Search This Blog

Sunday 2 October 2016

The Bible's standard re:marriage:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

MARRIAGE:
The union of a man and a woman as husband and wife according to the standard set out by God. Marriage is a divine institution, authorized and established by Jehovah in Eden. Marriage brings into being the family unit, the family circle. Its basic purpose was the reproducing of the members of the human family, to bring into existence more creatures of the human kind. Jehovah the Creator made male and female and ordained marriage as the proper arrangement for the multiplication of the human race. (Ge 1:27, 28) The first human wedding was performed by Jehovah, as described at Genesis 2:22-24.

Marriage was designed to form a permanent bond of union between man and woman, that they might be mutually helpful to each other. Living together in love and confidence, they could enjoy great happiness. Jehovah created woman as a mate for man by using the man’s rib as a base, thereby making woman man’s closest fleshly relative on earth, his own flesh. (Ge 2:21) As Jesus pointed out, it was not Adam but God who said, “That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.” The wording of this text makes it evident that monogamy was the original standard for marriage in the eyes of Jehovah God.—Mt 19:4-6; Ge 2:24.

Marriage was the normal way of life among the Hebrews. There is no word for bachelor in the Hebrew Scriptures. The basic purpose of marriage being to have children, the statement of blessing by Rebekah’s family is understandable: “May you become thousands times ten thousand” (Ge 24:60), also Rachel’s appeal to Jacob: “Give me children or otherwise I shall be a dead woman.”—Ge 30:1.

Marriage was a matter affecting the family, and not only the family but the entire tribe or patriarchal community, for it could have an effect on the strength of the tribe as well as its economy. It was natural and seemed necessary, therefore, that the selection of a wife and the arrangement of all contractual and financial matters connected with it should be decided upon by the parents or guardians involved, though the consent of the parties was sometimes sought (Ge 24:8) and romantic attachments often accompanied the arrangements. (Ge 29:20; 1Sa 18:20, 27, 28) The initial steps or proposals were generally made by the parents of the young man, but sometimes by the father of the girl, especially if there was a difference of rank.—Jos 15:16, 17; 1Sa 18:20-27.

It seems to have been generally customary for a man to look for a wife within the circle of his own relations or tribe. This principle is indicated by Laban’s statement to Jacob: “It is better for me to give [my daughter] to you than for me to give her to another man.” (Ge 29:19) Especially was this observed among the worshipers of Jehovah, as exemplified by Abraham when he sent to his relatives in his own country to get a wife for his son Isaac rather than to take one from the daughters of the Canaanites among whom he was dwelling. (Ge 24:3, 4) Marriage to nonworshipers of Jehovah was frowned upon and strongly discouraged. It was a form of disloyalty. (Ge 26:34, 35) Under the Law, marriage alliances with persons of the seven Canaanite nations were prohibited. (De 7:1-4) However, a soldier might marry a captive virgin from another foreign nation after she had undergone a purification period, during which she mourned her dead parents and got rid of all features of her past religious connections.—De 21:10-14.

Bride-Price. Before the marriage contract was concluded, the young man or the father of the young man had to pay to the girl’s father the bride-price, or marriage price. (Ge 34:11, 12; Ex 22:16; 1Sa 18:23, 25) This was doubtless regarded as compensation for the loss of the services of the daughter and for the effort and expense required of the parents in caring for and educating her. Sometimes the bride-price was paid in services to the father. (Ge 29:18, 20, 27; 31:15) In the Law there was an established purchase price for an unengaged virgin who was seduced by a man.—Ex 22:16.

Ceremony. As to the wedding itself, the central and characteristic feature was the solemn bringing of the bride from her father’s home to her husband’s home on the date agreed upon, in which act the significance of marriage as representing admission of the bride into the family of her husband found expression. (Mt 1:24) This constituted the wedding in patriarchal days before the Law. It was altogether a civil affair. There was no religious ceremony or form, and no priest or clergyman officiated or validated the marriage. The bridegroom took the bride to his house or to the tent or house of his parents. The matter was publicly made known, acknowledged, and recorded, and the marriage was binding.—Ge 24:67.

However, as soon as marriage arrangements had been made and the parties were engaged, they were considered bound in marriage. Lot’s daughters were still in his house, under his jurisdiction, but the men engaged to them were termed Lot’s “sons-in-law who were to take his daughters.” (Ge 19:14) Although Samson never married a certain Philistine woman but was only engaged to her, she was spoken of as his wife. (Jg 14:10, 17, 20) The Law stated that if an engaged girl committed fornication, she and the guilty man were to be put to death. If she was violated against her will, the man was to be put to death. However, any case involving an unengaged girl was handled differently.—De 22:22-27.

Marriages were registered. Under the Law marriages, as well as births resulting from the union, were recorded in the official records of the community. For this reason we have an accurate genealogy of Jesus Christ.—Mt 1:1-16; Lu 3:23-38; compare Lu 2:1-5.

Celebration. While the wedding itself had no formal ceremony, there was, nevertheless, a very joyous celebration of weddings in Israel. On the day of the wedding, at her own home the bride usually made elaborate preparations. First she would bathe herself and rub herself with perfumed oil. (Compare Ru 3:3; Eze 23:40.) At times assisted by woman attendants, she put on breastbands and a white robe, often richly embroidered, according to her financial status. (Jer 2:32; Re 19:7, 8; Ps 45:13, 14) She decked herself with ornaments and jewels, if she was able to do so (Isa 49:18; 61:10; Re 21:2), and then covered herself with a light garment, a form of veil, that extended from head to foot. (Isa 3:19, 23) This explains why Laban could so easily practice a deception on Jacob so that Jacob did not know that Laban was giving him Leah instead of Rachel. (Ge 29:23, 25) Rebekah put on a head covering when she approached to meet Isaac. (Ge 24:65) This symbolized the subjection of the bride to the bridegroom—to his authority.—1Co 11:5, 10.

The bridegroom was likewise arrayed in his best attire and often had a handsome headdress and a garland on his head. (Ca 3:11; Isa 61:10) Escorted by his friends, he would leave his house in the evening for the home of the bride’s parents. (Mt 9:15) From there the procession, accompanied by musicians and singers and usually by persons bearing lamps, moved toward the home of the bridegroom or to the house of his father.

The people along the route would take great interest in the procession. The voices of the bride and bridegroom would be heard in exultation. Some, particularly maidens bearing lamps, would join the procession. (Jer 7:34; 16:9; Isa 62:5; Mt 25:1) The bridegroom might spend considerable time at his home and, then again, some delay might take place before the procession would leave the home of the bride, so that it would thus be quite late, and some who were waiting along the way might get drowsy and fall asleep, as in Jesus’ illustration of the ten virgins. The singing and exultation might be heard quite a distance ahead, those hearing it making the cry: “Here is the bridegroom!” The attendants were ready to greet the bridegroom when he came, and those invited to the marriage supper would enter the house. After the bridegroom and his entourage had gone into the house and closed the door, it was too late for tardy guests to enter. (Mt 25:1-12; 22:1-3; Ge 29:22) It was looked upon as a gross insult to decline the invitation to the marriage feast. (Mt 22:8) The guests might be provided with robes (Mt 22:11), and their respective places at the feast were often designated by the one extending the invitation.—Lu 14:8-10.

Friend of the Bridegroom. “The friend of the bridegroom” had a large share in the arrangements and was looked upon as bringing together the bride and groom. The friend of the bridegroom rejoiced in hearing the voice of the groom conversing with the bride and now could feel happy that his duties had been blessed with a successful conclusion.—Joh 3:29.

Proof of Virginity. After the supper the husband took his bride into the nuptial chamber. (Ps 19:5; Joe 2:16) On the wedding night a cloth or garment was used and then kept or given to the wife’s parents so that the marks of the blood of the girl’s virginity would constitute legal protection for her in the event she was later charged with lack of virginity or of having been a prostitute prior to her marriage. Otherwise, she could be stoned to death for having presented herself in marriage as a spotless virgin and for bringing great reproach on her father’s house. (De 22:13-21) This practice of keeping the cloth has continued among some peoples in the Middle East until recent times.

Privileges and Duties. The husband was head of the house, and the final decision on matters affecting the welfare and economy of the family were left to him. If he felt that the family would be adversely affected, he could even annul a vow of his wife or daughter. This authority evidently also belonged to the man when he was engaged to a woman. (Nu 30:3-8, 10-15) The husband was the lord, master of the household, and was considered the owner (Heb., baʹʽal) of the woman.—De 22:22.

Proverbs 31 describes some of the duties of the wife toward her husband, or owner, which included the household work, the making of and care for clothing, even some of the buying and selling, and general supervision of the household. The woman, while being in subjection and being in a sense the property of the husband, enjoyed a fine status and many privileges. Her husband was to love her, and this was true even if she was a secondary wife or one who had been taken as a captive. She was not to be mistreated and was guaranteed food, clothing, shelter, and the marriage due without diminution. Also, the husband could not constitute the son of the favorite wife as the firstborn at the expense of the son of the “hated” (or less preferred) wife. (Ex 21:7-11; De 21:11, 14-17) Faithful Hebrew men loved their wives, and if the wife was wise and acted in harmony with God’s law, often the husband would listen to her or approve of her actions.—Ge 21:8-14; 27:41-46; 28:1-4.

