Re: `Pascal's Wager is a completely pointless argument, and is easily rebutted by any thinking atheist'

James

This is my response to your comment under my post, "What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Design" and in particular to

[Above (click to enlarge): Diagram of my version of Pascal's Wager.]

the section:

"Pascal's Wager My simplified form of Pascal's Wager that I employed in debates with atheists is:

Neither the atheist, nor the Christian, can absolutely prove that his position is true. Nevertheless the consequences for either the atheist or the Christian being right (or wrong) is clear. If atheism is true, then both the atheist and Christian will die and neither will know that the atheist was right. On the other hand, if Christianity is true, then the atheist and Christian will die (or Jesus will return) and both will know that the Christian was right. Moreover, if the atheist was right, he would have gained nothing and the Christian would have lost nothing (I personally have had a great life since becoming a Christian in 1967). But if the Christian was right, the atheist would have lost everything and the Christian would have gained everything!"

----- Original Message -----
From: james roy
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 7:04 AM
Subject: [CreationEvolutionDesign] New comment on What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Desig....

>Pascal's Wager is a completely pointless argument, and is easily rebutted by any thinking atheist.

No. Pascal was a genius, being a "mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher. ... a child prodigy who ... was a mathematician of the first order":

"Blaise Pascal [1623-1662] ... was a French mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher. He was a child prodigy who was educated by his father, a civil servant. Pascal's earliest work was in the natural and applied sciences where he made important contributions to the construction of mechanical calculators, the study of fluids, and clarified the concepts of pressure and vacuum .... Pascal also wrote in defense of the scientific method. Pascal was a mathematician of the first order. He helped create two major new areas of research. He wrote a significant treatise on the subject of projective geometry at the age of sixteen, and later corresponded with Pierre de Fermat on probability theory, strongly influencing the development of modern economics and social science." ("Blaise Pascal," Wikipedia, 23 January 2010).

Indeed according to this site, Pascal is in the top 10 of all known geniuses, with an estimated IQ of 195:

"6. Blaise Pascal IQ: 195 Blaise Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, religious philosopher, and master of prose. He laid the foundation for the modern theory of probabilities, formulated what came to be known as Pascal's law of pressure, and propagated a religious doctrine that taught the experience of God through the heart rather than through reason. The establishment of his principle of intuitionism had an impact on such later philosophers as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Henri Bergson and also on the Existentialists." ("Top 10 Geniuses," Listverse, October 6, 2007)

And, as Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft points out, of all the arguments for believing in the existence of God, Pascal thought his Wager was the strongest:

"Most philosophers think Pascal's Wager is the weakest of all arguments for believing in the existence of God. Pascal thought it was the strongest. After finishing the argument in his Pensees, he wrote, `This is conclusive, and if men are capable of any truth, this is it.' That is the only time Pascal ever wrote a sentence like that, for he was one of the most sceptical philosophers who ever wrote." (Kreeft, P., "Argument from Pascal's Wager," in Kreeft, P., "Fundamentals of the Faith: Essays in Christian Apologetics," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, 1988.)

I myself debated my version of Pascal's Wager against atheists on creation/evolution/design Internet discussion groups open to all-comers between (1993-2005) and no atheist ever refuted my arguments. Here they are again, point-by-point (with updates):

1. Neither the atheist, nor the Christian, can absolutely prove that his position is true.

2. Nevertheless the consequences for either the atheist or the Christian being right (or wrong) is clear.

3. If atheism is true, then both the atheist and Christian will die and neither will know that the atheist was right.

4. On the other hand, if Christianity is true, then the atheist and Christian will die (or Jesus will return) and both will know that the Christian was right.

5. Moreover, if the atheist was right, he would have gained nothing and the Christian would have lost nothing.

6. But if the Christian was right, the atheist would have lost everything and the Christian would have gained everything!"

Each of the above 6 points of my Pascal's Wager argument are patently true, given historic Christian Biblical teaching, e.g. as set forth in major creeds like the Westminster Confession of Faith:

"SECTION II.-The end of God's appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy in the eternal salvation of the elect, and of his justice in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy and refreshing which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. [Matt. xxv. 31-40; Rom. ii. 5, 6; ix. 22, 23. Matt. xxv. 21; Acts iii. 19; 2 Thess. i. 7-10]" (Hodge, A.A., 1869, "The Confession of Faith: A Handbook of Christian Doctrine Expounding The Westminster Confession," Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, 1958, Reprinted, 1983, p.389. Emphasis original).

that if Christianity is true, then Christians ("the righteous") will "go into everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy and refreshing which shall come from the presence of the Lord" and non-Christians ("the wicked") will "be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord."

>Basically what it says is that if you believe in God, the worst you can expect is the same as the unbeliever, but the best you can expect is eternal life. However, if you don't believe in God, the best you can expect is nothing, but the worst you can expect is eternal damnation. So therefore it's safest to believe in God.

No. Between the atheist and the Christian it is not a case of "the worst you can expect " and "the best you can expect." If Christianity is true, then according to historic Biblical Christianity (see above), Christians will receive "eternal life" and "the unbeliever" will receive "eternal damnation."

Former atheist turned Christian Patrick Glynn confirms this: "If we bet against God, and revelation proves to be true, we will suffer eternal torment. If we bet for God, and revelation proves to have been an illusion, we lose nothing":

"Responding to the first generation of modern atheistic rationalists in the seventeenth century, the mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal offered an interesting `thought experiment' concerning religious belief. He conceived of the issue as a bet or wager. His reasoning was as follows: Revelation teaches that God rewards faithful believers with eternal happiness and that those who reject God suffer eternal torment after death. There is no way for reason, Pascal conceded to his contemporaries, to know whether revelation's claim is true. But we may consider our life as a wager (one that, in the nature of things, we can't avoid). If we bet against God, and revelation proves to be true, we will suffer eternal torment. If we bet for God, and revelation proves to have been an illusion, we lose nothing, for we shall cease to exist at death in any case." (Glynn, P., 1997, "God: The Evidence: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World," Forum: Rocklin CA, pp.76-77).

>But how is it possible to believe in something based on its potential benefits?

We all do! We all make decisions every day based on the "potential benefits" of a thing or a course of action, weighed against its potential costs. And where the potential benefits are great and the costs low, e.g. "spend a dollar on the good chance of winning a million" then "No reasonable person can be or ever is in doubt in such cases." But "deciding whether to believe in God is a case like these, argues Pascal", :

"Suppose someone terribly precious to you lay dying, and the doctor offered to try a new `miracle drug' that he could not guarantee but that seemed to have a 50-50 chance of saving your beloved friend's life. Would it be reasonable to try it, even if it cost a little money? And suppose it were free- wouldn't it be utterly reasonable to try it and unreasonable not to? Suppose you hear reports that your house is on fire and your children are inside. You do not know whether the reports are true or false. What is the reasonable thing to do-to ignore them or to take the time to run home or at least phone home just in case the reports are true? Suppose a winning sweepstakes ticket is worth a million dollars, and there are only two tickets left. You know that one of them is the winning ticket, while the other is worth nothing, and you are allowed to buy only one of the two tickets, at random. Would it be a good investment to spend a dollar on the good chance of winning a million? No reasonable person can be or ever is in doubt in such cases. But deciding whether to believe in God is a case like these, argues Pascal. It is therefore the height of folly not to `bet' on God, even if you have no certainty, no proof, no guarantee that your bet will win. Atheism is a terrible bet. It gives you no chance of winning the prize." (Kreeft, P., "Argument from Pascal's Wager," in Kreeft, 1988).

>Belief comes out of an interpretation of evidence, and if it employs pro/con lists, those lists can only be used to establish the relative evidential merits of each possibility.

This misunderstands the background and specific purpose of Pascal's Wager, i.e. it accepts, for the sake of argument, the sceptics' attitude of his day that had lost "confidence in reason to prove God's existence" and so"The Wager appeals not to a high ideal ... but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy":

"To understand Pascal's Wager you have to understand the background of the argument. Pascal lived in a time of great scepticism. Medieval philosophy was dead, and medieval theology was being ignored or sneered at by the new intellectuals of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. Montaigne, the great sceptical essayist, was the most popular writer of the day. The classic arguments for the existence of God were no longer popularly believed. What could the Christian apologist say to the sceptical mind of this age? Suppose such a typical mind lacked both the gift of faith and the confidence in reason to prove God's existence; could there be a third ladder out of the pit of unbelief into the light of belief? Pascal's Wager claims to be that third ladder. Pascal well knew that it was a low ladder. If you believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy. But on that low natural level, it has tremendous force. " (Kreeft, 1988).

That is, "Pascal prefaces his argument with" the sceptic's position that, "Either God is, or he is not. ... Reason cannot decide this question":

"Thus Pascal prefaces his argument with the words, `Let us now speak according to our natural lights.' Imagine you are playing a game for two prizes. You wager blue chips to win blue prizes and red chips to win red prizes. The blue chips are your mind, your reason, and the blue prize is the truth about God's existence. The red chips are your will, your desires, and the red prize is heavenly happiness. Everyone wants both prizes, truth and happiness. Now suppose there is no way of calculating how to play the blue chips. Suppose your reason cannot win you the truth. In that case, you can still calculate how to play the red chips. Believe in God not because your reason can prove with certainty that it is true that God exists but because your will seeks happiness, and God is your only chance of attaining happiness eternally. Pascal says, `Either God is, or he is not. But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. [Remember that Pascal's Wager is an argument for sceptics.] Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance [death] a coin is being spun that will come down heads [God] or tails [no God]. How will you wager?' (Kreeft, 1988).

Elsewhere in his Pensees Pascal gave good reasons for believing that Christianity is true:

"To bring some men to the point of faith, Pascal knew that it was necessary to remind them of the odds that are at stake. Hence his celebrated wager, Turnell, M., transl., "Pascal's Pensees," Harvill Press, London, 1962, pp. 200 ff.] in which he challenges men to gamble their lives on the possibility that Christianity might be true. We cannot see God. We cannot prove the truth of the gospel to exclude every possible doubt. We can only find out the truth of Christianity by risking our whole lives on it. ... Sometimes Pascal's teaching is classified as voluntarism, the implication being that he sets greater store by the will than by the intellect. It is even represented as a kind of self-inflicted brain-washing, in which the will to believe is allowed to banish all intellectual considerations. But this is a caricature. It neglects to mention that the idea of the wager was addressed to the sporting men of the day, reminding them of a greater game played at infinitely greater odds. It does not take into account the fact that Pascal devoted a great deal of energy to rational argument. [Turnell, M., transl., "Pascal's Pensees," Harvill Press, London, 1962, pp.231ff, 281ff., 291]" (Brown, C. , 1969, "Philosophy and the Christian Faith," Tyndale Press: London, pp.59-60).

But the problem with atheists is that they are so prejudiced against the existence of the Christian God to whom they will have "to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds, and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil":

"OF THE LAST JUDGMENT. SECTION I.-God hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ, [Acts xvii. 31] to whom all power and judgment is given of tho Father, [John v. 22, 27] In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, [1 Cor. vi. 3; Jude 6; 2 Pet. ii. 4] but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds, and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil. [2 Cor. v. 10; Eccles. xii. 14; Rom. ii. 16; xiv. 10, 12; Matt. xii. 36, 37]" (Hodge, 1869, p.389. Emphasis original).

that what the atheists include in their their "pro/con lists," before they even get to the "interpretation of evidence," ensures that atheism always `wins'.

For example, the evidence is overwhelming that "The Shroud of Turin is the Burial Sheet of Jesus!" and bears the image of His crucified and resurrected body! But atheists just reject that possibility out of hand, and chose instead the best of the remaining atheistic alternatives. This has become such an ingrained habit of thought that atheists in my experience do this automatically without even being aware of the fallaciousness of their circular reasoning.

Your own "Pascal's Wager is a completely pointless argument, and is easily rebutted by any thinking atheist" is a typical example of how atheists are so prejudiced against the existence of the Christian God that they rule out in advance as "completely pointless" any evidence for His existence. Therefore what remains as evidence in the atheists' "pro/con lists" makes it a foregone conclusion that the atheists' "interpretation of [that] evidence" is that for them atheism is true.

>If anyone thinks that God will reward a belief in him that is based on the 'best possible outcome', then they're playing God for a fool.

No. The Bible says that God will reward belief in Jesus with eternal life:

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

There are no stated pre-conditions of the reasons for that belief, i.e. fear of Hell, or desire of Heaven, or love of God, etc. And as Kreeft says above:

"If you believe in God only as a bet, it is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start."

