than the age of the earth! They thus conclude:

Based on these results, we conclude that conversion to BioF₂ function would require at least two changes in the starting gene and probably more, since most double mutations do not work for two promising starting genes. The most favorable recruitment scenario would therefore require three genetic changes after the duplication event: two to achieve low-level BioF₂ activity and one to boost that activity by overexpression. But even this best case would require about 10¹⁵ years in a natural population, making it unrealistic. Considering this along with the whole body of evidence on enzyme conversions, we think structural similarities among enzymes with distinct functions are better interpreted as supporting shared design principles than shared evolutionary histories.

This new paper thus provides a robust disproof of the co-option model, overturning a cornerstone argument that evolutionists have long used when trying to answer ID arguments like irreducible complexity. By testing the co-option model, Biologic Institute is not just asking the right questions and doing innovative research that addresses key issues in the debate over Darwinian evolution and intelligent design. They're also finding data that confirms that ID's earliest arguments were right all along.

Reasons to doubt the trinity III

Yet More on life's anti Darwinian bias IV

Armed Forces in the Cell Keep DNA Healthy
Evolution News & Views September 8, 2015 3:01 AM

Science reporters struggle for metaphors to describe the complex operations they see going on in the cell. For example:

The Orchestra

News from the University of Geneva likens the human genome to a "complex orchestra." Their research led to "unexpected" and "surprising" findings showing "harmonized and synergistic behavior" in the regulation of genes. The metaphor of a conductor keeping all the various players in harmony came to mind:

A team of Swiss geneticists from the University of Geneva (UNIGE), the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), and the University of Lausanne (UNIL) discovered that genetic variation has the potential to affect the state of the genome at many, seemingly separated, positions and thus modulate gene activity, much like a conductor directing the performers of a musical ensemble to play in harmony. These unexpected results, published in Cell, reveal the versatility of genome regulation and offer insights into the way it is orchestrated. [Emphasis added.]
The Armed Forces

Another metaphor popular among reporters is "armed forces." This metaphor will prove instructive as we read about DNA protection and damage repair. Let's look at some of the stages in this process where we will find soldiers, emergency medical technicians, ambulances and military hospitals in action, each well trained and equipped for defense.

Surveillance and Inspection

Any disciplined military operation requires high standards. Soldiers at boot camp know that drill sergeants can be ruthless when inspecting rifles, shoe shines, and barrack beds. Similarly, machines in the genome inspect DNA for errors and won't tolerate less than perfection. A news item from North Carolina State University describes MutS, a machine that inspects unzipped DNA strands looking for errors. Any mismatch makes this drill sergeant stop and stare the recruit in the face, even if he is one in a million.

Fortunately, our bodies have a system for detecting and repairing these mismatches -- a pair of proteins known as MutS and MutL. MutS slides along the newly created side of the DNA strand after it's replicated, proofreading it. When it finds a mismatch, it locks into place at the site of the error and recruits MutL to come and join it. MutL puts a nick in the newly synthesized DNA strand to mark it as defective and signals a different protein to gobble up the portion of the DNA containing the error. Then the nucleotide matching starts over, filling the gap again. The entire process reduces replication errors around a thousand fold, serving as our body's best defense against genetic mutations and the problems that can arise from them, like cancer.
First Response

If casualties occur, they have to be detected. A protein named ATF3 is captain of a squad that acts as "first responder" to DNA damage, as this from Georgia Regents University explains. Let's say a DNA strand breaks because of sunlight, chemotherapy or a cosmic ray. If not corrected quickly, the cell could become cancerous or die. What happens first?

In the rapid, complex scenario that enables a cell to repair DNA damage or die, ATF3, or activating transcription factor 3, appears to be a true first responder, increasing its levels then finding and binding to another protein, Tip60, which will ultimately help attract a swarm of other proteins to the damage site.
Combat Operations

Viruses have invaded! The armed forces go into high alert. The Salk Institute for Biological Studies describes the flurry of activities that result, because every organism "must protect its DNA at all costs."

Before panicking, the cell's commanding officers need intelligence. If a DNA break puts the cell in stress, was it a natural break, let's say from a cosmic ray, or from a virus, like an insurgent tossing a grenade? A false move could lead to friendly-fire casualties.

The researchers explain how the cell figures out if the DNA damage was internal or external. First, the MRN complex gives the "all hands on deck" signal. It stops replication and other cell operations until the break is mended.