Even the unengaged virgin who was seduced by an unmarried man was protected, for if the father permitted, the seducer had to marry the girl and could never divorce her all his life. (De 22:28, 29) If the wife was formally accused by her husband of not being a virgin at the time of marriage and the charge was proved false, her husband was fined and could never divorce her. (De 22:17-19) The woman who was accused of secret adultery, if innocent, was then to be made pregnant by her husband so that she could bear a child and thereby give public notice of her innocence. The dignity of the wife’s person was respected. Intercourse with her during menstruation was forbidden.—Le 18:19; Nu 5:12-28.

Prohibited Marriages. Besides prohibition of marriage alliances with nonworshipers of Jehovah, especially with the seven nations in the land of Canaan (Ex 34:14-16; De 7:1-4), other marriages were prohibited within certain degrees of consanguinity or affinity.—Le 18:6-17.

A high priest was prohibited from marrying a widow, a divorced or violated woman, or a prostitute; he was to marry only a virgin from his people. (Le 21:10, 13, 14) The other priests could not marry a prostitute or violated woman, nor a woman divorced from her husband. (Le 21:1, 7) According to Ezekiel 44:22, they could marry a virgin of the house of Israel or a widow who happened to be the widow of a priest.

If a daughter inherited property, she was not to marry out of her tribe. This prevented the hereditary possession from circulating from tribe to tribe.—Nu 36:8, 9.

Divorce. At the institution of marriage by the Creator, he made no provision for divorce. A man was to stick to his wife, and “they must become one flesh.” (Ge 2:24) A man would therefore have one wife who was considered one flesh with him. It was only after man’s fall and consequent imperfections and degradation that divorce entered in.

In giving the Law to Israel, God did not at that time choose to enforce the original standard, but he regulated divorce so that it would not bring dissolution of the family arrangement in Israel or work undue hardship. However, at God’s due time his original standard was restored. Jesus stated the principle governing the Christian congregation—that “fornication” (Gr., por·neiʹa) is the only valid ground for divorce. He explained that God did not enforce this standard through Moses out of regard for the hardheartedness of the Israelites.—Mt 19:3-9; Mr 10:1-11.

In the Christian congregation, therefore, aside from death, which automatically breaks the marriage tie, the only other way it may be broken is on the ground of “fornication,” which causes the offending one to become one flesh with an illicit partner. It therefore may be used by the innocent party as a ground for dissolving the marriage if that one chooses to do so, and the innocent one may then remarry. (Mt 5:32; Ro 7:2, 3) Aside from making this allowance in case of “fornication” (Gr., por·neiʹa), the Greek Scriptures counsel Christians not even to separate from their mates, whether believers or unbelievers, and require that if they do, they have no sex relations with anyone else.—1Co 7:10, 11; Mt 19:9.

Under the Law a husband could divorce his wife for something ‘indecent’ on her part. This, of course, would not include adultery, for it carried a death penalty. It might be such offenses as great disrespect for the husband or for the house of his father, or something bringing reproach upon his household. The husband was required to provide her with a written certificate of divorce, which implies that in the eyes of the community he had to have sufficient grounds on which to divorce her. The certificate being a legal document, there is the implication that it involved consultation with the older men or authorities of his city. The woman could then remarry, the certificate protecting her from any later charge of adultery. No divorce was allowed a man if he had seduced the girl before marriage or if he had falsely charged after marriage that she was deceptive in claiming to be a virgin at the time of their marriage.—De 22:13-19, 28, 29.

After a divorce if a woman married another man and this man later divorced her or died, the original husband could not marry her again. This worked to prevent any scheme to bring about a divorce from the second husband or perhaps even his death so the original couple might remarry.—De 24:1-4.

Jehovah hated an unjust divorce, especially where a faithful worshiper of his was treacherously dealt with in order to arrange for another marriage to a pagan woman who was not a member of his chosen covenant people.—Mal 2:14-16; see DIVORCE.

Polygamy. Since God’s original standard for mankind was for the husband and wife to become one flesh, polygamy was not intended, and it is prohibited in the Christian congregation. Overseers and ministerial servants, who are to set the example for the congregation, are to be men having not more than one living wife. (1Ti 3:2, 12; Tit 1:5, 6) This is in harmony with what true marriage is used to picture, namely, the relationship of Jesus Christ and his congregation, the only wife possessed by Jesus.—Eph 5:21-33.

As was the case with divorce, polygamy, while not God’s original arrangement, was tolerated until the time of the Christian congregation. Polygamy had a start not long after Adam’s deflection. The first Bible mention of it is concerning a descendant of Cain, Lamech, of whom it says: “[He] proceeded to take two wives for himself.” (Ge 4:19) Concerning some of the angels, the Bible mentions that before the Flood, “the sons of the true God . . . went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose.”—Ge 6:2.

Concubinage was practiced under patriarchal law and under the Law covenant. A concubine had a legal status; her position was not a matter of fornication or adultery. Under the Law, if a man’s firstborn son was the son of his concubine, this son would be the one to receive the firstborn’s inheritance.—De 21:15-17.

Concubinage and polygamy no doubt enabled the Israelites to increase at a much faster rate, and therefore, while God did not establish these arrangements but only allowed and regulated them, they served some purpose at the time. (Ex 1:7) Even Jacob, who was tricked into polygamy by his father-in-law, was blessed by having 12 sons and some daughters from his two wives and their handmaidens who became concubines to Jacob.—Ge 29:23-29; 46:7-25.

Christian Marriage. Jesus Christ showed his approval of marriage when he attended the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee. (Joh 2:1, 2) As already stated, monogamy is God’s original standard, reestablished by Jesus Christ in the Christian congregation. (Ge 2:24; Mt 19:4-8; Mr 10:2-9) Since man and woman were originally endowed with the ability to express love and affection, the arrangement was to be a happy, blessed, and peaceful one. The apostle Paul uses the illustration of Christ as husband and head of the congregation, his bride. It is a prime example of the tender loving-kindness and care that the husband should have for his wife, loving her as his own body. He also points out that, on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband. (Eph 5:21-33) The apostle Peter counsels wives to be in subjection to their husbands, appealing to them through chaste conduct, deep respect, and a quiet and mild spirit. He uses Sarah, who called her husband Abraham “lord,” as an example to imitate.—1Pe 3:1-6.

Cleanness and loyalty in the marriage bond are emphasized throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures. Paul says: “Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.” (Heb 13:4) He counsels mutual respect between husband and wife and the payment of the marriage due.

‘Marry in the Lord’ is the apostle’s admonition, which is in harmony with the practice of ancient worshipers of God in marrying only those who were likewise true worshipers. (1Co 7:39) However, the apostle gives counsel to those who are not married that they may be able to serve the Lord without distraction if they remain single. He says that, in view of the time, those who get married should live ‘as though they had no wives,’ in other words, that they should not devote themselves to the marital privileges and responsibilities to the extent of making this their whole life but should seek and serve Kingdom interests, while not excluding their marriage responsibilities.—1Co 7:29-38.

Paul counseled that just because younger widows expressed the intent to devote themselves exclusively to Christian ministerial activities, they were not to be put on the list of those to be cared for by the congregation; it was better for them to remarry. This is because, he says, their sexual impulses may induce them to go contrary to their expression of faith that might lead to their accepting the congregation’s financial support as hard workers, while at the same time trying to get a husband as well as becoming unoccupied and meddlers. They would thereby bring themselves under an unfavorable judgment. To marry, bear children, and manage a household, while still maintaining the Christian faith, would effectively occupy them, protecting them against gossiping and talking of things they ought not. This would enable the congregation to help those who were actually widows and who qualified for such aid.—1Ti 5:9-16; 2:15.

Celibacy. The apostle Paul warns that one of the identifying features of the apostasy that was to come would be enforced celibacy, “forbidding to marry.” (1Ti 4:1, 3) Some of the apostles were married. (1Co 9:5; Lu 4:38) Paul, in setting forth the qualifications for overseers and ministerial servants in the Christian congregation, says that these men (if married) should have only one wife.—1Ti 3:1, 2, 12; Tit 1:5, 6.

Christians and Civil Marriage Laws. At the present time, in most lands of the earth, marriage is governed by laws of the civil authorities, “Caesar,” and the Christian should normally comply with these. (Mt 22:21) The Bible record nowhere sets out the requirement of a religious ceremony or the services of a clergyman. According to the arrangement in Bible times, the requirement would consistently be that a marriage be legalized according to the laws of the land and that marriages and births be registered where such a provision is made by law. Since the “Caesar” governments exercise such control of marriage, the Christian would be obliged to apply to them for the legalizing of a marriage. And even if he should desire to use the adultery of his mate as a Scriptural ground for terminating the marriage, he must obtain a legal divorce if this is possible. A Christian who remarries without due respect for Scriptural and legal requirements, therefore, would be violating God’s laws.—Mt 19:9; Ro 13:1.

Marriage and the Resurrection. A group of Jesus’ opponents who did not believe in the resurrection asked Jesus a question that was calculated to embarrass him. In answering them, he revealed that “those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.”—Lu 20:34, 35; Mt 22:30.