Another Christian philosopher, Nicolas Rescher also makes the point that Pascal's Wager argument is only a first step:

"The Wager Argument as a First Step No doubt God must be expected to have a value framework akin to the human in this regard; at any rate, he, like us, would prefer to be loved for himself alone rather than for strictly prudential motives. Still, the journey toward disinterested love must make a start someplace. A human lover would certainly rather have that love reciprocated for his wealth or beaux yeux than not reciprocated at all. Wisely he recognizes that the love which begins in crass considerations of personal advantage, social conformity, or parental pressure may in time be purified by habit and the natural evolution of shared concerns into genuine communion and true affection." (Rescher, N., "Pascal's Wager: A Study of Practical Reasoning in Philosophical Theology," University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame IA, 1985, p.121. Emphasis original).

>And if God sees and hears all, there's a good chance he's smarter than that.

A God who "sees and hears all" would also be able to see into an atheists' heart and know what the real motive behind that atheist's high-sounding reasons why God (who the atheist doesn't believe exists) would not "reward a belief in him that is based on the 'best possible outcome'."

The bottom line is that you have wagered everything on what you consider to be "a good chance" that the Christian God doesn't exist. But " the atheist ... If, after death, he should find out that there is a God, his loss has been irreparable ... death has opened the door to an ultimate and eternal lostness. ... It is an all-or-nothing gamble of himself, thrust into the slot machine of life. It is a faith beyond the scope of reason":

"But that is not all that is lost for the atheist. One other aspect must be stated: if the atheist is wrong, there is no recovery of that which he has lost. This was precisely Pascal's wager: Should a man be in error in supposing the Christian religion to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake. But how irreparable is his loss, and how inescapable is his danger should he err in supposing it to be false. [Pascal, Pensees] ... Pascal ... had everything the Christian faith promised to him, including the climactic hope beyond the grave. Should, however, death be the end, he did not sense any loss, for contentment in life was still his. .... The atheist, on the other hand, having rejected God ... If, after death, he should find out that there is a God, his loss has been irreparable; for not only did contentment and peace elude him in this life, but death has opened the door to an ultimate and eternal lostness. All judgments bring with them a margin of error. But no judgment ought to carry with it the potential for so irretrievable a loss that every possible gain is unworthy of merit. The atheist makes precisely such a hazardous judgment. It is an all-or-nothing gamble of himself, thrust into the slot machine of life. It is a faith beyond the scope of reason. The atheist risks everything for the present and the future, on the basis of a belief that he is uncaused by any intelligent being. Man just happens to be here. He is willing to live and die in that belief-a very high price to pay for conjecture." (Zacharias, R.K., 1990, "A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Third printing, 1994, pp.165-166).

The fact is, as Pascal realised, it is not the lack of "reason" that prevents an atheist from becoming a Christian, but the atheist's "passions" supported by his atheistic lifestyle. Pascal's practical advice to the atheist is to not "Concentrate ... on .... proofs of God's existence but ... diminishing your passions." And one practical way to do that is for the atheist to change their atheistic lifestyle and start behaving "just as if they did believe":

"Because the whole argument moves on the practical rather than the theoretical level, it is fitting that Pascal next imagines the listener offering the practical objection that he just cannot bring himself to believe. Pascal then answers the objection with stunningly practical psychology, with the suggestion that the prospective convert `act into' his belief if he cannot yet `act out' of it. If you are unable to believe, it is because of your passions since reason impels you to believe and yet you cannot do so. Concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God's existence but by diminishing your passions. You want to find faith, and you do not know the road. You want to be cured of unbelief, and you ask for the remedy: learn from those who were once bound like you and who now wager all they have... . They behaved just as if they did believe. .... living the Faith can be a way of getting the Faith... As Pascal says: `That will make you believe quite naturally and will make you more docile.' `But that is what I am afraid of.' `But why? What have you to lose?" (Kreeft, 1988)

For example an atheist could do what I, a former atheist, did 40+ years ago. Start going to church, make friends of Christian people, join in singing Christian hymns, listen to the Bible being preached. In short meet God half-way. The Bible promises that if you "Come near to God ... he will come near to you" (James 4:8)

Millions of Christians down through the ages (including me), have tried coming near to God and found that His promise is true that He will then come near to you. But if you are not willing to meet God halfway, then He will never meet you half-way. Then if Christianity is true (as Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks and The Shroud of Turin prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is) and you are still a non-Christian when you die, then you will find out, too late, that you bet your life on a losing `horse' and lost everything:

"Pascal states the argument this way: `You have two things to lose: the true and the good; and two things to stake: your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to avoid: error and wretchedness. Since you must necessarily choose, your reason is no more affronted by choosing one rather than the other. That is one point cleared up. But your happiness? Let us weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that God exists. Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything: if you lose, you lose nothing. Do not hesitate then: wager that he does exist. If God does not exist, it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win after death and nothing to lose after death. But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is to believe, and your only chance of losing it is to refuse to believe.' As Pascal says, `I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true.' If you believe too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if you believe too little, you risk losing everything.'" (Kreeft, 1988).

Your wager-your consequences.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: The Shroud of Turin & Jesus is Jehovah!

Re: Baxter, Darwin, predestination, damnation, etc

Tom

I have just realised that I never answered your comment in May 2009 under my post,

[Right: "The Reformed Pastor" (1656) by Richard Baxter (1615-1691). See below]

"Re: If Behe believes in common descent, how does he explain the transition from a more "primitive" blood-clotting system?" after promising to do so in a separate post. My apologies. I was reminded by someone else's comment on your comment. Although you probably have long since stopped checking, I will now answer your comment. Your words are in bold to distinguish them from mine.

----- Original Message -----
From: tom quick
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:56 AM
Subject: [CreationEvolutionDesign] New comment on Re: If Behe believes in common descent, how does h....

>I'm not a biologist. I'm a chemical engineer who reads Packer and Proust.

Presumably that is J.I. Packer (1926-), the evangelical Christian theologian, some of whose books I own and have read. I am unfamiliar with the works of Marcel Proust (1871-1922) so I won't comment on him.

>But a few months ago I saw the great joust on PBS over irreducible complexity in Pennsylvania.

Being an Australian, I did not see that program. I have taken a `sabbatical' from Creation/Evolution/Design, my interests having shifted over to my other blogs The Shroud of Turin and

[Above (click to enlarge): Negative of a negative and therefore positive photograph of the face of the Man on the Shroud of Turin: Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara: London, p.28:

"`Were those the lips that spoke the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Rich Fool?'; `Is this the Face that is to be my judge on the Last Day?'" (Wilson, I. , 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.189).]

Jesus is Jehovah! The Shroud of Turin indirectly defeats atheistic evolution (i.e. Darwinism) because the evidence is overwhelming that it is the burial sheet of Jesus, bearing the image of His flogged, crowned with thorns, crucified, dead, buried and resurrected body! See my post, "The Shroud of Turin is the Burial Sheet of Jesus!"

>Judging from the minutiae under discussion, the discussion seemed less relevant compared to the superior attitudes shown by the so-called scientists.

This is a problem for Irreducible Complexity (IC). The average person (including even the average scientist) probably cannot understand "the minutiae" or is bored by it.

But the average person can understand that an arrogant attitude is probably a mask to cover an underlying insecurity about the correctness of one's position.

>So I took it upon myself to read a good bit of Dobzhansky and Darwin (Origin of the Species) in order tho try and learn what made these scientists so pontifically wise.

You don't mention what book(s) by Dobzhansky, i.e. Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) the leading founder of the Neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis you had read. I have many of Dobzhansky's books.

There is no doubt that Dobzhansky and Darwin were wise, and they certainly knew their biology. The problem was their naturalist (anti-supernaturalist) and therefore anti-Christian philosophy. If Christianity is true (which Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks and the Shroud of Turin (to mention only two of many other Christian lines of evidence) prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is, then Naturalism and Darwinism are false!

>... In the greater sense what does it matter? On the one hand, selection occurs. It's the basis of agriculture as we know it. But it's in the past, and there's nothing useful gained in debating it, that I can see. On the other hand, what makes Darwin worthy of such laud and honor?

Darwin is indeed "worthy of ... laud and honor" but only to the extent that he was a great scientist who discovered truth about the natural world that God put there in the first place.

But the operative word is "such laud and honor." Darwin is lauded and honoured by those with the same anti-supernaturalist and therefore anti-Christian philosophy that he had because they falsely think that Darwin confirmed there was no need for God in creation and therefore Christianity is irrelevant.

But Darwin assumed as a first principle of his theory that there was no Christian God who could or would intervene supernaturally in chains of common descent. Both he and his modern disciple Dawkins admitted, that if there was such a God who did intervene supernaturally in chains of common descent, then it "was not evolution at all":

"Darwin ... wrote in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' [Darwin, C.R., Letter to C. Lyell, October 11, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.6-7]. This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, pp.248-249. Emphasis original)

but a form of "divine creation":

"At first sight there is an important distinction to be made between what might be called 'instantaneous creation' and 'guided evolution'. Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in instantaneous creation. ... many theologians ... smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken, either influencing key moments in evolutionary history (especially, of course, human evolutionary history), or even meddling more comprehensively in the day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary change. ... In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317. Emphasis original)

>Now for Packer. I'm in the middle of reading his PhD thesis on Baxter.

I assume you mean Packer's PhD thesis on Baxter which has been published in a book, Packer, J.I., "The Redemption and Restoration of Man in the Thought of Richard Baxter," Paternoster, 2003. There is an online review of this book which I don't agree with, having read Packer's Introduction to Baxter's "The Reformed Pastor," in which Packer is well aware of Baxter's faults.

>I often see Baxter seeking a unity - trying to reconcile the incongruities of Calvinism (such as double predestination making God the author of evil), or trying to thread a line between Antinomianism and legalism. Controversial in his time, tremendously well educated, yet bound to overreach. A hundred years later what he did was forgotten in the details, but remembered in a holistic sense, and he became a touchstone for both Wesleyans and Unitarians.

Although I own Baxter's "The Reformed Pastor," I haven't read it (except now the Introduction by Packer). I am not really up on Baxter or his attempts to "reconcile the incongruities of Calvinism (such as double predestination ...)." But I am aware that Baxter was a 17th century Puritan who by pastoral visitation converted almost an entire town (Kiddderminster) to Christianity!

But I myself am a life-long Calvinist and I don't believe in "double predestination" i.e. God not only positively predestined some (the elect) to salvation (which I do accept) but also God positively predestined the rest (the reprobate) to damnation. I regard that position as hyper-Calvinism, even though it may well have been what "Calvinism" meant in Baxter's day (i.e. it was the majority position).

The Calvinist position which I hold (because I believe it is the Biblical one) is single predestination, i,e. God only positively predestined some (the elect) to salvation and so negatively passes over the rest (the reprobate) leaving them to the consequences of their sin, which is damnation.

This is the view Calvin held,as evident in that

[Left: John Calvin (1509-1564): Wendel, F., "Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought (1963)." ]

while he calls "predestination the eternal decree of God by which he ... ordains some to eternal life, the others to eternal damnation," he clarifies the latter as being that God "lets go of the others and leaves them":

"But Calvin gave forcible emphasis to the distinction between predestination and foreknowledge. `We say rightly that [God] foresees all things, even as he disposes of them; but it is confusing everything to say that God elects and rejects according to his foresight of this or that. When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that all things have always been and eternally remain under his observation, so that nothing is either future or past to his knowledge: he sees and regards them in the truth, as though they were before his face. We say that this foreknowledge extends throughout the circuit of the world and over all his creatures. We call predestination the eternal decree of God by which he decided what he would do with each man. For he does not create them all in like condition, but ordains some to eternal life, the others to eternal damnation.' [Inst. III, 21, 5] The distinction was vital to him, for we find him frequently returning to it even in his sermons, in order to throw into relief the absolutely gratuitous nature of election. Election, like reprobation, is an entirely free act of the divine will. `If we ask why God takes pity on some, and why he lets go of the others and leaves them, there is no other answer but that it pleased him to do so.' [Sermon on Ephesians 1.3-4]" (Wendel, F., 1963, "Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought," [1950], Mairet, P., transl., Fontana: London, Reprinted, 1965, pp.272-273).

