Search This Blog

Friday 21 April 2017

The Watchtower Society's commentary on Jehovah's Temple.

TEMPLE:

A divine habitation, sacred place or sanctuary, either physical or spiritual, that is employed for worship. The Hebrew word heh·khalʹ, translated “temple,” also means “palace.” The Greek hi·e·ronʹ and na·osʹ are both rendered “temple” and may refer to the entire temple complex or to its central edifice; na·osʹ, meaning “sanctuary” or “divine habitation (dwelling),” at times refers specifically to the sacred inner rooms of the temple.—See HOLY PLACE.

Solomon’s Temple. King David entertained a strong desire to build a house for Jehovah, to contain the ark of the covenant, which was “dwelling in the middle of tent cloths.” Jehovah was pleased with David’s proposal but told him that, because he had shed much blood in warfare, his son (Solomon) would be privileged to do the building. This was not to say that God did not approve David’s wars fought in behalf of Jehovah’s name and His people. But the temple was to be built in peace by a man of peace.—2Sa 7:1-16; 1Ki 5:3-5; 8:17; 1Ch 17:1-14; 22:6-10.

Cost. Later David purchased the threshing floor of Ornan (Araunah) the Jebusite on Mount Moriah as the temple site. (2Sa 24:24, 25; 1Ch 21:24, 25) He amassed 100,000 talents of gold, 1,000,000 talents of silver, and copper and iron in great abundance, besides contributing from his personal fortune 3,000 talents of gold and 7,000 talents of silver. He also received as contributions from the princes, gold worth 5,000 talents and 10,000 darics and silver worth 10,000 talents, as well as much iron and copper. (1Ch 22:14; 29:3-7) This total, amounting to 108,000 talents and 10,000 darics of gold and 1,017,000 talents of silver, would be worth $48,337,047,000 at current values. His son Solomon did not spend the entire amount in building the temple; the remainder he put in the temple treasury.—1Ki 7:51; 2Ch 5:1.

Workmen. King Solomon began building the temple for Jehovah in the fourth year of his reign (1034 B.C.E.), in the second month, Ziv, following the architectural plan that David had received by inspiration. (1Ki 6:1; 1Ch 28:11-19) The work continued over a seven-year period. (1Ki 6:37, 38) In exchange for wheat, barley, oil, and wine, Hiram king of Tyre supplied timbers from Lebanon along with skilled workers in wood and stone, and one special expert, also named Hiram, whose father was a Tyrian and his mother an Israelitess of the tribe of Naphtali. This man was a fine workman in gold, silver, copper, iron, wood, stones, and fabrics.—1Ki 5:8-11, 18; 7:13, 14, 40, 45; 2Ch 2:13-16.

In organizing the work, Solomon conscripted 30,000 men out of Israel, sending them to Lebanon in shifts of 10,000 for a month, with a two-month stay at home between shifts. (1Ki 5:13, 14) As burden bearers, he conscripted 70,000 from among the “alien residents” in the land, and as cutters, 80,000. (1Ki 5:15; 9:20, 21; 2Ch 2:2) As foremen over the work, Solomon appointed 550 men and apparently 3,300 as assistants. (1Ki 5:16; 9:22, 23) It appears that, of these, 250 were Israelites and 3,600 were “alien residents” in Israel.—2Ch 2:17, 18.

Length of “cubit” used. In the following discussion of the measurements of the three temples—built by Solomon, Zerubbabel, and Herod—we shall calculate them on the basis of the cubit of 44.5 cm (17.5 in.). However, it is possible that they used the longer cubit of about 51.8 cm (20.4 in.).—Compare 2Ch 3:3 (which mentions a “length in cubits by the former measurement,” this perhaps being a longer measure than the cubit that came to be commonly in use) and Eze 40:5; see CUBIT.

Plan and materials. The temple, a most magnificent structure, followed the general plan of the tabernacle. However, the inside dimensions of the Holy and Most Holy were greater than those of the tabernacle. The Holy was 40 cubits (17.8 m; 58.3 ft) long, 20 cubits (8.9 m; 29.2 ft) wide, and evidently 30 cubits (13.4 m; 43.7 ft) high. (1Ki 6:2, 17) The Most Holy was a cube 20 cubits on a side. (1Ki 6:20; 2Ch 3:8) Additionally, there were roof chambers over the Most Holy that were approximately 10 cubits (4.5 m; 14.6 ft) high. (1Ch 28:11) There was also a side structure around the temple on three sides, containing storage chambers, and so forth.—1Ki 6:4-6, 10.

Materials used were primarily stone and wood. The floors of these rooms were overlaid with juniper wood; the inside walls were of cedar engraved with carvings of cherubs, palm trees, and blossoms; the walls and ceiling were entirely overlaid with gold. (1Ki 6:15, 18, 21, 22, 29) The doors of the Holy (at the temple entrance) were made of juniper—carved and overlaid with gold foil. (1Ki 6:34, 35) Doors of oil-tree wood, likewise carved and overlaid with gold, provided entrance between the Holy and Most Holy. Whatever their exact position, these doors did not fully replace the curtain arrangement that had been in effect in the tabernacle. (Compare 2Ch 3:14.) Two gigantic cherubs of oil-tree wood, gold overlaid, occupied the Most Holy. Under these the ark of the covenant was placed.—1Ki 6:23-28, 31-33; 8:6; see CHERUB No. 1.

All the utensils of the Holy were of gold: the altar of incense, the ten tables of showbread, and the ten lampstands, together with their appurtenances. Beside the entrance to the Holy (the first compartment) stood two copper pillars, called “Jachin” and “Boaz.” (1Ki 7:15-22, 48-50; 1Ch 28:16; 2Ch 4:8; see BOAZ, II.) The inner courtyard was constructed of fine stone and cedarwood. (1Ki 6:36) The courtyard furnishings, the altar of sacrifice, the great “molten sea,” ten carriages for water basins, and other utensils were of copper. (1Ki 7:23-47) Dining rooms were provided around the perimeter of the courtyards.—1Ch 28:12.

An outstanding feature of the construction of this temple was the fact that all the stone was cut at the quarry, so that it fit perfectly at the temple site. “As for hammers and axes or any tools of iron, they were not heard in the house while it was being built.” (1Ki 6:7) The work was completed in seven and a half years (from spring 1034 B.C.E. to fall [Bul, the eighth month] 1027 B.C.E.).—1Ki 6:1, 38.

Inauguration. In the seventh month, Ethanim, apparently in the 12th year of Solomon’s reign (1026 B.C.E.), Solomon congregated the men of Israel to Jerusalem for the temple inauguration and the Festival of Booths. The tabernacle with its holy furniture was brought up, and the ark of the covenant was placed in the Most Holy. (See MOST HOLY.) At this Jehovah’s cloud filled the temple. Solomon then blessed Jehovah and the congregation of Israel and, standing on a special platform before the copper altar of sacrifice (see ALTAR), offered a long prayer praising Jehovah and asking for his loving-kindness and mercy in behalf of those who turned toward Him to fear and to serve Him, both the Israelite and the foreigner. A grand sacrifice of 22,000 cattle and 120,000 sheep was offered. The inauguration occupied 7 days, and the Festival of Booths 7 days, after which, on the 23rd day of the month, Solomon sent the people home joyful and thankful for Jehovah’s goodness and bountifulness.—1Ki 8; 2Ch 5:1–7:10; see SOLOMON (Inauguration of the temple).

History. This temple existed until 607 B.C.E., when it was destroyed by the Babylonian army under King Nebuchadnezzar. (2Ki 25:9; 2Ch 36:19; Jer 52:13) Because of the falling away of Israel to false religion, God permitted the nations to harass Judah and Jerusalem, at times stripping the temple of its treasures. The temple also suffered periods of neglect. King Shishak of Egypt robbed it of its treasures (993 B.C.E.) in the days of Rehoboam the son of Solomon, only about 33 years after its inauguration. (1Ki 14:25, 26; 2Ch 12:9) King Asa (977-937 B.C.E.) had respect for Jehovah’s house, but to protect Jerusalem he foolishly bribed King Ben-hadad I of Syria, with silver and gold from the treasures of the temple, to break his covenant with Baasha king of Israel.—1Ki 15:18, 19; 2Ch 15:17, 18; 16:2, 3.

