No such thing as bad publicity?

How Curiosity Overcomes the Yuck Factor: A Positive Take on Negative Reviews
Douglas Axe | @DougAxe

I’ve been arguing that intelligent design explains life better than Darwin’s theory for long enough to be familiar with reactions that amount to little more than disgust — the yuck response. Usually I take that response as a sign that I need to move on to more receptive listeners, but I was recently reminded that the yuck response doesn’t always end the discussion. A colleague of mine — a former Darwinist who now sees life as designed — told me how he came to change his view several years ago. It was curiosity that bumped him out of the Darwinian rut, by compelling him to give a few of the best books on intelligent design a serious read.Kriti Sharma’s yuck reaction to my book, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms our Intuition That Life Is Designed, in her recent  review suggests she might be stuck in that same rut. She read the book, but not very seriously.

Sharma, a PhD biology student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, describes giving lectures to other students on the evolutionary divergence between clams and snails. According to the evolutionary story, something quite different from modern clams or snails had descendants that became modern clams and snails in all their great variety. Anyone with an appreciation of all the distinct biological marvels represented by that variety should be struck by the magnitude of this claim. Add just a dash of curiosity to that awe, and you start to wonder how a blind evolutionary process could actually pull it off. How can something utterly devoid of insight possibly appear so insightful?

Sharma’s vagueness on this point is the familiar sign that curiosity hasn’t yet kicked in. She says evolution gets lots of trials with lots of feedback, each small step depending on the prior step. She seems satisfied with that. The staggering variety of stunning living things that populate our planet is adequately explained by those rather unimpressive factors — time and natural selection — she thinks. In her case, my attempts to expose the inadequacy of those factors seem to have fallen on deaf ears.

Much of my book is devoted to developing an argument around everyday experience and common sense, a combination I refer to as common science. It seems to me that Darwin’s thinking is quite vulnerable to refutation by common science. After all, selection doesn’t really make anything. It merely chooses among things that have already been made. That’s what the word means. The only kind of selection that gives you clams or snails is the kind you do while ordering dinner at a French restaurant.

Sharma dismisses such thoughts as childish “pre-theoretical” thinking.

One of my book’s themes is that we adults shy away from common-science deductions like that for the wrong reasons. Fearing that smart people couldn’t possibly have overlooked such obvious facts for so long, we tend to assume they must know something the rest of us don’t. But in making that assumption, we overlook something equally obvious, which is that smart people take great pride in their smarts. Wanting to be revered for their intellects, they’re very reluctant to say anything that might cause their status to take a hit. Ironically, the end result of all this fretting about appearances is that the “smart” explanation of biological origins has the same amount of substance to it as the emperor’s new clothes — worn with just as much pride.

Another theme of my book is that because common science gives us the right conclusion about our origin, deeper digging consistently affirms that conclusion. No matter how deeply we dig, if we keep curiosity at the forefront we find our intuitive rejection of the inventive power of natural selection to be absolutely correct.

Half-a-minute’s worth of digging might convince you of this.

Consider, for example, Graham Bell, the James McGill Professor of Biology at McGill University and a recently elected Fellow of the Royal Society. He’s an accomplished evolutionary biologist, author of a book titled Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution, where he argues that “Living complexity cannot be explained except through selection, and does not require any other category of explanation whatsoever.” According to Bell, then, selection most certainly is evolution’s engine of invention.

Now consider Andreas Wagner of the Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies at the University of Zurich, who is also an accomplished evolutionary biologist. His book,  Arrival of the Fittest: Solving Evolution’s Greatest Puzzle, confirms common science by declaring that “natural selection is not a creative force. It does not innovate, but merely selects what is already there.”

Notice that Wagner’s assessment, contrary to Bell’s, leaves a rather large and conspicuous hole right in the middle of evolutionary theory. “To appreciate the magnitude of the problem,” says Wagner, “consider that every one of the differences between humans and the first life forms on earth was once an innovation: an adaptive solution to some unique challenge faced by a living being.” According to Wagner, then, selection most certainly is not evolution’s engine of invention.

Don’t miss the significance of this. Two highly regarded experts at the very center of today’s evolutionary thinking have completely opposite opinions about how evolution is supposed to work! What this really means, of course, is that the community of evolutionary biologists has no clue how evolution would work! Again, add just a pinch of curiosity to that startling realization and you start to wonder whether evolution really can work.

That’s what drove me to test Darwin’s idea in the lab for the last twenty years. As I explain in Undeniable, his theory has failed this testing consistently and spectacularly.

Now, I’m very willing to hear from anyone who thinks otherwise, as long as they show genuine curiosity of the kind that rises above academic peer pressure by refusing to settle for stock explanations that are obviously inadequate. Kriti Sharma seems content to leave her worldview undisturbed for the moment, which is understandable.

That was my colleague before curiosity got the better of him.

Why enzymes are undeniably designed.

Don’t Be Intimidated by Keith Fox on Intelligent Design
Douglas Axe | @DougAxe


Darwin believed that once simple bacteria appeared on Earth (however that happened), natural selection took over from there — creating every living thing from that humble beginning. And this continues to be the official view of the science establishment to this day.

Being skeptical of that view, my colleagues and I have spent twenty-some years putting Darwin’s idea to one test after another in the lab. As described in a stack of peer-reviewed technical papers, it has failed every one of these tests. I’m convinced, however, that you don’t need a PhD to see why it had to fail. That’s why I based my recent book — Undeniable: Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed — on commonsense reasoning instead of technical argument.

Biochemist Keith Fox at the University of Southampton didn’t like the book, so he wrote a short critique claiming I got it all wrong. The things I’ve studied for all these years are called enzymes — sophisticated catalysts that handle all the chemical processes inside cells. Based on my work and the work of many others, I claim that these remarkable little factories can’t have come about by any ordinary physical process. I say they’re molecular masterpieces — works of genius. Fox disagrees, and while he doesn’t seem to have done any work in the field, his critique of Undeniable includes his own rough-and-ready theory of enzyme origins.

As I recently recounted, Fox thinks working enzymes started out much smaller than they are today, growing to their present size through the refining work of natural selection. Years ago, I explained in technical detail why this can’t be true — why enzymes must be full-sized and exquisitely shaped to do their jobs. But, again, a major theme of my book is that you don’t have to take my word for this. You can see for yourself that life is designed all the way down to the molecular level.

Here’s one visual example to make the point.




That green thing is a large molecule called tRNA, and the little yellow things are amino acids. For life to work, these amino acids, which come in 20 different kinds, must be connected in special sequences to make chain-like molecules called proteins (enzymes being one class of proteins). If these long molecules were nothing but floppy chains, they would be useless. Instead, their special sequences cause them to fold up into distinct and highly useful shapes, each as well suited to its specific function as any human-made machine.

The crucial instructions for the sequences that cause these machine-like shapes to form are preserved in the form of genes, used in every living cell and carefully passed to successive generations. A set of tRNA molecules like that green one is crucial for reading these genes to make proteins. The tRNA molecules work like clever adapters: their underside recognizes (by perfect fit) a specific short piece of genetic sequence — a genetic word, if you will — while their top part holds the amino acid that, in the language of genes, is referred to by that word.

In order for this to work, something has to make sure each different green thing gets the right amino acid attached at the top — meaning the one corresponding to the genetic “word” recognized down below. As if that weren’t challenging enough, those little yellow amino acids are attached to the green things only with difficulty. They must be forced into position and then locked in place with a chemical bond.

Life’s ingenious solution to these compound challenges is a set of enzymes like the one shown here in blue.



Each of these enzymes recognizes its own type of tRNA molecule, checking the bottom part to make sure it will read the right genetic word and simultaneously recognizing the amino acid corresponding to this genetic word. In power-tool fashion, these enzymes “burn” ATP to forcibly attach the correct amino acid into position on the tRNA (in the above picture you can see the red ATP in place, ready for the correct amino acid to enter the opening and be forced into place).

Sophisticated power tools don’t appear out of thin air, though. So, wanting to think otherwise, Keith Fox imagined much simpler things that could come out of thin air, proposing that these can do crudely what today’s enzymes do so elegantly. Specifically, the little blue blob below is what Fox imagined.