That is, God actively predestines the elect to salvation but passively passes over the non-elect or reprobate. God does not actively elect the reprobate to damnation. Note that if any of the reprobate wanted to be saved God would not reject them:

Rev 22:17. The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

Jn 6:37. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

This is confirmed by leading Reformed (Calvinist) systematic theologian, Louis Berkhof (1873-1957), that "Predestination includes two parts ... election and reprobation" with "Election" being . "the election of individuals unto salvation" and "Reprobation" being "God's eternal purpose to pass some men by":

"Predestination. Predestination is the plan or purpose of God respecting His moral creatures. It pertains to men, both good and bad, to angels and devils, and to Christ as the Mediator. Predestination includes two parts, namely, election and reprobation." (Berkhof, L., 1960, "A Summary of Christian Doctrine," Banner of Truth Trust: London, Third Impression, 1968, p.43)

"Election. The Bible speaks of election in more than one sense, as (1) the election of Israel as the Old Testament people of God, Deut. 4:37; 7:6-8; 10:15; Hos. 13:5; (2) the election of persons to some special office or service, Deut. 18:5; I Sam. 10:24; Ps. 78:70; and (3) the election of individuals unto salvation, Matt. 22:14; Rom. 11:5; Eph. 1:4. The last is the election to which we refer in this connection. It may be defined as God's eternal purpose to save some of the human race in and by Jesus Christ." (Berkhof, 1960, pp.43-44)

"Reprobation. The doctrine of election naturally implies that God did not intend to save all. If He purposed to save some, He naturally also purposed not to save others. This is also in harmony with the teachings of Scripture, Matt. 11:25, 26; Rom. 9:13, 17, 18, 21, 22; 11:7, 8; II Pet. 2:9; Jude 4. Reprobation may be defined as God's eternal purpose to pass some men by with the operation of His special grace, and to punish them for their sin. It really embodies a twofold purpose therefore: (1) to pass some by in the bestowal of saving grace; and (2) to punish them for their sins." (Berkhof, 1960, p.44).

The bottom line is that "all men have forfeited the blessings of God" by their sin and God does not "owe... man eternal salvation":

"Objection to Predestination It is sometimes said that the doctrine of predestination exposes God to the charge of injustice. But this is hardly correct. We could speak of injustice only if man had a claim on God, and God owed man eternal salvation. But the situation is entirely different if all men have forfeited the blessings of God, as they have. No one has the right to call God to account for electing some and rejecting others. He would have been perfectly just, if He had not saved any, Matt. 20:14, 15; Rom. 9:14, 15." (Berkhof, 1960, p.44. Emphasis original).

But as for damnation, since having read Clark H. Pinnock's "Conditional View" chapter in "Four Views of Hell," 1997), I am persuaded by the weight of Biblical evidence that Hell is not everlasting conscious punishment, i.e. "the experience of endless torment ... eternal punishing" but rather it is "a divine judgment whose results cannot be reversed" and which finally, after each person receives no more and no less than the just punishment due for their sins, terminates in "annihilation":

"Nevertheless, the Bible does leave us a strong general impression in regard to the nature of hell-the impression of final, irreversible destruction, of closure with God. The language and imagery used by Scripture is so powerful in that direction that it is surprising that more theologians have not picked up on it before now. The Bible uses the language of death and destruction, of ruin and perishing, when it speaks of the fate of the impenitent wicked. It uses the imagery of fire that consumes whatever is thrown into it; linking together images of fire and destruction suggests annihilation. One receives the impression that `eternal punishment' refers to a divine judgment whose results cannot be reversed rather than to the experience of endless torment (i.e., eternal punishing). Although there are many good reasons for questioning the traditional view of the nature of hell, the most important reason is the fact that the Bible does not teach it. Contrary to the loud claims of the traditionalists, it is not a biblical doctrine. .... The Bible gives a strong impression to any honest reader that hell denotes final destruction, so the burden of proof rests with those who refuse to believe and accept this teaching." (Pinnock, C.H., "The Conditional View," in Crockett, W.V., ed., "Four Views on Hell," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1992, Reprinted, 1996, pp.144-145).

In "the Old Testament ... the basic imagery overwhelmingly denotes destruction and perishing and sets the tone for the New Testament doctrine":

"The Old Testament gives us a clear picture of the end of the wicked in terms of destruction and supplies the basic imagery of divine judgment for the New Testament to use. In Psalm 37, for example, we read that the wicked will fade like the grass and wither like the herb (v. 2), that they will be cut off and be no more (vv. 9-10), that they will perish and vanish like smoke (v. 20), and that they will be altogether destroyed (v. 38). One finds the same imagery in an oracle from the prophet Malachi: `Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire,' says the LORD Almighty. `Not a root or a branch will be left to them' (Mal. 4:1-2). While it is true that the point of reference for these warnings in the Old Testament is this-worldly, the basic imagery overwhelmingly denotes destruction and perishing and sets the tone for the New Testament doctrine." (Pinnock, 1992, p.145).

Also in "the New Testament ... Jesus said many things that support the impression that the Old Testament gives of hell as final destruction":

"Turning to the New Testament, Jesus' teaching about the eternal destiny of the wicked is bold in its warnings but modest when it comes to precise description. Refraining from creating a clear picture of hell, he did not dwell on the act of damnation or on the torments of the damned (unlike the Apocalypse of Peter). Jesus' words on the subject are poised to underline the importance of the decision that needs to be made here and now and not to deal in speculations about the exact nature of heaven and hell. He did not speak of hell in order to convey information about it as a place beyond present human experience and then use that data to press the decision the gospel calls for. At the same time, Jesus said many things that support the impression that the Old Testament gives of hell as final destruction. Our Lord spoke plainly of God's judgment as the annihilation of the wicked when he warned about God's ability to destroy body and soul in hell (Matt. 10:28). He was echoing the terms that John the Baptist had used when he pictured the wicked as dry wood about to be thrown into the fire and chaff about to be burned (Matt. 3:10, 12). Jesus warned that the wicked would be cast into hell (Matt. 5:30), like garbage thrown into gehenna-an allusion to the valley outside Jerusalem where sacrifices were once offered to Moloch (2 Kings 16:3; 21:6) and where garbage may have smoldered and burned in Jesus' day. The wicked would be burned up just like weeds thrown into the fire (Matt. 13:30, 42, 49-50). Thus the impression Jesus leaves us with is a strong one: The impenitent wicked can expect to be destroyed by the wrath of God." (Pinnock, 1992, p.145).

As did the "apostle Paul create... the same impression when he wrote of the everlasting destruction that would come upon unrepentant sinners":

"The apostle Paul creates the same impression when he wrote of the everlasting destruction that would come upon unrepentant sinners (2 Thess. 1:9). He warned that the wicked would reap corruption (Gal. 6:8) and stated that God would destroy the wicked (1 Cor. 3:17; Phil. 1:28); he spoke of their fate as a death that they deserved to die (Rom. 1:32), the wages of their sins (6:23). Concerning the wicked, the apostle stated plainly and concisely: `Their destiny is destruction' (Phil. 3:19). In all these verses, Paul made it clear that hell would mean termination." (Pinnock, 1992, p.146).

Likewise the apostle "Peter spoke of the `destruction of ungodly men' " and "throughout ... the New Testament employs images of death, perishing, destruction, and corruption to describe the end of the wicked. ... final destruction":

"It is no different in any other New Testament book. Peter spoke of the `destruction of ungodly men' (2 Peter 3:7) and of false teachers who denied the Lord, thus bringing upon themselves `swift destruction' (2:1, 3). He said that they would be like the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah that were burned to ashes (2:6), and that they would perish like the ancient world perished in the great Flood (3:6-7). The author of Hebrews likewise referred to the wicked who shrank back and would be destroyed (Heb. 10:39). Jude pointed to Sodom as an analogy to God's final judgment, being the city that underwent `the punishment of eternal fire' (Jude 7). Similarly, the apocalypse of John speaks both of a lake of fire that will consume the wicked and of the second death (Rev. 20:14-15). Throughout its pages, following the Old Testament lead, the New Testament employs images of death, perishing, destruction, and corruption to describe the end of the wicked. A fair person would have to conclude from such texts that the Bible can reasonably be read to teach the final destruction of the wicked. " (Pinnock, 1992, pp.146-147).

See also Pinnock, C.H., 2005, "The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent," 11 May; and Fudge, E., 1984, "The Final End of the Wicked," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 27.3, September, pp.325-334 (PDF).

>I see similar overreaching with Darwinism, as well as that halo effect a century after. Darwin's Origin of Species collection of animal stories implies evolution in a macro sense.

This is another point about Darwin being "worthy of such laud and honor." Darwin's observations only helped establish one mechanism (the natural selection of chance variations) of micro-evolution, i.e. change at or within the species level. Darwin then (as Darwinists have continued to do), pursuant to his (their) anti-supernaturalist and therefore anti-Christian philosophy, extrapolated his limited observations to the whole of nature, past and present.

>This is what launched Jack London and Adolph Hitler, and it carries the poison of racism. Yet all this detail is forgotten, and Darwin has now become a friendly bust in the bourgeois "scientist's" library. He is given credit for scientific advances in genetics and biology which occurred in spite of him (Dobzhansky points out that he was generally discarded as useful to science by 1900, and is immortalized in the selection coefficient named for him).

Darwin has been largely superseded and even discarded as wrong in biology. But Darwin's value is as a token symbol, indeed a totem, in anti-supernaturalism's war against God and especially Christianity with its God who supernaturally intervenes in His creation.

But I would be interested in a reference to where "Dobzhansky points out that he [Darwin] was generally discarded as useful to science by 1900."

>So what hath Darwinism (aka Origin of Species) wrought? Death camps, gulags, modern racisms, World War 2, etc. - in short, a collection of nihilisms.

It has been so swept under the carpet that it is not realised that Darwin gave scientific support to not just racism but racial extermination, when he predicted that "A some future period .. the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world:"

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Darwin, C.R., "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," [1871], John Murray: London, 1874, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242)

In the above, Darwin, writing in 1871, especially singled out the "Australian" aborigine as lying between " the Caucasian" and "the gorilla" and so he provided scientific support for the then British Government's (there was no Australian government until 1910) policy of exterminating the Australian aborigines.

>While it is claimed now that Darwinism answers everything (and it goes without saying that those nihilisms should be ignored for the sake of polite conversation with the "scientists"), in reality it answers nothing.

When it is said, or implied, that "Darwinism answers everything" what is meant is that Naturalism, i.e. "nature is all there is" (Wikipedia), there is no supernatural, no God, and Christianity is false, is itself false. That is because :Christianity is true as proven by: 1) the resurrection of Jesus; 2) Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks (Dn 9:24) and 3) the Shroud of Turin, which all defeat all naturalistic explanations. .

I'm happier with what Christ has wrought: hospitals, an end to slavery, literacy and schools, etc. And always hope.

You could have added science itself, because as the non-Christians Alfred North Whitehead and Loren Eiseley admitted, "it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself".

"Although we may recognize the frailties of Christian dogma and deplore the unconscionable persecution of thought which is one of the less appetizing aspects of medieval history, we must also observe that in one of those strange permutations of which history yields occasional rare examples, it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself. Many things undoubtedly went into that amalgam: Greek logic and philosophy, the experimental methods of craftsmen in the arts as opposed to the aristocratic thinker-all these things have been debated. But perhaps the most curious element of them all is the factor dwelt upon by Whitehead-the sheer act of faith that the universe possessed order and could be interpreted by rational minds [Whitehead, A.N., "Science and the Modern World," Mentor, 1948, pp.4-15]. For, as Whitehead rightly observes, [Ibid., p.17] the philosophy of experimental science was not impressive. It began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond men's wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something-to the Christian conception of the nature of God [Ibid., p. 14]. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today-is sustained by that assumption." (Eiseley, L.C., 1958, "Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered It," Anchor Books: Doubleday & Co: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1961, p.62).

:Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: The Shroud of Turin & Jesus is Jehovah!

Re: I'm a bit confused about some of the things I've been reading in your blog

Steve

Thank you for your comment under my

[Right: Charles Hodge (1797-1878): Wikipedia. Hodge coined the term, "mediate, progressive creation" (see below), and therefore I acknowledge him as the founder of my General Theory of Progressive Mediate Creation.]

post "I am training to be a high school biology teacher, so less blogging!" Your words are bold to distinguish them from mine.

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Cook
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 9:07 PM
Subject: [CreationEvolutionDesign] New comment on I am training to be a high school biology teacher,....

>Stephen, >I hope your classes are going well. I'm also currently working on a biology degree with the intent to teach high school teacher. Putting aside all questions of sanity, I think the biology teachers I had in high school were the biggest influence in my becoming interested in science. Of course, what could be better than getting paid to talk about biology all day, no wonder they were so into their jobs.

Thanks. As updated on the above post, I have successfully completed my science teacher training and now am just awaiting the formal advice to that effect. And I agree about what could be better than getting paid to talk about biology all day. However, I will probably only relief teach part-time.

>I'm a bit confused about some of the things I've been reading in your blog and I was hoping you could shed some light, or at least direct me to where I can find answers.

You do not say which of my posts you were reading. But I presume that one of them is my, "What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Design."

>There are a couple of instances where I've read that you do not agree with evolution but only decent with modification. So, all organisms are genetically and ancestrally related and have become that way by natural and supernatural means.

As a Christian, I don't agree with "evolution" in the "standard scientific theory" sense "that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process'":

"... perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer, M.B., 2002, "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February. My emphasis).

That is, I do not agree with fully Naturalistic (i.e. Atheistic Evolution). I do however agree with "decent with modification" and indeed with Universal Common Descent that "all organisms share a common ancestor":

"Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "Darwin's Black Box," pp.5-6).