After a period of turbulence and neglect of the temple, King Jehoash of Judah (898-859 B.C.E.) oversaw its repair. (2Ki 12:4-12; 2Ch 24:4-14) In the days of his son Amaziah, Jehoash king of Israel robbed it. (2Ki 14:13, 14) King Jotham (777-762 B.C.E.) did some construction work on the temple area, building “the upper gate.” (2Ki 15:32, 35; 2Ch 27:1, 3) King Ahaz of Judah (761-746 B.C.E.) not only sent the treasures of the temple to Tiglath-pileser III, king of Assyria, as a bribe but he also polluted the temple by building an altar patterned after one in Damascus and by replacing the copper altar of the temple with it. (2Ki 16:5-16) Finally he closed the doors of Jehovah’s house.—2Ch 28:24.

Ahaz’ son Hezekiah (745-717 B.C.E.) did what he could to undo the bad works of his father. At the very beginning of his reign, he reopened the temple and had it cleaned up. (2Ch 29:3, 15, 16) However, later on, for fear of Sennacherib king of Assyria, he cut off the doors and the doorposts of the temple that he himself had caused to be overlaid with gold and sent them to Sennacherib.—2Ki 18:15, 16.

But when Hezekiah died, the temple entered a half century of desecration and disrepair. His son Manasseh (716-662 B.C.E.) went beyond any of Judah’s previous kings in wickedness, setting up altars “to all the army of the heavens in two courtyards of the house of Jehovah.” (2Ki 21:1-5; 2Ch 33:1-4) By the time of Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (659-629 B.C.E.), the formerly magnificent edifice was in a state of disrepair. Evidently it was in a disorganized or cluttered condition, for High Priest Hilkiah’s finding the book of the Law (likely an original scroll written by Moses) was an exciting discovery. (2Ki 22:3-13; 2Ch 34:8-21) After the temple’s repair and cleansing, the greatest Passover since the days of Samuel the prophet was celebrated. (2Ki 23:21-23; 2Ch 35:17-19) This was during the ministry of the prophet Jeremiah. (Jer 1:1-3) From this time until the temple’s destruction, it remained open and in use by the priesthood, though many of the priests were corrupt.

The Temple Built by Zerubbabel. As foretold by Jehovah’s prophet Isaiah, God raised up Cyrus king of Persia as a liberator of Israel from the power of Babylon. (Isa 45:1) Jehovah also stirred up his own people under the leadership of Zerubbabel of the tribe of Judah to return to Jerusalem. This they did in 537 B.C.E., after 70 years of desolation, as Jeremiah had foretold, for the purpose of rebuilding the temple. (Ezr 1:1-6; 2:1, 2; Jer 29:10) This structure, though not nearly so glorious as Solomon’s temple, endured longer, standing for nearly 500 years, from 515 B.C.E. to very late in the first century B.C.E. (The temple built by Solomon had served about 420 years, from 1027 to 607 B.C.E.)

In Cyrus’ decree he ordered: “As for anyone that is left from all the places where he is residing as an alien, let the men of his place assist him with silver and with gold and with goods and with domestic animals along with the voluntary offering for the house of the true God, which was in Jerusalem.” (Ezr 1:1-4) Cyrus also returned 5,400 vessels of gold and silver that Nebuchadnezzar had taken from Solomon’s temple.—Ezr 1:7-11.

In the seventh month (Ethanim, or Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E., the altar was set up; and in the following year, the foundation of the new temple was laid. As Solomon had done, the builders hired Sidonians and Tyrians to bring cedar timbers from Lebanon. (Ezr 3:7) Opposition, particularly from the Samaritans, disheartened the builders, and after about 15 years those opposers even incited the king of Persia to ban the work.—Ezr 4.

The Jews had stopped their temple building work and had turned to other pursuits, so Jehovah sent his prophets Haggai and Zechariah to stir them to renew their efforts in the second year of Darius I (520 B.C.E.), and thereafter a decree was made upholding Cyrus’ original order and commanding that moneys be provided from the royal treasury, to supply what the builders and priests needed. (Ezr 5:1, 2; 6:1-12) The building work was carried on, and the house of Jehovah was completed on the third day of Adar in the sixth year of Darius (probably March 6 of 515 B.C.E.), after which the Jews inaugurated the rebuilt temple and held the Passover.—Ezr 6:13-22.

Little is known about the details of the architectural plan of this second temple. Cyrus’ decree authorized the building of a structure “its height being sixty cubits [c. 27 m; 88 ft], its width sixty cubits, with three layers of stones rolled into place and one layer of timbers.” The length is not stated. (Ezr 6:3, 4) It had dining rooms and storerooms (Ne 13:4, 5), and undoubtedly it had roof chambers, and possibly other buildings were associated with it, along the same lines as Solomon’s temple.

This second temple did not contain the ark of the covenant, which seems to have disappeared before Nebuchadnezzar captured and looted Solomon’s temple in 607 B.C.E. According to the account in the Apocryphal book of First Maccabees (1:21-24, 57; 4:38, 44-51), there was one lampstand instead of the ten that were in Solomon’s; the golden altar, the table of showbread, and the vessels are mentioned, as is the altar of burnt offering, which, instead of being of copper as was the altar in Solomon’s temple, is there described as being of stone. This altar, after being defiled by King Antiochus Epiphanes (in 168 B.C.E.), was rebuilt with new stones under the direction of Judas Maccabaeus.

The Temple Rebuilt by Herod. This temple is not described in any detail in the Scriptures. The primary source is Josephus, who personally saw the structure and who reports on its construction in The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities. The Jewish Mishnah supplies some information, and a little is gained from archaeology. Therefore the description set forth here is from these sources, which in some instances may be open to question.—PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 543.

In The Jewish War (I, 401 [xxi, 1]), Josephus says that Herod rebuilt the temple in the 15th year of his reign, but in Jewish Antiquities (XV, 380 [xi, 1]), he says it was in the 18th year. This latter date is generally accepted by scholars, although the beginning of Herod’s reign, or how Josephus calculated it, is not established with certainty. The sanctuary itself took 18 months to build, but the courtyards, and so forth, were under construction for eight years. When certain Jews approached Jesus Christ in 30 C.E., saying, “This temple was built in forty-six years” (Joh 2:20), these Jews were apparently talking about the work that continued on the complex of courts and buildings up until then. The work was not finished until about six years before the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E.

Because of hatred and distrust of Herod, the Jews would not permit him to rebuild the temple, as he proposed, until he had everything prepared for the new building. For the same reason they did not consider this temple as a third one, but only as a rebuilt one, speaking only of the first and second temples (Solomon’s and Zerubbabel’s).

As to Josephus’ measurements, Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible (1889, Vol. IV, p. 3203) says: “His horizontal dimensions are so minutely accurate that we almost suspect he had before his eyes, when writing, some ground-plan of the building prepared in the quartermaster-general’s department of Titus’s army. They form a strange contrast with his dimensions in height, which, with scarcely an exception, can be shown to be exaggerated, generally doubled. As the buildings were all thrown down during the siege, it was impossible to convict him of error in respect to elevations.”

Colonnades and gates. Josephus writes that Herod doubled the size of the temple area, building up the sides of Mount Moriah with great stone walls and leveling off an area on the top of the mountain. (The Jewish War, I, 401 [xxi, 1]; Jewish Antiquities, XV, 391-402 [xi, 3]) The Mishnah (Middot 2:1) says the Temple Mount measured 500 cubits (223 m; 729 ft) square. On the outer edge of the area were colonnades. The temple faced the E, as did the previous ones. Along this side was the colonnade of Solomon, consisting of three columns of marble pillars. On one occasion, in the wintertime, Jesus was approached here by certain Jews asking if he was the Christ. (Joh 10:22-24) In the N and W were also colonnades, dwarfed by the Royal Colonnade on the S, consisting of four rows of Corinthian pillars, 162 in all, with three aisles. The pillars’ circumferences were so great that it took three men with outstretched arms to reach around one of them, and they stood much higher than those of the other colonnades.

There were evidently eight gates leading into the temple area: four on the W side, two on the S, and one each on the E and N. (See GATE, GATEWAY [Temple Gates].) Because of these gates, the first court, the Court of the Gentiles, also served as a thoroughfare, travelers preferring to go through it instead of outside around the temple area.

Court of the Gentiles. The colonnades surrounded the large area named the Court of the Gentiles, so called because Gentiles were permitted to enter it. It was from it that Jesus, on two occasions, once near the beginning and once at the close of his earthly ministry, expelled those who had made the house of his Father a house of merchandise.—Joh 2:13-17; Mt 21:12, 13; Mr 11:15-18.