Now, imagination can be useful in science, but only by connecting in a compelling way to reality. As anyone can plainly see, that isn’t the case here. In fact, the absence of evidence to back Fox’s claim up, while significant, isn’t nearly as significant as the fact that we can all see why his claim simply can’t work. Little blobs like that (nothing but two amino acids joined together) can’t possibly verify the bottom of the tRNA…much less do so while recognizing the corresponding amino acid…much less hold the needed ATP in position to power the attachment of that amino acid. And while the comical inadequacy of the size of that little blob is what jumps out at us, this isn’t just about size. Rather, it’s about the necessity of matching shape to function.

Other examples could be given by the thousands (literally) — each showing how woefully inadequate Fox’s little blobs are. But you get the point.

The only thing Keith Fox’s theory of enzyme origins has going for it is that it came from Keith Fox — a fully credentialed and highly competent biochemist at a major research university. In other words, his claim borrows any status it has from his professional standing. But when a scientist, however accomplished, stubbornly wants to see things one way, this borrowed status just isn’t enough.

Surprised? On the one hand, you shouldn’t be…but on the other, you’re in good company if you are. Many people are so persuaded by the stereotypical view of scientists that they can’t imagine how these supposedly uber-rational thinkers could allow their desires to interfere with their reasoning.


Rest assured that they can. Scientist are, after all, just as human as everyone else.

The origins of mankind more mystifying than ever?

Latest Homo naledi Bones Are Younger than Expected
Jonathan Wells

According to a recent article in The Guardian, “New haul of Homo naledi bones sheds surprising light on human evolution,” but the most important word in the headline is “surprising.” It turns out that the fossils are much younger than evolutionary biologists expected.1

In 1982, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall noted that it is a “myth that the evolutionary histories of living beings are essentially a matter of discovery.” If this were really true, they wrote, “one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas if anything, the opposite has occurred.” The Homo naledi bones show that Eldredge and Tattersall were right.2

Emory University archaeologist Jessica Thompson (quoted in The Guardian) explains that the discovery makes it clear that human evolution is not as straightforward as it is made out to be. “It doesn’t start out with something that looks like a monkey, and then something that looks like an ape, and then something that looks like a human, and then all of a sudden you’ve got people,” she said. “It’s much more complicated than that.”1

Indeed, human origins are as mysterious now as they have ever been. As Yale paleoanthropologist Misia Landau once wrote, stories of human evolution “far exceed what can be inferred from the study of fossils alone,” so fossils are placed “into preexisting narrative structures.”3 And the overarching narrative structure is materialistic philosophy — the view that matter and physical forces are the only realities and God is an illusion.

Science educators tell materialistic stories about how we are accidental by-products of unguided evolution, and the stories are illustrated with iconic drawings of apes morphing into humans. But the stories come first; fossils such as Homo naledi are plugged in later.

References:

(1) Ian Sample,  “New haul of Homo naledi bones sheds surprising light on human evolution,”  The Guardian (May 9, 2017).

(2) Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 126–127.


(3) Misia Landau, Narratives of Human Evolution (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991), pp. ix-x, 148.

The Watchtower Society's commentary on freedom

FREEDOM:
Since Jehovah God is the Almighty, the Sovereign Ruler of the universe, and the Creator of all things, he alone has absolute, unlimited freedom. (Ge 17:1; Jer 10:7, 10; Da 4:34, 35; Re 4:11) All others must move and act within the limitations of ability given them and subject themselves to his universal laws. (Isa 45:9; Ro 9:20, 21) For example, consider gravity, and the laws governing chemical reactions, influence of the sun, and growth; the moral laws; the rights and actions of others that influence one’s freedom. The freedom of all of God’s creatures is therefore a relative freedom.

There is a distinction between limited freedom and bondage. Freedom within God-given limitations brings happiness; bondage to creatures, to imperfection, to weaknesses, or to wrong ideologies brings oppression and unhappiness. Freedom is also to be differentiated from self-determination, that is, ignoring God’s laws and determining for oneself what is right and what is wrong. Such leads to encroachments on the rights of others and causes trouble, as can be seen from the effects of the independent, self-willed spirit introduced to Adam and Eve by the Serpent in Eden. (Ge 3:4, 6, 11-19) True freedom is bounded by law, God’s law, which allows full expression of the individual in a proper, upbuilding, and beneficial way, and which recognizes the rights of others, contributing to happiness for all.—Ps 144:15; Lu 11:28; Jas 1:25.

The God of Freedom. Jehovah is the God of freedom. He freed the nation of Israel from bondage in Egypt. He told them that as long as they obeyed his commandments they would have freedom from want. (De 15:4, 5) David spoke of “freedom from care” within the dwelling towers of Jerusalem. (Ps 122:6, 7) However, the Law provided that in case a man became poor he could sell himself into slavery so as to provide the necessities for himself and his family. But freedom was granted by the Law to this Hebrew in the seventh year of his servitude. (Ex 21:2) In the Jubilee (occurring every 50th year), liberty was proclaimed in the land to all its inhabitants. Every Hebrew slave was freed, and each man was returned to his land inheritance.—Le 25:10-19.

The Freedom That Comes Through Christ. The apostle Paul spoke of the need of humankind to be set free from “enslavement to corruption.” (Ro 8:21) Jesus Christ told Jews who had believed in him: “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” To those who thought they had freedom just because they were Abraham’s fleshly descendants, he pointed out that they were slaves of sin, and he said: “Therefore if the Son sets you free, you will be actually free.”—Joh 8:31-36; compare Ro 6:18, 22.

The Christian Greek Scriptures speak of the followers of Christ as being free. Paul showed that they were “children, not of a servant girl, but of the free woman” (Ga 4:31), whom he refers to as being “the Jerusalem above.” (Ga 4:26) He then exhorts: “For such freedom [or, “With her freedom,” ftn] Christ set us free. Therefore stand fast, and do not let yourselves be confined again in a yoke of slavery.” (Ga 5:1) At that time certain men falsely claiming to be Christian had associated themselves with the Galatian congregations. They were making an effort to induce the Galatian Christians to give up their freedom in Christ by trying to gain righteousness by works of the Law, instead of by faith in Christ. Paul warned that they would thereby fall away from Christ’s undeserved kindness.—Ga 5:2-6; 6:12, 13.

The freedom that the early Christians enjoyed from bondage to sin and death and from fear (“For God gave us not a spirit of cowardice, but that of power and of love and of soundness of mind”) was exemplified in the outspokenness and freeness of speech of the apostles in proclaiming the good news. (2Ti 1:7; Ac 4:13; Php 1:18-20) They recognized this freeness of speech about the Christ to be a valuable possession, one that must be developed, guarded, and maintained in order to receive God’s approval. It was also a suitable subject of prayer.—1Ti 3:13; Heb 3:6; Eph 6:18-20.

Proper Use of Christian Freedom. The inspired Christian writers, appreciating God’s purpose in extending undeserved kindness through Christ (“You were, of course, called for freedom, brothers”), repeatedly counseled Christians to guard their freedom and not to take license or wrongful advantage of that freedom as an opportunity to indulge in works of the flesh (Ga 5:13) or as a blind for badness. (1Pe 2:16) James spoke of ‘peering into the perfect law that belongs to freedom’ and pointed out that the one who was not a forgetful hearer, but persisted as a doer, would be happy.—Jas 1:25.

The apostle Paul enjoyed the freedom he had gained through Christ but refrained from using his freedom to please himself or from exercising it to the point of hurting others. In his letter to the congregation at Corinth, he showed that he would not injure another person’s conscience by doing something that he had the Scriptural freedom to do but that might be questioned by another with less knowledge, whose conscience might be offended by Paul’s acts. He cites as an example the eating of meat offered before an idol prior to being put in the market to be sold. Eating such meat might cause one with a weak conscience to criticize Paul’s proper freedom of action and thereby to act as a judge of Paul, which would be wrong. Therefore, Paul said: “Why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person’s conscience? If I am partaking with thanks, why am I to be spoken of abusively over that for which I give thanks?” Nonetheless, the apostle was determined to exercise his freedom in an upbuilding, not a detrimental, way.—1Co 10:23-33.

The Christian’s Fight and Mankind’s Hope. Paul shows that there is a danger to the Christian’s freedom in that, whereas “the law of that spirit which gives life in union with Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death” (Ro 8:1, 2), the law of sin and of death working in the Christian’s body fights to bring one into bondage again. Therefore the Christian must set his mind on the things of the spirit in order to win.—Ro 7:21-25; 8:5-8.