What's interesting is that even a single break transmits a global signal through the cell, halting cell division and growth," says O'Shea. "This response prevents replication so the cell doesn't pass on a break."
The viral response begins the same way, the article continues, but doesn't give the global alarm. Instead, the alarm is localized, and sentries in the area dispatch the invaders. There's a reason for this. "If every incoming virus spurred a similarly strong response, points out O'Shea, our cells would be frequently paused, hampering our growth." But when the cell becomes preoccupied with DNA damage repair, the viruses can infiltrate.

A video clip in the article applies the armed forces metaphor:

Govind Shah: "DNA repair proteins serve as security guards inside the nucleus. They catch virus DNA and escort them out of the cell. If a cell experiences a huge amount of DNA damage, then these security guards will be pulled away from the viral DNA and allow the viral DNA to replicate to high levels."
Clodagh O'Shea: "We discovered that if you have DNA damage in your own genome, and the alarm goes off, actually that recruits in all of the forces: all of the police, national guard--everyone's there. All the forces are dealing with your own DNA damage, and there's nothing left to actually even see or actually turn off the virus."

This gave them an idea. Shah says, "So why not use this to kill cancer cells" with viruses engineered to enter tumor cells? The programmed response they discovered will cause the cell to let the viruses in while it's preoccupied with fixing DNA breaks. "If the cell can't fix the DNA break, it will induce cell death-a self-destruct mechanism that helps to prevent mutated cells from replicating (and thus prevents tumor growth)."

Medics

We're all familiar with the images of battlefield helicopters delivering medics to give first aid to the wounded, or airlifting them to the nearest triage station or hospital. The cell nucleus has hospitals, an article at Biotechniques says, and "A molecular ambulance for DNA" knows how to get the casualties to the emergency room.

Double-strand breaks in DNA are a source of stress and sometimes death for cells. But the breaks can be fixed if they find their way to repair sites within the cell. In yeast, one of the main repair sites resides on the nuclear envelope where a set of proteins, including nuclear pore subcomplex Nup84, serves as a molecular hospital of sorts. The kinesin-14 motor protein complex, a "DNA ambulance," moves the breaks to repair sites, according to a new study in Nature Communications.
Researchers at the University of Toronto found it "very surprising" was that the ambulance driver is the well-known motor protein kinesin-14 (see our animation of kinesin at work).

Hospital Staff

News from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center introduces some of the specialists in the DNA repair hospital: fumarase. a metabolic enzyme; DNA-PK, a protein kinase; and histone methylation enzymes that regulate the repair process. These skilled doctors perform restorative surgery for "DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs)," which "are the worst possible form of genetic malfunction that can cause cancer and resistance to therapy."

Clean-up Crew

Cells invest a lot of energy in their ribosomes, the organelles that translate DNA. Ribosomes are assembled from protein and RNA domains. What happens with the leftovers? An item from the University of Heidelberg describes molecular machines that barcode the fragments for delivery to a barrel-shaped shredder called the exosome. Though not described in military terms, the agents are under strict orders and required to pass through checkpoints.

According to Prof. Hurt, the production of ribosomes is an extremely complex process that follows a strict blueprint with numerous quality-control checkpoints. The protein factories are made of numerous ribosomal proteins (r-proteins) and ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA). More than 200 helper proteins, known as ribosome biogenesis factors, are needed in the eukaryotic cells to correctly assemble the r-proteins and the different rRNAs. Three of the total of four different rRNAs are manufactured from a large precursor RNA. They need to be "trimmed" at specific points during the manufacturing process, and the superfluous pieces are discarded. "Because these processes are irreversible, a special check is needed," explains Ed Hurt.
The number of "armed forces" personnel involved in DNA defense and cell quality control is astonishing. It's beyond a well-conducted orchestra. It's like a military operation, with strict protocols, hierarchical command structure and trained specialists. These systems are goal-oriented: they exist to protect the genome. They are on duty inspecting components even when nothing is wrong. And when things do go wrong, they know just what to do, as if well-trained in following orders.

We aren't surprised to notice that these articles say nothing about evolution. Why? Because we all know from our experience that phenomena characterized by hierarchical command and control systems with documented procedures and skilled agents are always intelligently designed.

On the Historicity of the Gospels

An oversimplification examined.

The Position on Organ Transplants

"Agreeing to an organ transplant or organ donation is a personal decision." http://jw-media.org/aboutjw/article02.htm#organ

In an effort to discredit Jehovah's Witnesses and portray them negatively, some religious opposers advance an accusation regarding the position of Jehovah's Witnesses on organ transplants between the years 1967 and 1980.