Symbolic Uses. Throughout the Scriptures, Jehovah speaks of himself as a husband. He considered himself as married to the nation of Israel. (Isa 54:1, 5, 6; 62:4) When Israel rebelled against Jehovah by practicing idolatry or some other form of sin against him, this was spoken of as committing prostitution like an unfaithful wife, providing cause for his divorcing her.—Isa 1:21; Jer 3:1-20; Ho 2.

In Galatians chapter 4 the apostle Paul likens the nation of Israel to the slave girl Hagar, the concubine of Abraham, and the Jewish people to Hagar’s son Ishmael. Just as Ishmael was the son of the secondary wife of Abraham, so the Jews were the children of the secondary “wife” of Jehovah. The tie binding Israel to Jehovah was the Law covenant. Paul likens “Jerusalem above,” Jehovah’s “woman,” to Sarah, Abraham’s free wife. Of this free woman “Jerusalem above,” Christians are the free spiritual children.—Ga 4:21-31; compare Isa 54:1-6.

As the great Father, Jehovah God, like Abraham, oversees the selection of a bride for his son Jesus Christ—not an earthly woman, but the Christian congregation. (Ge 24:1-4; 2Th 2:13; 1Pe 2:5) The first members of Jesus’ congregation were presented to him by “the friend of the bridegroom,” John the Baptizer, whom Jehovah had sent ahead of his Son. (Joh 3:28, 29) This congregational bride is “one spirit” with Christ, as his body. (1Co 6:17; Eph 1:22, 23; 5:22, 23) Just as the bride in Israel bathed and adorned herself, Jesus Christ sees that in preparation for marriage his bride is bathed so that she is perfectly clean without a spot or blemish. (Eph 5:25-27) In Psalm 45 and Revelation 21 she is shown as being beautifully adorned for the marriage.

Also in the book of Revelation, Jehovah foretells the time when his Son’s marriage would draw near and the bride would be prepared, arrayed in bright, clean, fine linen. He describes those invited to the evening meal of the Lamb’s marriage as being happy. (Re 19:7-9; 21:2, 9-21) On the night before his death, Jesus instituted the Lord’s Evening Meal, the Memorial of his death, and instructed his disciples to keep observing it. (Lu 22:19) This observance is to be kept “until he arrives.” (1Co 11:26) Just as in ancient times the bridegroom arrived at the house of the bride in order to take her from her own parents to the home he had provided for her in the house of his father, so Jesus Christ comes to take his anointed followers from their former earthly home, taking them with him so that where he is they may be also, in his Father’s house, in heaven.—Joh 14:1-3.

Evolution science reformation defanged?

With More Information About the Royal Society Meeting, Let's Not Boost Expectations Too High
Evolution News & Views 

Cool. The abstracts for the anticipated upcoming meeting of the Royal Society in London, "New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives," are now available.

The descriptions don't give a sense of what kind of fireworks to expect, if any. Of course, they're purposely written in anodyne prose -- no bomb-throwing. Like this from Gerd Müller, associated (like others organizers) with the Third Way of Evolution, who has spoken about "replac[ing] the Modern [Evolutionary] Synthesis, not merely improv[ing] it." His talk is titled, "The extended evolutionary synthesis":

Since the last major conceptual integration in evolutionary biology - the Modern Synthesis of the 1940s -- the biosciences have made significant advances. The rise of molecular biology and evolutionary developmental biology, the recognition of ecological development, niche construction and of multiple inheritance systems, the -omics revolution and the science of systems biology, among other developments, have provided a wealth of new knowledge regarding the mechanisms of evolutionary change. Some of these results are in agreement with the classical Synthetic Theory and others reveal different properties of evolutionary change. A renewed and extended evolutionary synthesis unites pertinent concepts emerging from these novel fields with elements from the standard theory, but it differs from the latter in its core logic and predictive capacities. Whereas the classical theory had concentrated on genes and adaptive variation in populations, the extended framework emphasises the role of constructive processes, environmental induction, and systems dynamics in the evolution of organismal complexity. Single level and unilinear causation is replaced by multilevel and reciprocal causation. Among other consequences, this entails a revised understanding of the role of natural selection in the evolutionary process. The extended evolutionary synthesis complements the traditional gene centric perspective and stimulates research into new areas of evolutionary biology.

We don't want to raise anyone's expectations too high.

Here's a metaphor that may help in clarifying what's happening. Imagine a city surrounded by a high wall. Some precincts within the city are very well mapped and tended. Others, however, have been neglected for decades, or simply allowed to go to ruins. Of late, an intrepid group of builders has moved into the neglected districts, and begun to fix them up. This creates a stir within the city: it's being "extended," and in some ways, improved.

But the high wall is always there, as an absolute barrier to free movement or development. The Royal Society meeting will explore what can be done within the walls of naturalism or materialism, to fix evolutionary theory (meaning theories about the origin and diversification of living things by natural processes). Yet if one reads through the abstracts, long-unsolved problems, such as the origin of life itself (which, pace evolutionary biologists, most definitely is a part of the evolutionary picture), the origin of complex systems, animals, etc. -- all those stand untouched.

Because there is only so much one can do within the walls of naturalism. If life is not the product of undirected physical processes, then one simply will not be able to solve that problem, no matter where one goes within the city. You have to open the gates and see what may be waiting outside, as we do here at Evolution News.


Many of the new evolutionary ideas, mechanisms, and lines of evidence are fascinating and worthwhile in their own right, but the main problems of evolution are unsolved -- because those problems only arise on the assumption that materialism/naturalism is true.

A clash of titans XXXI

File under "Well said" XXXVII

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. Mark Twain

Saturday 1 October 2016

Everyday miracles.

The Ubiquitous Miracles Of Our Existence
Posted by William J Murray

In another thread, I asked daveS why he was an atheist. He responded:

The proposition “there is no god” also appears to me to be consistent with what I observe in the world.

When asked what that meant, he expanded:

Well, I don’t know of any inconsistencies between this proposition and my observations. For example, I’m not aware of a god blatantly intervening in the world, as some people say happens.

I’ve addressed this in the other thread, but this comment is reflective of what a lot of atheists say is a convincing lack of evidence for god: the supposed lack of observed miracles. Atheists think we live in a world that looks like a world without a god. Of course, that’s circular reasoning based upon a groundless assumption; the assumption that what we experience is what we would be experiencing if there were no god and no supernatural commodities – a world dictated by more-or-less predictable cause-and-effect sequences of matter interacting according to intrinsic properties and orderly patterns.

Unrecognized by atheists, however is that therein lies what I call the ubiquitous miracles of our existence. We don’t consider them miraculous because we take them so utterly for granted that we, for the most part, aren’t even consciously aware of these miracles.  We’re blind to the miraculous because the nature of our very existence is miraculous.

1. The miracle of an orderly, predictable experiential context. What if the universe was not orderly? What if the constants and properties that guide matter into patterned behaviors were not constant at all? What if they fluctuated randomly? Why should matter have any consistent properties at all? What holds these properties and forces at certain values?  Without an orderly universe, how would we have any rational thoughts? Nothing would be coherent.  How would we even come into existence unless something was keeping activity in the universe orderly?

2. The miracle of an individual conscious existence. Why should interacting matter become conscious and have individualistic thoughts? How does such a thing even happen? Why should our thoughts be apparently controllable and orderly? How is it that we can seemingly create a virtually unlimited amount of highly complex, coherent ideas/information on demand?

3. The miracle of mind over matter. How is it that without any knowledge whatsoever of how any of it works, we can simply will an action and cause the correct sequences of countless microscopic physical interactions to properly occur to achieve body movement? I was playing with my year-old great granddaughter the other day and she saw me wiggle my eyebrows, then immediately wiggled hers. Okay, she had no idea how to do that, and couldn’t even see herself doing it. How did she wiggle her eyebrows in response? It can’t be anything other than her, in whatever conscious state she has developed at this point, seeing me do a thing and then willing her body to do the same thing, and the her body immediately and correctly translating a pre-language, entirely uneducated intent into countless physico-chemical events that ended up being her wiggling her eyebrows.


I honestly don’t know how anything gets any more miraculous than that which we take for granted every moment of our existence. IMO, the existence of an orderly, predictable world where conscious entities exist and have intentional control (to a large degree) over their physical bodies and thoughts, and the existence of logic and mathematics as functionally valid correspondences to that experience is far, far more profoundly miraculous than if I saw somebody flying or solving a super-complex problem or parting an inland sea. Frankly, I’ve seen “miraculous” faith healings and all kinds of “miraculous” things that most people would simply not believe unless they experience them (and perhaps not even then), and none of it even remotely compares to the ubiquitous, every-day miracles that allow all of us this incredible experience of being deliberate, conscious entities in an orderly, lawfully predictable universe.

1Samuel Ch.17 the Watchtower Society's commentary.

David Versus Goliath—Did It Really Happen?

Some people wonder if the account about David and Goliath is true history or just myth. Did such a doubt cross your mind as you read the preceding article? If so, please consider the following three questions.


1 | Could a man really be some nine and a half feet (2.9 m) tall?