After outlining the Christian conflict, Paul goes on to speak of the joint heirs with Christ as “sons of God.” Then he refers to others of mankind as “the creation” and presents the marvelous purpose of God “that the creation itself also will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God.”—Ro 8:12-21.

Figurative Use. When Job, in his suffering, wished to find release in death, he likened death to a freedom for those afflicted. He evidently alludes to the hard lives of slaves, saying: “[In death] the slave is set free from his master.”—Job 3:19; compare verses 21 and 22.

Fixing capitalism?

On the mortal soul.

On the Cosmocrats:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

DEMON

An invisible, wicked, spirit creature having superhuman powers. The common Greek word for demon (daiʹmon) occurs only once in the Christian Greek Scriptures, in Matthew 8:31; elsewhere the word dai·moʹni·on appears. Pneuʹma, the Greek word for “spirit,” at times is applied to wicked spirits, or demons. (Mt 8:16) It also occurs qualified by terms such as “wicked,” “unclean,” “speechless,” and “deaf.”—Lu 7:21; Mt 10:1; Mr 9:17, 25; see SPIRIT (Spirit Persons).

The demons as such were not created by God. The first to make himself one was Satan the Devil (see SATAN), who became the ruler of other angelic sons of God who also made themselves demons. (Mt 12:24, 26) In Noah’s day disobedient angels materialized, married women, fathered a hybrid generation known as Nephilim (see NEPHILIM), and then dematerialized when the Flood came. (Ge 6:1-4) However, upon returning to the spirit realm, they did not regain their lofty original position, for Jude 6 says: “The angels that did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place he has reserved with eternal bonds under dense darkness for the judgment of the great day.” (1Pe 3:19, 20) So it is in this condition of dense spiritual darkness that they must now confine their operations. (2Pe 2:4) Though evidently restrained from materializing, they still have great power and influence over the minds and lives of men, even having the ability to enter into and possess humans and animals, and the facts show that they also use inanimate things such as houses, fetishes, and charms.—Mt 12:43-45; Lu 8:27-33; see DEMON POSSESSION.

The purpose of all such demonic activity is to turn people against Jehovah and the pure worship of God. Jehovah’s law, therefore, strictly forbade demonism in any form. (De 18:10-12) However, wayward Israel went so far astray as to sacrifice their sons and daughters to the demons. (Ps 106:37; De 32:17; 2Ch 11:15) When Jesus was on earth demon influence was very prevalent, and some of his greatest miracles consisted of expelling wicked spirits from victimized persons. (Mt 8:31, 32; 9:33, 34; Mr 1:39; 7:26-30; Lu 8:2; 13:32) Jesus gave this same power to his 12 apostles and to the 70 that he sent out, so that in the name of Jesus they too could cast out the demons.—Mt 10:8; Mr 3:14, 15; 6:13; Lu 9:1; 10:17.

Demon influence in human affairs is no less manifest today. It is still true that “the things which the nations sacrifice they sacrifice to demons.” (1Co 10:20) In the last book of the Bible, the “revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place,” prophetic warning is given concerning accelerated demon activity on the earth. (Re 1:1) “Down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels [demons] were hurled down with him. On this account . . . woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time.” (Re 12:9, 12) Unclean, froglike expressions “are, in fact, expressions inspired by demons and perform signs, and they go forth to the kings of the entire inhabited earth, to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty.”—Re 16:13, 14.

Christians must, therefore, put up a hard fight against these unseen wicked spirits. James, in arguing that belief alone is not sufficient, says: “You believe there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the demons believe and shudder.” (Jas 2:19) “In later periods of time,” warned Paul, “some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons.” (1Ti 4:1) One cannot eat of Jehovah’s table and at the same time feed from the table of demons. (1Co 10:21) The faithful, therefore, must put up a hard fight against the Devil and his demons, “against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places.”—Eph 6:12.

To the Greeks to whom Paul preached, what were demons?

This use of the word “demon” is narrow and specific compared with the notions of ancient philosophers and the way the word was used in classical Greek. In this regard the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel (Vol. II, p. 8) remarks: “The meaning of the adj[ective dai·moʹni·os] brings out most clearly the distinctive features of the G[ree]k conception of demons, for it denotes that which lies outwith human capacity and is thus to be attributed to the intervention of higher powers, whether for good or evil. [To dai·moʹni·on] in pre-Christian writers can be used in the sense of the ‘divine.’” (Translated and edited by G. Bromiley, 1971) When speaking controversially with Paul, some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers concluded: “He seems to be a publisher of foreign deities [Gr., dai·mo·niʹon].”—Ac 17:18.

When speaking to the Athenians, Paul used a compound of the Greek word daiʹmon, saying: “You seem to be more given to the fear of the deities [Gr., dei·si·dai·mo·ne·steʹrous; Latin Vulgate, ‘more superstitious’] than others are.” (Ac 17:22) Commenting on this compound word, F. F. Bruce remarks: “The context must decide whether this word is used in its better or worse sense. It was, in fact, as vague as ‘religious’ in Eng[lish], and here we may best translate ‘very religious’. But AV ‘superstitious’ is not entirely wrong; to Paul their religion was mostly superstition, as it also was, though on other grounds, to the Epicureans.”—The Acts of the Apostles, 1970, p. 335.

When speaking to King Herod Agrippa II, Festus said that the Jews had certain disputes with Paul concerning their “worship of the deity [Gr., dei·si·dai·mo·niʹas; Latin Vulgate, ‘superstition’].” (Ac 25:19) It was noted by F. F. Bruce that this Greek word “might be less politely rendered ‘superstition’ (as in AV). The corresponding adjective appears with the same ambiguity in [Acts] 17:22.”—Commentary on the Book of the Acts, 1971, p. 483.

A time to speak and a time to be silent:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

Why Don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses Respond to All Accusations Made Against Them?

Jehovah’s Witnesses follow the Bible’s advice not to respond to all accusations and instances of ridicule. For example, a Bible proverb says: “The one who corrects a ridiculer invites dishonor.” (Proverbs 9:7, 8; 26:4) Rather than being pulled into quarreling by an undue concern over false accusations, we focus on pleasing God.—Psalm 119:69.

Of course, there is “a time to be silent and a time to speak.” (Ecclesiastes 3:7) We respond to sincere people who are interested in finding out the truth, but we avoid getting into pointless arguments. We thus follow the teachings and examples of Jesus and the early Christians.

Jesus made no answer when he was falsely accused before Pilate. (Matthew 27:11-14; 1 Peter 2:21-23) Likewise, Jesus did not respond to accusations of being a drunkard and a glutton. Instead, he let his actions speak for themselves, in harmony with the principle: “Wisdom is vindicated by its results.” (Matthew 11:19, footnote) When the circumstances called for it, though, he boldly responded to those who slandered him.—Matthew 15:1-3; Mark 3:22-30.

Jesus taught his followers not to be discouraged by false accusations. He said: “Happy are you when people reproach you and persecute you and lyingly say every sort of wicked thing against you for my sake.” (Matthew 5:11, 12) Yet, Jesus also said that when such accusations opened the way for his followers to give a witness, he would fulfill his promise: “I will give you words and wisdom that all your opposers together will not be able to resist or dispute.”—Luke 21:12-15.

The apostle Paul counseled Christians to avoid pointless disputes with opposers, describing such arguments as “unprofitable and futile.”—Titus 3:9; Romans 16:17, 18.

The apostle Peter encouraged Christians to defend their faith when possible. (1 Peter 3:15) Yet he recognized that this is often best done by action rather than by word. He wrote: “By doing good you may silence the ignorant talk of unreasonable men.”—1 Peter 2:12-15.

Abiogenesis keeps drifting further beyond the reach of the new gods.

A Big Problem for Naturalistic Explanations of Life's Origins: Zircon Shows Oxygen Present in the Early Earth

Evolution News & Views 

A recent Nature publication reports a new technique for measuring the oxygen levels in Earth's atmosphere some 4.4 billion years ago. The authors found that by studying cerium oxidation states in zircon, a compound formed from volcanic magma, they could ascertain the oxidation levels in the early earth. Their findings suggest that the early Earth's oxygen levels were very close to current levels.