Did Jehovah's Witnesses zigzag on the acceptability of organ transplant therapy during 1961, 1967 and 1980? As we shall see after an honest examination, the choice was always ultimately left to the conscience. Also, there was never a danger of being disfellowshipped, and while this case became  similar to the case of blood transfusions, it falls far short of being equivalent.

Included also is a consideration of what other faiths believed at the time, and how and when organ transplantation improved into the relatively safe therapy that it is today.

What was the position over time?
In the 1950's there was no mention of any transplant procedures in Jehovah's Witnesses' publications, as transplant procedures were still in their infancy. It was in 1961 however, that brief mention of the subject was first made in their doctrinal magazine The Watchtower of August 1, in its Questions From Readers section. The question was:

"Is there anything in the Bible against giving one's eyes (after death) to be transplanted to some living person?"

The answer, being a single paragraph, was:

"The question of placing one's body or parts of one's body at the disposal of men of science or doctors at one's death for purposes of scientific experimentation or replacement in others is frowned upon by certain religious bodies. However, it does not seem that any Scriptural principle or law is involved. It therefore is something that each individual must decide for himself. If he is satisfied in his own mind and conscience that this is a proper thing to do, then he can make such provision, and no one else should criticize him for doing so. On the other hand, no one should be criticized for refusing to enter into any such agreement." (italics added)

As we can see, no objection to organ transplants is presented here, and the decision is left to the person's conscience to accept or refuse.

During the 1960's, the subject for debate was the question of giving transplants to living persons for experimental purposes. In fact, the University Professor of  Anesthesiology at Harvard's Medical Faculty published his famous June 16, 1966 article denouncing an extensive series of ethically-questionable medical experiments (Henry K. Beecher, "Ethics and Clinical Research." New England Journal of Medicine, 1966; 274: 1354-60). Soon after, in 1967 there appeared another famous work in the same vein: Human Guinea Pigs, by the British doctor M. H. Pappworth.

It was at this time that The Watchtower of November 15, 1967 commented on organ donation in its Questions From Readers section, in response to the following:

"Is there any Scriptural objection to donating one's body for use in medical research or to accepting organs for transplant from such a source?"

Rather than present a single paragraph leaving the matter to the conscience, commendably the article attempted to ascertain God's view of the matter by considering scriptures and principles. However, it also compared accepting a transplanted organ to cannibalism. On that it stated:

"Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others."

Granted, this opinion was taken from the article "Medical cannibalism" appearing in the Encyclopœdia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings (Volume 3, page 199), which it referred to and quoted from in its next paragraph. While the response included this comparison in an attempt to be balanced and informative, it also had the potential to offend and distract from the deciding power of the conscience also presented in the same Questions From Readers. Therefore the comparison to cannibalism proved to be unfortunate.

However, even with the unfortunate caution expressed above, the same Questions From Readers article did in fact leave the decision up to the person, as it later stated:

"Baptized Christians have dedicated their lives, bodies included, to do the will of Jehovah their Creator. In view of this, can such a person donate his body or part of it for unrestricted use by doctors or others? Does a human have a God-given right to dedicate his body organs to scientific experimentation? Is it proper for him to allow such to be done with the body of a loved one? These are questions worthy of serious consideration."

Further highlighting the role of the individual's conscience, it closed with these comments:

"[T]he Christian can decide in such a way as to avoid unnecessary mutilation and any possible misuse of the body. Thus he will be able to have a clear conscience before God.—1 Pet. 3:16.

It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God's Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.—Prov. 3:5, 6; Ps. 119:105."

Thus, it is important to note that the same article also left much to the person's conscience.

Shortly thereafter in the medical world, in December 1967, the first successful human-to-human heart transplant was performed by Professor Christiaan Barnard at Groote Schuur Hospital in South Africa (the patient lived 18 days, which was considered successful for a high-risk experimental surgery, as such transplants were at the time).^ftn1

During the following years from 1968 to 1975, there were some occasional and brief mentioning of organ transplants in Jehovah's Witnesses' magazines, The Watchtower and Awake!, all of them expressing medical concerns like inherent transplant risks and the side effects of immunosuppressive drugs, and generally referenced non-Witness works and authors (the last of such appeared in the September 1, 1975 issue of The Watchtower, page 519 under "Insight on the News" which noted documented cases of post-operation emotional trauma and upheaval).