The Bible says that Goliath’s “height was six cubits and a span.” (1 Samuel 17:4) The cubit in question was 17.5 inches (44.5 cm) long; the span, 8.75 inches (22.2 cm). That adds up to about nine feet six inches (2.9 m). Some insist that Goliath could not have been that tall, but consider: In modern times, the tallest man documented was over 8 feet 11 inches (2.7 m) tall. Is it really impossible that Goliath was six inches (15 cm) or so taller? He was of the tribe of the Rephaim, men who were known for their unusual size. An Egyptian document from the 13th century B.C.E. mentions that some fearsome warriors in the region of Canaan were over eight feet (2.4 m) in height. So Goliath’s height, while unusual, is hardly impossible.


2 | Was David a real person?
There was a time when scholars tried to relegate King David to the realm of myth, but that has become harder to do. Archaeologists have found an ancient inscription that mentions “the house of David.” Furthermore, Jesus Christ spoke of David as a real person. (Matthew 12:3; 22:43-45) Jesus’ identity as the Messiah is supported by two detailed genealogies showing that he descended from King David. (Matthew 1:6-16; Luke 3:23-31) Clearly, David was a real man.

3 | Did the events described in the account unfold in a real place?

The Bible says that the battle occurred in the Valley of Elah. But it gets still more specific, noting that the Philistines camped on a hillside somewhere between two towns, Socoh and Azekah. The Israelites were stationed across the valley on the opposite hillside. Were these real places?

Note what a recent visitor to the area says: “Our guide—who was not a religious man—took us to the Valley of Elah. We ascended a path that took us to the brow of a hill. As we looked over the valley, he had us read 1 Samuel 17:1-3. Then he pointed across the valley, saying: ‘There, to your left, lie the ruins of Socoh.’ Turning, he said, ‘Over there, to your right, are the ruins of Azekah. The Philistines camped between those towns, somewhere on the hillsides facing you. So we may be standing where the Israelites camped.’ I thought of Saul and David standing right where I was. Then we descended, and on the valley floor, we crossed a streambed, mostly dry, that was full of stones. I could not help but picture David stooping here to pick up five smooth stones, one of which killed Goliath.” That visitor, like many others, was deeply impressed with the authentic details in the Bible record.


There is no real basis for doubting the truthfulness of this historical account. It involves real people and real places. More important, it is part of God’s inspired Word, so it comes from the God of truth, the One who “cannot lie.”—Titus 1:2; 2 Timothy 3:16.

Bomb thrower David Berlinski doing his thing.

Microbiology v. Darwinism.

Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology
Casey Luskin 

The evolution of antibiotic resistance is typically the result of small changes allowing for survival in a microbe or other organism under special circumstances where the organism faces extremely strong selection pressure due to the presence of some antibiotic drug. In other cases, it is the result of the transfer of pre-existing antibiotic resistance genes from one microbe to another, and the selection of such microbes in an environment containing antibiotics. Even in the first example, evolution does not produce a truly new function. In fact the change produced often makes the microbe less fit when the antibiotic is removed--it reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution.

Fitness costs are real, and biological realities like fitness cost and other limits to evolution play a vital role in shaping strategies used to combat antibiotic resistance, antiviral resistance, and pesticide resistance. In fact, were it not for the existence of fitness cost, in many cases antibiotic resistant bacteria would proliferate and resistant strains would soon replace non-resistant strains. Because of fitness costs, resistant strains are outcompeted by non-resistant bacteria once selection pressure is relaxed, allowing doctors to combat antibiotic resistance through various drug usage strategies.

Yet under the approach adopted by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in its critique of Explore Evolution (EE)[1], organisms are treated as if they are nearly infinitely-plastic; evolution is viewed as if it can do anything. If the NCSE were right--which thankfully it isn't--then medical researchers would have little hope in the fight against antibiotic resistant microbes.

Not only is the NCSE's mindset challenged by the evidence [4], but if it were true, the implications for medicine would be drastic: If biological realities like fitness cost and other limits to evolution did not exist, it would be pointless for medical doctors to try to combat antibiotic resistance or antiviral drug resistance, because evolution could always produce an adaptation such that bacteria would become resistant without incurring a fitness cost. Thankfully, Explore Evolution informs students about the realities of limits to bacterial evolution that give doctors and scientists empirically-based hope in the fight against antibiotic resistance.

The NCSE wrongly implies that fitness costs are a minor issue for those trying to fight antibiotic resistance and other forms of resistance, stating, "Mutations do not necessarily impair a protein's normal functioning nor impose a fitness cost." After complaining that "Explore Evolution ... says mutations do confer resistance but with a 'fitness cost,'" the NCSE then claims that "Explore Evolution significantly misrepresents how antibiotic resistance arises in this description." Unfortunately, it appears that the NCSE misunderstands both EE and the importance of fitness costs to evolutionary biologists.

Many scientific papers discuss the stark reality of fitness costs, supporting the emphasis that EE places on this topic. In fact, one paper cited by the NCSE acknowledges that the reality of fitness costs is vital to help scientists predict whether resistance will spread: "biological cost of resistance might be a more relevant predictor of the risk for resistance development." [5] Another paper published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry found that "[t]he topic of fitness costs is a central theme in evolutionary biology" because "fitness costs constrain the evolution of resistance to environmental stress." [6] Yet another paper observed that "[i]t is generally established that drug resistance mutations reduce viral fitness." [7] Regarding the specific case of antibiotic resistance, one study in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy observed that "[t]he biological fitness cost of antibiotic resistance is a key parameter in determining the rate of appearance and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria." [8] Indeed, science journals are replete with documented examples of fitness costs, as the following selections amply demonstrate:

An article published in the journal Genetics in 2007 by Marciano et al. titled "A Fitness Cost Associated With the Antibiotic Resistance Enzyme SME-1 β -Lactamase" found that blaSME-1 β-lactamase gene, which confers antibiotic resistance to the use of carbapenems, has a fitness cost associated with mutations in its signal sequence. Only by artificially swapping the gene's signal sequence with the signal sequence from a different gene could this fitness cost be alleviated; there was no natural evolutionary elimination of this fitness cost. The article found that identifying this fitness cost barrier to evolution helped them prevent the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria: "The identification of a SME-1-mediated fitness cost allows the direct application of genetic techniques that have been utilized to understand structural features of β-lactamase function and evolution." See David C. Marciano, Omid Y. Karkouti and Timothy Palzkill, "A Fitness Cost Associated With the Antibiotic Resistance Enzyme SME-1 β-Lactamase," Genetics, Vol. 176: 2381--2392 (August, 2007).
A paper in BiomedCentral's journal Evolutionary Biology titled "Acetylcholinesterase alterations reveal the fitness cost of mutations conferring insecticide resistance" found that some insects exposed to insecticides which target acetylcholinesterase, an important enzyme involved in the nervous system of insects, evolve resistance that comes only at a fitness cost. According to the article, "Our findings suggest that the alteration of activity and stability of acetylcholinesterase are at the origin of the fitness cost associated with mutations providing resistance." As the paper put it, "higher the number of [resistance-conferring] mutations, the lower the stability of the mutant" enzyme. When seeking mutations that compensated for loss of stability in the mutant enzymes, the study found that "no mutation increased the stability of the enzyme, all combinations resulted in proteins still less stable." In other words, there was a clear fitness cost faced by insecticide-resistant mutant insects. See David C. Marciano, Omid Y. Karkouti and Timothy Palzkill, "A Fitness Cost Associated With the Antibiotic Resistance Enzyme SME-1 β-Lactamase," Genetics, Vol. 176: 2381--2392 (August, 2007).
A paper in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, titled "Nitrofurantoin resistance mechanism and fitness cost in Escherichia coli," observes the reality of fitness cost, stating: "The biological fitness cost of antibiotic resistance is a key parameter in determining the rate of appearance and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria." The paper found that because of the fitness cost associated with E. coli that are resistant to Nitrofurantoin, "even though resistant mutants will appear in the bacterial population in the bladder, they will be unable to become enriched and establish an infection because of their impaired growth at these therapeutic antibiotic concentrations." The article further observes, "Resistance to antibiotics is most often accompanied by a biological cost, observed as a decrease in fitness, i.e. a reduced growth rate or virulence." Ironically, the paper cited by this study to bolster this claim--a claim that corroborates EE's statements about fitness cost--is Andersson (2006) [see below], the same paper that the NCSE cites to back its claim that "not all mutations produce fitness costs!" It seems that research scientists have interpreted Andersson (2006) differently than the NCSE. See Linus Sandegren, Anton Lindqvist, Gunnar Kahlmeter, and Dan I. Andersson, "Nitrofurantoin resistance mechanism and fitness cost in Escherichia coli," Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Vol. 62, 495--503 (2008).
Andersson (2006) explicitly observes that fitness cost is important to understanding whether resistant populations will persist after selection is relaxed:
A key parameter influencing the rate and trajectory of the evolution of antibiotic resistance is the fitness cost of resistance. Recent studies have demonstrated that antibiotic resistance, whether caused by target alteration or by other mechanisms, generally confers a reduction in fitness expressed as reduced growth, virulence or transmission. These findings imply that resistance might be reversible, provided antibiotic use is reduced. However, several processes act to stabilize resistance, including compensatory evolution where the fitness cost is ameliorated by additional mutation without loss of resistance, the rare occurrence of cost-free resistance mechanisms and genetic linkage or co-selection between the resistance markers and other selected markers. Conceivably we can use this knowledge to rationally choose and design targets and drugs where the costs of resistance are the highest, and where the likelihood of compensation is the lowest.
Thus, Andersson (2006) observes that "cost-free resistance mechanisms" are "rare" and that fitness cost is a very common phenomenon, stating that antibiotic resistance "generally confers a reduction in fitness." EE thus properly discusses this common phenomenon, and Andersson (2006) actually bolsters the points of EE. We find it unfortunate that the NCSE has misused this paper in its attempt to downplay the importance and reality of fitness costs. Additionally, Andersson (2006) states, "A rational antibiotic design strategy is therefore to identify targets for which the resistance mechanism has the most negative effect on fitness." This is a good strategy, but it would be pointless if bacteria didn't face evolutionary limits and could essentially always evolve to avoid fitness costs, as the NCSE implies. Again, we see that fitness cost is a real phenomenon and is vitally important to understand as microbiologists seek to slow the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria. EE is justified in discussing it. See Dan I Andersson, "The biological cost of mutational antibiotic resistance: any practical conclusions?," Current Opinion in Microbiology, Vol. 9:461--465 (2006).