Organic reactions are reactions that involve carbon-containing compounds. For the purposes of origin-of-life research, we are interested in nucleotides, the organic compounds that comprise DNA and RNA, or amino acids, the organic compounds that are the building blocks of proteins. Among origin-of-life scientists, the RNA-first world hypothesis has gained much ground. (See here for an article about recent research in this area.) However, RNA comes from other RNA molecules, and proteins come from other proteins. So the first molecules of life must have arisen by another process, different from how they are formed today. Miller and Urey conducted experiments to show that under certain atmospheric conditions and with the right kind of electrical charge, several amino acids could form from inorganic compounds such as methane, ammonia, and water. Several experiments have been done using various inorganic starting materials, all yielding a few amino acids; however, one key aspect of all of these experiments was the lack of oxygen.

If the atmosphere has oxygen (or other oxidants) in it, then it is an oxidizing atmosphere. If the atmosphere lacks oxygen, then it is either inert or a reducing atmosphere. Think of a metal that has been left outside, maybe a piece of iron. That metal will eventually rust. Rusting is the result of the metal being oxidized. With organic reactions, such as the ones that produce amino acids, it is very important that no oxygen be present, or it will quench the reaction. Scientists, therefore, concluded that the early Earth must have been a reducing environment when life first formed (or the building blocks of life first formed) because that was the best environment for producing amino acids. The atmosphere eventually accumulated oxygen, but life did not form in an oxidative environment.

The problem with this hypothesis is that it is based on the assumption that organic life must have formed from inorganic materials. That is why the early Earth must have been a reducing atmosphere. Research has been accumulating for more than thirty years, however, suggesting that the early Earth likely did have oxygen present. Unfortunately, the idea that inorganic compounds can come together to eventually form the building blocks of life was such a good story that the Miller-Urey experiment and the assumption about the early Earth's reducing atmosphere were perpetuated in the classroom long after the scientific evidence had turned against them. (See here for an article on misuses of the Miller-Urey experiment.)

This brings us back to that Nature letter, which offers another reason to question the reducing environment of the early Earth. The authors looked at the cerium oxidation levels within zircon. Zircon is a hard rock that forms from the solidification of magma. Several studies have been done with zircon because of its age and durability. (See here for a report on using zircon to determine when oceans and land were present on Earth.) Cerium (Ce) is an element that can be found in early Earth zircon. The ratio of cerium's +3 and +4 oxidation states indicates the environmental conditions at the time the cerium was trapped in the zircon. Specifically, cerium's oxidation ratio is related to the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. The authors created cerium-infused zircon in the lab at various oxidative ratios to make a calibration curve to which they could then compare the early Earth samples.

Their findings not only showed that oxygen was present in the early Earth atmosphere, something that has been shown in other studies, but that oxygen was present as early as 4.4 billion years ago. This takes the window of time available for life to have begun, by an origin-of-life scenario like the RNA-first world, and reduces it to an incredibly short amount of time. Several factors need to coincide in order for nucleotides or amino acids to form from purely naturalistic circumstances (chance and chemistry). The specific conditions required already made purely naturalist origin-of-life scenarios highly unlikely. Drastically reducing the amount of time available, adding that to the other conditions needing to be fulfilled, makes the RNA world hypothesis or a Miller-Urey-like synthesis of amino acids simply impossible.

The study clearly presupposes a certain confidence level in zircon dating. Yet our confidence on that point is open to debate. Certainly zircon seems to exhibit toughness and durability. However, some scientists question zircon dating because it is based on uranium and lead levels within zircon. Others argue that zircon-dating techniques are quite good and that these zircon samples are the oldest samples we have. The nature of the debate and the specifics about zircon-dating methods are beyond the scope of this article, but the issue merits mentioning because it affects the implication of the results of this research.

What does it all mean for origin-of-life research? In an interview, one of the authors of the paper, Bruce Watson, states that "We can now say with some certainty that many scientists studying the origins of life on Earth simply picked the wrong atmosphere." He hopes that the results of their research "may reinvigorate theories that perhaps those building blocks for life were not created on Earth, but delivered from elsewhere in the galaxy." Perhaps. But just because we are having trouble showing that life arose from purely naturalistic causes on Earth, it doesn't necessarily follow that the solution must be found elsewhere.

The Watchtower Society's Commentary Knowing the end from the beginning.