There were several courts through which a person passed as he proceeded to the central building, the sanctuary itself. Each succeeding court was of a higher degree of sanctity. Passing through the Court of the Gentiles, one encountered a wall three cubits (1.3 m; 4.4 ft) high, with openings through which to pass. On its top were large stones bearing a warning in Greek and Latin. The Greek inscription read (according to one translation): “Let no foreigner enter inside of the barrier and the fence around the sanctuary. Whosoever is caught will be responsible for his death which will ensue.” (The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, edited by H. Gehman, 1970, p. 932) On the occasion when the apostle Paul was mobbed in the temple, it was because the Jews rumored that he had brought a Gentile within the forbidden area. We are reminded of this wall, though Paul was using the term “wall” symbolically, when we read that Christ “destroyed the wall” that fenced off Jew from Gentile.—Eph 2:14, ftn; Ac 21:20-32.

Court of Women. The Court of Women was 14 steps higher. Here women could enter for worship. Among other things, the Court of Women contained treasure chests, near one of which Jesus stood when he commended the widow for giving her all. (Lu 21:1-4) In this court were also several buildings.

Court of Israel and Court of Priests. Fifteen large semicircular steps led up to the Court of Israel, which could be entered by men who were ceremonially clean. Against the outside wall of this court were storage chambers.

Then came the Court of Priests, which corresponded to the courtyard of the tabernacle. In it was the altar, built of unhewn stones. According to the Mishnah, it was 32 cubits (14.2 m; 46.7 ft) square at the base. (Middot 3:1) Josephus gives a higher figure. (The Jewish War, V, 225 [v, 6]; see ALTAR [Postexilic Altars].) The priests reached the altar by an inclined plane. A “laver” was also in use, according to the Mishnah. (Middot 3:6) Around this court also were various buildings.

The temple building. As previously, the temple proper consisted primarily of two compartments, the Holy and the Most Holy. The floor of this building was 12 steps above the Court of Priests. Even as with Solomon’s temple, chambers were built on the sides of this building and there was an upper chamber. The entrance was closed by golden doors, each 55 cubits (24.5 m; 80.2 ft) high and 16 cubits (7.1 m; 23.3 ft) broad. The front of the building was wider than the back, having wings or “shoulders” that extended out 20 cubits (8.9 m; 29.2 ft) on each side. The inside of the Holy was 40 cubits (17.8 m; 58.3 ft) long and 20 cubits wide. In the Holy were the lampstand, the table of showbread, and the altar of incense—all of gold.

The entrance to the Most Holy was a beautifully ornamented thick curtain, or veil. At the time of Jesus’ death, this curtain was torn in two from top to bottom, exposing the Most Holy as containing no ark of the covenant. In place of the Ark was a stone slab upon which the high priest sprinkled the blood on the Day of Atonement. (Mt 27:51; Heb 6:19; 10:20) This room was 20 cubits long and 20 cubits wide.

The Jews used the temple area as a citadel, or fortress, during the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. They themselves set fire to the colonnades, but a Roman soldier, contrary to the wishes of the Roman commander Titus, fired the temple itself, thereby fulfilling Jesus’ words regarding the temple buildings: “By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.”—Mt 24:2; The Jewish War, VI, 252-266 (iv, 5-7); VII, 3, 4 (i, 1).

Jehovah’s Great Spiritual Temple. The tabernacle constructed by Moses and the temples built by Solomon, Zerubbabel, and Herod were only typical, or pictorial. This was shown by the apostle Paul when he wrote that the tabernacle, the basic features of which were included in the later temples, was “a typical representation and a shadow of the heavenly things.” (Heb 8:1-5; see also 1Ki 8:27; Isa 66:1; Ac 7:48; 17:24.) The Christian Greek Scriptures disclose the reality represented by the type. These Scriptures show that the tabernacle and the temples built by Solomon, Zerubbabel, and Herod, along with their features, represented a greater, spiritual temple of Jehovah, “the true tent, which Jehovah put up, and not man.” (Heb 8:2) As revealed by its various features, that spiritual temple is the arrangement for approaching Jehovah in worship on the basis of the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ.—Heb 9:2-10, 23.

The inspired letter to the Hebrews states that in this spiritual temple the Most Holy is “heaven itself,” the area where the person of God is. (Heb 9:24) Since only the Most Holy is “heaven itself,” then the Holy and the priestly courtyard, as well as their features, must pertain to things on earth, those things having to do with Jesus Christ during his ministry on earth and his followers who are “partakers of the heavenly calling.”—Heb 3:1.

The curtain was a barrier separating the Holy from the Most Holy; in Jesus’ case it represented “his flesh,” which he had to lay down in sacrifice, giving it up forever, to be able to enter heaven, the antitypical Most Holy. (Heb 10:20) Anointed Christians must also pass the fleshly barrier that separates them from access to God’s presence in heaven. Consistently, the Holy represents their condition as spirit-begotten sons of God, with heavenly life in view, and they will attain to that heavenly reward when their fleshly bodies are laid aside in death.—1Co 15:50; Heb 2:10.

While still in the antitypical Holy, these who have been anointed with holy spirit and who serve as underpriests with Christ are able to enjoy spiritual enlightenment, as from the lampstand; to eat spiritual food, as from the table of showbread; and to offer up prayer, praise, and service to God, as if presenting sweet-smelling incense at the golden altar of incense. The Holy of the typical temple was screened off from the view of outsiders, and similarly, how a person knows that he is a spirit-begotten son of God and what he experiences as such cannot be fully appreciated by those who are not.—Re 14:3.

In the ancient temple courtyard was the altar for offering sacrifices. This foreshadowed God’s provision, according to his will, for a perfect human sacrifice to ransom the offspring of Adam. (Heb 10:1-10; 13:10-12; Ps 40:6-8) In the spiritual temple the courtyard itself must pertain to a condition related to that sacrifice. In the case of Jesus, it was his being a perfect human that made the sacrifice of his life acceptable. In the case of his anointed followers, all of these are declared righteous on the basis of their faith in Christ’s sacrifice, and thus they are viewed by God as sinless while in the flesh.—Ro 3:24-26; 5:1, 9; 8:1.

The features of “the true tent,” God’s great spiritual temple, already existed in the first century C.E. This is indicated by the fact that, with reference to the tabernacle constructed by Moses, Paul wrote that it was “an illustration for the appointed time that is now here,” that is, for something that existed when Paul was writing. (Heb 9:9) That temple certainly existed when Jesus presented the value of his sacrifice in its Most Holy, in heaven itself. It must actually have come into existence in 29 C.E., when Jesus was anointed with holy spirit to serve as Jehovah’s great High Priest.—Heb 4:14; 9:11, 12.

Jesus Christ promises the spirit-begotten Christians that the one who conquers, who endures faithfully to the end, will be made “a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out from it anymore.” (Re 3:12) So, such a one is granted a permanent place in “heaven itself,” the antitypical Most Holy.

Revelation 7:9-15 reveals “a great crowd” of other worshipers of Jehovah sharing in pure worship at the spiritual temple. Those making up this “great crowd” are not described in terms that identify them as underpriests. The ones who make up this “great crowd” are said to have “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” Because of their faith in the sacrifice of Christ, they are credited with a righteous standing that makes possible their preservation through “the great tribulation,” so they are said to “come out of” it as survivors.

At Isaiah 2:1-4 and Micah 4:1-4, reference is made to a ‘lifting up’ of “the mountain of the house of Jehovah” in “the final part of the days,” and it is foretold that there would be a gathering of people of “all the nations” to that “house of Jehovah.” Since there has been no physical temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem since 70 C.E., this must refer, not to some physical structure, but to an elevating of true worship in the lives of Jehovah’s people during “the final part of the days” and a great gathering of people of all nations to share in worship at Jehovah’s great spiritual temple.

Detailed description of a temple of Jehovah is also found at Ezekiel chapters 40-47, but it is not a temple that was ever built on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem, nor would it fit there. So, it must be another illustration of God’s great spiritual temple. Special consideration is given in the account to the provisions that emanate from the temple and to the fact that precautions are taken to keep out all who are unworthy to be among the worshipers in its courtyards.

Ezekiel’s temple vision. In 593 B.C.E., in the 14th year after the destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon’s temple therein, the priest-prophet Ezekiel, transported in vision to a high mountaintop, beheld a great temple of Jehovah. (Eze 40:1, 2) To humiliate and bring about repentance of the exiled Jews, also doubtless to comfort faithful ones, Ezekiel was instructed to relate everything he saw to “the house of Israel.” (Eze 40:4; 43:10, 11) The vision gave careful attention to the details of measurement. The units of measure used were the “reed” (the long reed, 3.11 m; 10.2 ft) and the “cubit” (the long cubit, 51.8 cm; 20.4 in.). (Eze 40:5, ftn) This attention to measurement has led some to believe that this visionary temple was to serve as a model for the temple later constructed by Zerubbabel in the postexilic period. There is, however, no conclusive substantiation of this assumption.