Many similar examples could be cited. Given the scientific literature, how can the NCSE seriously maintain that fitness cost is not an important issue in microbiology or that EE is mistaken by highlighting its importance to evolutionary processes? The NCSE asserts that EE "significantly misrepresents how antibiotic resistance arises" when EE states that "[e]xperiments show that once antibiotics are removed from the environment, the original (non-resistant) strain 'out-competes' the resistant strain, which dies off within a few generations." But studies like those discussed here directly corroborate this claim of EE. And the existence of fitness costs are vital to helping biologists to fight antibiotic resistance, antiviral resistance, and pesticide resistance. For the sake of medical progress, thank goodness the NCSE is wrong.

[Note: This post was adapted from Antibiotic Resistance Revisited, a response to the NCSE, which was originally co-authored with Explore Evolution co-author Ralph Seelke, Professor of Biology at University of Wisconsin-Superior.]

References Cited
[1] National Center for Science Education. 2008. Section on "Bacteria" in the NCSE critique of Explore Evolution. Available at http://ncseweb.org/creationism/analysis/bacteria as of January 16, 2009.

[4] See R. Seelke and S. Ebnet. "An unexpectedly low evolutionary potential for a trpA 49V,D60N double mutant In Escherichia coli.," Presented at the 107th Annual Meeting, Abstract R-055, American Society for Microbiology, Toronto, Canada, May 21-25, 2007; R. P. Mortlock (ed.), Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution (Plenum Press, New York, 1984). Note: This book contains seven examples of situations in which evolution fails to produce a new function.

[5] Dan I Andersson, "The biological cost of mutational antibiotic resistance: any practical conclusions?," Current Opinion in Microbiology, Vol. 9:461--465 (2006).

[6] Lingtian Xie and Paul L. Klerks, "Fitness costs constrain the evolution of resistance to environmental stress in populations," Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 23(6):1499--1503 (2004).

[7] M. Cong, D.E. Bennett, W, Heneine and J.G. García-Lerma, "Fitness Cost of Drug Resistance Mutations is Relative and is Modulated by Other Resistance Mutations: Implications for Persistance of Transmitted Resistance," Antiviral Therapy, Vol. 10, Suppl 1:S169 (June 7-11, 2005).


[8] Linus Sandegren, Anton Lindqvist, Gunnar Kahlmeter, and Dan I. Andersson, "Nitrofurantoin resistance mechanism and fitness cost in Escherichia coli," Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Vol. 62, 495--503 (2008).

A fossil link goes belly up.

Ida's Critics Demolish Claims That Fossil Is Human Evolutionary Link
Casey Luskin

Remember Ida? The fossil hailed as the "eighth wonder of the world" whose "impact on the world of palaeontology" would be like "an asteroid falling down to Earth"? She was promised to be "the link that connects us directly with the rest of the animal kingdom." She was touted on a History Channel / BBC documentary, but then there was the bust. Well, Ida's critics have now gotten around to publishing technical articles critiquing the hyped view promoted to the public last year. A recent news release at the University of Texas, "Recently Analyzed Fossil Was Not Human Ancestor As Claimed, Anthropologists Say," explains:
A fossil that was celebrated last year as a possible "missing link" between humans and early primates is actually a forebearer of modern-day lemurs and lorises, according to two papers by scientists at The University of Texas at Austin, Duke University and the University of Chicago.
In an article now available online in the Journal of Human Evolution, four scientists present evidence that the 47-million-year-old Darwinius masillae is not a haplorhine primate like humans, apes and monkeys, as the 2009 research claimed.

They also note that the article on Darwinius published last year in the journal PLoS ONE ignores two decades of published research showing that similar fossils are actually strepsirrhines, the primate group that includes lemurs and lorises.

"Many lines of evidence indicate that Darwinius has nothing at all to do with human evolution," says Chris Kirk, associate professor of anthropology at The University of Texas at Austin. "Every year, scientists describe new fossils that contribute to our understanding of primate evolution. What's amazing about Darwinius is, despite the fact that it's nearly complete, it tells us very little that we didn't already know from fossils of closely related species."

The big question now is, will BBC and The History Channel publish documentaries retracting their prior claims about Ida's importance as a "human ancestor," or will they leave the public with the impression that Ida is a "missing link"? Perhaps they might publish a documentary about the scientific community's tendency to overhype fossils as part of a crusade for Darwin? I'm a huge fan of The History Channel (or at least I used to be when they focused on real history instead of broadcasting UFO / "2012" material), but I'm not holding my breath.

A lack of evidence proves Darwinism?

Smithsonian's New Human Origins Exhibit Targets Students Who Doubt Darwinism
Casey Luskin

The Smithsonian has a new human origins exhibit, "What does it mean to be human?" specially targeted at swaying student visitors who might doubt Darwinian evolution.

The most amusing part of the exhibit proudly explains that evolution predicted we'd lack evidence for evolution; that's how we know it's true!

That's right, this is how the nation's most prestigious natural history museum presents evolution: evolution predicts that evolution is supported both when we do and when we don't find confirming fossil evidence. Consider the following from the educator's guide:

Misconception: Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.
Response: Science actually predicts gaps in the fossil record. Many species leave no fossils at all, and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not common. The chance of any individual organism becoming fossilized is incredibly small. Nevertheless, new fossils are constantly being discovered. These include many transitional fossils--e.g., intermediary fossils between birds and dinosaurs, and between humans and our primate ancestors. Our lack of knowledge about certain parts of the fossil record does not disprove evolution.

Did you get that? Ignoring the fact that transitional fossils are often missing even among taxa whose records are very complete, now Darwin's defenders argue that their theory "predicts gaps in the fossil record." How convenient!

(Now I fully understand the evolutionary explanation as to why transitional fossils are purportedly missing, and I've written on it extensively in the past, so if you want a critique, go there.)

What's ironic, however, is that if you ask the question How Do We Know Humans Evolved? the answer you're given is, "Fossils like the ones shown in our Human Fossils Gallery provide evidence that modern humans evolved from earlier humans." So whether you find fossils or you don't, that's evidence for evolution.

And some of the "transitional" fossils listed in the gallery are quite dubious.

Ardipithecus ramidus is offered as an alleged "a human-African ape common ancestor," yet the exhibit doesn't disclose that when "Ardi" was first discovered it was reportedly "crushed to smithereens" such that it resembled "Irish stew."

The exhibit also touts Sahelanthropus tchadensis as the "oldest fossil human," even though this species is known from only one skull and a few jaw fragments, which some paleoanthropologists have suggested might have belonged to a female gorilla.

But the exhibit gives no evidence of dissent from the official party line, such as an admission from Ernst Mayr in 2004 that "[t]he earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap," and therefore we're in a position of "[n]ot having any fossils that can serve as missing links."

I guess according to the Smithsonian's exhibit, this large, unbridged gap is just more evidence for evolution.

Darwinism's just so stories are almost as substantive as kipling's

Brangelina Fever Gets Its Own Darwinian Just-So Story
Jonathan Witt

Darwinists love just-so stories. Why are cheetahs fast? Because natural selection preferred the slightly faster cheetah ancestors, thanks to the fast cats being able to catch more prey and impress the lady cats. Why are turtles slow? Well, maybe being fast was a waste of energy, so turtle evolution at some point wandered down an evolutionary alley committed to a defensive strategy that, et cetera, et cetera.

Why are chimps clever? Because being clever gave their ancestors a survival advantage over their stupider cousins. Got a dimwitted species? No problem for Darwinism. Those animals didn't need cleverness in their ecological niche. Bigger brains would just have been a waste of calories.

The Maestro of Magic -- Natural Selection -- and His Sexy Assistant

Any attribute that makes a creature faster, smarter, stronger, stealthier, sturdier, more efficient -- there's a Darwinian just-so story waiting in the wings involving an animal hero, usually some poor duffer getting squeezed out in the competition for food or safety or conjugal warmth, and often as not, some damsel in either heat or distress who needs a hero almost as much as Bonnie Tyler does.