Around the same time, the immunosuppressive effect of a substance called cyclosporin (alternatively spelled cyclosporine and ciclosporin) was discovered at the earliest in 1972 and at the latest in 1976. This was followed by a series of experiments attempting to overcome the primary practical problem organ transplants were facing: tissue rejection. These experiments went well and this substance was officially approved for medical use in 1983.^ftn2 It was also during the late 1970's and early 1980's that a satisfactory answer had been reached on the exact moment of death. It is no coincidence that the laws and regulations for transplants began to appear around 1980 (for example, the Spanish law on organ extraction and transplant of 1979 and the corresponding 1984 law in the United States). Thus, it was in the early 1980's, and especially from 1983, that organ transplants stopped being experimental procedures and became accepted medical therapy.^ftn3 In fact, from that year and even into the 1990's, many churches of Christendom and other religions began releasing official resolutions in favor of organ transplantation.

Today it is an accepted medical treatment.

After the above mentioned September 1, 1975 issue of The Watchtower, there was no reference to the practice of transplants in Jehovah's Witnesses' publications. It was not until The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 that a Questions From Readers article was again published on transplants, which had this exchange:

"Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney?"

The answer began with:

"Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah's Witnesses."

This article is clearly more focused on the role of the Christian conscience, specifying that each one must make a personal decision. Some Christians, it stated, may view transplants as cannibalistic and unacceptable, while others may view them as acceptable. This position continues to be the one that Jehovah's Witnesses have today. The same article concluded:

"Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. ... While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant."

Thus, after considering what was said in 1961, 1967 and 1980, it can be seen that the conscience played the ultimate deciding factor. It was up to the individual to decide, with no disciplinary sword of Damocles dangling above. Interestingly, as pointed out above, organ transplant therapy experienced a turning point shortly thereafter in 1983, when cyclosporin was approved for medical use.

No threat of expulsion
Even though the 1967 Questions From Readers included the unfortunate comparison to cannibalism, it specified that transplants are a matter of personal decision, with no mention of disciplinary measures.

To see this matter more clearly, contrast it with the question of blood transfusion. The idea was expressed for the first time in 1945 that blood transfusions violated divine law on the sanctity of blood; nevertheless, it was not until 1961 that it was specified that the matter was of sufficient gravity so as to disfellowship from the congregations any who disregarded this divine requirement and displayed an unrepentant attitude.^ftn4

Has the same thing happened with organ transplants? After the 1967 article, did a subsequent publication state that to accept a transplant was a matter of sufficient gravity to disfellowship unrepentant members?

In 1968 the book The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life was published which was a study guide that explained the fundamental teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses to interested ones. This book considered the sanctity of blood in depth, but did not even mention the matter of organ transplants.

Besides, the candidates for baptism then, as today, examine the fundamental Biblical doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses before accepting them, for which they had the books Your Word Is a Lamp to My Foot (1967) and Organization for Kingdom-Preaching and Disciple-Making (1972). Among these questions on the moral norms of Jehovah's Witnesses were covered, included the position on blood transfusions. Nevertheless, nothing in those books mentioned anything about organ transplants.

Therefore, despite what was expressed in the 1967 Questions From Readers and the medical concerns expressed in the Witnesses' magazines on organ transplants from 1968 to 1975, it itself was not grounds for disfellowshipping and therefore no one was disfellowshipped over it.

Contemporary Religious Views
On the other hand, were Jehovah's Witnesses an exception by expressing a negative viewpoint on organ transplants? Leaving aside some medical opinions against transplants since religion deals with ethical issues and frequently questions scientific advances (a current example is the case of utilizing stem-cells or not), the experiments on transplants provoked great controversy, especially at the end of the 1960's, and the religious sector played a noticeable role.

The Catholic Church, for example, presented serious objections in the past to homotransplant, or transplants among creatures of the same species (E. Chiavacci, Morale della vita fisica, EDB, Bologna. 1976: 64-81). In the Catholic book Problems of Sanitary Ethics (Problemi Di Etica Sanitaria, 1992; Ancora, Milano: 189), the Jesuit Giacomo Perico recognized that not too long ago transplants still presented "serious reservations of moral character" for Catholics. (italics original) The same thing can be said of other religions. For example, it was not until 1987-88 that Judaism had officially expressed a favorable opinion regarding transplants (see, for example, Alfredo Mordechai Rabello, "Donazione di organi. Comunicato dell'Assemblea dei Rabbini d'Italia," Ha Keillah, June 2000: 12-13; Riccardo Di Segni, "Il punto di vista dell'ebraismo," in "La donazione e il trapianto di organi e di tessuti," Punto Omega, December 2000 [anno II, n. 4]: 34).

The Muslim Religious Counsel rejected organ donation as late as 1983, although it later completely changed its position and now accepts the procedure, with some conditions.

The Gypsy community does not have its own religion, but its traditional beliefs tend to be opposed to organ donation, for they think that the body should remain intact during a year after death.