The entire temple area was evidently a square 500 cubits to a side. It contained an outer courtyard, an elevated inner courtyard, the temple with its altar, various dining rooms, and a building to the W, or rear, of the temple. Providing access to the temple’s outer and inner courtyards were six huge gateways, three for the outer courtyard and three for the inner courtyard. These faced N, E, and S, each inner gate being directly behind (in line with) its corresponding outer gate. (Eze 40:6, 20, 23, 24, 27) Inside the outer wall was the lower pavement. It was 50 cubits (25.9 m; 85 ft) wide, the same as the length of the gateways. (Eze 40:18, 21) Thirty dining rooms, likely places for the people to eat their communion sacrifices, were located there. (Eze 40:17) At each of the four corners of this outer courtyard were locations where the people’s portions of their sacrifices were cooked by the priests, according to the Law’s requirement; then they were apparently consumed in the provided dining rooms. (Eze 46:21-24) The remainder of the outer courtyard between the lower pavement and the gates to the inner courtyard was apparently 100 cubits in width.—Eze 40:19, 23, 27.

The priests’ dining rooms were separated from the people’s, being placed closer to the temple. Two of these, along with two dining rooms for the temple singers, were in the inner courtyard beside the massive inner gateways. (Eze 40:38, 44-46) The priests also had dining-room blocks, to the N and S of the sanctuary itself. (Eze 42:1-12) These dining rooms, in addition to their most evident purpose, were places for the priests to change the linen garments used in temple service prior to their entering the outer courtyard. (Eze 42:13, 14; 44:19) Also in that area, to the rear of the dining-room blocks, were the boiling and baking places of the priests, intended for the same basic purpose as those in the outer courtyard, but these for only the priests.—Eze 46:19, 20.

Progressing across the outer courtyard and through the inner gateway, one entered the inner courtyard. The edge of the inner courtyard was 150 cubits (77.7 m; 255 ft) from the edge of the outer courtyard on the E, N, and S. The inner courtyard was 200 cubits (103.6 m; 340 ft) wide. (Ezekiel 40:47 says the inner courtyard was 100 cubits square. This evidently refers to just the area in front of the temple and into which the inner gateways led.) Prominent in the inner courtyard was the altar.—Eze 43:13-17; see ALTAR (Altar of Ezekiel’s Temple).

The sanctuary’s first room, 40 cubits (20.7 m; 68 ft) long and 20 cubits (10.4 m; 34 ft) wide, was entered by a doorway having two 2-leaved doors. (Eze 41:23, 24) Therein was “the table that is before Jehovah,” a wooden altar.—Eze 41:21, 22.

The outer walls of the sanctuary had side chambers four cubits (2 m; 6.8 ft) wide incorporated into and against them. Rising three stories, they covered the western, northern, and southern walls, 30 chambers to a story. (Eze 41:5, 6) To ascend the three stories, winding passages, seemingly circular staircases, were provided on the N and S. (Eze 41:7) To the rear, or W, of the temple, lying apparently lengthwise N to S, was a structure called bin·yanʹ, a ‘building to the west.’ (Eze 41:12) Although some scholars have attempted to identify this building with the temple or sanctuary itself, there appears no basis for such an identification in the book of Ezekiel; the ‘building to the west,’ for one thing, was of different shape and dimensions from those of the sanctuary. This structure doubtless served some function in connection with the services carried on at the sanctuary. There may have been a similar building or buildings W of Solomon’s temple.—Compare 2Ki 23:11 and 1Ch 26:18.

The Most Holy was of the same shape as that of Solomon’s temple, being 20 cubits square. In the vision, Ezekiel saw Jehovah’s glory come from the E, filling the temple. Jehovah described this temple as “the place of my throne.”—Eze 43:1-7.

Ezekiel describes a wall 500 reeds (1,555 m; 5,100 ft) on each side, around the temple. This has been understood by some scholars to be a wall at a distance of about 600 m (2,000 ft) from the courtyard, a space surrounded by the wall “to make a division between what is holy and what is profane.”—Eze 42:16-20.

Ezekiel also beheld a stream of water flowing “from under the threshold of the House eastward” and south of the altar, growing into a deep and mighty torrent as it flowed down through the Arabah into the north end of the Salt Sea. Here it healed the salt waters so that they became filled with fish.—Eze 47:1-12.

Anointed Christians—A Spiritual Temple. Anointed Christians on earth are likened to a number of things, including a temple. This comparison is fitting because God’s spirit dwells within the congregation of anointed ones. Paul wrote to the Christians in Ephesus “in union with Christ Jesus,” those who are “sealed with the promised holy spirit,” saying: “You have been built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone. In union with him the whole building, being harmoniously joined together, is growing into a holy temple for Jehovah. In union with him you, too, are being built up together into a place for God to inhabit by spirit.” (Eph 1:1, 13; 2:20-22) These “sealed” ones, laid upon Christ as Foundation, are shown to number 144,000. (Re 7:4; 14:1) The apostle Peter speaks of these as “living stones” being “built up a spiritual house for the purpose of a holy priesthood.”—1Pe 2:5.

Since these underpriests are “God’s building,” he will not let this spiritual temple suffer defilement. Paul emphasizes the holiness of this spiritual temple, and the danger to one who attempts to defile it, when he writes: “Do you not know that you people are God’s temple, and that the spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him; for the temple of God is holy, which temple you people are.”—1Co 3:9, 16, 17; see also 2Co 6:16.

Jehovah God and the Lamb ‘Are Its Temple.’ When John sees New Jerusalem coming down from heaven, he remarks: “And I did not see a temple in it, for Jehovah God the Almighty is its temple, also the Lamb is.” (Re 21:2, 22) Since the members of New Jerusalem will have direct access to the face of Jehovah himself, they will not need a temple through which to approach God. (1Jo 3:2; Re 22:3, 4) Those who make up New Jerusalem will render sacred service to God directly under the high priesthood of the Lamb, Jesus Christ. For this reason the Lamb shares with Jehovah in being, in effect, the temple of the New Jerusalem.

An Impostor. The apostle Paul, in warning of the apostasy to come, spoke of “the man of lawlessness” as setting himself up “so that he sits down in the temple of The God, publicly showing himself to be a god.” (2Th 2:3, 4) This “man of lawlessness” is an apostate, a false teacher, so he actually seats himself only in what he falsely claims to be that temple.—See MAN OF LAWLESSNESS.


An Illustrative Use. On one occasion, when the Jews demanded a sign from Jesus, he replied: “Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews thought he was speaking of the temple building, but the apostle John explains: “He was talking about the temple of his body.” When he was resurrected by his Father Jehovah on the third day of his death, the disciples recalled and understood this saying and believed it. (Joh 2:18-22; Mt 27:40) He was resurrected, but not in his fleshly body, which was given as a ransom sacrifice; yet that fleshly body did not go into corruption, but was disposed of by God, just as a sacrifice was consumed on the altar. Jesus, when resurrected, was the same person, the same personality, in a new body made for his new dwelling place, the spiritual heavens.—Lu 24:1-7; 1Pe 3:18; Mt 20:28; Ac 2:31; Heb 13:8.

Epicurus on body and soul

Epicurus' Theory of Soul:

Epicurus is an atomist, and in accordance with his atomism he takes the soul, like everything else that there is except for the void, to be ultimately composed of atoms. Our sources are somewhat unclear as to exactly which kinds of materials he took to be involved in the composition of soul. It is very probable, though, that in addition to some relatively familiar materials — such as fire-like and wind-like stuffs, or rather the atoms making up such stuffs — the soul, on Epicurus' view, also includes, in fact as a key ingredient, atoms of a nameless kind of substance, which is responsible for sense-perception. Thus it seems that while he thought he could explain phenomena such as the heat or warmth of a living organism, as well as its movement and rest, by appealing to relatively familiar materials and their relatively familiar properties, he did feel the need to introduce a mysterious additional kind of substance so as to be able to explain sense-perception, apparently on the grounds that “sense-perception is found in none of the named elements” (L&S 14C). It is worth noting that it is specifically with regard to sense-perception that Epicurus thinks the introduction of a further, nameless kind of substance is called for, rather than, for instance, with regard to intellectual cognition. What this suggests, and what in fact we have independent reason to think, is that on Epicurus' view, once one is in a position adequately to explain sense-perception, one will then also be in a position to work out an explanation of intellectual cognition, by appropriately extending the explanation of sense-perception. Let us consider briefly how such extension might work.