What about all those zany things on the nature shows so impractical that natural selection would never vote them on to the next round of mother nature's great big unmerciful game of Jeopardy? Well then, Darwinism has just the little beauty you're looking for. That's right, folks, sexual selection -- natural selection's winsome, whimsical, and wondrous assistant. Sexual selection is where, say, peahens prefer the peacocks with the bigger tail feathers, never mind how impractical those tails might become for running and flying. Presto! Peacocks have evolved whimsically enormous peacock tails.

Together, natural and sexual selection can whip up a just-so story for any biological marvel you want to throw at them.

The Monkey Business Behind Brangelina Fever

But wait. There's more. Enter movie star couple Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.

Angela Chen of The Verge tackles the vexing question of why so many of us give a rip about the Hollywood soap opera that is Brangelina. A big part of her answer, of course: evolution. You see, "our brains adapted long ago to be deeply interested in the beautiful and famous among us, says Daniel Kruger, a psychologist at the University of Michigan."

Chen then summarizes a Duke University study where they showed four monkeys a series of pictures of other monkeys they knew:

Each time they looked at a picture, they received a certain amount of cherry juice. They got more juice for looking at pictures of lower-status monkeys and less juice for pictures of the alpha monkeys. The monkeys loved the juice, and yet were willing to sacrifice it for a glimpse at the alphas. They were transfixed by their power.
Why? "In prehistoric times, our ancestors lived in societies of around 200 people and it was important to know what everyone was up to," Chen explains. "You had to know who you could trust, who was strong, and who could teach you how to be like them. All this could help you get ahead."

We keep tabs on the rich and famous, Chen continues, "because they might reveal the secrets to success. On some level, our brains really do believe that stars are just like us and that lessons from millionaires can improve our own sad lives."

Evolutionary psychologist Frank McAndrew seconds all this. "People who didn't care what people were up to just didn't do very well. We're the descendants of the ones who gossiped, so we're programmed to pay attention to people who are socially important."

What about that brilliant mathematician or inventor or artist too busy discovering, inventing, or creating things to bother with gossip or the latest Brangelina dustup? He's descended from, what -- the dummies at the edge of the camp playing Dungeons & Dragons?

Darwinism is Like a Party Balloon -- Highly Flexible, and Mostly Empty

The Wall Street Journal story on the monkey experiment quotes Paul Glimcher, associate professor of neural science and psychology at New York University:

"All primates living in complex societies have evolved this drive to study what's around them," Dr. Glimcher explained. "People are willing to pay money to look at pictures of high-ranking human primates. When you fork out $3" for a celebrity gossip magazine, "you're doing exactly what the monkeys are doing."
Ain't evolution grand! Probably explains our love of bananas, too. What about the banana haters in our midst, you say? They, of course, are descended from a now extinct subspecies of banana-hating monkeys.

I kid, I kid. The point is that Darwinian just-so stories are so flexible they're able to explain almost any zoological phenomenon and its opposite.

The other problem: Except in some cases of microevolutionary adaptation, these Darwinian just-so stories explain things hardly any better than a Rudyard Kipling tale about how the leopard got his spots or the camel his hump. All of the truly creative action in these Darwinian stories -- that is, the long train of genetic mutations necessary to gradually build the oh-so-helpful pair of wings or the way-cool set of gills or claws or fingers -- generally takes place off stage, out of the spotlight and far away from the paparazzi.


That's bad show business, and bad science.

Friday 30 September 2016

The Watchtower Society's commentary on "Kindness"

KINDNESS:
The quality or state of taking an active interest in the welfare of others; friendly and helpful acts or favors. The principal word for “kindness” in the Christian Greek Scriptures is khre·stoʹtes. Jehovah God takes the lead and is the best example of one showing kindness in so many ways toward others, even toward the unthankful and wicked, encouraging them to repentance. (Lu 6:35; Ro 2:4; 11:22; Tit 3:4, 5) Christians, in turn, under the kindly yoke of Christ (Mt 11:30), are urged to clothe themselves with kindness (Col 3:12; Eph 4:32) and to develop the fruitage of God’s spirit, which includes kindness. (Ga 5:22) In this way they recommend themselves as God’s ministers. (2Co 6:4-6) “Love is . . . kind.”—1Co 13:4.

“Kindness” (or, reasonableness; literally, yieldingness; Gr., e·pi·ei·kiʹa) is an outstanding characteristic of Christ Jesus. (2Co 10:1, ftn) Paul was treated with unusual “human kindness” (literally, affection for mankind; Gr., phi·lan·thro·piʹa) by the inhabitants of Malta.—Ac 28:2, ftn.

Loving-Kindness of God. As in the Christian Greek Scriptures so also in the Hebrew Scriptures, frequent mention is made of kindness. The Hebrew word cheʹsedh, when used in reference to kindness, occurs 245 times. The related verb cha·sadhʹ means “act in loyalty (or, loving-kindness)” and carries with it more than just the thought of tender regard or kindness stemming from love, though it includes such traits. (Ps 18:25, ftn) Cheʹsedh is kindness that lovingly attaches itself to an object until its purpose in connection with that object is realized. According to the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, cheʹsedh “is active, social, and enduring. . . . [Cheʹsedh] always designates not just a human attitude, but also the act that emerges from this attitude. It is an act that preserves or promotes life. It is intervention on behalf of someone suffering misfortune or distress. It is demonstration of friendship or piety. It pursues what is good and not what is evil.” (Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, 1986, Vol. 5, p. 51) Hence, cheʹsedh is more comprehensively rendered “loving-kindness,” or, because of the fidelity, solidarity, and proved loyalty associated with it, an alternate translation would be “loyal love.” In the plural number it may be rendered “loving-kindnesses,” “acts of loyal love,” “full loving-kindness,” or “full loyal love.”—Ps 25:6, ftn; Isa 55:3, ftn.

Loving-kindness is a precious quality of Jehovah God in which he delights, and it is manifest in all his dealings with his servants. (Ps 36:7; 62:12; Mic 7:18) Were this not the case, they would have perished long ago. (La 3:22) Thus, Moses could plead in behalf of rebellious Israel, both on the basis of Jehovah’s great name and because He is a God of loving-kindness.—Nu 14:13-19.

The Scriptures show that Jehovah’s loving-kindness, or loyal love, is displayed in a variety of ways and under different circumstances—in acts of deliverance and preservation (Ps 6:4; 119:88, 159), as a safeguard and protection (Ps 40:11; 61:7; 143:12), and as a factor bringing relief from troubles (Ru 1:8; 2:20; Ps 31:16, 21). Because of it one may be recovered from sin (Ps 25:7), sustained, and upheld. (Ps 94:18; 117:2) By it God’s chosen ones are assisted. (Ps 44:26) God’s loving-kindness was magnified in the cases of Lot (Ge 19:18-22), Abraham (Mic 7:20), and Joseph (Ge 39:21). It was also acknowledged in the choice of a wife for Isaac.—Ge 24:12-14, 27.

With the development of the nation of Israel and thereafter, Jehovah’s loving-kindness in connection with his covenant continued to be magnified. (Ex 15:13; De 7:12) This was true in David’s case (2Sa 7:15; 1Ki 3:6; Ps 18:50), as it was also with Ezra and those with him (Ezr 7:28; 9:9), and likewise with “thousands” of others (Ex 34:7; Jer 32:18). In support of the kingdom covenant with David, Jehovah continued to express his loving-kindness even after Jesus died, for He resurrected this “loyal one” in fulfillment of the prophecy: “I will give you people the loving-kindnesses to David that are faithful.”—Ps 16:10; Ac 13:34; Isa 55:3.

It is this loving-kindness on the part of Jehovah that draws individuals to him. (Jer 31:3) They trust in it (Ps 13:5; 52:8), hope in it (Ps 33:18, 22), pray for it (Ps 51:1; 85:7; 90:14; 109:26; 119:41), and are comforted by it (Ps 119:76). They also give thanks to Jehovah for his loving-kindness (Ps 107:8, 15, 21, 31), they bless and praise him for it (Ps 66:20; 115:1; 138:2), and they talk to others about it (Ps 92:2). Like David, they should never try to hide it (Ps 40:10), for it is good (Ps 69:16; 109:21) and it is a great source of rejoicing. (Ps 31:7) Certainly this divine loving-kindness is like a pleasant pathway in which to walk.—Ps 25:10.

In other Bible texts the overflowing abundance of God’s loving-kindness (Ps 5:7; 69:13; Jon 4:2), its greatness (Nu 14:19), and its permanence (1Ki 8:23) are emphasized. It is as high as the heavens (Ps 36:5; 57:10; 103:11; 108:4), fills the earth (Ps 33:5; 119:64), and is extended to a thousand generations (De 7:9) and “to time indefinite” (1Ch 16:34, 41; Ps 89:2; Isa 54:8, 10; Jer 33:11). In Psalm 136 all 26 verses repeat the phrase, ‘Jehovah’s loving-kindness is to time indefinite.’