They are not the same thing. As both Darwin and Dawkins admitted, God could have supernaturally intervened at links in the chains of common descent, in which case it would not be "evolution at all" (my emphasis):

"Darwin ... wrote ... I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' ... For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.248-249)

but a form of "divine creation" (my emphasis):

"... many theologians ... smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken, either influencing key moments in evolutionary history ... In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317).

And note that Darwin and Dawkins say it would not be "evolution," not that it would not be "descent with modification."

>I'm curious as to what natural means are in PMC. I've seen that you have made arguments against natural selection being a method of speciation, however, genetic drift is also a mechanism of evolution.

"Natural" in PMC (my General Theory of Progressive Mediate Creation) means all the proven natural mechanisms of biological change, including natural selection and genetic drift.

But you beg the question by claiming that they are mechanisms of evolution, when as Dawkins and Darwin pointed out above, if God supernaturally intervened in common descent, then it would not be evolution at all but a form of divine creation. And that supernatural intervention by God in chains of common descent, to "inject ... new genetic material," is "perfectly possible for theists" who "reject that [fully naturalistic] theory of evolution":

"It would still be perfectly possible for theists to reject that theory of evolution and accept instead a theory according to which natural processes and laws drove most of evolution, but God on occasion abridged those laws and inserted some crucial mutation into the course of events. Even were God to intervene directly to suspend natural law and inject essential new genetic material at various points in order to facilitate the emergence of new traits and, eventually, new species, that miraculous and deliberate divine intervention would by itself leave unchallenged such key theses of evolutionary theory as that all species derive ultimately from some common ancestor. Descent with genetic intervention is still descent-it is just descent with nonnatural elements in the process." (Ratzsch, D.L., 1996, "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, pp.187-188).

>Genetic drift is something that scientists have observed in many populations of species including humans (CCR5 and blood type in native americans).

I have no problem with genetic drift, or indeed any proven mechanism of biological change (see above). But that there are natural mechanisms of biological change does not preclude God also supernaturally intervening at strategic points in life's history, as Progressive Creation (including Progressive Mediate Creation) maintains:

"Progressive creationism accepts much of the scientific picture of the development of the universe, assuming that for the most part it developed according to natural laws. However, especially with regard to life on earth, PCs hold that God intervened supernaturally at strategic points along the way. On their view, Creation was not a single six-day event but occurred in stages over millions of years. ... The PC view tends to overlap with other views, particularly with old-earth creationism." (Pennock, R.T., 1999, "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism," MIT Press: Cambridge MA, Fourth Printing, pp.26- 27. Emphasis original).

>I'm guessing that supernatural changes would be whole genes/genomes appearing ex nihilo to account for irreducible complexity.

Not ex nihilo in PMC but ex materia, i.e. from pre-existing material. The Mediate in Progressive Mediate Creation means that the changes were mediate, in the sense of the opposite of immediate ( i.e. immediate with no intervening secondary causes or materials and were therefore ex nihilo). The leading 19th century theologian Charles Hodge (see above) contrasted "Immediate Creation ... which ... was instantaneous and immediate, i. e. without the intervention of any second causes" with "Mediate ... Creation ...gradual ...:forming out of preexisting material ... the power of God working in union with second causes."

"Mediate and Immediate Creation. But while it has ever been the doctrine of the Church that God created the universe out of nothing by the word of his power, which creation was instantaneous and immediate, i. e., without the intervention of any second causes; yet it has generally been admitted that this is to be understood only of the original call of matter into existence. Theologians have, therefore, distinguished between a first and second, or immediate and mediate creation. The one was instantaneous, the other gradual; the one precludes the idea of any preexisting substance, and of cooperation, the other admits and implies both. There is evident ground for this distinction in the Mosaic account of the creation. ... It thus appears that forming out of preexisting material comes within the Scriptural idea of creating. ... There is, therefore, according to the Scriptures, not only an immediate, instantaneous creation ex nihilo by the simple word of God, but a mediate, progressive creation; the power of God working in union with second causes." (Hodge, C., "Systematic Theology," [1892], James Clark & Co: London, Vol. I, 1960, reprint, pp.556-557. Emphasis original)

Mediate creation is in fact the pattern in Genesis 1, after the original creation of raw material in Genesis 1:1. "`Let the earth bring forth living creatures ` (Gen. 1:24) does not exclude the idea of mediate creation, through natural generation":

"But, on the other hand, the Scriptures do not disclose the method of man's creation. Whether man's physical system is or is not derived, by natural descent, from the lower animals, the record of creation does not inform us. As the command `Let the earth bring forth living creatures' (Gen. 1:24) does not exclude the idea of mediate creation, through natural generation, so the forming of man `of the dust of the ground' (Gen. 2:7) does not in itself determine whether the creation of man's body was mediate or immediate." (Strong, A.H., 1907, "Systematic Theology," p.465).

"... after Genesis 1:1 the narrator deals with a mediate creation, which involves the actualizing of potentialities latent in the original creation":

"Perhaps we are not to rule out dogmatically the possibility that the dust of man's origin may have been animated, since the animals before man appear to have been fashioned from the earth (Gen. 1:24). The Bible does not explicate man's physical origin in detail. The fact that, after Genesis 1:1 the narrator deals with a mediate creation, which involves the actualizing of potentialities latent in the original creation, should caution us against the one-sided invocation of divine transcendence. The new levels of being arise with quite obvious dependence on the lower in the creation account." (Henry, C.F.H., 1957, "Contemporary Evangelical Thought: A Survey," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1968, p.282).

"By mediate creation Warfield meant that God acted, or intervened, with already existing material to bring something new into existence":

"Warfield's third category was ... mediate creation-in effect, a via media between evolution and creation ex nihilo .... By mediate creation Warfield meant that God acted, or intervened, with already existing material to bring something new into existence that could not have developed from the forces latent in the material itself. Like creation ex nihilo, mediate creation required a direct act of God. Like evolution, mediate creation featured already existing material." (Noll M.A. & Livingstone D.N., 2000, "B.B. Warfield: Evolution, Science and Scripture," pp.34-35).

"... God ... in the beginning brought forth the whole visible and invisible universe, without the use of preexistent material ... this ... applies only to what is generally known as primary or immediate creation ... in Gen. 1:1. But the Bible clearly uses the word `create' also in cases in which God did make use of preexisting materials ... through secondary causes":

"Creation in the strict sense of the word may be defined as that free act of God whereby He, according to His sovereign will and for His own glory, in the beginning brought forth the whole visible and invisible universe, without the use of preexistent material ... this definition applies only to what is generally known as primary or immediate creation, that is, the creation described in Gen. 1:1. But the Bible clearly uses the word `create' also in cases in which God did make use of preexisting materials, as in the creation of sun, moon, and stars, of the animals and of man. ... creative work, in which God works through secondary causes, Ps. 104:30; Isa. 45:7,8; Jer. 31:22; Amos 4:13, and produces results which only He could produce." (Berkhof, L., 1949, "Systematic Theology," pp.128-129).

>It sounds like you've had all the same arguments about IC already so I'm curious as to why you still accept IC? Behe's examples do have components that work independent of the whole.

I am not sure what are these "all the same arguments about IC" (Irreducible Complexity) that would make you curious as to why I still accept IC. My definition of IC is "any complex organ .... which could not"PLAUSIBLY "have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications":

"Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection carried a heavy burden: `If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' [Darwin, C., 1872, "Origin of Species", 6th ed., New York University Press: New York, 1988, p.154]. ... What type of biological system could not be formed by `numerous, successive, slight modifications'? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly ... by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. .... Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit ... for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "Darwin's Black Box," p.39. Emphasis original).

since Darwin was being deliberately dishonest, and unscientific, in protecting his theory from falsification, by demanding that critics of his theory had to show the impossible, "a complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications."

And the ultimate complex organ is the first living cell (i.e. the origin of life) which even Dawkins tacitly admits was irreducibly complex in that "it could not" PLAUSIBLY "have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications" (in effect). That is because, as Dawkins states, "Cumulative selection ... had to get started, and we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself" but "the ... machinery of replication ... seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection":

"Cumulative selection is the key but it had to get started, and we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself. ... The replication processes that we know seem to need complicated machinery to work ... But if replication needs complex machinery, since the only way we know for complex machinery ultimately to come into existence is cumulative selection, we have a problem. ... cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection! Some people see this as a fundamental flaw in the whole theory of the blind watchmaker. ... the ultimate proof that there must originally have been a designer, ... a far-sighted supernatural watchmaker." (Dawkins, R., 1986, "The Blind Watchmaker," pp.140-141. Emphasis original).

>Finally, consider the consequences of a God who is all knowing, all powerful, and beyond human comprehension in any respect.

Agreed that while God can be known by man, He cannot be comprehended (i.e. fully known) by man:

Job 5:9. He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted. Job 11:7. "Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? Job 26:14. And these are but the outer fringe of his works; how faint the whisper we hear of him! Who then can understand the thunder of his power?" Ecc 8:17. then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it. Isa 55:8-9. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Rom 11:33. Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! 1Cor 13:12. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

.>If this being created the universe, wouldn't you expect the laws that he designs to govern it would be so complex that no human could understand them all on an intuitive level?

I am not sure what you mean by "no human could understand them all on an intuitive level." The laws of physics are simple and can typically be expressed in a brief mathematical formula, e.g. E=mc^2, F=ma, etc. It is perhaps the ultimate design argument that our minds are fitted to understand the underlying laws of nature:

"Another of Einstein's famous remarks is that the only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. The success of the scientific enterprise can often blind us to the astonishing fact that science works. ... it is both incredibly fortunate and deeply mysterious that we are able to fathom the workings of nature by use of the scientific method. .... Why has the human mind the capacity to `unlock the secrets of nature' ... It is easy to imagine worlds in which the regularities of nature are ... impenetrably complicated ... requiring far more brainpower than humans possess to decode them. In fact, the cosmic code seems almost attuned to human capabilities. This is all the more mysterious on account of the fact that human intellectual powers are presumably determined by biological evolution, and have absolutely no connection with doing science." (Davies, P.C.W., 1994, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Science," p.54).

>Quantum-mechanics would be a pretty good example of laws completely incomprehensible intuitively to humans.

Again, physicists understand the laws of Quantum Mechanics (along with the other laws of physics), in that they can discover, formulate and apply them, but they cannot fully comprehend those laws in the sense of being able to explain why they exist, where they come from, and why they are their particular value and not any other.

>And this being has already seen everything in the universe happen already .

Agreed that God "has already seen everything in the universe happen already," i.e. that is going to happen in time. But I am not sure about "in every permutation possible."

>At the point of creation he already knew not only everything going on on this planet, but every other planet, star, cloud of dark matter or dark energy, all at once.

Agreed.

>He would have made living things have DNA and made that DNA mutate causing variations in populations.

Agreed. But that does not mean that God made DNA with the power to randomly mutate such that those mutations could be naturally selected to originate life's complex designs.

>It would be how he designed those variations to change when selective pressures were applied to them etc etc.

Agreed, but within the limits observed in nature. It is a leap of Darwinian faith, based on there being "no mechanism ... known ... that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random":

"It is only in this fifth respect, the 'mutationist' respect, that the true, real-life Darwinian insists that mutation is random. Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement, and no mechanism is known (to put the point mildly) that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random in this fifth sense. .... It is selection, and only selection, that directs evolution in directions that are nonrandom with respect to advantage." (Dawkins, 1986, p.312).

but that assumes that there is no God who could have supernaturally intervened to "guide mutation in directions that are non-random."

>He designed the universe around each human and it is such a perfect design that every event, from the beginning till now, happened exactly the way he expected it to.

There is ambiguity in your "expected it to" such that, together with "a perfect design" makes it sounds like God approved "every event, including every sin, which are events. And that Jesus commanded us to pray that the Father's will be done on earth as it is in heaven :

Mt 6:9-10. "This, then, is how you should pray: `'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.'"

show that His perfect will is not yet being done on earth.

>Doesn't this sound like a god thats described with all powerful, all knowing, etc?

It is interesting (and perhaps significant) that as you get to the conclusion of your argument for "evolution and natural selection" (see below) you start dropping the capital "G" in God.

>So, why demand evidence for god's design in the universe when the whole universe, including evolution and natural selection, is evidence of his design?

There are different levels of design, as leading ID theorist Bill Dembski explains, using the analogy of painting on a canvas:

"In its treatment of design, this book focuses not so much on whether the universe as a whole is designed but on whether we are able to detect design within an already given universe. ... Although one can ask whether that causal backdrop is itself designed, one can as well ask whether events and objects occurring within that backdrop are designed. At issue here are two types of design: (1) the design of the universe as a whole and (2) instances of design within the universe. An analogy illustrates the difference. .... An oil painting is typically painted on a canvas. One can therefore ask whether the canvas is designed. Alternatively one can ask whether some configuration of paint on the canvas is designed. The design of the canvas corresponds to the design of the universe as a whole. The design of some configuration of paint corresponds to an instance of design within the universe." (Dembski, W.A. , 1999, "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology," pp.13-14).