Perceptual beliefs, like the belief that ‘there is a horse over there’, will be explained, in Epicurus' theory, in terms of sense-impressions and the application of concepts (‘preconceptions’; for discussion cf. Asmis 1999, 276-83), and concept-formation is in turn explained in terms of sense-impression and memory. According to Diogenes Laertius' summary (L&S 17E1-2), the Epicureans say that

preconception is, as it were, cognition or correct belief or conception or universal ‘stored notion’ (i.e. memory), of that which has frequently become evident externally: e.g. ‘such-and-such a kind of thing is a man’. For as soon as the word ‘man’ is uttered, immediately its impression also comes to mind by means of preconception, as a result of antecedent sense-perceptions.
Moreover, sense-impressions, interpreted and articulated in terms of concepts or preconceptions, yield experience concerning evident matters, which in turn forms the basis for conclusions about non-evident matters. For example, extensive experience can make clear to one not only that the human beings one has interacted with have a certain feature (say, rationality), but also (later Epicureans will say, probably somewhat developing Epicurus' position) that it is inconceivable that any human being could fail to have that feature (cf. L&S 18F4-5). And so, experience will not only make one expect, with a very great deal of confidence, that any human being one will ever encounter anywhere will be rational. Experience also, according to the Epicureans, supports the inference to, and hence justifies one in accepting, the (non-evident) conclusion that all human beings, everywhere and at all times, are rational (for detailed discussion, cf. Allen 2001, 194-241). This obviously is an extremely generous view of what experience, and ultimately sense-perception, can do! Once we recognize the enormously powerful and fundamental role Epicurus and his followers assign to sense-perception, we will not be surprised to see that they feel the need to include in the composition of the soul a very special kind of material that accounts specifically for sense-perception, but apparently do not think that, in addition to that, some further special material is needed to enable intellectual or rational activity.


In the Epicurean tradition the word ‘soul’ is sometimes used in the broad traditional way, as what animates living things (e.g., Diogenes of Oenoanda, fr. 37 Smith), but the focus of interest, so far as the soul is concerned, is very much on the mental functions of cognition, emotion and desire. A view that is common in the tradition and that very probably goes back to the founder is that the soul is a composite of two parts, one rational, the other nonrational. The rational part, which Lucretius calls mind [animus], is the origin of emotion and impulse, and it is also where (no doubt among other operations) concepts are applied and beliefs formed, and where evidence is assessed and inferences are made. The nonrational part of the soul, which in Lucretius is somewhat confusingly called soul [anima], is responsible for receiving sense-impressions, all of which are true according to Epicurus. Error arises at a later stage, when sense-impressions are interpreted by the rational part of the soul, in a way that, as we have seen, crucially involves memory. Sense-perception, conceived of simply as the reception of sense-impressions by the nonrational soul, does not involve memory (cf. L&S 16B1). Since the formation and application of concepts requires memory, sense-perception, so conceived of, does not involve conceptualization, either. The nonrational part is also responsible for transmitting impulses originating from the rational part, as well as (presumably) for a wide variety of other vital functions. (When Epicurus distinguishes between pleasures and pains of the soul and those of the body, incidentally, the distinction he has in mind must be between the rational part of the soul on the one hand and the body animated by nonrational soul, on the other.)

Wednesday 19 April 2017

A clash of Titans. LII

Hardline Darwinists' historical revisionism re:Junk DNA continues apace.

Post-ENCODE Posturing: Rewriting History Won't Erase Bad Evolutionary Predictions
Casey Luskin 


Editor's note: This is Part 4 of a series on ENCODE that Casey Luskin has been publishing this year in Salvo Magazine. Parts 12, and 3 have already been published there. The prelude can be found here.

Even in the face of the ENCODE consortium's compelling experimental results, many evolutionists still adamantly maintain that the vast majority of the human genome is junk. Some Darwin-defenders have tried hedging their bets by embracing ENCODE's research. This group seeks to revise history by claiming that evolutionary biology expected all along to find what ENCODE found: mass functionality in our genome.

Others are more forthright. They concede that evolutionary biology was mistaken about junk DNA, and they admit that new models are needed to accommodate ENCODE's data. In other words, they accept ENCODE's conclusions, but admit they can't explain them in evolutionary terms.

In this series, after introducing ENCODE, I have addressed various objections from evolutionists who reject the ENCODE results. In this and two subsequent articles, I will assess two more responses from evolutionists -- those who accept ENCODE, but now struggle to comprehend a junkless human genome in the post-ENCODE world.

Junky Predictions

Before going on, it's important to document what evolutionists were saying prior to 2012 when ENCODE's breakthrough papers showed that the vast majority of our genome is functional.

In an April 1980 issue, Nature published papers by influential biologists arguing that evolution predicts our genomes should be full of junk DNA. The first article, "Selfish Genes, the Phenotype Paradigm and Genome Evolution," by W. Ford Doolittle and Carmen Sapienza, maintained that "Natural selection operating within genomes will inevitably result in the appearance of DNAs with no phenotypic expression whose only 'function' is survival within genomes."1

A second paper, "Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite," was by Francis Crick, who won the Nobel Prize for determining the structure of DNA, and the eminent origin-of-life theorist Leslie Orgel. They concluded, "Much DNA in higher organisms is little better than junk," and "it would be folly in such cases to hunt obsessively for" its function.2

Fifteen years later, the junk-DNA paradigm was alive and well, as Scientific American reported:

These regions have traditionally been regarded as useless accumulations of material from millions of years of evolution ... In humans, about 97 percent of the genome is junk.3
I could give numerous other examples, but will allow just one more to suffice. In 2007, Columbia University philosopher of science Philip Kitcher published his Oxford University Press book Living with Darwin. Citing the mass of "genomic junk" that "litters the genome," Kitcher announced, "The most striking feature of the genomic analyses we now have is how much apparently nonfunctional DNA there is."4 In his view, "From the Darwinian perspective all this is explicable," but "if you were designing the genomes of organisms, you would certainly not fill them up with junk."5
Just Kidding -- We Anticipated Function!

When ENCODE's findings were published, many evolutionists reacted harshly to the conclusion that virtually our entire genome is functional. Others, however, realized that it would be sage advice to switch their bets, or simply place news ones alongside the old.

For example, a 2014 paper in Biology & Philosophy initially claimed that "junk DNA seems at odds with the view that the genome is ... the work of an intelligent force or designer," but then argued that a junk-free genome "is compatible with evolution by natural selection," because "we could expect natural selection to evolve lean genomes."6 According to this posturing, whether our genome is full of junk or devoid of it, evolution wins.

But first prize for betting on both horses goes to Richard Dawkins. In his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, Dawkins famously argued that "a large fraction"7 of our genomes is useless parasitic DNA, and that Darwinian evolution explains why:

The true "purpose" of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA.8
Again in 2004 he railed against "creationists" on the basis of our junk-laden genomes:
[C]reationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA.9
As recently as 2009, Dawkins adopted the incredible position that "the greater part (95 per cent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes."10
In September 2012, however, Dawkins changed his tune dramatically. Just one week after ENCODE's results were published, in a debate against Britain's chief rabbi, Dawkins declared that ENCODE's results are precisely what Darwinism predicts:

There are some creationists who are jumping on [ENCODE] because they think it's awkward for Darwinism. Quite the contrary, of course, it is exactly what a Darwinist would hope for -- to find usefulness in the living world.11
He went on to say, "[W]e thought that only a minority of the genome was doing something, namely that minority which actually codes for protein. And now we find that actually the majority of it is doing something." Under Dawkins's newly reformed view, "the rest [of the genome] which had previously been written off as junk" is now understood as "the program" that's "calling into action the protein coding genes."12
It's as if Dawkins's decades of arguing that our genome is full of junk never happened.

History Is Not Easily Rewritten

While some evolutionists try to erase their history of failed predictions, others seek to mitigate their embarrassment by highlighting the occasional suggestion, mined out of the annals of scientific literature, that some rare bits of the junk might end up being functional. For example, University of Guelph evolutionary biologist T. Ryan Gregory is an ENCODE-critic,13 but he has dug up a nice little collection of quotes from evolutionary scientists who purportedly predicted our finding some function for non-coding DNA.14 Presumably he did this just in case ENCODE turned out to be right.

Many of Gregory's quotes don't really support his case. They simply show biologists finding experimental evidence of function for noncoding "junk" -- just like ENCODE did -- not predicting it before the fact on the basis of a scientific model (as intelligent design proponents did). To be sure, many of the biologists who made these discoveries are evolutionists, but they made their discoveries by spending time in the lab studying how the cell works, not on the basis of evolutionary theory.