Often this wonderful characteristic of Jehovah, his loving-kindness, is associated with other magnificent qualities—God’s mercy, graciousness, truth, forgiveness, righteousness, peace, judgment, and justice.—Ex 34:6; Ne 9:17; Ps 85:10; 89:14; Jer 9:24.

Loving-Kindness of Man. From the above it is apparent that those wishing to have God’s approval must “love kindness” and “carry on with one another loving-kindness and mercies.” (Mic 6:8; Zec 7:9) As the proverb says, “The desirable thing in earthling man is his loving-kindness,” and it brings him rich rewards. (Pr 19:22; 11:17) God remembered and was pleased with the loving-kindness shown during Israel’s youth. (Jer 2:2) But when it became “like the morning clouds and like the dew that early goes away,” Jehovah was not pleased, for “in loving-kindness I have taken delight, and not in sacrifice,” he says. (Ho 6:4, 6) Lacking loving-kindness, Israel was reproved, the reproof itself actually being a loving-kindness on God’s part. (Ho 4:1; Ps 141:5) Israel was also advised to return to God by demonstrating loving-kindness and justice. (Ho 12:6) Such traits should be manifest at all times if one is to find favor in the sight of God and man.—Job 6:14; Pr 3:3, 4.

Instances in the Bible are numerous where individuals showed loving-kindness toward others. Sarah, for example, showed such loyal love toward her husband when they were in enemy territory, protecting him by saying he was her brother. (Ge 20:13) Jacob asked Joseph to exercise the same toward him by promising not to bury him in Egypt. (Ge 47:29; 50:12, 13) Rahab requested that the Israelites show her loving-kindness by preserving her household alive, even as she had similarly treated the Israelite spies. (Jos 2:12, 13) Boaz commended Ruth for exercising it (Ru 3:10), and Jonathan asked David to show it toward him and his household.—1Sa 20:14, 15; 2Sa 9:3-7.

The motives and circumstances that prompt persons to show kindness or loving-kindness vary a great deal. Incidental acts of kindness may reflect customary hospitality or a tendency toward warmheartedness, yet may not necessarily indicate godliness. (Compare Ac 27:1, 3; 28:1, 2.) In the case of a certain man belonging to the city of Bethel, the kindness offered him really was in payment for favors expected of him in return. (Jg 1:22-25) At other times acts of loving-kindness were requested of recipients of past favors, perhaps because of the dire circumstances of the petitioner. (Ge 40:12-15) But sometimes persons failed to pay such debts of loving-kindness. (Ge 40:23; Jg 8:35) As the proverb shows, a multitude of men will proclaim their loving-kindness, but few are faithful to carry it out. (Pr 20:6) Saul and David both remembered the loving-kindness that others had shown (1Sa 15:6, 7; 2Sa 2:5, 6), and it seems that the kings of Israel gained some sort of reputation for loving-kindness (1Ki 20:31), perhaps in comparison with the pagan rulers. However, on one occasion David’s display of loving-kindness was rebuffed through a misinterpretation of the motives behind it.—2Sa 10:2-4.

Law, Paul says, was not made for righteous persons but for bad people, who, among other things, are lacking in loving-kindness. (1Ti 1:9) The Greek word a·noʹsi·os, here rendered “lacking loving-kindness,” also has the sense of “disloyal.”—2Ti 3:2.

Undeserved Kindness. The Greek word khaʹris occurs more than 150 times in the Greek Scriptures and is rendered in a variety of ways, depending on the context. In all instances the central idea of khaʹris is preserved—that which is agreeable (1Pe 2:19, 20) and winsome. (Lu 4:22) By extension, in some instances it refers to a kind gift (1Co 16:3; 2Co 8:19) or the kind manner of the giving. (2Co 8:4, 6) At other times it has reference to the credit, gratitude, or thankfulness that an especially kind act calls forth.—Lu 6:32-34; Ro 6:17; 1Co 10:30; 15:57; 2Co 2:14; 8:16; 9:15; 1Ti 1:12; 2Ti 1:3.

On the other hand, in the great majority of occurrences, khaʹris is rendered “grace” by most English Bible translators. The word “grace,” however, with some 14 different meanings does not convey to most readers the ideas contained in the Greek word. To illustrate: In John 1:14, where the King James Version says “the Word was made flesh . . . full of grace and truth,” what is meant? Does it mean “gracefulness,” or “favor,” or what?

Scholar R. C. Trench, in Synonyms of the New Testament, says khaʹris implies “a favour freely done, without claim or expectation of return—the word being thus predisposed to receive its new emphasis [as given it in the Christian writings] . . . , to set forth the entire and absolute freeness of the loving-kindness of God to men. Thus Aristotle, defining [khaʹris], lays the whole stress on this very point, that it is conferred freely, with no expectation of return, and finding its only motive in the bounty and free-heartedness of the giver.” (London, 1961, p. 158) Joseph H. Thayer in his lexicon says: “The word [khaʹris] contains the idea of kindness which bestows upon one what he has not deserved . . . the N. T. writers use [khaʹris] pre-eminently of that kindness by which God bestows favors even upon the ill-deserving, and grants to sinners the pardon of their offences, and bids them accept of eternal salvation through Christ.” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 666) Khaʹris is closely related to another Greek word, khaʹri·sma, concerning which William Barclay’s New Testament Wordbook (1956, p. 29) says: “The whole basic idea of the word [khaʹri·sma] is that of a free and undeserved gift, of something given to a man unearned and unmerited.”—Compare 2Co 1:11, Int.

When khaʹris is used in the above sense, in reference to kindness bestowed on one who does not deserve it, as is true with the kindnesses extended by Jehovah, “undeserved kindness” is a very good English equivalent for the Greek expression.—Ac 15:40; 18:27; 1Pe 4:10; 5:10, 12.

A worker is entitled to what he has worked for, his pay; he expects his wages as a right, as a debt owed him, and payment of it is no gift or special undeserved kindness. (Ro 4:4) But for sinners condemned to death (and we are all born as such) to be released from that condemnation and to be declared righteous, this is indeed kindness that is totally undeserved. (Ro 3:23, 24; 5:17) If it is argued that those born under the Law covenant arrangement were under a greater condemnation to death, because such covenant showed them up as sinners, then it should be remembered that greater undeserved kindness was extended to the Jews in that salvation was first offered to them.—Ro 5:20, 21; 1:16.

This special manifestation of undeserved kindness on God’s part toward mankind in general was the release by ransom from condemnation through the blood of Jehovah’s beloved Son, Christ Jesus. (Eph 1:7; 2:4-7) By means of this undeserved kindness God brings salvation to all sorts of men (Tit 2:11), something that the prophets had spoken about. (1Pe 1:10) Paul’s reasoning and argument, therefore, is sound: “Now if it is by undeserved kindness, it is no longer due to works; otherwise, the undeserved kindness no longer proves to be undeserved kindness.”—Ro 11:6.

Paul, more than any other writer, mentioned God’s undeserved kindness—more than 90 times in his 14 letters. He mentions the undeserved kindness of God or of Jesus in the opening salutation of all his letters with the exception of Hebrews, and in the closing remarks of each letter, without exception, he again speaks of it. Other Bible writers make similar reference in the opening and closing of their writings.—1Pe 1:2; 2Pe 1:2; 3:18; 2Jo 3; Re 1:4; 22:21.

Paul had every reason for emphasizing Jehovah’s undeserved kindness, for he had formerly been “a blasphemer and a persecutor and an insolent man.” “Nevertheless,” he explains, “I was shown mercy, because I was ignorant and acted with a lack of faith. But the undeserved kindness of our Lord abounded exceedingly along with faith and love that is in connection with Christ Jesus.” (1Ti 1:13, 14; 1Co 15:10) Paul did not spurn such undeserved kindness, as some have foolishly done (Jude 4), but he gladly accepted it with thanksgiving and urged others also who accept it ‘not to miss its purpose.’—Ac 20:24; Ga 2:21; 2Co 6:1.

Darwinism explains Everything (except when it doesn't)

Evolution Arguments Are Not Holding Water

Being an evolutionist means never having to say you’re sorry. Just look at Richard Dawkins who will say pretty much anything at any time, no matter how much it contradicts science or just plain logic. If he ever gets into trouble he can always lapse back into a rant about those creationist rascals and the audience will automatically erupt with applause. And so arguing evolution with an evolutionist is a lot like the Monty Python argument skit. They will pull out all manner of canards, misdirections, and fallacies, depending on their mood at the moment. One common example is the use of normal science as confirmatory evidence.

As Thomas Kuhn pointed out, science sometimes operates in paradigms. Scientific research on a particular problem can embrace a type of solution, or paradigm. The research tries to elaborate on and refine the paradigm, but otherwise does not question the paradigm. Paradigms provide a stable framework, within which concepts and terminology can be developed to support scientific thinking.

But because the paradigm is taken for granted and assumed from the start, the research conclusions do not generally confirm or prove the paradigm. The research work develops and critically examines concepts within the paradigm, but not the paradigm itself. Kuhn called the research work done with a paradigm normal science.

Evolutionary theory very much works this way. Normal science, within the evolution paradigm, takes it for granted that the world evolved—that everything arose from strictly naturalistic, chance events. That is, that the world arose spontaneously. Therefore in evolutionary research, the evidence is interpreted according to evolution. You could say the evidence is theory-laden.