FOREKNOWLEDGE, FOREORDINATION

Foreknowledge means knowledge of a thing before it happens or exists; also called prescience. In the Bible it relates primarily, though not exclusively, to Jehovah God the Creator and his purposes. Foreordination means the ordaining, decreeing, or determining of something beforehand; or the quality or state of being foreordained.
Original-Language Words. The words generally translated as “foreknow,” “foreknowledge,” and “foreordain” are found in the Christian Greek Scriptures, although the same basic ideas are expressed in the Hebrew Scriptures.
“Foreknowledge” translates the Greek pro′gno·sis (from pro, before, and gno′sis, knowledge). (Ac 2:23; 1Pe 1:2) The related verb pro·gi·no′sko is used in two cases with regard to humans: in Paul’s statement that certain Jews were “previously acquainted” with him (knew him beforehand), and in Peter’s reference to the “advance knowledge” had by those addressed in his second letter. (Ac 26:4, 5; 2Pe 3:17) In this latter case it is obvious that such foreknowledge was not infinite; that is, it did not mean that those Christians knew all the details of time, place, and circumstance about the future events and conditions Peter had discussed. But they did have a general outline of what to expect, received as a result of God’s inspiration of Peter and of other contributors to the Bible.
“Foreordain” translates the Greek pro·o·ri′zo (from pro, before, and ho·ri′zo, mark out or set the bounds). (The English word “horizon” transliterates the Greek word ho·ri′zon, meaning the “bounding” or “limiting.”) Illustrating the sense of the Greek verb ho·ri′zo is Jesus Christ’s statement that, as “the Son of man,” he was “going his way according to what [was] marked out [ho·ri·sme′non].” Paul said that God had “decreed [marked out, ho·ri′sas] the appointed times and the set limits of the dwelling of men.” (Lu 22:22; Ac 17:26) The same verb is used of human determination, as when the disciples “determined [ho′ri·san]” to send relief to their needy brothers. (Ac 11:29) However, specific references to foreordaining in the Christian Greek Scriptures are applied only to God.
Factors to Recognize. To understand the matter of foreknowledge and foreordination as relating to God, certain factors necessarily must be recognized.
First, God’s ability to foreknow and foreordain is clearly stated in the Bible. Jehovah himself sets forth as proof of his Godship this ability to foreknow and foreordain events of salvation and deliverance, as well as acts of judgment and punishment, and then to bring such events to fulfillment. His chosen people are witnesses of these facts. (Isa 44:6-9; 48:3-8) Such divine foreknowledge and foreordination form the basis for all true prophecy. (Isa 42:9; Jer 50:45; Am 3:7, 8) God challenges the nations opposing his people to furnish proof of the godship they claim for their mighty ones and their idol-gods, calling on them to do so by foretelling similar acts of salvation or judgment and then bringing them to pass. Their impotence in this respect demonstrates their idols to be ‘mere wind and unreality.’—Isa 41:1-10, 21-29; 43:9-15; 45:20, 21.
A second factor to be considered is the free moral agency of God’s intelligent creatures. The Scriptures show that God extends to such creatures the privilege and responsibility of free choice, of exercising free moral agency (De 30:19, 20; Jos 24:15), thereby making them accountable for their acts. (Ge 2:16, 17; 3:11-19; Ro 14:10-12; Heb 4:13) They are thus not mere automatons, or robots. Man could not truly have been created in “God’s image” if he were not a free moral agent. (Ge 1:26, 27; see FREEDOM.) Logically, there should be no conflict between God’s foreknowledge (as well as his foreordaining) and the free moral agency of his intelligent creatures.
A third factor that must be considered, one sometimes overlooked, is that of God’s moral standards and qualities, including his justice, honesty, impartiality, love, mercy, and kindness. Any understanding of God’s use of the powers of foreknowledge and foreordination must therefore harmonize with not only some of these factors but with all of them. Clearly, whatever God foreknows must inevitably come to pass, so that God is able to call “things that are not as though they were.”—Ro 4:17.
Does God know in advance everything that people will do?
The question then arises: Is his exercise of foreknowledge infinite, without limit? Does he foresee and foreknow all future actions of all his creatures, spirit and human? And does he foreordain such actions or even predestinate what shall be the final destiny of all his creatures, even doing so before they have come into existence?
Or, is God’s exercise of foreknowledge selective and discretionary, so that whatever he chooses to foresee and foreknow, he does, but what he does not choose to foresee or foreknow, he does not? And, instead of preceding their existence, does God’s determination of his creatures’ eternal destiny await his judgment of their course of life and of their proved attitude under test? The answers to these questions must necessarily come from the Scriptures themselves and the information they provide concerning God’s actions and dealings with his creatures, including what has been revealed through his Son, Christ Jesus.—1Co 2:16.
Predestinarian view. The view that God’s exercise of his foreknowledge is infinite and that he does foreordain the course and destiny of all individuals is known as predestinarianism. Its advocates reason that God’s divinity and perfection require that he be omniscient (all-knowing), not only respecting the past and present but also regarding the future. According to this concept, for him not to foreknow all matters in their minutest detail would evidence imperfection. Examples such as the case of Isaac’s twin sons, Esau and Jacob, are presented as evidence of God’s foreordaining creatures before their birth (Ro 9:10-13); and texts such as Ephesians 1:4, 5 are cited as evidence that God foreknew and foreordained the future of all his creatures even before the start of creation.
To be correct, this view would, of course, have to harmonize with all the factors previously mentioned, including the Scriptural presentation of God’s qualities, standards, and purposes, as well as his righteous ways in dealing with his creatures. (Re 15:3, 4) We may properly consider, then, the implications of such a predestinarian view.
This concept would mean that, prior to creating angels or earthling man, God exercised his powers of foreknowledge and foresaw and foreknew all that would result from such creation, including the rebellion of one of his spirit sons, the subsequent rebellion of the first human pair in Eden (Ge 3:1-6; Joh 8:44), and all the bad consequences of such rebellion down to and beyond this present day. This would necessarily mean that all the wickedness that history has recorded (the crime and immorality, oppression and resultant suffering, lying and hypocrisy, false worship and idolatry) once existed, before creation’s beginning, only in the mind of God, in the form of his foreknowledge of the future in all of its minutest details.
If the Creator of mankind had indeed exercised his power to foreknow all that history has seen since man’s creation, then the full weight of all the wickedness thereafter resulting was deliberately set in motion by God when he spoke the words: “Let us make man.” (Ge 1:26) These facts bring into question the reasonableness and consistency of the predestinarian concept; particularly so, since the disciple James shows that disorder and other vile things do not originate from God’s heavenly presence but are “earthly, animal, demonic” in source.—Jas 3:14-18.
Infinite exercise of foreknowledge? The argument that God’s not foreknowing all future events and circumstances in full detail would evidence imperfection on his part is, in reality, an arbitrary view of perfection. Perfection, correctly defined, does not demand such an absolute, all-embracing extension, inasmuch as the perfection of anything actually depends upon its measuring up completely to the standards of excellence set by one qualified to judge its merits. (See PERFECTION.) Ultimately, God’s own will and good pleasure, not human opinions or concepts, are the deciding factors as to whether anything is perfect.—De 32:4; 2Sa 22:31; Isa 46:10.
To illustrate this, God’s almightiness is undeniably perfect and is infinite in capacity. (1Ch 29:11, 12; Job 36:22; 37:23) Yet his perfection in strength does not require him to use his power to the full extent of his omnipotence in any or in all cases. Clearly he has not done so; if he had, not merely certain ancient cities and some nations would have been destroyed, but the earth and all in it would have been obliterated long ago by God’s executions of judgment, accompanied by mighty expressions of disapproval and wrath, as at the Flood and on other occasions. (Ge 6:5-8; 19:23-25, 29; compare Ex 9:13-16; Jer 30:23, 24.) God’s exercise of his might is therefore not simply an unleashing of limitless power but is constantly governed by his purpose and, where merited, tempered by his mercy.—Ne 9:31; Ps 78:38, 39; Jer 30:11; La 3:22; Eze 20:17.
Similarly, if, in certain respects, God chooses to exercise his infinite ability of foreknowledge in a selective way and to the degree that pleases him, then assuredly no human or angel can rightly say: “What are you doing?” (Job 9:12; Isa 45:9; Da 4:35) It is therefore not a question of ability, what God can foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for “with God all things are possible.” (Mt 19:26) The question is what God sees fit to foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for “everything that he delighted to do he has done.”—Ps 115:3.
Selective exercise of foreknowledge. The alternative to predestinarianism, the selective or discretionary exercise of God’s powers of foreknowledge, would have to harmonize with God’s own righteous standards and be consistent with what he reveals of himself in his Word. In contrast with the theory of predestinarianism, a number of texts point to an examination by God of a situation then current and a decision made on the basis of such examination.
Thus, at Genesis 11:5-8 God is described as directing his attention earthward, surveying the situation at Babel, and, at that time, determining the action to be taken to break up the unrighteous project there. After wickedness developed at Sodom and Gomorrah, Jehovah advised Abraham of his decision to investigate (by means of his angels) to “see whether they act altogether according to the outcry over it that has come to me, and, if not, I can get to know it.” (Ge 18:20-22; 19:1) God spoke of ‘becoming acquainted with Abraham,’ and after Abraham went to the point of attempting to sacrifice Isaac, Jehovah said, “For now I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me.”—Ge 18:19; 22:11, 12; compare Ne 9:7, 8; Ga 4:9.