A better analogy would be ancient rock art.The rock is designed at one level, but the design engraved on the rock by an intelligent human designer is designed at a different, higher level.

And to talk of "evolution" being designed is to commit the fallacy of equivocation. As pointed out above, "evolution" in the "standard scientific theory" sense is that "God (including an Intelligent Designer) had no part in this process."

However, if there is a God then Naturalism (nature is all there is) is false and so Naturalistic Evolution would have no philosophical support. Moreover, there would be something (namely supernatural intervention by God) "that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random" so the central assumption in Darwinism would be false also.

>I hope that sounded somewhat profound. I hope that it was an argument that you have not heard yet and start inching a little closer to the TE side.

I debated against all comers (including leading TEs) in the Calvin Evolution Reflector and later on my own Yahoo group for over a decade (1994-2005) and I have heard and debated that argument many tines.

The problem with TE (Theistic Evolution) is that in my experience its proponents always end up arguing for Naturalistic (i.e. Atheistic) Evolution!

>Evolution does not demand atheism at all but it is observable in every aspect of biology.

Naturalistic evolution (including Darwinian evolution), which is the only acceptable evolution in science, does assume Atheism by its claim that there was nothing available "that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random."

Darwin admitted to the Christian botanist Asa Gray that he wrote "atheistically" in his Origin of Species:

"With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically." (Darwin, C.R., Letter to Asa Gray, May 22, 1860, in Darwin, F., ed., 1898], "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," p.105).

And what's more Darwin was lying in his claim that he "had no intention to write atheistically." Darwin's notebooks published after his death showed that he was an uncompromising philosophical materialist:

"The notebooks prove that Darwin was interested in philosophy and aware of its implications. He knew that the primary feature distinguishing his theory from all other evolutionary doctrines was its uncompromising philosophical materialism. Other evolutionists spoke of vital forces, directed history, organic striving, and the essential irreducibilty of mind-a panoply of concepts that traditional Christianity could accept in compromise, for they permitted a Christian God to work by evolution instead of creation. Darwin spoke only of random variation and natural selection. In the notebooks Darwin resolutely applied his materialistic theory of evolution to all phenomena of life, including what he termed `the citadel itself' - the human mind. And if mind has no real existence beyond the brain, can God be anything more than an illusion invented by an illusion? In one of his transmutation notebooks, he wrote: `Love of the deity effect of organization, oh you materialist!...' [Darwin, C.R., "C Notebook," February 1838, p.166]" (Gould, S.J. , 1978, "Darwin's Delay," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1991, pp.24-25. Ellipses Gould's).

>It would be a shame for a fellow biologist to miss the elegance in a system that describes so well the greatness of god.

What am I missing out on? I accept that the proven natural mechanisms of biological change over time testify to the greatness of God (capital "G").

You may not realise it but your claim, or implication, that a god who works only through evolution (i.e. natural processes) is greater than a God who also supernaturally intervenes in His creation (as the Biblical God does), is a form of Gnostic thinking:

"Gnosticism is an ancient belief system that draws a strong distinction between spirit and matter. .... In Darwin's time the world was increasingly seen as controlled by natural laws. God may have instituted these laws in the beginning, but he had not since interfered; the laws were now his secondary causes .... This view seemed to have a divine sanction; after all, to control the world exclusively through natural laws-God's secondary causes-required an even greater God... In 1794 Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin wrote this Gnostic-sounding statement of how natural history should be viewed: `The world itself might have been generated, rather than created; that is, it might have been gradually produced from very small beginnings, increasing by the activity of its inherent principles, rather than by a sudden evolution by the whole by the Almighty fiat. What a magnificent idea of the infinite power of the great architect! The Cause of Causes! Parent of Parents! Ens Entium! For if we may compare infinities, it would seem to require a greater infinity of power to cause the causes of effects, than to cause the effects themselves.' [Darwin E., "Zoonomia," J. Johnson: London: 1794, Vol. 1, p.509]" (Hunter, C.G., 2001, "Darwin's God," p.129).

Sorry Steve but your little "g" god who is limited by the dictates of Naturalistic philosophy, such that he would not have supernaturally intervened at strategic points in his own creation, is too small a god for me. I believed in that little "g" god over 40 years ago when I was a Deist on my journey from Atheism to Christianity. The Christian capital "G" God of the Bible whom I believe in is not limited by any philosophy of men, let alone an Atheistic philosophy like Naturalism.

>--Steve Cook

It is ironic that former atheist Antony Flew, who now believes in a God who supernaturally intervened to create the first living cell:

"A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God ... based on scientific evidence .... At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said .... Yet biologists' investigation of DNA `has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,' Flew says in the new video, `Has Science Discovered God?' .... The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. `It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,' he wrote. ...Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American `intelligent design' theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe." (Ostling, R.N., 2004, "Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God," Livescience, 10 December).

although not a Christian, is more theistic than most of the Christian Theistic Evolutionists I have debated, because most of them denied that God supernaturally intervened in His creation, even to originate life!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: The Shroud of Turin & Jesus is Jehovah!

---

"Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism-natural selection working on variation-might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," [1996], Free Press: New York NY, 10th Anniversary Edition, pp.5-6).

"Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection carried a heavy burden: `If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' [Darwin, C., 1872, "Origin of Species", 6th ed., New York University Press: New York, 1988, p.154]. It is safe to say that most of the scientific skepticism about Darwinism in the past century has centered on this requirement. From Mivart's concern over the incipient stages of new structures to Margulis's dismissal of gradual evolution, critics of Darwin have suspected that his criterion of failure had been met. But how can we be confident? What type of biological system could not be formed by `numerous, successive, slight modifications'? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe, 2006, p.39. Emphasis original).

"It should be noted that Scripture does not always use the Hebrew word bara' and the Greek term ktizein in that absolute sense. It also employs these terms to denote a secondary creation, in which God made use of material that was already in existence but could not of itself have produced the result indicated, Gen. 1:21,27; 5:1; Isa. 6:7,12; 54:16; Amos 4:13; I Cor. 11:9; Rev. 10:6. It even uses them to designate that which comes into existence under the providential guidance of God, Ps. 104:30; Isa. 45:7,8; 65:18; I Tim. 4:4. two other terms are used synonymously with the term `to create,' namely, `to make' (Heb., 'asah; Greek, poiein) and `to form' (Heb. yatsar; Greek, plasso). The former is clearly used in all the three senses indicated in the preceding: of primary creation in Gen. 2:4; Prov. 16:4; Acts 17:24; more frequently of secondary creation, Gen. 1:7,16,26; 2:22; Ps. 89:47; and of the work of providence in Ps. 74:17. The latter is used similarly of primary creation, Ps. 90:2 (perhaps the only instance of this use); of secondary creation, Gen. 2:7,19; Ps. 104:26; Amos 4:13; Zech. 12:1; and of the work of providence, Deut. 32:18; Isa. 43:1,7,21; 45:7. All three words are found together in Isa. 45:7. Creation in the strict sense of the word may be defined as that free act of God whereby He, according to His sovereign will and for His own glory, in the beginning brought forth the whole visible and invisible universe, without the use of preexistent material and thus gave it an existence, distinct from His own and yet always dependent on Him. In view of the Scriptural data indicated in the preceding, it is quite evident, however, that this definition applies only to what is generally known as primary or immediate creation, that is, the creation described in Gen. 1:1. But the Bible clearly uses the word `create' also in cases in which God did make use of preexisting materials, as in the creation of sun, moon, and stars, of the animals and of man. ... cases, also designated in Scripture as creative work, in which God works through secondary causes, Ps. 104:30; Isa. 45:7,8; Jer. 31:22; Amos 4:13, and produces results which only He could produce." (Berkhof, L., 1949, "Systematic Theology," Banner of Truth: London, 1966, Reprinted, pp.128-129).

"With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws; with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can." (Darwin, C.R., Letter to Asa Gray, May 22, 1860, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, p.105).

"The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Science. Another of Einstein's famous remarks is that the only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. The success of the scientific enterprise can often blind us to the astonishing fact that science works. Though it is usually taken for granted, it is both incredibly fortunate and deeply mysterious that we are able to fathom the workings of nature by use of the scientific method. The purpose of science is to uncover patterns and regularities in nature, but the raw data of observation rarely exhibit explicit regularities. Nature's order is hidden from us: the book of nature is written in a sort of code. To make progress in science we need to crack the cosmic code, to dig beneath the raw data, and uncover the hidden order. To return to the crossword analogy, the clues are highly cryptic, and require some considerable ingenuity to solve. What is so remarkable is that human beings can actually perform this code-breaking operation. Why has the human mind the capacity to `unlock the secrets of nature' and make a reasonable success at completing nature's cryptic crossword"? It is easy to imagine worlds in which the regularities of nature are transparent at a glance or impenetrably complicated or subtle, requiring far more brainpower than humans possess to decode them. In fact, the cosmic code seems almost attuned to human capabilities. This is all the more mysterious on account of the fact that human intellectual powers are presumably determined by biological evolution, and have absolutely no connection with doing science. Our brains have evolved to cope with survival in the jungle," a far cry from describing the laws of electromagnetism or the structure of the atom." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Science," in Templeton, J.M., ed., "Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator," Continuum: New York NY, 1994, p.54).

"Cumulative selection is the key but it had to get started, and we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself. And that vital first step was a difficult one because, at its heart, there lies what seems to be a paradox. The replication processes that we know seem to need complicated machinery to work ... The theory of the blind watchmaker is extremely powerful given that we are allowed to assume replication and hence cumulative selection. But if replication needs complex machinery, since the only way we know for complex machinery ultimately to come into existence is cumulative selection, we have a problem. Certainly the modern cellular machinery, the apparatus of DNA replication and protein synthesis, has all the hallmarks of a highly evolved, specially fashioned machine. .... At its own level of ultra-miniaturization, it is of the same order of elaborateness and complexity of design as the human eye .... an apparatus as complex as the human eye could not possibly come into existence through single-step selection. Unfortunately, the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself .... So, cumulative selection can manufacture complexity while single-step selection cannot. But cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection! Some people see this as a fundamental flaw in the whole theory of the blind watchmaker. They see it as the ultimate proof that there must originally have been a designer, not a blind watchmaker but a far-sighted supernatural watchmaker." (Dawkins, R., 1986, "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, pp.140-141. Emphasis original).

"Darwin ... wrote in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' [Darwin, C.R., Letter to C. Lyell, October 11, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.6-7]. This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non- miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins., 1986, p.248-249).

"There is a fifth respect in which mutation might have been nonrandom. We can imagine (just) a form of mutation that was systematically biased in the direction of improving the animal's adaptedness to its life. But although we can imagine it, nobody has ever come close to suggesting any means by which this bias could come about. It is only in this fifth respect, the 'mutationist' respect, that the true, real-life Darwinian insists that mutation is random. Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement, and no mechanism is known (to put the point mildly) that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random in this fifth sense. Mutation is random with respect to adaptive advantage, although it is non- random in all sorts of other respects. It is selection, and only selection, that directs evolution in directions that are nonrandom with respect to advantage." (Dawkins, 1986, p.312. Emphasis original).

"At first sight there is an important distinction to be made between what might be called 'instantaneous creation' and 'guided evolution'. Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in instantaneous creation. ... many theologians ... smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken, either influencing key moments in evolutionary history (especially, of course, human evolutionary history), or even meddling more comprehensively in the day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary change. ... In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317a).

"In its treatment of design, this book focuses not so much on whether the universe as a whole is designed but on whether we are able to detect design within an already given universe. The universe provides a well-defined causal backdrop (physicists these days think of it as a field characterized by field equations). Although one can ask whether that causal backdrop is itself designed, one can as well ask whether events and objects occurring within that backdrop are designed. At issue here are two types of design: (1) the design of the universe as a whole and (2) instances of design within the universe. An analogy illustrates the difference. Consider an oil painting. An oil painting is typically painted on a canvas. One can therefore ask whether the canvas is designed. Alternatively one can ask whether some configuration of paint on the canvas is designed. The design of the canvas corresponds to the design of the universe as a whole. The design of some configuration of paint corresponds to an instance of design within the universe. Though not perfect, this analogy is useful. The universe is a canvas on which is depicted natural history. One can ask whether that canvas itself is designed. On the other hand, one can ask whether features of natural history depicted on that canvas are designed. In biology, for instance, one can ask whether Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical machines are designed. Although design remains an important issue in cosmology, the focus of the intelligent design movement is on biology. That's where the action is. It was Darwin's expulsion of design from biology that made possible the triumph of naturalism in Western culture. So, too, it will be intelligent design's reinstatement of design within biology that will be the undoing of naturalism in Western culture." (Dembski, W.A. , 1999, "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, pp.13-14).