A typical evolutionary research study goes as follows: Given that X evolved, here is how X probably evolved. All of this is at odds with the empirical evidence, and so the results inevitably lack all kinds of detail normally required in science, and include all kinds of improbable events normally unacceptable in science. It is a kind of storytelling underwritten by the paradigm.

This evolutionary normal science formula has produced a tremendous volume of literature, ranging from journal papers to popular works. And, one of the favorite lines of argumentation, when evolution is rightly questioned, is to point to this “mountain” of evidence. A simple internet search can usually be counted on to produce dozens of papers advertising “The Evolution of Echolocation in Bats” or whatever wonder the skeptic has in mind as problematic for evolution.

Of course, if anyone were ever actually to read the produced papers (and usually the evolutionist presenting the paper has not), that person would find a marked absence of any actual scientific description of how echolocation, or whatever, actually did, in fact, evolve.

Normal science is used inappropriately as confirmatory evidence. When we explained, for example, that epigenetics in plants contradicts evolution, an evolutionist caustically responded with a paper subtitled: “The Evolution of a Complex Epigenetic Pathway in Flowering Plants.”

And did that paper actually explain “The Evolution of a Complex Epigenetic Pathway in Flowering Plants”?

No. The paper presupposed “The Evolution of a Complex Epigenetic Pathway in Flowering Plants.” As we explained, the paper presents several dubious “findings” of how epigenetics evolved which, in fact, are not supported by the science and instead are completely beholden to the assumption that evolution is true.

The paper’s highly unlikely scenarios of how evolution occurred are underwritten and mandated by the a priori assumption that (drumroll), evolution occurred.

And when we pointed this out, the evolutionist next retorted:

In the same way NASA and ESA assume the Earth is a globe and not flat every time they launch a satellite into orbit. What were those dumb space scientists and engineers thinking using assumptions??

Which brings us back to Monte Python and the argument skit. There’s always another canard. After inappropriately using normal science as confirmatory evidence, and having the fallacy explained in no uncertain terms, the evolutionist effortlessly switches over to the next available fallacy: riding the coattails of science.

The analogy between the age-old Epicurean claims that the world spontaneously arose, and space flight, is of course absurd and pathetic. It reveals how silly is evolutionary thought. But like the Monte Python skit, evolutionists will always have another argument.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

Posted by Cornelius Hunter 

Sunday 25 September 2016

File under "Well said" XXXVI

"Power always thinks... that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws." 
John Adams

Manifest destiny a global problem?:pros and cons.

A clash of Titans. XXX

The mark of the beast II

The Ethical Menace of "Bioethics" Grows
Wesley J. Smith 

Bioethics discourse aims to change the practice of medicine and the thrust of public policy -- usually not for the better. As I have been noting, the field increasingly targets the right of doctors to refuse to perform an abortion, euthanize patients, or perform other procedures or issue prescriptions that violate their religious beliefs.

Recently I discussed a "consensus statement" on this issue in Practical Ethics, published by Oxford. Now, two internationally influential bioethicists -- Jualian Savulescu and Udo Schuklenk -- join forces to advocate that society legally coerce doctors to kill.

First, they deconstruct medical professionalism itself by reducing the practice of medicine to the status of mere technocratic order-taking. From "Doctors Have No Right to Refuse Medical Assistance in Dying, Abortion or Contraception":

It is clear that the scope of professional practice is ultimately determined by society, and that it is bound to evolve over time. That is true not only for the question of what kinds of services must be provided, it is also true for conscientious objection itself...

Note that the bioethicists state that a service "must be provided." They use contraception as their primary example, but as the title demonstrates, they don't differentiate between preventing new life from being conceived and active life-taking actions in the medical context:

If a service a doctor is requested to perform is a medical practice, is legal, consistent with distributive justice, requested by the patient or their appointed surrogate, and is plausibly in their interests, the doctor must ensure the patient has access to it. It is then irrelevant how defensible the doctors own moral take on the patient's actions is.

Please understand that the bioethicists advocate elevating life-taking practices (where legal) such as euthanasia from what I call "mere legality," meaning it can be done if a doctor is willing, into a positive right -- meaning the doctor must do it. Hence, since the patient has a right to be killed, society and the medical profession have the duty to coerce all doctors into participating in a medical culture of death.

Ironically, the bioethicists actually concede that such actions are not really practicing medicine, properly understood:

[T]here is no reason why only doctors could competently provide, for example, contraception, abortion, or assisted dying services.

Would anyone assert that a non-doctor should be able to diagnose cancer or perform an appendectomy? This is a Jack Kevorkian meme. He wanted what he called "lay executioners" to operate out of euthanasia clinics. In California, to make sure no woman is ever delayed from having her fetus killed, certified nurse practitioners can already perform terminations.

The ultimate goal is to keep all pro-life, Hippocratic Oath-respecting, orthodox Catholic or otherwise traditionally religious believers out of the practices of medicine (and, I would add, nursing too):

If you don't believe contraception or sterilisation [or abortion and euthanasia] are part of the modern practice of medicine, don't become a GP...

Even if there were a strong calling to medicine or to a particular field within medicine, people are still free to decline the call and do something else with their lives. If they were not free to make that choice, due to the strength of the call, it is questionable that their decision to join the medical profession was truly an autonomous choice in the first place.


This is a proposed tyranny. If these bioethicists' views prevail, in order to become an MD, you will have to be willing to kill. That would be the end of medicine as a true profession. For anyone interested in my views about how a proper medical conscience protection law could be framed, see here.

Saturday 24 September 2016

Darwinian mysticism re:cancer.

Niwrad: The cancer of Darwinism
Posted by News under Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design

Our valued contributor Niwrad send in this post, on recent claims that cancer disproves ID:



Evolutionism is systematic negation of reality and inversion of truth. So we must be prepared to listen to ever more unbelievable things from evolutionists. Here I will examine an example that seems particularly meaningful.

Cancer has universally been considered to be biological degeneration. Something in the cellular machinery goes wrong, a proliferation of defective cells grows, leading to a destructive dynamic in the diseased organism. It all starts in the genome, so cancer is an issue of bio-informatics, of programming. In fact, we learned recently that “Microsoft will ‘solve’ cancer within 10 years by ‘reprogramming’ diseased cells.”

Conceptually, bugs that start the cancer appear in the genomic program. Microsoft will try to fix them in the same way as it routinely fixes bugs in Windows or Office. This is fully an intelligent design scenario: A hardware-software system is designed, software shows malfunctions, the programmer patches the programs. It happens every day in the software industry.

Well. But there is Dr. Swamidass, who describes the situation in a different, somehow inverted way. He really reaches a new level of genius in the construction of absurdity! He writes:

If (1) evolutionary genetic tools correctly infer the progress and history of cancer, (2) cancer regularly innovates with proteins of novel function, (3) regularly exhibits convergence at a molecular level, and (4) all the mathematical of machinery of neutral theory works so well, THEN what magically prevents all these things from being true at the species level? This all cannot be true for cancer, but false for evolution. That is the real inconvenience [for intelligent design theory] here. […]

Put another way, if many ID arguments in molecular biology were true, then cancer as we know it would be mathematically impossible, or regularly require the direct intervention of God to initiate and be sustained. […] This casts serious doubt on the ID arguments from molecular biology.

Note how in (2) he tries to invert the truth: Cancer becomes something constructive, it “innovates”, it creates “novel function”. In (1)(3)(4) he in short says that cancer “evolves”, because it behaves according to evolutionary theory. That said he asks “What prevents all these things from being true at the species level?”; that is: cancer is constructive, cancer evolves, cancer happens, then origin of species by evolution is true; corollary: intelligent design is false. Bingo!

Here is how Swamidass succeeds in transforming a destructive process into a constructive system, and — in the same time — a proof of evolution and disproof of ID. Brilliant!

Unfortunately for his thesis, an avalanche also “evolves” like cancer, produces a “proliferation”, grows in size and destructive power, but never creates new buildings. Analogously, cancer cannot be an example of how evolution creates new species.

Moreover, if it were true that evolutionary theory describes cancer and cancer is not a producer of organization, then we can correctly deduce that evolutionary theory doesn’t explain the origin of species (eminently a form of organization). But Swamidass very carefully hides this deduction, which alone would destroy his argument.

He continues: “If many ID arguments in molecular biology were true, then cancer as we know it would be mathematically impossible”. To understand the absurdity of this affirmation, let’s translate it into informatics jargon (the field where Microsoft hopes to impact biology): “If ID arguments in informatics were true, then bugs would be mathematically impossible”.

Bugs mathematically impossible? in what world does Swamidass live?

All this shows how an evolutionist tries to mystify reality and use contrary evidences to promote Darwinian ideas. They are masters in inverting the truth. Somehow Swamidass reminds me of l Monod who wrote:

Indeed, it is legitimate to view the irreversibility of evolution [progress] as an expression of the second law in the biosphere.

Monod said exactly the opposite of the truth: the impossibility of evolution is an expression of the second law in the biosphere. After all, Monod and Swamidass share the same kind of error. The former says that entropy causes evolution, the latter says that genetic entropy (cancer) illustrates evolution and disproves ID. Birds of a feather flock together.