Selective foreknowledge means that God could choose not to foreknow indiscriminately all the future acts of his creatures. This would mean that, rather than all history from creation onward being a mere rerun of what had already been foreseen and foreordained, God could with all sincerity set before the first human pair the prospect of everlasting life in an earth free from wickedness. His instructions to his first human son and daughter to act as his perfect and sinless agents in filling the earth with their offspring and making it a paradise, as well as exercising control over the animal creation, could thus be expressed as the grant of a truly loving privilege and as his genuine desire toward them—not merely as the giving of a commission that, on their part, was foredoomed to failure. God’s arranging for a test by means of “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad” and his creation of “the tree of life” in the garden of Eden also would not be meaningless or cynical acts, made so by his foreknowing that the human pair would sin and never be able to eat of “the tree of life.”—Ge 1:28; 2:7-9, 15-17; 3:22-24.
To offer something very desirable to another person on conditions known beforehand to be unreachable is recognized as both hypocritical and cruel. The prospect of everlasting life is presented in God’s Word as a goal for all persons, one possible to attain. After urging his listeners to ‘keep on asking and seeking’ good things from God, Jesus pointed out that a father does not give a stone or a serpent to his child that asks for bread or a fish. Showing his Father’s view of disappointing the legitimate hopes of a person, Jesus then said: “Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those asking him?”—Mt 7:7-11.
Thus, the invitations and opportunities to receive benefits and everlasting blessings set before all men by God are bona fide. (Mt 21:22; Jas 1:5, 6) He can in all sincerity urge men to ‘turn back from transgression and keep living,’ as he did with the people of Israel. (Eze 18:23, 30-32; compare Jer 29:11, 12.) Logically, he could not do this if he foreknew that they were individually destined to die in wickedness. (Compare Ac 17:30, 31; 1Ti 2:3, 4.) As Jehovah told Israel: “Nor said I to the seed of Jacob, ‘Seek me simply for nothing, you people.’ I am Jehovah, speaking what is righteous, telling what is upright. . . . Turn to me and be saved, all you at the ends of the earth.”—Isa 45:19-22.
In a similar vein, the apostle Peter writes: “Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise [of the coming day of reckoning], as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.” (2Pe 3:9) If God already foreknew and foreordained millenniums in advance precisely which individuals would receive eternal salvation and which individuals would receive eternal destruction, it may well be asked how meaningful such ‘patience’ of God could be and how genuine his desire could be that ‘all attain to repentance.’ The inspired apostle John wrote that “God is love,” and the apostle Paul states that love “hopes all things.” (1Jo 4:8; 1Co 13:4, 7) It is in harmony with this outstanding, divine quality that God should exercise a genuinely open, kindly attitude toward all persons, he being desirous of their gaining salvation, until they prove themselves unworthy, beyond hope. (Compare 2Pe 3:9; Heb 6:4-12.) Thus, the apostle Paul speaks of “the kindly quality of God [that] is trying to lead you to repentance.”—Ro 2:4-6.
Finally if, by God’s foreknowledge, the opportunity to receive the benefits of Christ Jesus’ ransom sacrifice were already irrevocably sealed off from some, perhaps for millions of individuals, even before their birth, so that such ones could never prove worthy, it could not truly be said that the ransom was made available to all men. (2Co 5:14, 15; 1Ti 2:5, 6; Heb 2:9) The impartiality of God is clearly no mere figure of speech. “In every nation the man that fears [God] and works righteousness is acceptable to him.” (Ac 10:34, 35; De 10:17; Ro 2:11) The option is actually and genuinely open to all men “to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us.” (Ac 17:26, 27) There is no empty hope or hollow promise set forth, therefore, in the divine exhortation at the end of the book of Revelation inviting: “Let anyone hearing say: ‘Come!’ And let anyone thirsting come; let anyone that wishes take life’s water free.”—Re 22:17.
The Things Foreknown and Foreordained. Throughout the Bible record, God’s exercise of foreknowledge and foreordination is consistently tied in with his own purposes and will. “To purpose” means to set something before oneself as an aim or an object to be attained. (The Greek word pro′the·sis, translated “purpose,” means, literally, “something placed or set forth before.”) Since God’s purposes are certain of accomplishment, he can foreknow the results, the ultimate realization of his purposes, and can foreordain them as well as the steps he may see fit to take to accomplish them. (Isa 14:24-27) Thus, Jehovah is spoken of as ‘forming’ or ‘fashioning’ (from the Hebrew ya·tsar′, related to the word for “potter” [Jer 18:4]) his purpose concerning future events or actions. (2Ki 19:25; Isa 46:11; compare Isa 45:9-13, 18.) As the Great Potter, God “operates all things according to the way his will counsels,” in harmony with his purpose (Eph 1:11), and “makes all his works cooperate together” for the good of those loving him. (Ro 8:28) It is, therefore, specifically in connection with his own foreordained purposes that God tells “from the beginning the finale, and from long ago the things that have not been done.”—Isa 46:9-13.
When God created the first human pair they were perfect, and God could look upon the result of all his creative work and find it “very good.” (Ge 1:26, 31; De 32:4) Instead of distrustfully concerning himself with what the human pair’s future actions would be, the record says that he “proceeded to rest.” (Ge 2:2) He could do so since, by virtue of his almightiness and his supreme wisdom, no future action, circumstance, or contingency could possibly present an insurmountable obstacle or an irremediable problem to block the realization of his sovereign purpose. (2Ch 20:6; Isa 14:27; Da 4:35) There is, therefore, no Scriptural basis for the argument of predestinarianism that for God to refrain from exercising his powers of foreknowledge in this way would jeopardize God’s purposes, making them “always liable to be broken through want of foresight, and [that] he must be continually putting his system to rights, as it gets out of order, through the contingence of the actions of moral agents.” Nor would this selective exercise of foresight give his creatures the power to “break [God’s] measures, make him continually to change his mind, subject him to vexation, and bring him into confusion,” as predestinarians claim. (M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia, 1894, Vol. VIII, p. 556) If even God’s earthly servants have no real need to be “anxious about the next day,” it follows that their Creator, to whom mighty nations are as “a drop from a bucket,” neither had nor has such anxiety.—Mt 6:34; Isa 40:15.
Concerning classes of persons. Cases are also presented in which God did foreknow the course that certain groups, nations, or the majority of mankind would take, and thus he foretold the basic course of their future actions and foreordained what corresponding action he would take regarding them. However, such foreknowledge or foreordination does not deprive the individuals within such collective groups or divisions of mankind of exercising free choice as to the particular course they will follow. This can be seen from the following examples:
Prior to the Flood of Noah’s day, Jehovah announced his purpose to bring about this act of destruction, resulting in loss of human as well as animal life. The Biblical account shows, however, that such divine determination was made after the conditions developed that called for such action, including violence and other badness. Additionally, God, who is able to “know the heart of the sons of mankind,” made examination and found that “every inclination of the thoughts of [mankind’s] heart was only bad all the time.” (2Ch 6:30; Ge 6:5) Yet individuals, Noah and his family, gained God’s favor and escaped destruction.—Ge 6:7, 8; 7:1.
Similarly, although God gave the nation of Israel the opportunity to become “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” by keeping his covenant, yet some 40 years later, when the nation was at the borders of the Promised Land, Jehovah foretold that they would break his covenant and, as a nation, would be forsaken by him. This foreknowledge was not without prior basis, however, as national insubordination and rebellion already had been revealed. Hence, God said: “For I well know their inclination that they are developing today before I bring them into the land about which I have sworn.” (Ex 19:6; De 31:16-18, 21; Ps 81:10-13) The results to which such manifest inclination would now lead in the way of increased wickedness could be foreknown by God without its making him responsible for such conditions, even as one’s foreknowing that a certain structure built of inferior materials and with shoddy workmanship will deteriorate does not make that one responsible for such deterioration. The divine rule governs that ‘what is sown is what will be reaped.’ (Ga 6:7-9; compare Ho 10:12, 13.) Certain prophets delivered prophetic warnings of God’s foreordained expressions of judgment, all of which had basis in already existing conditions and heart attitudes. (Ps 7:8, 9; Pr 11:19; Jer 11:20) Here again, however, individuals could and did respond to God’s counsel, reproof, and warnings and so merited his favor.—Jer 21:8, 9; Eze 33:1-20.