"Gnosticism is an ancient belief system that draws a strong distinction between spirit and matter. Spirit is good and matter is evil. Whereas the Bible says that God made the world, Gnosticism holds that God is separate from the world, thus Gnosticism is a theodicy. Yes, there is evil, but it is far from God. God is separate and distinct from the world and not responsible for its evils. In Darwin's time the world was increasingly seen as controlled by natural laws. God may have instituted these laws in the beginning, but he had not since interfered; the laws were now his secondary causes. As in Gnosticism, God was seen as separate from the world. Since God was separate from the world, natural phenomena were not interpreted as results of divine providence. This view seemed to have a divine sanction; after all, to control the world exclusively through natural laws-God's secondary causes-required an even greater God. In other words, a clean separation of God and creation made for an even purer God, just as the Gnostics had found that spirit could be good when it was opposed to matter. In 1794 Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin wrote this Gnostic-sounding statement of how natural history should be viewed: `The world itself might have been generated, rather than created; that is, it might have been gradually produced from very small beginnings, increasing by the activity of its inherent principles, rather than by a sudden evolution by the whole by the Almighty fiat. What a magnificent idea of the infinite power of the great architect! The Cause of Causes! Parent of Parents! Ens Entium! For if we may compare infinities, it would seem to require a greater infinity of power to cause the causes of effects, than to cause the effects themselves.' [Darwin E., "Zoonomia," J. Johnson: London: 1794, Vol. 1, p.509]" (Hunter, C.G., 2001, "Darwin's God Evolution and the Problem of Evil," Brazos Press: Grand Rapids MI, p.129).

"Pfleiderer's conclusions prompted Warfield to insist that `when we say 'evolution,' we definitely deny creation. and when we say 'creation,' we definitely deny evolution. Whatever comes by the one process by that very fact does not come by the other. Whatever comes by evolution is not created; whatever is created is not evolved.' Evolution and creation were mutually exclusive categories. ... This 1901 essay was Warfield's most articulate presentation yet of a crucial distinction he was drawing between three modes of divine action or superintendence of the physical world. Warfield saw them as methods that God used to generate physical forms, species, and individuals. First was theistic evolution, or the providentially controlled unfolding of nature. Second was creation ex nihilo, or out of nothing. Warfield's third category was the most complicated and the one that least resembles schemes developed since his time. This was the category of mediate creation-in effect, a via media between evolution and creation ex nihilo that he developed from hints in earlier Reformed theologians. By mediate creation Warfield meant that God acted, or intervened, with already existing material to bring something new into existence that could not have developed from the forces latent in the material itself. Like creation ex nihilo, mediate creation required a direct act of God. Like evolution, mediate creation featured already existing material." (Noll M.A. & Livingstone D.N., eds, 2000, "B.B. Warfield: Evolution, Science and Scripture: Selected Writings," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, pp.34-35).

"A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God --more or less -- based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives. ...,' he said. `It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.' ... Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates. There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife. Yet biologists' investigation of DNA `has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,' Flew says in the new video, `Has Science Discovered God?' .... The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. `It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,' he wrote. ... if his belief upsets people, well `that's too bad,' Flew said. `My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.' ... Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American `intelligent design' theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life." (Ostling, R.N., 2004, "Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God," Livescience/Associated Press, 10 December).

"In one of the most existentially penetrating statements ever made by a scientist, Richard Dawkins concluded that `the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.' Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer, M.B., 2002, "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February. My emphasis).

"But, on the other hand, the Scriptures do not disclose the method of man's creation. Whether man's physical system is or is not derived, by natural descent, from the lower animals, the record of creation does not inform us. As the command `Let the earth bring forth living creatures ` (Gen. 1:24) does not exclude the idea of mediate creation, through natural generation, so the forming of man `of the dust of the ground' (Gen. 2:7) does not in itself determine whether the creation of man's body was mediate or immediate. We may believe that man sustained to the highest preceding brute the same relation which the multiplied bread and fish sustained to the five loaves and two fishes (Mat. 14:19), or which the wine sustained to the water which was transformed at Cana (John 2:7-10), or which the multiplied oil sustained to the original oil in the O.T. miracle (2 K. 4:1-7) The `dust,' before the breathing of the spirit into it, may have been animated dust." (Strong, A.H., 1907, "Systematic Theology," Judson Press: Valley Forge PA, Reprinted, 1967, p.465).

Re: If Behe believes in common descent, how does he explain the transition from a more "primitive" blood-clotting system?

Thanks for your comment under my post, "Pierre Grasse and the `irreducible complexity' of the blood-clotting cascade" and my

[Above (click to enlarge): Coagulation and Fibrinolytic Pathways: James L. Holly M.D, SETMA:

"... The flow of blood to the organs in the body is critical to the survival of the individual and to the proper function of the body. If the blood is sluggish or tends to clot too fast, the body will suffer; if the blood is too `thin' or does not clot, the body will suffer. The balance between blood clotting and blood not clotting is one of the most critical balancing acts in the human body. The mechanisms which control those functions are complex ... too much blood clotting is bad but not enough clotting is also bad ... too much dissolving of blood clots ... is bad and too little dissolving of blood clots is bad ... the complex processes which continually take place in your body to make certain that your blood can flow to provide oxygen and nutrients to your cells and to make certain that your blood flow can be stopped if you are injured." (Holly, J.L., 2007, "Cardiometabolic Risk Syndrome Part V: Fibrinolytic Dysfunction").]

apologies for the delay in responding (due in part to my having gone back to university to become a biology teacher). As mentioned in my interim response to your comment, I started to respond to it also as a comment, but I then thought others might be interested in your question and my reply, but few would see either under a 2005 blog post. So I have decided to respond to your question in a separate blog post. I normally would change your personal identifying information if yours was a private email to me, but since it was a public comment under one of blog posts, there is no point me doing that. Your words are bold to differentiate them from mine.

---- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Eubanks
To: Stephen E. Jones,
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 6:37 AM
Subject: [CreationEvolutionDesign] New comment on Pierre Grasse and the `irreducible complexity' of ....

>Kevin Eubanks has left a new comment on your post "Pierre Grasse and the `irreducible complexity' of ...":
>
>I'm an English teacher in Texas, but I deal with the Intelligent Design issue in my courses.

This shows how insecure Darwinism (aka. atheistic evolution) is, that it cannot meet ID face-to-face in a science course, but must be protected from competition and criticism by `quarantining' ID in an English course! Students will rightly think among themselves, "what are the Darwinists afraid of?" If the Darwinists thought they had the truth, they would want to confront ID head on, as the founder of the ID Movement, Law Professor Phillip E. Johnson pointed out:

"It is the way the Darwinists argue their case that makes it apparent that they are afraid to encounter the best arguments against their theory. A real science does not employ propaganda and legal barriers to prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does it rely on enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the official story. If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they would want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to caricature them as straw men. Instead they have chosen to rely on the dishonorable methods of power politics." (Johnson, 2000, "The Wedge of Truth," p.141).

>This week, I had a student write an essay in support of Behe's argument that the blood clotting system is irreducibly complex.

Great! Although this is only one student,

[Right: Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. Professor of Biochemistry: Lehigh University, Bethlehem PA.]

nevertheless it may be the `tip of an iceberg' that the younger generation realise that ID makes good scientific sense. Since some of my readers may be new to the Darwinism vs Intelligent Design (ID) debate, I will explain that you are referring to Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael J. Behe's claim that the vertebrate blood clotting cascade is irreducibly complex, i.e. it is a complex biological system that could not plausibly "be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications" which Darwin admitted would cause his theory of evolution by natural selection to "absolutely break down":

"Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection carried a heavy burden: `If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' ... What type of biological system could not be formed by `numerous, successive, slight modifications'? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex ... a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts ... wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly ... by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system ... An irreducibly complex biological system ... would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. ..." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "Darwin's Black Box," p.251).

[Above (click to enlarge): The coagulation cascade: Wikipedia]

>In trying to respond to her essay, I got stuck on one issue.

Since you are an English teacher and do not mention having any biology or other science qualification, you will be going beyond your field of expertise if you presume to critique the science of her essay. All you could legitimately do is comment on whether her argument and evidence is logically sound, i.e. whether her conclusions logically follow from her premises. As one who is now training to be a science teacher, you would be a poor teacher if you marked her down if she did not agree with your personal philosophy.

>If Behe believes in common descent, how does he explain the transition from a more "primitive" blood-clotting system (such as that of jawless fish) to the current one in humans? If, at some point in the past, the ancestor of humans had a different blood-clotting system, were the increasingly complex systems designed separately?

This shows a common error that even many (if not most) biologists make (including Darwin), confusing the relationship of common descent with a mechanism (one of many) by which that relationship is conserved, namely the Darwinian natural selection of random micromutations. But as Behe rightly points out, "EVIDENCE OF COMMON DESCENT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF NATURAL SELECTION" (his emphasis):

"... EVIDENCE OF COMMON DESCENT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF NATURAL SELECTION. Homologies among proteins (or organisms) are the evidence for descent with modification ... Natural selection, however, is a proposed explanation for how evolution might take place - its mechanism ... This, of course, is a well-known distinction ... Yet ... the distinction is often overlooked. Knowledge of homology ... is by itself insufficient to justify a claim that evolution of a particular complex system occurred by natural selection.." (Behe, 2000a, "In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade").

Behe's major claim is that his proposed examples of irreducible complexity are evidence that they did not arise by the Darwinian mechanism of the natural selection of "numerous, successive, slight modifications." He does not claim that the vertebrate blood-clotting system did not arise from a "more `primitive' blood-clotting system" as found in invertebrates and early vertebrates such as "jawless fish."

Darwin was well aware, as are modern Darwinists like Dawkins, that God could have intervened supernaturally at links in the chain of common descent, i.e. "miraculous additions at any one stage of descent," leaving the chain (and therefore the fact of universal common ancestry) intact:

"Darwin ... wrote .. `I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' ... This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. ... For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, 1986, "The Blind Watchmaker," pp.248-249).

Note that neither Darwin nor Dawkins denied that there could be supernatural intervention by God in the chain of common descent. Indeed, they both admitted that there could have been "miraculous additions at any one stage of descent." And they don't say that the theory of universal common ancestry would then be "rubbish" (see full quote below) if "evolution" was in that way "helped over the jumps by God. They say that Darwin's "theory of natural selection" would then be "rubbish," i.e. as a general theory of evolution and in particular an explanation of complex biological design. Darwin's theory of natural selection would still explain some aspects of microevolution, i.e. change at or below the species level.

Behe, as far as I know (I have been taking a break from the Darwinism vs ID debate so I might have missed or forgotten it), has not specified in his scientific writings how the Intelligent Designer (who he, like me, believes is the Christian God) did build Behe's claimed irreducibly complex systems like the blood clotting cascade. However, Behe has indicated elsewhere that he believes in `God-guided evolution':

"[Eugenie] Scott refers to me as an intelligent design `creationist,' even though I clearly write in my book `Darwin's Black Box' .. that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think `evolution occurred, but was guided by God.'" (Behe, 2000b, "Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism").

by which I assume he believes that instead of Darwinism's random, i.e. undirected mutations:

"There is a fifth respect in which mutation might have been nonrandom. ... a form of mutation that was systematically biased in the direction of improving the animal's adaptedness to its life. ... It is only in this fifth respect, the 'mutationist' respect, that the true, real-life Darwinian insists that mutation is random. Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement, and no mechanism is known ... that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random in this fifth sense. Mutation is random with respect to adaptive advantage ... It is ... only selection, that directs evolution in directions that are nonrandom with respect to advantage." (Dawkins, 1986, Ibid., p.312).

the Intelligent Designer (God) supernaturally directed mutations to build irreducibly complex designs. This is basically my position, except I agree with Dawkins that "any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, 1986, Ibid, p.249) but rather, "guided evolution" is a form of "divine creation"!

"But there are other theories that are most definitely not versions of Darwinism ... These rival theories ... include ... creationism ... divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, Ibid, pp.287, 316-317).

>From personal experience, I know how busy you must be! But any help you could offer would be greatly appreciated.

I hope this has helped and was in time for your marking of this student's paper. By the way, you could email Professor Behe direct at his email address on his Lehigh University page) and ask him personally what his answer is.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!

---

"The predicament is easily resolved when a critical point is recalled: EVIDENCE OF COMMON DESCENT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF NATURAL SELECTION. Homologies among proteins (or organisms) are the evidence for descent with modification - that is, for evolution. Natural selection, however, is a proposed explanation for how evolution might take place - its mechanism - and so must be supported by other evidence if the question is not to be begged. This, of course, is a well-known distinction (Mayr 1991). Yet, from reviewers' responses to my book, the distinction is often overlooked. Knowledge of homology is certainly very useful, can give us a good idea of the path of descent, and can constrain our hypotheses. Nonetheless, knowledge of the sequence, structure, and function of relevant proteins is by itself insufficient to justify a claim that evolution of a particular complex system occurred by natural selection. Gene duplication is not a Darwinian explanation because duplication points only to common descent, not to the mechanism of evolution." (Behe, M.J. , 2000a, "In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison," Discovery Institute, July 31. Uppercase emphasis Behe's).