In Shintoism, the traditional religion of Japan, it used to be considered a serious crime to mutilate a dead body, according to E. Narnihira in his article "Shinto Concept Concerning the Dead Human Body." Additionally, he reports that: "To this day it is difficult to obtain consent from bereaved families for donation or dissection for medical education or pathological anatomy . . . the Japanese regard them all in the sense of injuring a dead body." Families are concerned that they not injure the itai, the relationship between the dead and the bereaved.^ftn5

Therefore, a number of religious groups have opposed organ transplants at some time, and a number with time have changed their viewpoint. Similarly, while Jehovah's Witnesses always believed the conscience was the ultimate determining factor, the concerns about cannibalism were first presented in 1967 and were later reduced in significance in 1980. Although, as we have also seen, Jehovah's Witnesses were never forced to accept that opinion on cannibalism under threat of expulsion. The main concern was always about having "a clear conscience before God."

The Difference between Organ Transplants and Blood Transfusions
Highlighting this is a case of a youth whose experience was published in The Watchtower of November 15, 1969, "Appreciating Jehovah's Protection," pages 700-2. This is not a case of someone passing away, but of someone relating an experience after recovering from surgery. The question this person was faced with was not one of organ transplants but of blood transfusions, although at one point his doctor asked him if he would be willing to donate a kidney. Pointedly, his reaction is a good example of the difference between the position of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood transfusions and that regarding organ transplants. When his doctor offered him two possible procedures, one that included blood transfusions and another that did not include them, he chose the later. But when asked if he would give his consent to donate a kidney, this was his reaction:

"I told him he would get a frank and thorough answer to his inquiry after we had had a family discussion of God's Word on the issue." (page 701)

It was not until the following day that he gave his response, which was negative. This clearly illustrates that the question of organ transplants was not comparable to that of blood transfusions for this reason: The donation option was not categorically prohibited (like the blood transfusion option), but one left to personal decision (or consulting with one's family, as in the case of this youth).

In Summary
The role of the individual's conscience has always been held as the deciding factor on the acceptability of organ transplants. Unlike with blood transfusions, there was never a disfellowshipping or disciplinary consequence for accepting them. While orally ingesting blood as well as blood transfusion is unacceptable, it is not so with organs.

Thus, critics should be careful not to use this issue to promote hysteria, misunderstanding, or intolerance.Footnotes1. "Heart transplantation." Wikipedia.(September 10, 2008) (back)

2. Upton, Harriet. "Origin of drugs in current use: the cyclosporin story." 2001. The Mostly Medical Part of the World of Fungi. (September 8, 2008). "Ciclosporin." Wikipedia. (September 8, 2008) (back)

3. "Ciclosporin." supra note 2. (back)

4. "Immovable For The Right Worship." July 1, 1945: 199-201. "Questions From Readers." January 15, 1961: 63-4. (back)

5. "Religious Views of Organ & Tissue Donation." The Transplant Network. (September 8, 2008) (back)

On the authority of the Holy Spirit

Acts 5:3, 4 Lied to the Holy Spirit...lied to God?; Matthew 12:32 "whoever says something against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven"; 2 Cor. 3:17 "The Lord is the Spirit."