Gregory, however, makes a stronger argument, as he co-wrote in a scientific paper:

[I]t is simply not true that potential functions for noncoding DNA were ignored until recently. In fact, various early commenters considered the notion that large swaths of the genome were nonfunctional to be "repugnant", and possible functions were discussed each time a new type of nonprotein-coding sequence was identified...15
The quote about "repugnant" non-functionality comes from a paper that revealed much of our genome is repetitive DNA16 -- long cited as "junk."17 It's true that those particular authors didn't think the repetitive DNA was "trivial," but their paper was published in 1968, before the term "junk" DNA was even coined.18 Indeed, soon thereafter, this paper on repetitive DNA was being cited by another paper in Science that has proven foundational for evolutionary biology in establishing the pro-junk viewpoint. That latter paper (published in 1969) offered the astounding suggestion that "99 percent of mammalian DNA is not true genetic material"19 -- i.e., it is junk. In 1972, Susumu Ohno, the Japanese evolutionary biologist who coined the term "junk DNA," made a similarly striking prediction: "At least 90% of the mammalian genomic DNA appears to represent 'nonsense' DNA base sequence of various kinds."20
Thus, while it's true that some scientists have proposed various functions for noncoding DNA, evolutionary theorists by and large predicted that the vast majority of the genome would turn out to be functionless. The typical attitude is canonized in various editions of Douglas Futuyma's evolutionary biology textbooks, published from the 1970s into the 2000s. His first edition, written just a few years after the concept of junk DNA was conceived, anticipated that repetitive DNA would have no function:

[O]ther features may well be neutral, having no function whatever. The most extreme, still hypothetical, example is that of the highly repetitive short sequences of DNA that may never be transcribed into RNA. These may have a function ... but I would not be surprised if they did not.21
Futuyma's second edition, published in 1986, likewise claimed our genome is full of transposable, repetitive DNA sequences which "do not exist because they serve the organism" but rather are "ignorant DNA" or "selfish DNA ... and may be viewed as parasites."22 The third edition, published in 1998, again stated that these repetitive elements generally "do not provide any adaptive service to the organism" because they are "selfish DNA" or "parasites, much like viruses, of the genome in which they reside."23 Futuyma's still heavily promoted this viewpoint in his 2005 textbook, where he wrote:
Because natural selection consists only of differential reproductive success, it results in 'selfish genes' and genotypes, some of which have results that are inexplicable by intelligent design. We have seen that genomes are brimming with sequences such as transposable elements that increase their own numbers without benefitting the organism.24
As late as 2009, Futuyma's textbooks still claimed "In eukaryotes, the vast majority of DNA has no known function, even though as much as 80 percent may be transcribed."25 While Futuyma often includes caveats allowing that some small portion of this DNA might turn out to be functional, his view is typical of the evolutionary community: it's mostly junk.
Biologist Richard Sternberg offers a forceful reply to Gregory's style of argument:

As someone who has studied the concept of "junk DNA" for over twenty years, I am dismayed by ... a half-truth and a false fact that ... goes something like this: "No one ever asserted that junk DNA is without function ... it was long suspected that these sequences have important roles in the cells."26
Sternberg acknowledges that a few evolutionary scientists speculated that some junk might accidentally acquire a useful function. Even Crick and Orgel suggested that "occasionally" this might happen, but they still predicted "most sets of repeated sequences will never be of use."27 Their view -- common among evolutionary theorists -- stands in stark contrast to ENCODE's findings. Sternberg explains:
[T]he view expounded by Orgel and Crick ..., and Doolittle and Sapienza ... has been considered by many cellular and molecular biologists to be the correct explanation for much of genomic DNA until very recently. So the oft-read claim on the web that the term "junk DNA" never implied developmentally "non-functional DNA" is one that is made either out of ignorance or disingenuousness.28
Indeed, it's difficult to accept Gregory's claims that evolutionary biologists by-and-large anticipated function for non-coding DNA when he himself is a prime example of an evolutionary scientist who ardently advocates the view that our genome is overwhelmingly junky. In a March 2015 article in the New York Times, "Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?," science journalist Carl Zimmer praised Gregory's research and noted that he "champions an idea first developed in the 1970s but still startling today: that the size of an animal's or plant's genome has essentially no relationship to its complexity, because a vast majority of its DNA is -- to put it bluntly -- junk." According to Zimmer, "Where some look at all those billions of bases and see a finely tuned machine, others, like Gregory, see a disorganized, glorious mess."
Zimmer goes on to explain that Gregory not only thinks that there's much junk DNA in our cells, but also lots of junk RNA:

But to Gregory and others, [the view that most noncoding RNA is crucial] is a blinkered optimism worthy of Dr. Pangloss. They, by contrast, are deeply pessimistic about where this research will lead. Most of the RNA molecules that our cells make will probably not turn out to perform the sort of essential functions that hotair and firre do. Instead, they are nothing more than what happens when RNA-making proteins bump into junk DNA from time to time.
Zimmer concludes by saying Gregory believes the prevalence of junk DNA is strong evidence for evolution:
The blood-drenched slides that pack Gregory's lab with their giant genomes only make sense, he argues, if we give up thinking about life as always evolving to perfection. To him, junk DNA isn't a sign of evolution's failure. It is, instead, evidence of its slow and slovenly triumph.29
Zimmer quotes other evolutionary biologists asserting that most of our genome is junk, which is no surprise since his own evolutionary biology textbook, co-written with biologist Douglas Emlen, promotes the standard view that our genome is full of junk:
Over half of the genome is composed of neither genes, nor vestiges of human genes, nor regulatory regions. Instead, it is made up of parasite-like segments of DNA, known as mobile genetic elements, with the capacity to make new copies of themselves that can then be reinserted into the genome. Some mobile genetic elements originated as viruses that integrated their genes into the genome of their host. The origins of other mobile genetic elements are more mysterious. Once they become established in their host genome, mobile genetic elements can proliferate into thousands of copies and take up large amounts of space.30
However, what I've shown above only scratches the surface of a huge body of literature. Again and again, evolutionary biologists have predicted that our genome is primarily useless junk. Occasional caveats from evolutionary scientists, allowing that some small amount of the "junk" might be functional, do not mitigate the widespread, longstanding view that our cells are full of junk DNA. We now know that, on this point, evolutionists were wrong. The "junk DNA" paradigm has conclusively faltered.
We now return to the central question raised my first post: Is the vast majority of the human genome useless junk, or is the vast majority of the human genome crucial for cellular function?

In answering this question, it's important to clarify what the different camps are, or are not, saying. ID proponents and ENCODE defenders, who take the latter view, aren't saying the genome must have zero junk. And ENCODE's evolutionary critics, who take the former view, aren't saying that all non-coding DNA must be junk. Nonetheless, there's a titanic difference between the two viewpoints. In fact, if evolutionary scientists hadn't long-predicted that our genomes would be mostly functionless junk, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

References:

[1.] W.F. Doolittle and Carmen Sapienza, "Selfish genes, the phenotype paradigm and genome evolution," Nature, 284:601-603 (April 17, 1980).

[2.] Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick, "Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite," Nature, 284:604-706 (April 17, 1980).

[3.] Philip Yam, "Talking Trash," Scientific American, 272:24 (March, 1995).

[4.] Philip Kitcher, Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith (Oxford University Press, 2007), 129, 62, 58.

[5.] Philip Kitcher, Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith (Oxford University Press, 2007), 58, 57.

[6.] Germain et al., "Junk or functional DNA? ENCODE and the function Controversy," Biology & Philosophy, 29:807-831 (November, 2014).

[7.] Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford University Press, 1976), 44-45.

[8.] Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford University Press, 1976), 44-45.

[9.] Richard Dawkins, A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love (Mariner Books, 2004), 99.

[10.] Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (Free Press, 2009), 333.

[11.] Richard Dawkins, "Jonathan Sacks and Richard Dawkins at BBC RE:Think festival 12 September 2012": 12:57-13:11.

[12.] Richard Dawkins, "Jonathan Sacks and Richard Dawkins at BBC RE:Think festival 12 September 2012": 13:18-14:10.

[13.] Alexander Palazzo and T. Ryan Gregory, "The Case for Junk DNA," PLOS Genetics, 10(5):e1004351 (May 2014).

[14.] See T. Ryan Gregory, "Junk DNA -- the quotes of interest series," Evolver Zone Genomicron (February 18, 2008).

[15.] Alexander Palazzo and T. Ryan Gregory, "The Case for Junk DNA," PLOS Genetics, 10(5):e1004351 (May 2014).

[16.] R.J. Britten and D.E. Kohne, "Repeated Sequences in DNA," Science, 161:529-549 (August 9, 1968).

[17.] See Wojciech Makalowski, "Not Junk After All," Science, 300:1246-1247 (May 23, 2003).