"[Eugenie] Scott refers to me as an intelligent design `creationist,' even though I clearly write in my book `Darwin's Black Box' (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think `evolution occurred, but was guided by God.' Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the journal `Cell': `More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human' [DeRosier, D.J., "The Turn of the Screw: The Bacterial Flagellar Motor," Cell, Vol. 93, 1998, p.17]. Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct?" (Behe, M.J., 2000b, "Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism," Science, dEbate, 7 July).

"Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection carried a heavy burden: `If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' [Darwin, C.R., 1872, "Origin of Species," 6th ed., 1988, New York University Press: New York NY, p.154]. It is safe to say that most of the scientific skepticism about Darwinism in the past century has centered on this requirement. From Mivart's concern over the incipient stages of new structures to Margulis's dismissal of gradual evolution, critics of Darwin have suspected that his criterion of failure had been met. But how can we be confident? What type of biological system could not be formed by `numerous, successive, slight modifications'? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," [1996], Free Press: New York NY, Tenth Anniversary Edition, p.251).

"Darwin ... wrote in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' [Darwin, C.R., Letter to C. Lyell, October 11, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.6-7]. This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, R., 1986, "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, pp.248-249).

"There is a fifth respect in which mutation might have been nonrandom. We can imagine (just) a form of mutation that was systematically biased in the direction of improving the animal's adaptedness to its life. But although we can imagine it, nobody has ever come close to suggesting any means by which this bias could come about. It is only in this fifth respect, the 'mutationist' respect, that the true, real-life Darwinian insists that mutation is random. Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement, and no mechanism is known (to put the point mildly) that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random in this fifth sense. Mutation is random with respect to adaptive advantage, although it is non-random in all sorts of other respects. It is selection, and only selection, that directs evolution in directions that are nonrandom with respect to advantage." (Dawkins, 1986, p.312).

"But there are other theories that are most definitely not versions of Darwinism, theories that go flatly against the very spirit of Darwinism. These rival theories are the subject of this chapter. They include various versions of what is called Lamarckism; also other points of view such as 'neutralism', 'mutationism' and creationism which have, from time to time, been advanced as alternatives to Darwinian selection. The obvious way to decide between rival theories is to examine the evidence. ... In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.287, 316-317).

"Fibrinolysis is the function of the body which helps regulate blood clotting. When a clot begins to be formed a series of steps takes place which prevents the completion of the forming of the clot. This protective function prevents heart attacks, strokes and other cardiovascular incidents. Excessive blood clotting - thrombosis - is caused by a decrease in the fibrinolytic activity of elements of the blood and this is called `fibrinolytic dysfunction.' As we are learning, the cardiometabolic risk syndrome is associated with many abnormalities and one of the most common is an increased tendency for the blood to form clots. The flow of blood to the organs in the body is critical to the survival of the individual and to the proper function of the body. If the blood is sluggish or tends to clot too fast, the body will suffer; if the blood is too `thin' or does not clot, the body will suffer. The balance between blood clotting and blood not clotting is one of the most critical balancing acts in the human body. The mechanisms which control those functions are complex. The ... diagram shows the complex relationships which control the balance between blood clotting - which is called `thrombus' - and blood not clotting - which is called `fibrinolysis.' The reality is that too much blood clotting is bad but not enough clotting is also bad. On the other hand, too much dissolving of blood clots (fibrinolysis) is bad and too little dissolving of blood clots is bad. It is not necessary for you to learn or even to understand all of these steps. What is necessary is for you to have a mental picture of the complex processes which continually take place in your body to make certain that your blood can flow to provide oxygen and nutrients to your cells and to make certain that your blood flow can be stopped if you are injured." (Holly, J.L., 2007, "Cardiometabolic Risk Syndrome Part V: Fibrinolytic Dysfunction," Your Life Your Heath - The Examiner, January 11).

"In the final analysis, it is not any specific scientific evidence that convinces me that Darwinism is a pseudoscience that will collapse once it becomes possible for critics to get a fair hearing. It is the way the Darwinists argue their case that makes it apparent that they are afraid to encounter the best arguments against their theory. A real science does not employ propaganda and legal barriers to prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does it rely on enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the official story. If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they would want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to caricature them as straw men. Instead they have chosen to rely on the dishonorable methods of power politics." (Johnson, P.E., 2000, "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism," Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, p.141).

I am training to be a high school biology teacher, so less blogging!

In 2004 when I finished my biology degree, I originally intended to do further training to become a high school biology teacher.

[Above: Edith Cowan University, Joondalup: Wikipedia]

However, by then our superannuation was doing so well, I did not need to work, so I decided to retire instead.

But now due to the financial crash, I have had to revert to plan A, and am 3 weeks into a 1 year Graduate Diploma of Education (Secondary), majoring in Biological Science, at Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, where I did my biology degree.

So I now have a lot less time for blogging, although I should have more time in the semester breaks. Of course if I am successful and do become a biology teacher, I expect I will continue to be very busy, even in school holidays!

Update: I have successfully completed my science teacher training and now have a long break until school commences in February next year. I don't need to work full-time so I will probably work part-time as a relief teacher. In the meantime I will now catch up on my blogging!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
Blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign, TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!

Re: Daniel's 70 weeks: interpretation of the Hebrew word for `Weeks'

AN

Thank you for your message. As per my stated policy about

[Above (click to enlarge): The victory spoils from the sack of Jerusalem in AD 70, Arch of Titus, Rome: Wikipedia. Most Christian commentators have interpreted (as I do):

"The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary" (Dn 9:26)

as a prediction by Daniel in 539/538 BC of this destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by a Roman army led by Titus Vespasian in AD 70. And therefore Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks was completely fulfilled by AD 70.]

when I receive a private message on a topic covered by one of my blogs, I will respond to your message via my CED blog, after removing your personal identifying information. Your words are bold to distinguish them from my response. Also, since you have used red to emphasis some of your words below, I will use green to emphasise some of mine.

----- Original Message ---- -
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 12:53 AM
Subject: Daniel's 70 weeks

>I've looked at your blog every now and then over the years. Recently I was sent a version of Daniel's 70 weeks (Dan 9:24-27) by a friend that I had never heard before.

You don't mention it, but I assume you are aware of my 2008 blog post, "Re: I am requesting your help involving Daniel 9:24-27," which in turn refers to my 2005 post, "Daniel's 70 `weeks': Proof that Naturalism is false and Christianity is true!."

I haven't mentioned it before, but since October 2008 I have been working steadily on a book on Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks. The first part of the book, is an exegesis of every Hebrew word in Dan 9:24-27. Currently I am almost at the end of verse 27, but I am going to go back to verse 24 again to re-check my exegesis in the light of the "Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew English Lexicon" (1996), which I have only had since December.

As this post shows, it is essential to first find out what the words of this prophecy actually say , before attempting to interpret and apply the prophecy to historical persons, events and times.

>I have never really been drawn to this particular prophecy as all of the interpretations never felt quite right, so I ignored it.

Presumably that includes my interpretation? You don't say what interpretations of Daniel's seventy weeks you have considered and what your criteria for an interpretation being "quite right" is. Although from what you say below about a "very timely prophecy," I assume you think that the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy should be in the near future?

>Until now. Anyway, now the light bulb is on. If it's not too much trouble could I get you to take a quick look at it. I would like your opinion
>
>I believe they are a Messianic Church out of OK http://www.danielstimeline.com/danielstimeline.html

Thanks for the link. I read the interpretation there, but there is too much to respond to. So I will only respond to that part of it mentioned in your words about it below.

>Of most interest to me is the interpretation of the Hebraic word for "Weeks" or Shavuot.

According to my four Hebrew lexicons, the website is simply wrong in its central claim that "the Hebrew word Shabuwa" means "a period of Seven and also Feast of Weeks":

The word weeks was translated from the Hebrew word Shabuwa meaning a period of Seven and also Feast of Weeks, one of the seven Feasts of the Lord:

SHABUWA (shaw-boo'-ah); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 7620: seven, period of seven (days or years), heptad, week; Feast of Weeks (Shavuot)

In the original Hebrew, Shabuwa is in plural form; meaning FeastS of Weeks rather than only one Feast of Weeks. This verse reads: "Seventy Shabuwas or Shavuots are determined." (Daniel's Timeline Report, 19 November 2007).

The fundamental error above is the ignoring (or not even realising) that Strong's Concordance does not give the meaning of every Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek word, but only of every root word:

"... in Strong's Concordance ... Not every distinct word is assigned a number, but only the root words. " ("Strong's Concordance," Wikipedia, 3 January 2009).

The concordance itself, at least in its modern version I have, must share most of the blame for not making it very clear that it's claim to "index... every word" (e.g. on its rear cover) only applies to every English word in the KJV Bible (or other English translation), not every Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek word underlying those English words.

Thus my Strong's concordance book has the following listing under "week," all of which have the same number 7620 ("w" is "weeks" abbreviated below and some ending words are truncated):

"WEEKS thou shalt observe the feast of w Ex 34:22 ... then she shall be unclean two w Lev 12:5 ... the LORD, after your w be ou Num 28:28 ... Seven w shalt thou number unto Deut 16:9 ... seven w from such time as thou Deut 16:9 ... Of w unto the Lord thy God with a Deut 16:10 ... bread, and in the feast of w Deut 16:16 ... bread, and in the feast of w 2Chr 8:13 ... us the appointed w of the harvest Jer 5:24 ... Seventy w are determined upon thy Dan 9:24 ... the Prince shall be seven w Dan 9:25 ... and threescore and two w Dan 9:25 ... two w shall Messiah be cut off, Dan 9:26 ... Daniel was mourning three full w Dan 10:2 ... till three whole w were fulfilled Dan 10:3 ..." (Strong, J., 1996, "New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance: King James Version," [1890], Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, Reprinted, 2007, p.1440)

And in the "Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary" section at the back it has the following explanation of Strong's number 7620:

"7620. ... shabuwa`, shaw-boo-ah; or ... shabua`, shaw-boo-ah; also (fem.) ... shebu`ah, sheb-oo-aw ; prop. pass. part. of 7650 as a denom. of 7851; lit. sevened, i.e. a week (spec. of years):- seven, week." (Strong, 1996, Ibid, "Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary," p.136).

As can be seen above, even though it lists under 7620 those verses containing "Feast of the Weeks" (Ex 34:22; Deut 16:16; 2Chr 8:13), my version of Strong's Concordance does not even say that 7620 means "Feast of Weeks (Shavuot)" and nor does the Strong's Concordance module in e-Sword:

"H7620 .. shabuwa` shabua` shebu`ah .. Properly passive participle of H7650 as a denominative of H7651; literally sevened, that is, a week (specifically of years): - seven, week."

Also, I have my Hebrew Bible open in front of me and the word in Dan 9:24 which is translated `weeks' by most English Bibles is (from right to left) shabu`im. And shabu`im is, according to my Davidson's "Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon," the "noun masc pl" of "shabu`a," which in turn means "seven":

"Shabu`a ... seven ... shabu`im .. noun masc., pl. of shabu`a ..." (Davidson, 1966, "The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon," pp.698-699).

Davidson's lexicon also states that shabu`im means, "a week of years" in "Da. 9:24":

"... shabu`im ... a week of years, comp. Da. 9.24." (Davidson, 1966, Ibid., p.698).

and his lexicon also has "the feast of weeks" as being two different Heb. words, hag shabu`ot:

"... shabu`oth ... I. a week, seven days; hag shabu`oth the feast of weeks ..." (Davidson, 1966, Ibid., p.698).

The "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament" (TWOT) also says that "the Feast of Weeks" is the two different words, hag shabu`ot, and the latter is the same word as the above website's "shavuot" but transliterated slightly differently:

"... the Feast of Weeks (hag shabu`ot), i.e. the Feast of Seven-Periods. American Jewry often still call this feast `Shavuos,' but today's Israeli pronunciation is `Shavuot'." (Harris, et al., 1992, "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," p.2:899).

The TWOT also states that in Dan 9:24-27, "shabu'a ... denotes a period of seven years in each of its appearances in these four verses" :

"While in Deut 16:9 ... shabu'a represents a period of seven days, in Dan 9:24,25,26,27 it denotes a period of seven years in each of its appearances in these four verses." (Harris, et al., 1992, Ibid., p.2:899).