Another bit of eclectic "evidence" some trinitarians resort to for the "personality" and "Godhood" of the spirit is found at Acts 5:3, 4. Here we find a baptized Christian, one who has, therefore, received holy spirit, selling his property and giving some of the money from that sale to the Apostles. Now this man was under no obligation to sell his land or give any of that money to the Apostles. That he did so would have been a fine thing. But this man, Ananias, wanted honor more than he wanted to give charity. So he gave only part of the money from his property to the Apostles. This, too, would have been a fine thing. but he lied to the Apostles, because he wanted even more recognition, and told them he had given them all the money from the sale of his property!
So Peter said,
"Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to [or 'cheat' - Mo (or 'to deceive' or 'to play false' - Thayer, #5574; cf. #5574, Strong's and Thayer, in Heb. 6:18 as rendered in RSV, NEB, CBW, and The Amplified Bible)] the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? .... How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to ['played false to' ('defrauded' - Mo)] men but to God." - RSV.
The "evidence" here is supposed to be that Peter first says that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. Then he turns around and says that Ananias lied to God. The supposition being, evidently, that the one lie [or deception] could only be directed to one person. Therefore the Holy Spirit "must" be God!
This type of reasoning is painfully ridiculous at best! Ananias actually lied directly to the Apostles! So this type of "reasoning" applies even more strongly to the Apostles than it does to the Holy Spirit! By using this "evidence" we could say with equal credibility that Peter is saying the Apostles are God when he says "you have not lied to men but to God"!
We can see a similar idea at Mark 9:37 -
"Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me [so trinitarian-type 'evidence' proves this child is Jesus!]; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me." - RSV.
So receiving the child is actually receiving the Son and the Father! The child, then, "must" be God Himself (by trinitarian standards of evidence)!
I'm sure the truth of this matter must be apparent to all objective persons. But, for good measure, you might examine such scriptures as Matt. 25:40 and Luke 10:16 and compare them with Acts 5:4. We can also see a similar usage in the rest of Acts 5:3, 4. In 5:3 we see that Satan filled Ananias' heart to lie. But in 5:4 we find that Ananias himself conceived this thing in his heart. So this trinitarian-type evidence "reveals" another essential "mystery": Satan is Ananias! Also analyze 1 Thess. 4:2, 6, 8; 1 Cor. 8:12; and James 4:11.
One of Christendom's favorite trinitarians (and one of the humblest men found in history), St. Francis of Assisi, made an interesting statement that should be compared with Peter's statement at Acts 5:3, 4. St. Francis said after receiving some clothing from a friend:
"Nothing could be better for me than these. I take them thankfully as your alms. You have given them to God." - p. 66, Richest of the Poor - The Life of St. Francis of Assisi, Theodore Maynard, 1949.
Isn't it obvious that, by willfully rebelling against the holy spirit (the motivating force sent by God) by lying to the Apostles, Ananias was also lying to God?
(Another similar statement of this concept is admitted even in the footnote for Acts 5:3 in a highly trinitarian publication of the RSV, the ecumenical study Bible, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977, Oxford University Press: "The apostles, or perhaps the church, represent the Holy Spirit."
Obviously, the Apostles receive their authority to represent God on earth through the power of the holy spirit ("in the name of the holy spirit"), so they "represent" not only that authorizing power but also God Himself. Therefore, the attempted deception of the Apostles by Ananias also equals an attempted deception of the Holy Spirit and an attempted deception of God.)
So, since the holy spirit (this impersonal power/force/direction) comes directly (and perfectly) from God himself, then, no matter what one does against that holy spirit, it is always equivalent to doing that very thing against God himself. For example, if I spit in disgust on the letter (the impersonal thing providing direction to me) from the king, it will always be understood as equivalent to my spitting on the king himself. If, on the other hand, I spit on a messenger from the king, it might not be considered such a serious offense if I were merely expressing a dislike for the person of the messenger himself, not his message from the king.
That is why Matthew 12:32 is so important to our understanding of God, Jesus, and the holy spirit. There Jesus says to his disciples, "Anyone who says something against the Son of Man [the heavenly, glorified Jesus] can be forgiven; but whoever says something against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven - now or ever." - Good News Bible (and TEV), cf. Living Bible; also see Luke 12:10. Now if the Son of Man were actually a person who is God himself, this scripture would make no sense. In fact, the highly-esteemed trinitarian reference work The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology admits: "The saying about blasphemy and the Son of man (Matt. 12:31 f.; Lk 12:10) is particularly difficult to understand." - p. 628, Vol. 3, Zondervan Publ., 1986. This is a powerful understatement!
Anything we spoke against the person of the Son of Man (if he were truly God as trinitarians insist) would have to be against the person of God himself and would have to be equivalent (at least) to speaking against the holy spirit! But if Jesus were not God himself but a different person, someone might speak against him (for something he said or did or the way he looks, etc.) as a person subordinate to God and not be speaking against God.