God’s Son, who also could read the hearts of men (Mt 9:4; Mr 2:8; Joh 2:24, 25), was divinely endowed with powers of foreknowledge and foretold future conditions, events, and expressions of divine judgment. He foretold the judgment of Gehenna for the scribes and Pharisees as a class (Mt 23:15, 33) but did not say thereby that each individual Pharisee or scribe was foredoomed to destruction, as the case of the apostle Paul shows. (Ac 26:4, 5) Jesus predicted woes for unrepentant Jerusalem and other cities, but he did not indicate that his Father had foreordained that each individual of those cities should so suffer. (Mt 11:20-23; Lu 19:41-44; 21:20, 21) He also foreknew what mankind’s inclination and heart attitude would lead to and foretold the conditions that would have developed among mankind by the time of “the conclusion of the system of things,” as well as the outworkings of God’s own purposes. (Mt 24:3, 7-14, 21, 22) Jesus’ apostles likewise declared prophecies manifesting God’s foreknowledge of certain classes, such as the “antichrist” (1Jo 2:18, 19; 2Jo 7), and also the end to which such classes are foreordained.—2Th 2:3-12; 2Pe 2:1-3; Jude 4.
Concerning individuals. In addition to foreknowledge concerning classes, certain individuals are specifically involved in divine forecasts. These include Esau and Jacob (mentioned earlier), the Pharaoh of the Exodus, Samson, Solomon, Josiah, Jeremiah, Cyrus, John the Baptizer, Judas Iscariot, and God’s own Son Jesus.
In the cases of Samson, Jeremiah, and John the Baptizer, Jehovah exercised foreknowledge prior to their birth. This foreknowledge, however, did not specify what their final destiny would be. Rather, on the basis of such foreknowledge, Jehovah foreordained that Samson should live according to the Nazirite vow and should initiate the deliverance of Israel from the Philistines, that Jeremiah should serve as a prophet, and that John the Baptizer should do a preparatory work as a forerunner of the Messiah. (Jg 13:3-5; Jer 1:5; Lu 1:13-17) While highly favored by such privileges, this did not guarantee their gaining eternal salvation or even that they would remain faithful until death (although all three did). Thus, Jehovah foretold that one of David’s many sons would be named Solomon and he foreordained that Solomon would be used to build the temple. (2Sa 7:12, 13; 1Ki 6:12; 1Ch 22:6-19) However, though favored in this way and even privileged to write certain books of the Holy Scriptures, Solomon nevertheless fell into apostasy in his later years.—1Ki 11:4, 9-11.
Likewise with Esau and Jacob, God’s foreknowledge did not fix their eternal destinies but, rather, determined, or foreordained, which of the national groups descending from the two sons would gain a dominant position over the other. (Ge 25:23-26) This foreseen dominance also pointed to the gaining of the right of the firstborn by Jacob, a right that brought along with it the privilege of being in the line of descent through which the Abrahamic “seed” would come. (Ge 27:29; 28:13, 14) By this means Jehovah God made clear that his choice of individuals for certain uses is not bound by the usual customs or procedures conforming to men’s expectations. Nor are divinely assigned privileges to be dispensed solely on the basis of works, which might allow a person to feel he has ‘earned the right’ to such privileges and that they are ‘owed to him.’ The apostle Paul stressed this point in showing why God, by undeserved kindness, could grant to the Gentile nations privileges once seemingly reserved for Israel.—Ro 9:1-6, 10-13, 30-32.
Paul’s quotations concerning Jehovah’s ‘love for Jacob [Israel] and his hatred for Esau [Edom]’ comes from Malachi 1:2, 3, written long after Jacob and Esau’s time. So the Bible does not necessarily say that Jehovah held such opinion of the twins before their birth. It is a scientifically established fact that much of a child’s general disposition and temperament is determined at the time of conception because of the genetic factors contributed by each parent. That God can see such factors is self-evident; David speaks of Jehovah as seeing “even the embryo of me.” (Ps 139:14-16; see also Ec 11:5.) To what extent such divine insight affected Jehovah’s foreordination concerning the two boys cannot be said, but at any rate, his choice of Jacob over Esau did not of itself doom Esau or his descendants, the Edomites, to destruction. Even individuals from among the accursed Canaanites gained the privilege of association with God’s covenant people and received blessings. (Ge 9:25-27; Jos 9:27; see CANAAN, CANAANITE No. 2.) The “change of mind” that Esau earnestly sought with tears, however, was only an unsuccessful attempt to change his father Isaac’s decision that the firstborn’s special blessing should remain entirely with Jacob. Hence, this indicated no repentance before God on Esau’s part as to his materialistic attitude.—Ge 27:32-34; Heb 12:16, 17.
Jehovah’s prophecy concerning Josiah called for some descendant of David to be so named, and it foretold his acting against false worship in the city of Bethel. (1Ki 13:1, 2) Over three centuries later a king so named fulfilled this prophecy. (2Ki 22:1; 23:15, 16) On the other hand, he failed to heed “the words of Necho from the mouth of God,” and this led to his being killed. (2Ch 35:20-24) Hence, while foreknown by God and foreordained to do a particular work, Josiah was still a free moral agent able to choose to heed or disregard advice.
Similarly, Jehovah foretold nearly two centuries beforehand that he would use a conqueror named Cyrus to effect the release of the Jews from Babylon. (Isa 44:26-28; 45:1-6) But the Persian to whom that name eventually was given in fulfillment of divine prophecy is not stated in the Bible to have become a genuine worshiper of Jehovah, and secular history shows him continuing his worship of false gods.
These cases of foreknowledge prior to the individual’s birth thus do not conflict with God’s revealed qualities and announced standards. Nor is there any indication that God coerced the individuals to act against their own will. In the cases of Pharaoh, Judas Iscariot, and God’s own Son, there is no evidence that Jehovah’s foreknowledge was exercised prior to the person’s coming into existence. Within these individual cases certain principles are illustrated, bearing on God’s foreknowledge and foreordination.
One such principle is God’s testing of individuals by causing or allowing certain circumstances or events, or by causing such individuals to hear his inspired messages, the result being that they are obliged to exercise their free choice to make a decision and thus reveal a definite heart attitude, read by Jehovah. (Pr 15:11; 1Pe 1:6, 7; Heb 4:12, 13) According to the way the individuals respond, God can also mold them in the course they have selected of their own volition. (1Ch 28:9; Ps 33:13-15; 139:1-4, 23, 24) Thus, “the heart of earthling man” first inclines toward a certain way before Jehovah does the directing of the steps of such a one. (Pr 16:9; Ps 51:10) Under testing, one’s heart condition can become fixed, either hardened in unrighteousness and rebellion or made firm in unbreakable devotion to Jehovah God and the doing of his will. (Job 2:3-10; Jer 18:11, 12; Ro 2:4-11; Heb 3:7-10, 12-15) Having reached such a point of his own choice, the end result of the individual’s course can now be foreknown and foretold with no injustice and no violation of man’s free moral agency.—Compare Job 34:10-12.
The case of faithful Abraham, already discussed, illustrates these principles. A contrasting case is that of the unresponsive Pharaoh of the Exodus. Jehovah foreknew that Pharaoh would refuse permission for the Israelites to leave “except by a strong hand” (Ex 3:19, 20), and he foreordained the plague resulting in the death of the firstborn. (Ex 4:22, 23) The apostle Paul’s discussion of God’s dealings with Pharaoh is often incorrectly understood to mean that God arbitrarily hardens the heart of individuals according to his foreordained purpose, without regard for the individual’s prior inclination, or heart attitude. (Ro 9:14-18) Likewise, according to many translations, God advised Moses that he would “harden [Pharaoh’s] heart.” (Ex 4:21; compare Ex 9:12; 10:1, 27.) However, some translations render the Hebrew account to read that Jehovah “let [Pharaoh’s] heart wax bold” (Ro); “let [Pharaoh’s] heart become obstinate.” (NW) In support of such rendering, the appendix to Rotherham’s translation shows that in Hebrew the occasion or permission of an event is often presented as if it were the cause of the event, and that “even positive commands are occasionally to be accepted as meaning no more than permission.” Thus at Exodus 1:17 the original Hebrew text literally says that the midwives “caused the male children to live,” whereas in reality they permitted them to live by refraining from putting them to death. After quoting Hebrew scholars M. M. Kalisch, H. F. W. Gesenius, and B. Davies in support, Rotherham states that the Hebrew sense of the texts involving Pharaoh is that “God permitted Pharaoh to harden his own heart—spared him—gave him the opportunity, the occasion, of working out the wickedness that was in him. That is all.”—The Emphasised Bible, appendix, p. 919; compare Isa 10:5-7.
Corroborating this understanding is the fact that the record definitely shows that Pharaoh himself “hardened his heart.” (Ex 8:15, 32, KJ; “made his heart unresponsive,” NW) He thus exercised his own will and followed his own stubborn inclination, the results of which inclination Jehovah accurately foresaw and predicted. The repeated opportunities given him by Jehovah obliged Pharaoh to make decisions, and in doing so he became hardened in his attitude. (Compare Ec 8:11, 12.) As the apostle Paul shows by quoting Exodus 9:16, Jehovah allowed the matter to develop in this way to the full length of ten plagues in order to make manifest his own power and cause his name to be made known earth wide.—Ro 9:17, 18.
Did God predestine Judas to betray Jesus in order to fulfill prophecy?
The traitorous course of Judas Iscariot fulfilled divine prophecy and demonstrated Jehovah’s foreknowledge as well as that of his Son. (Ps 41:9; 55:12, 13; 109:8; Ac 1:16-20) Yet it cannot be said that God foreordained or predestinated Judas himself to such a course. The prophecies foretold that some intimate acquaintance of Jesus would be his betrayer, but they did not specify which of those sharing such acquaintance it would be. Again, Bible principles rule against God’s having foreordained Judas’ actions. The divine standard stated by the apostle is: “Never lay your hands hastily upon any man; neither be a sharer in the sins of others; preserve yourself chaste.” (1Ti 5:22; compare 1Ti 3:6.) Evidencing his concern that the selection of his 12 apostles be wisely and properly made, Jesus spent the night in prayer to his Father before making known his decision. (Lu 6:12-16) If Judas were already divinely foreordained to be a traitor, this would result in inconsistency in God’s direction and guidance and, according to the rule, would make him a sharer in the sins that one committed.