[18.] Susumu Ohno, "So Much 'Junk' DNA in our Genome," Evolution of genetic systems, Brookhaven symposia in biology, no. 23 (New York: Gordon and Breach, 1972).

[19.] Jack Lester King and Thomas Jukes, "Non-Darwinian Evolution," Science, 164:788-798 (May 16, 1969).

[20.] Susumu Ohno, "An argument for the genetic simplicity of man and other mammals," Journal of Human Evolution, 1(6):651-662 (1972).

[21.] Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer Associates, Inc., 1979), 434 (emphasis added).

[22.] Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer Associates, Inc., 2nd ed., 1986), 457.

[23.] Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer Associates, Inc., 3rd ed., 1998), 640.

[24.] Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sinauer Associates, Inc., 2005), 531.

[25.] Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sinauer Associates, Inc., 2nd ed., 2009), 189-190.

[26.] Richard Sternberg, "How The Junk DNA Hypothesis Has Changed Since 1980," Evolution News & Views (October 8, 2009).

[27.] Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick, "Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite," Nature, 284:604-706 (April 17, 1980).

[28.] Richard Sternberg, "How The Junk DNA Hypothesis Has Changed Since 1980," Evolution News & Views (October 8, 2009).

[29.] Carl Zimmer, "Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?" The New York Times (March 5, 2015).

[30.] Carl Zimmer and Douglas Emlen, Evolution: Making Sense of Life, p. 132 (Roberts and Company Publishers, 2012).

In conclusion:our theory is sound,just don't go looking for any evidence of it.

Darwin, the Fossil Record, and Invisible Gorillas
November 21, 2015 Posted by Barry Arrington 

Astoundingly, some of our Darwinist friends continue to insist that Darwin had no problem with the fossil record, that he thought it was in complete agreement with this theory.  This is nuts.  He spent major portions of his book explaining why we should accept his theory even though the fossil record does not support it.  Here is a summary of what Darwin said:

1. My theory predicts that natural selection is working everywhere all the time to effect tiny morphological changes that accumulate over time and result in new species appearing.

2. The result is an extremely gradual process in which new species arise from prior species over eons of time though slow practically imperceptible changes.

3. If that is what happened, there must have existed infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species. IOW “just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous.”

4. My theory predicts that “infinitely many fine gradations” (i.e., a “truly enormous” number of intermediate varieties) existed. IOW, the record of life is one of rampant gradual morphological change affecting the vast majority of species the vast majority of the time. Obviously, if my theory is correct the GENERAL record of life cannot possibly be characterized by sudden appearance and stasis. Yes, stasis can sometimes happen with respect to an individual species, but stasis is not the rule. Indeed, my entire project is aimed at undermining the creationist notion of the fixity of species. How could I do that if I were to say that stasis is the rule among life forms generally?

5. The fossil record most assuredly does not reveal “infinitely many fine gradations” (i.e., a “truly enormous” number of intermediate varieties) as the rule.

6. Instead, if we had nothing but the fossil record to go on, we would have to believe that sudden appearance and stasis, not constant gradual morphological change,  is the rule.

7. Thus, the fossil record would seem to falsify my theory, because it does not reveal what my theory predicts it should reveal.

8. And that is a serious problem for me.  Indeed, it is the “most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against” my theory.

9. The answer lies not in my theory but in the fossil record. My theory is perfect; the history of life is exactly as I said it was, full of an infinite number of transitions. The fossil record is imperfect, because it fails to capture that.

10. Here is why I believe the fossil record is imperfect: blah, blah, blah.

11. If I am wrong about why the fossil record is imperfect, my theory comes falling down around me.

In response to all of this the Darwinists keep coming up with some version of “Darwin knew about stasis; he wrote about it and said it occurs.”  Of course Darwin knew about stasis, and yes he did write about it and say that it sometimes occurs.  Those facts change nothing.  Darwin wrote about stasis not to suggest that stasis is the rule, but in his effort to explain why the fossil record is — his words — “extremely imperfect.”

Look, if Darwin believed that the fossil record revealed what his theory predicted it would reveal, would he have called it “extremely imperfect”?  Of course not.  The whole point of Darwin’s lengthy discussion of the fossil record is to show that it did NOT reveal what actually happened, and that is why it is “extremely imperfect.”

He wrote:

But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

Then he attempted to show why the record is extremely imperfect.  Then — and here is the key to the whole thing — he wagered his entire theory on whether he had successfully explained away the “extremely imperfect” fossil record that does not support his theory.  He wrote:

He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation.

When Darwin was talking about stasis he was most assuredly not saying that he believed stasis is the general rule of the history of life.  How could he have?  That would have undermined his entire project.  Instead, he was trying to make lemonade out of lemons, and he himself said if the lemonade did not turn out his whole theory would crumble.

None of what I’ve said is the least bit controversial.  That the fossil record was an embarrassment to Darwin is no secret.  It has been the standard narrative for 157 years.  What is truly astounding is that we have Darwinists today who are somehow trying to claim that Darwin believed the fossil record offered perfect support to his theory even though he himself called that record “extremely imperfect” for the very reason that it did not.  Revisionism of this magnitude beggars belief.

On cracking the code of the Rosetta Stone.

Monday 17 April 2017

Darwinists continue to repackage and tout failure as success.

The 12 Days of Evolution mangles the evolution of the eye
December 23, 2015 Posted by vjtorley under Intelligent Design


In the fourth video in the “Twelve days of evolution” series produced by PBS and “It’s okay to be smart,” Joe Hanson, Ph.D. (Biology) tells a whopper about the evolution of the eye. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before:

Computer simulations have replayed the process in just 350,000 generations, showing simple light patches can evolve into camera-like eyes in tiny, adaptive steps, 1,829 to be precise. Nature took a little longer than that, but genes, biochemistry, fossils, and anatomy all tell the same story. Eyes are pretty easy to evolve. So easy that nature has done it independently 50 to 100 times. That kind of complexity, rather than overthrowing Darwin’s theory, is proof of its power.

Back in 2013, I debunked these claims in my post, Could the eye have evolved by natural selection in a geological blink?.

Briefly:

(i) the model of eye evolution referred to in the video, which was developed in 1994 by Dr. Dan-Eric Nilsson and Dr. Susanne Pelger of Lund University in Sweden, was not a computer simulation, as Dr. David Berlinski has previously pointed out;

(ii) I contacted Professor Nilsson back in 2013, and asked him about the 1994 paper he co-authored with Susanne Pelger, and he admitted that the model which he and Pelger had developed was actually an intelligently guided evolutionary sequence, and that the variations in the model, while gradualistic, were not random;

(iii) the figure of 350,000 generations (actually 363,992 generations, to be precise) was a “nice round number,” which appears to have been deliberately chosen in order to provide Darwin’s theory with some good publicity. Had Nilsson and Pelger been less conservative in their “pessimistic estimate,” their calculations would actually have shown that the eye could have evolved in just 3,650 years, which is roughly equivalent to the time that has elapsed since the death of Pharaoh Tutankhamun. But of course, nobody – not even the man in the street – would believe a fantastic claim like that;

(iv) Nilsson and Pelger explicitly acknowledge in the final paragraph of their paper that their 364,000-year estimate was never meant to be a realistic one, and applies to a hypothetical situation in which “selection for eye geometry and optical structures imposed the only limit”;

(v) Nilsson and Pelger’s estimate isn’t anatomically realistic: it leaves out the brain. Most lens eyes would be useless to their bearers without advanced neural processing;

(vi) Nilsson and Pelger readily admit in their paper that their 364,000-year estimate deliberately confines its attention to one organism, and ignores changes occurring in other species, and in the organism’s environment;

(vii) Nilsson and Pelger’s estimate isn’t computationally realistic: it assumes a very smooth fitness landscape, as Dov Rhodes demonstrated in a 2007 physics thesis which addressed their 1994 paper;

(viii) Nilsson and Pelger’s estimate isn’t genetically plausible: it says nothing about the genetic changes required to produce an eye;

(ix) Nilsson and Pelger’s estimate isn’t plausible at the embryological level.The authors fail to address the question of how the changes required to produce an eye would have impacted the embryonic development of organisms that were evolving this eye. Organisms’ developmental pathways are extremely fragile, especially in the early stages;

(x) Nilsson and Pelger’s model isn’t plausible at the biochemical level: it fails to address the biochemical changes that must have occurred in the eye, during its evolution from a light-sensitive spot to a vertebrate eye, citing only a brief reference to the literature on the subject. In fact, the various proteins that were involved in the evolution of the eye are not readily inter-convertible. It is by no means a foregone conclusion that the alpha crystallins present in the crystalline lens of the vertebrate eye could ever have naturally evolved into beta-gamma crystallins, which belong to an entirely different family. Likewise, it is doubtful whether the three families of crystallins (J1, J2, and J3) found in the eyes of cubozoan jellyfish could have developed from a common molecule without intelligent guidance.