Therefore, this scripture (and Luke 12:10) shows Jesus is not equal to God and explains that the Father alone (who produces or sends the non-personal force/communication/motivation: holy spirit) is the God we dare not blaspheme. If this were not the proper interpretation, not only would the statement about blasphemies against Christ (equally "God") being forgiven be nonsensical but the Most High and Only True God, the Father, would be completely ignored and the worst blasphemy would be only that against "God, the Holy Spirit"! This would be completely inconsistent with Jesus' continual glorification of the Father alone!
One thing we agree with Trinitarians about: The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Father. They are different persons. Now if the Holy Spirit is a person, as they say, then the HS is not the Father, and the HS is not the Son!
Nevertheless, occasionally we find 2 Cor. 3:17 used as evidence that the Holy Spirit is a person who is God: "The Lord is the Spirit."
Now it is provable that the Lord Jehovah is the Father, and it is provable that the Lord Jesus is the Son. Therefore, IF the HS is a person, "he" cannot be either Jehovah or Jesus! That is why the noted trinitarian scholar E. F. Scott (in his The Spirit in the N.T.) can understand
"Kurios ["Lord"] here [in 2 Cor. 3:17] to be Christ and interpret Paul as denying the personality of the Holy Spirit." - Word Pictures in the New Testament, A. T. Robertson, Vol. IV, p. 223.
Also the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing, 1986, tells us:
"It is important to realize that for Paul too the Spirit is a divine power whose impact upon or entrance into a life is discernible by its effects." and, "It is important for Paul that the Spirit is a shared gift; it is a centripedal force [not a person!] drawing believers together into the one body of Christ. .... They are constituted the one body of Christ by their common participation in the one Spirit." - Vol. 3, pp. 701, 702.
Therefore to be 'one' with the Spirit results in being one with the Lord (whether it refers to Jehovah here, as I believe, or to Jesus as in most trinitarian interpretations. Having the active force of God, the Spirit, figuratively means having the Lord. Or as CBW, AT, and Moffatt translate 2 Cor. 3:17 "The Lord means the Spirit." Or, as the extremely trinitarian The New American Bible, St.  Joseph ed. tells us in a footnote for 2 Cor. 3:13-18 -
"The apostle knows that his work is to result in the permanent presence of Christ among men through the power of the Holy Spirit."
And Thayer, also tells us:
"But in the truest and highest sense it is said ['the Lord is the spirit'], he in whom the entire fulness of the Spirit dwells, and from whom that fulness is diffused through the body of Christian believers, 2 Co. iii. 17.... to be filled with the same spirit as Christ and by the bond of that spirit to be intimately united to Christ, 1 Co. vi. 17...." - pp. 522, 523, Baker Book House, 1984 printing.
So we can see that even many trinitarians believe this particular scripture is saying that Jesus is figuratively the Spirit because union with that Spirit means union with Jesus.
Another possibility is shown by this trinitarian translation:
"the Lord [whether Jehovah or Jesus] no doubt is a spirit .... but we ... are changed unto the same similitude, from glory to glory, even of the spirit of the Lord [or 'just as the spirit comes from the Lord' - Lamsa]." - 2 Cor. 3:17, 18, Tyndale's New Testament, 1989, Yale University Press.
Not only do we never find anything approaching a clear statement of the trinity in the entire Bible, but in all the dreams, visions, etc. where we "see" God we never see a three-in-one God represented in any manner, nor do we ever see the "person" of the holy spirit (even though we often see the real spirit persons, the angels and Jesus, in association with that one true God). We nearly always "see" the heavenly spirit persons (God, Christ, angels) represented in human-like form. (E.g., Ezek. 1:5, 26; Acts 7:55.)
"The name ['angel'] does not denote their nature, but their office as messengers" - p. 38. "As to their nature, they are spirits.... whenever angels appeared to man it was always in a human form." - p. 39. And, "In...2 Cor. 3:17; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 Pet. 3:18, it ['spirit'] designates the divine nature." - p. 593, Today's Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publ., written by mainstream trinitarian scholars.
So we see God (who is a spirit person) always represented in human form and always as a single person, e.g., Ezek. 1:26 (Ezekiel could have easily represented him as three persons or even one person with three faces-compare Ezek. 1:10 -- but no Bible writer ever does such a thing! (Compare Dan. 7:9, 13) We nearly always see the spirit person of the resurrected Jesus in human form and always as a single person. We always see the individual spirit persons who are messengers (angels) of God as individual persons (and, incidentally, always with masculine, not neuter or feminine, personal names). But we never see the holy spirit as a person (and it is frequently represented as something that can be dealt out in multiple portions) - Acts 2:3, 4.
It is more than just odd that we "see" God (the Father only, Jehovah), we see Christ (the Son only, Jesus) with God, sent from God praying to God, etc., but we never see the neuter "person" of the nameless holy spirit in heaven with God or with the Son!
This could not be if the trinity doctrine were true. The inspired Bible writers simply could not so completely ignore as they have in the Holy Scriptures a person who is God!
There is no proper evidence (let alone proof) for the concept of the holy spirit being a person who is God!
This certainly should come as no surprise when we understand that the Bible writers all considered the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force sent by God - (see pp. 1-4). When a person rejects that force which God himself has produced and sent, then, of course, he is also rejecting the Most High God. This is why Jesus can equate the Holy Spirit with God and, at the same time (since Jesus is not God), show the superiority of God to himself:
"whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven" - Matt. 12:32, RSV