Thus, it seems evident that at the time of his being selected as an apostle, Judas’ heart presented no definite evidence of a treasonous attitude. He allowed a ‘poisonous root to spring up’ and defile him, resulting in his deviation and in his accepting, not God’s direction, but the Devil’s leading in a course of thievery and treachery. (Heb 12:14, 15; Joh 13:2; Ac 1:24, 25; Jas 1:14, 15; see JUDAS No. 4.) By the time such deviation reached a certain point, Jesus himself could read Judas’ heart and foretell his betrayal.—Joh 13:10, 11.
True, in the account at John 6:64, on the occasion of some disciples stumbling over certain teachings of Jesus, we read that “from the beginning [“from the outset,” JB] Jesus knew who were the ones not believing and who was the one that would betray him.” While the word “beginning” (Gr., ar·khe′) is used at 2 Peter 3:4 to refer to the start of creation, it can also refer to other times. (Lu 1:2; Joh 15:27) For example, when the apostle Peter spoke of the holy spirit falling on Gentiles “just as it did also upon us in the beginning,” he obviously was not referring to the beginning of his discipleship or apostleship but to an important point in his ministry, the day of Pentecost, 33 C.E., “the beginning” of the outpouring of the holy spirit for a certain purpose. (Ac 11:15; 2:1-4) It is therefore interesting to note this comment on John 6:64 in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (p. 227): “Beginning . . . means not, metaphysically from the beginning of all things, . . . nor from the beginning of His [Jesus’] acquaintance with each one, . . . nor from the beginning of His collecting of the disciples around Him, or the beginning of His Messianic ministry, . . . but from the first secret germs of unbelief [that produced the stumbling of some disciples]. So also He knew His betrayer from the beginning.”—Translated and edited by P. Schaff, 1976; compare 1Jo 3:8, 11, 12.
Foreordination of the Messiah. Jehovah God foreknew and foretold the Messiah’s sufferings, the death he would undergo, and his subsequent resurrection. (Ac 2:22, 23, 30, 31; 3:18; 1Pe 1:10, 11) The realization of things determined by God’s exercise of such foreknowledge depended in part upon God’s own exercise of power and in part upon the actions of men. (Ac 4:27, 28) Such men, however, willingly allowed themselves to be overreached by God’s Adversary, Satan the Devil. (Joh 8:42-44; Ac 7:51-54) Hence, even as Christians in Paul’s day were “not ignorant of [Satan’s] designs,” God foresaw the wicked desires and methods the Devil would devise against Jesus Christ, God’s Anointed One. (2Co 2:11) Obviously, God’s power could also thwart or even block any attacks or attempts upon the Messiah that did not conform to the manner or time prophesied.—Compare Mt 16:21; Lu 4:28-30; 9:51; Joh 7:1, 6-8; 8:59.
The apostle Peter’s statement that Christ, as the sacrificial Lamb of God, was “foreknown before the founding [form of Greek ka·ta·bo·le′] of the world [ko′smou]” is construed by advocates of predestinarianism to mean that God exercised such foreknowledge before mankind’s creation. (1Pe 1:19, 20) The Greek word ka·ta·bo·le′, translated “founding,” literally means “a throwing down” and can refer to the ‘conceiving of seed,’ as at Hebrews 11:11. While there was “the founding” of a world of mankind when God created the first human pair, as is shown at Hebrews 4:3, 4, that pair thereafter forfeited their position as children of God. (Ge 3:22-24; Ro 5:12) Yet, by God’s undeserved kindness, they were allowed to conceive seed and produce offspring, one of whom is specifically shown in the Bible to have gained God’s favor and placed himself in position for redemption and salvation, namely, Abel. (Ge 4:1, 2; Heb 11:4) It is noteworthy that at Luke 11:49-51 Jesus refers to “the blood of all the prophets spilled from the founding of the world” and parallels this with the words “from the blood of Abel down to the blood of Zechariah.” Thus, Abel is connected by Jesus with “the founding of the world.”
The Messiah, or Christ, was to be the promised Seed through whom all righteous persons of all the families of the earth would be blessed. (Ga 3:8, 14) The first mention of such “seed” came after the rebellion in Eden had already been initiated, but prior to the birth of Abel. (Ge 3:15) This was some 4,000 years before the revelation of “the sacred secret” was made by the clear identification of that Messianic “seed.” Hence, it was, indeed, “kept in silence for long-lasting times.”—Ro 16:25-27; Eph 1:8-10; 3:4-11.
In his due time Jehovah God assigned his own firstborn Son to fulfill the prophesied role of the “seed” and become the Messiah. There is nothing to show that that Son was “predestined” to such a role even before his creation or before rebellion broke out in Eden. God’s eventual selection of him as the one charged with fulfilling the prophecies likewise was not made without prior basis. The period of intimate association between God and his Son previous to the Son’s being sent to earth undoubtedly resulted in Jehovah’s ‘knowing’ his Son to an extent that He could be certain of his Son’s faithful fulfillment of the prophetic promises and pictures.—Compare Ro 15:5; Php 2:5-8; Mt 11:27; Joh 10:14, 15; see JESUS CHRIST (Tested and Perfected).
Foreordination of the ‘called and chosen.’ There remain those texts that deal with the Christian “called ones,” or “chosen ones.” (Jude 1; Mt 24:24) They are described as “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God” (1Pe 1:1, 2), ‘chosen before the founding of the world,’ ‘foreordained to the adoption as sons of God’ (Eph 1:3-5, 11), ‘selected from the beginning for salvation and called to this very destiny’ (2Th 2:13, 14). The understanding of these texts depends upon whether they refer to the foreordination of certain individual persons or whether they describe the foreordination of a class of persons, namely, the Christian congregation, the “one body” (1Co 10:17) of those who will be joint heirs with Christ Jesus in his heavenly Kingdom.—Eph 1:22, 23; 2:19-22; Heb 3:1, 5, 6.
If these words apply to specific individuals as foreordained to eternal salvation, then it follows that those individuals could never prove unfaithful or fail in their calling, for God’s foreknowledge of them could not prove inaccurate and his foreordination of them to a certain destiny could never miscarry or be thwarted. Yet the same apostles who were inspired to write the foregoing words showed that some who were “bought” and “sanctified” by the blood of Christ’s ransom sacrifice and who had “tasted the heavenly free gift” and “become partakers of holy spirit . . . and powers of the coming system of things” would fall away beyond repentance and bring destruction upon themselves. (2Pe 2:1, 2, 20-22; Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-29) The apostles unitedly urged those to whom they wrote: “Do your utmost to make the calling and choosing of you sure for yourselves; for if you keep on doing these things you will by no means ever fail”; also, “Keep working out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (2Pe 1:10, 11; Php 2:12-16) Paul, who was “called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ” (1Co 1:1), obviously did not consider himself individually predestinated to eternal salvation, since he speaks of his strenuous efforts in striving to attain “the goal for the prize of the upward call of God” (Php 3:8-15) and his concern lest he himself should “become disapproved somehow.”—1Co 9:27.
Similarly, “the crown of life” offered such ones is granted subject to their faithfulness under trial until death. (Re 2:10, 23; Jas 1:12) Their crowns of kingship with God’s Son can be lost. (Re 3:11) The apostle Paul expressed confidence that “the crown of righteousness” was “reserved” for him, but he only did so when he was certain that he was nearing the end of his course, having “run [it] to the finish.”—2Ti 4:6-8.
On the other hand, viewed as applying to a class, to the Christian congregation, or “holy nation” of called ones as a whole (1Pe 2:9), the texts previously cited would mean that God foreknew and foreordained that such a class (but not the specific individuals forming it) would be produced. Also, these scriptures would mean that he prescribed, or foreordained, the ‘pattern’ to which all those in due time called to be members thereof would have to conform, all of this according to his purpose. (Ro 8:28-30; Eph 1:3-12; 2Ti 1:9, 10) He also foreordained the works such ones would be expected to carry out and their being tested because of the sufferings the world would bring upon them.—Eph 2:10; 1Th 3:3, 4.
As to those texts referring to ‘names being written in the book of life,’ see NAME.
Fatalism and Predestinarianism. Among the pagan peoples of ancient times, including the Greeks and Romans, one’s fate, particularly the length of the individual’s life, was often considered to be determined beforehand for all individuals by the gods. Grecian mythology represented the control of men’s destiny by three goddesses: Clotho (spinner), who spun the thread of life; Lachesis (disposer of lots), who determined the length of life; and Atropos (inflexible), who cut life off when the time expired. A similar triad was found among the Roman deities.
According to Jewish historian Josephus (first century C.E.), the Pharisees endeavored to harmonize the idea of fate with their belief in God and with the free moral agency granted to man. (The Jewish War, II, 162, 163 [viii, 14]; Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 13, 14 [i, 3]) The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge says: “Previous to Augustine [of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.] there was no serious development in Christianity of a theory of predestination.” Before Augustine, earlier so-called “Church Fathers” such as Justin, Origen, and Irenaeus “know nothing of unconditional predestination; they teach free will.” (Hastings’ Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 1919, Vol. X, p. 231) In their refutation of Gnosticism, they are described as regularly expressing their belief in the free moral agency of man as “the distinguishing characteristic of human personality, the basis of moral responsibility, a divine gift whereby man might choose that which was well-pleasing to God,” and as speaking of “the autonomy of man and the counsel of God who constraineth not.”—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, edited by S. Jackson, 1957, Vol. IX, pp. 192, 193.