Summing up my findings, I wrote:

I conclude, then, that the 364,000-year estimate proposed by Nilsson and Pelger for the evolution of the eye is not a biologically realistic one: it applies only to a “toy” world where one structure can simply transform itself by imperceptible degrees into another. But without this estimate, the whole foundation for the Darwinian claim that the evolution of the vertebrate eye from a light-sensitive spot is a plausible occurrence collapses. All we are left with is theoretical possibility. And that, as we have seen, isn’t enough to make Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection a proper scientific theory.

Professor Jerry Coyne has some further critical comments in his post on the “12 Days of Evolution” video:

The video’s claim that eyes have evolved independently 50-100 times is dubious. It depends on what you mean by “eyes,” for eyes from insects to humans have co-opted on the same controlling gene (Pax6), so at least that bit isn’t independent. If you mean “the structure of the eye”, then yes, those structures have evolved independently several times, but I don’t think it’s 50-100.

Tardigrades decided to quit while they're a head?

Are Tardigrades "a Head" of Arthropods?:
Evolution News & Views January 24, 2016 2:54 AM

"Water bears" (phylum Tardigrada) are fascinating little creatures. Only about half a millimeter long, they look like aliens when magnified (see this BBC photo). They act like them, too; they are some of the toughest animals on Earth or in outer space. According to Wikipedia:

Tardigrades are notable for being perhaps the most durable of known organisms; they are able to survive extreme conditions that would be rapidly fatal to nearly all other known life forms. They can withstand temperature ranges from 1 K (−458 °F; −272 °C) to about 420 K (300 °F; 150 °C),[7] pressures about six times greater than those found in the deepest ocean trenches, ionizing radiation at doses hundreds of times higher than the lethal dose for a human, and the vacuum of outer space. They can go without food or water for more than 10 years, drying out to the point where they are 3% or less water, only to rehydrate, forage, and reproduce.

Consequently, they thrive everywhere. "They have been sighted from mountaintops to the deep sea, from tropical rain forests to the Antarctic" although they prefer lichens and mosses. They are found in hot springs and under layers of ice. By any measure, they are extremely successful colonizers of our planet, even though the name "tardigrade" means "slow walker." About 1,150 species have been described. See how they move in a short video from NPR's Science Friday and in beautiful color video clips at National Geographic, showing smooth, coordinated motion of their eight legs. Ecologically, they play a role as herbivores, consuming plant material and bacteria. You might be able to find some in your back yard with a magnifying glass.

Where do they come from? Fossils of tardigrades have been found in middle Cambrian strata from Siberia, 530 million years old. Stephen Meyer lists the phylum as a participant in the Cambrian explosion (Darwin's Doubt, p. 32). They may be related to the Burgess Shale animal Opabinia (animated in the film Darwin's Dilemma). Because they have body segments with legs, tardigrades are lumped with arthropods and onycophorans in a super-phylum called Panarthropoda, but there has been dispute about those relationships. Tardigrades seem like unique animals disconnected from others.

Now researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have a new origin story: tardigrades are degenerate arthropods. Their paper in Current Biology announces, "The Compact Body Plan of Tardigrades Evolved by the Loss of a Large Body Region," including the thorax and most of the abdomen. What remains is mostly an arthropod-like head with eight little legs.

The superphylum Panarthropoda (Arthropoda, Onychophora, and Tardigrada) exhibits a remarkable diversity of segment morphologies, enabling these animals to occupy diverse ecological niches. The molecular identities of these segments are specified by Hox genes and other axis patterning genes during development. Comparisons of molecular segment identities between arthropod and onychophoran species have yielded important insights into the origins and diversification of their body plans. However, the relationship of the segments of tardigrades to those of arthropods and onychophorans has remained enigmatic, limiting our understanding of early panarthropod body plan diversification. Here, we reveal molecular identities for all of the segments of a tardigrade. Based on our analysis, we conclude that tardigrades have lost a large intermediate region of the body axis--a region corresponding to the entire thorax and most of the abdomen of insects--and that they have lost the Hox genes that originally specified this region. Our data suggest that nearly the entire tardigrade body axis is homologous to just the head region of arthropods. Based on our results, we reconstruct a last common ancestor of Panarthropoda that had a relatively elongate body plan like most arthropods and onychophorans, rather than a compact, tardigrade-like body plan. These results demonstrate that the body plan of an animal phylum can originate by the loss of a large part of the body.

That's one way to get a head in life, but is it evolution? Darwin's tree wouldn't get very far by chopping off parts of animal body plans below the neck. They are suggesting that the original panarthropod had an elongate body, from which arthropods and onycophorans descended. Tardigrades are truncated remnants with just the head region. This is evolution in reverse!

If the authors had a more pro-Darwinian conclusion, they surely would have offered one, because their opening sentence sympathizes with Darwin's doubt:

Understanding the origin of animal body plans has been a longstanding issue in evolutionary biology, ever since Darwin struggled to reconcile his theory with the early fossil record of animals.

Yet they only offer a theory of evolution by reduction:

Our model of segment homologies suggests that the tardigrade body axis is reduced, relative to other panarthropods, comprising mostly anterior identity, in line with an earlier hypothesis based on nervous system anatomy. How did this evolve?.... The expression pattern of the posterior marker Hd-Abd-B1 suggests that posterior identity is retained in the posterior of the tardigrade body axis, which indicates that simple truncation is not the answer. Expression of the posterior marker caudal (cad) in a posterior region of the fourth leg-bearing segment (Figures 3H and 3I) confirms the retention of posterior identity.

What they are left with is removal of intermediate segments, leaving a head attached to a few posterior segments with legs. Did this come about through loss of Hox genes? No, they believe, "because Hox genes typically specify segment identities rather than regulate segment production." Instead, the Hox genes "might become dispensable when the segments they once specified are lost, leading to loss of such Hox genes through neutral processes." But panarthropods develop by adding segments onto the end. How does evolution chop out the middle of an animal? Things get complicated in their speculation:

We speculate that reduction, and ultimately loss, of terminal addition accounts for the loss of intermediate segments in the tardigrade lineage. In this view, most of the tardigrade body axis represents the short germband of other panarthropods, i.e., the few anterior segments that appear simultaneously during development before terminal segment addition commences. This model would require that the posterior region of the short germband be respecified as the posterior of the body axis, since segments with posterior-most identity are normally the last segments to emerge through terminal addition, and posterior identity is retained in tardigrades. Diversity in segment number in other panarthropods emerges in the body region that is produced through terminal addition. We speculate that the loss of terminal addition in the tardigrade lineage explains the invariant segment number of this phylum.

Basically, the first tardigrade was a head, and the back end of the head grew legs. It's a wild idea. We'll have to see if other evolutionists can swallow it. It seems odd that this would happen in the Cambrian and persist 530 million years till now. Wikipedia noted a tardigrade found in Cretaceous amber with parts that look identical to living ones. That's stasis, not evolution.

What researchers should be focusing on is the amazing design of these tiny animals. They have stubby legs with claws. They have a mouth and eyes. They lay eggs. They molt periodically. They have a digestive tract and sexual organs. They have muscles and nerves. That's a lot of specialized tissue to pack into half a millimeter! And to think that these are among the most durable animals on Earth, able to survive in habitats beyond all necessity for a Cambrian marine organism, including outer space -- that should challenge all notions of unguided evolution. Organisms should only adapt to their immediate circumstances, not to distant unknown habitats they might encounter some future day, or never.

Tardigrades are hard-core survivalists. The BBC News photo caption says, "Boil them, deep-freeze them, crush them, dry them out or blast them into space: tardigrades will survive it all and come back for more." The article struggles with Darwinian explanations for these superpowers.

How do these seemingly insignificant creatures survive in such extreme conditions, and why have they evolved these superpowers?....

They are truly ancient. Fossils of tardigrades have been dated to the Cambrian period over 500 million years ago, when the first complex animals were evolving. And ever since they were discovered, it has been clear that they are special....

Yet despite their rather tedious lifestyle, they have evolved to cope with environments so extreme, they don't even exist on Earth....


Evolutionists are stumped trying to answer such questions. The new theory of evolution by subtraction is likely to leave them falling further and further behind in explaining the wonders of life. Tardigrades give evidence of design perfection in miniature, and should be celebrated as such.