Faster,Higher,Stronger?

On being willing to consider the obvious.

Evolutionists Could Learn a Thing from Dark Matter Physics.
Jonathan Witt

"When you don't know what something is, you have to consider everything," Johns Hopkins physicist Simeon Bird told Nature magazine recently. He was talking about dark matter, the invisible stuff physicists now believe makes up most of the mass of the universe. They haven't been able to detect the mysterious stuff directly, but they're convinced it's out there due to telltale clues in the way, for instance, galaxies behave.

Their challenge now is to figure out what exactly dark matter is. Bird's point is that since ordinary explanations have failed, physicists need to be free to consider some pretty wild ideas in an all-out pursuit of the truth. Some of those wild ideas:

Big black holes

Baby black holes

Electromagnetically neutral particles so tiny they normally sail right through the empty spaces in atoms like a space ship sailing through our mostly empty solar system

Ultra-tiny particles tucked away in roly-poly dimensions that curve around themselves.

Now, when I saw Bird's comment about dark matter and how physicists need to feel free "to consider everything," my first thought was, If only more biologists took that approach in the search for how genetic information arose in the history of life. Instead, they refuse to consider intelligent design.

That was my first reaction. Then it struck me that the analogy gets one thing exactly backwards.

The Ordinary Cause of Information

A crucial thing that needs explaining is the origin of the novel information found in genes and proteins in the history of life. Neo-Darwinists are the ones insisting on an extraordinary and highly speculative explanation for the origin of such information, while design proponents are the ones insisting on the ordinary, demonstrated cause of new information.

I don't mean to say the intelligence who designed the first organism or the variety of living things around us is an ordinary, run-of-the-mill intelligence. What I mean is that ID theorists are proposing an ordinary type of cause, one we can witness generating new information all the time. That type of cause is intelligent design, the intentional work of a creative intellect. It's this type of cause that gives us books and bikes, cars, cakes, computer programs, and a million other artifacts of the mind.

Neo-Darwinists, in contrast, cast their votes for a cause that has never been observed to generate any significant amount of new information.

Smokescreens

To defend that vote they often point to examples of microevolution, but those instances are just nature tinkering around the margins of existing biological structures. They're not natural processes creating the new information necessary for generating fundamentally new biological forms.

Or if they pivot to the origin of life, they'll point to the famous Miller-Urey experiment as evidence that nature could have generated the first single-celled organism. But the Miller-Urey experiment was a meticulously designed experiment. Also, it turns out it didn't effectively mimic the conditions of the early Earth. And its designers managed only to create a few very primitive building blocks of life, not life itself. So the experiment fails in three crucial ways as an example of blind, material processes generating new biological form and information.

These smokescreen examples notwithstanding, no one has observed purely material causes generating even a tiny fraction of the information needed to create even the simplest self-reproducing single-celled organism. "Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth," says Harvard chemist George Whitesides. "How? I have no idea."

And that failure to find a purely material how isn't for lack of trying. It's been the Holy Grail of well-funded scientism for more than 150 years.

At the same time, there is exactly one type of cause we have repeatedly observed in the present generating reams of novel information: intelligent agents.

Presently Acting Causes

This matters because the uniformitarian principle in the historical sciences urges investigators to identify a type of cause active in the present with the demonstrated ability to explain a given feature of the natural world. So, for instance, if a geologist encountered a layer of ash several feet below the surface in, say, a big patch of Oregon, he might posit an ancient volcanic eruption as the source of the ash layer, since volcanoes have demonstrated to us the ability to lay down ash layers over a wide area.

This abductive form of reasoning involves reasoning to the best explanation. The cleanest and strongest of such explanations occur when, after a long and careful investigation of the evidence, all competitor causes prove inadequate, while one type of cause remains standing, having been shown to be up to the job.

This is the situation with the origin of information in the history of life. Various materialist explanations have proved utterly inadequate, and intelligent design is the one type of cause still standing, the one cause with the demonstrated ability to generate new information.

Yes, any mind responsible for the origin of biological life accomplished feats of intellect far beyond anything we have witnessed from human designers. But surely that's no argument for concluding that the real cause for the origin of biological information is something with no intellectual capacity at all.

Allow for a Lion

A little boy who has learned nothing of the animal kingdom beyond the dogs, cats, and mice in his village, upon encountering animal tracks far larger than any he has ever encountered before, would be misguided to insist that these big tracks must be something other than animal tracks. No, the reasonable thing is for the boy to remain open to the evidence of an animal larger than any he has ever seen before.


Nature has written on it the signature of design -- the fingerprints of an artificer greater than any human intelligence. What is the reasonable response?