Brown-Driver-Brigg's "Hebrew-English Lexicon" gives for shabu`a, "n[oun] m[asculine] Dn 9:27 period of seven (days or years), heptad," which is the last week (singular) in v.27 of the seventy weeks (plural) in v.24, the plural being shabu`im Dn 9:24 .. heptad or seven of years":

"Shabu`a n.m. Dn 9:27 period of seven (days, years), heptad, week ... shabu`im Dn 9:24 .. heptad or seven of years ... Dn 9:24,25,26,27 ..." (Brown, et al., 1996, "Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew English Lexicon," pp.988-989).

Brown-Driver-Briggs also gives hag shabu`ot as "feast of weeks":

"... hag shabu`oth Ex 34:22 (J) feast of weeks (ending seven weeks of harvest), Dt 16:10,16 2 Ch 8:13 ..." (Brown, et al., 1996, "Ibid.," p.989).

Tregelles' "Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures" also distinguishes between "hag shabu`oth the feast of (seven) weeks" and "shabu`im .. a hebdomad of years, Dan. 9:24":

"Shabu`a m. Dan. 9:27 .. pl. shabu`im m. .. (1) ... hag shabu`oth the feast of (seven) weeks ... (2) a hebdomad of years, Dan. 9:24, seqq. ..." (Tregelles, 1949, "Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures," p.800).

So that Messianic Jewish website's interpretation fails at the most basic level, that of the actual Hebrew word(s) translated "week(s)" in Dn 9:24-27, namely, shabu`a (singular) and shabu`im (plural). These, in their unusual masculine gender form mean "`weeks' of years" or "heptads of years":

"The prophecy of the Seventy Weeks ... Here we simply point out that the term `weeks' (rendered in NIV as `sevens') is sabu'im, from sabua`, which always takes a feminine plural, sebu'ot, when it means a seven of days, namely, a `week.' The masculine plural here probably indicates that the word is meant as a heptad ... of years." (Archer, G.L., 1985, "Daniel," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Daniel and the Minor Prophets," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Vol. 7, p.26. Emphasis original).

"[Dan 9:24]... Seventy sevens ... The word sevens here occurs in the m[asculine].pl[ural]., whereas it generally has a f[eminine].pl[ural]. ... The reason for this m[asculine]. form ... is not clear unless it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word sevens is employed in an unusual sense. " (Young, E.J., 1949, "A Commentary on Daniel," Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, British edition, 1972, Reprinted, 1978, p.195. Emphasis original).

They do not mean "the Feast of Weeks" which is two different words, hag shabu`oth."

>From my knowledge, it has always been translated as a seven day period of time and not as " The Feast of Weeks". That change makes this a very different and very timely prophecy.

See above. I assume you mean "seven year period of time" That "the Hebraic word for `Weeks'" in Dan 9:24-27, shabu`im (plural) and shabu`a (singular), "has always" (or at least mostly) "been translated as a seven" year "period of time" is because that is what they mean!

Preferring an interpretation merely because it is "timely," i.e. applies to the near future, may make it seem more interesting to this current generation, but it is an irrelevant criteria for discovering to what period the prophecy actually applies to.

>Thank you very much
>
>AN

You're welcome. I hope this has been of some help.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!

---

"Shabu`a n.m. Dn 9:27 period of seven (days, years), heptad, week (on format. v. Lag. BN 67);-abs. sh' Dn 9:27; cstr. shebu`a Gn 29:27-28; du. shebu`im Lev 12:5 pl. shab` (o) th Ex 34:22 + 4t. Dt. + (in term. techn.) 2 Ch 8:13; late shabu`im Dn 9:24 + 4 t. Dn; cstr. sheb`ith Je 5:24 (Ez 45:21 read shibe`ath with Vrss and all mod., v. sheba`); sf. shabu`othokem Nu 28:26; - 1. period of seven days (fr. a given time), week: Dt 16:9 Lv 12:5 (P) ; of marriage feast Gn 29:27-28 (E; cf. Ju 14:12 Tob 11:19); yamim shabu`im Dn 10:2-3 three weeks, days (three weeks long); qatsir huqoth Je 5:24 weeks of statutes (i.e. weeks appointed by) for harvest; term. techn. hag shabu`oth Ex 34:22 (J) feast of weeks (ending seven weeks of harvest), Dt 16:10,16 2 Ch 8:13, so sh' alone Nu 28:26 (P). 2. heptad or seven of years, late, Dn 9:24,25,26,27. - shebu`oth shebu`o Ez 21:28 v. [shaba`]" (Brown, F., Driver, S.R. & Briggs, C.A., 1996, "Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew English Lexicon," Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA, pp.988-989. My transliteration).

"Shabu`a ... sheba` § 35. rem. 7) fem. shibe`ath masc. (constr. shibe`ath).-I. num. card. seven; seba` shanim seven years, and with the constr. shib`eath yamim seven days; less frequently preceded by the noun, as shibe`ah 'elim seven rams; also as an ordinal when preceded by a noun in the construct state, as sheba` shenath seventh year; shibe`ah shibe`ah by sevens; `ese'rah sheba` fem. & `ashar shibe`ah masc. seventeen. - II. (sheba`) adv. seven times, Ps. 119.164; Pr 24.16. Du. shibe`athaim sevenfold. Pl. shibe`im (§ 35. rem. 16) seventy. For another sheba` (& shib`ah) see below. ... shabu`im, shabu`oth with suff. shabu`othokem (§ 32 rem. 1). - I. a week, seven days; hag shabu`oth the feast of weeks, pentecost, -II. a week of years, comp. Da. 9.24, seq. shebi`i masc. shibi`ith fem. adj. ordin. from shaba`, seventh. ... shabu`im .. noun masc., pl. of shabu`a (§ 32 rem. 1). shaba`" (Davidson, B., 1966, "The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon," Samuel Bagster & Sons: London, pp.698-699. My transliteration).

shabua`. A period of seven, a week, the Feast of Weeks. This term occurs twenty times in the or, always indicating a period of seven. Indeed, the word obviously comes to us from sheba' (q.v.) and could literally be translated always as `seven-period.' In Deut 16:9, shabu'a represents a period of seven days (literally `seven seven-periods you-shall-number-to-you'). The context in verses 9, 10, and 16 demands the time to be in terms of `days.' No serious expositor has ever argued for `years' here. It might be noted that in Deut 16:9 in the spelling of the plural, the central vowel letter-the waw-is omitted (shabu`ot), as it is also at times in the singular (e.g. Gen 29:27, shebua`) where in an unpointed text it would then be spelled identically to seven, sheba', in the feminine. While in Deut 16:9, discussed above, shabu'a represents a period of seven days, in Dan 9:24,25,26,27 it denotes a period of seven years in each of its appearances in these four verses. ... shabua` is also used as a technical term in Deut 16:10,16 where it denotes the Feast of Weeks (hag shabu`ot), i.e. the Feast of Seven-Periods. American Jewry often still call this feast `Shavuos,' but today's Israeli pronunciation is `Shavuot'. It was so named because it was to be celebrated `on the morrow after' the seventh sabbath after the day of firstfruits (Lev 23:15-16)! Hence it was the feast of the day following the seven seven-periods, or the feast of Hamishim Yom, fifty days-'Pentecost' from the Greek. This feast marked the early wheat harvest at about the sixth of Sivan, at the end of our own month of May. Christians remember Pentecost as the day when the Holy Spirit was poured out in fullness (Acts 2). As Christ was the `firstfruits' (I Cor 15:20,23), many also see in this later Feast of Weeks, shabua`, a picture of the coming resurrection of all the redeemed." (Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. & Waltke, B.K., eds, 1980, "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," Moody Press: Chicago IL, Twelfth Printing, 1992, Vol. II, p.899. My transliteration).

"Shabu`a m. Dan. 9:27 (shebu`a ze'th Gen. 29:27, should be rendered the week of this woman); const. shebu`a Gen. 29:27, 28; dual shebu`aim Levit. 12:5; pl. shabu`im m. (Dan. 9:25; 10:2, 3), and shabu`oth const. shebu`oth with suff. shabu`othokem Nu. 28:26, a hebdomad, ebdomas septenary number (denom. from shba` seven, compare `asor a decade). (1) of days, a week, Gen. 29:27, 28. Dan. 10: 2, shelshah yamim shabu`im "through three weeks" (where yamim is not a genit., see yamim No. 2, b, page CCCXLII, A). hag shabu`oth the feast of (seven) weeks, pentecost, so called from the seven weeks which were counted from the passover to this festival, Deu. 16:9. Fully, Tob. 2:1, agia epta ebdomador. But, Eze. 45:21, hag shebu`oth yamim the feast of hebdomads of days is the passover, which was celebrated through the whole of seven days. (2) a hebdomad of years, Dan. 9:24, seqq. Compare Hebdomas annorum, Gell. N. A. iii. 10." (Tregelles, S.P., transl. , 1949, "Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Eighth printing, 1967, p.800. My transliteration).

Re: Christianity has no future and is in decline

AN

Continuing from Re: Anthony Flew leaving Atheism ... more accurate to state "Victory of Deism". As before, your words

[Above (click to enlarge): "Why the Gods are not Winning," by Gregory Paul & Phil Zuckerman, Edge, 2007:

"Since 1900 Christians have made up about a third of the global population, and are edging downwards. ... Christianity has withered dramatically in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. ... Churches are being converted into libraries, laundromats and pubs. ... the churches ... are in danger of dwindling past the demographic and organizational point of no return. Every time a nation becomes truly advanced in terms of democratic, egalitarian education and prosperity it loses the faith. ... Disbelief now rivals the great faiths in numbers and influence. Never before has religion faced such enormous levels of disbelief..."

This, paradoxically, is further evidence that Christianity is true, i.e. that we are in the Great Apostasy predicted by Jesus and the Apostles, which is a precursor of Jesus' imminent return. Indeed, such anti-Christian gloating over Christianity's demise is actually predicted in the Book of Revelation (see below). The gods are not winning but God is!]

are bold to distinguish them from mine.

3.One person stated about Christianity on your blog, that "it should be difficult to devote yourself to something that has no future". To that you replied, that "only under premices [sic] of Christianity there IS 'future' "(which is untrue, there is 'future' under Judaism as well).

What I actually wrote in a comment under my post, What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Design was:

As for me, for these past nearly 40 years a Christian, it has been a joy to devote my entire life to the only "something" that has a future!

Which as a consistent Christian, I stand by. Because since Jesus (who was God-see below) taught that only Christians will be saved, and all non-Christians, will be lost:

John 3:16,18 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ... Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Acts 4:10,12 ... It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead... Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

therefore, only Christians have a future (i.e. a future to look forward to).

The reason is, as even non-Christian philosopher of religion John Hick pointed out, if "Traditional orthodoxy" was right that "Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate ... It follows ... that Christianity, alone among the world religions, was founded by God in person" and so "Christianity alone is God's own religion" and "God must wish ... Christianity shall supersede all the other world faiths":

"Traditional orthodoxy says that Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate ... It follows from this that Christianity, alone among the world religions, was founded by God in person. ... From this premise it seems obvious that God must wish all human beings to enter this stream of saved life, so that Christianity shall supersede all the other world faiths. ... Christianity alone is God's own religion.... It is therefore divinely intended for all men and women without exception. All this follows logically from the central dogma of the deity of Jesus." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place,"pp.18-19).

But it seems that you just diverted the question. What person meant, it's not premices [sic] of Christianity, but the fact that Christianity has no future as wordly religion, and in decline, and that's true: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html

I did not divert the question, and in fact there was no question. All his anonymous comment stated was, "It must be tough to devote your entire life to something that has no future - only a past" and I responded directly to his claim that Christianity "has no future - only a past" with, it is in fact "only ... Christianity ... that has a future!"

Nor was there anything explicitly in his comment which claimed "Christianity [was] ... in decline." Christianity could be increasing in numbers and yet have no future (as in fact non-Christianity is). And if there had been anything explicitly in his comment that claimed Christianity was in decline, far from diverting it, I would have agreed with him! That is because it is in fact a prediction of Jesus that Christianity will decline in a "Great Apostasy" before He returns:

Mt 24:10-12 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold

Lk 18:8 ... However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

2Th 2:3: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day [Jesus' Second Coming] shall not come, except there come a falling away [Gk. apostasia] first ...

Here are quotes from my commentaries on the above, i.e. "It is a sombre picture of a church in decline ... before 'the end' comes ...":

"[Mt 24:] 9-12. ... the persecution is to come from all nations ... an international involvement of the disciples is envisaged ... many will fall away ... It is a sombre picture of a church in decline. ... which must run its course before 'the end' comes ..." (France, 1985, "Matthew," pp.338-339).

"[Lk 18:]8. ... Jesus is speaking of the certainty of speedy action when the time comes. When He asks whether the Son of man will find faith on earth, he is not suggesting that there will be no believers. He is saying that the characteristic of the world's people at that time will not be faith." (Morris, 1974, "Luke," pp.263-264).

"[2Th 2:]3. ... While the coming of 'the day of the Lord' will be unexpected (1 Thes. 5:2-3), certain things will precede it. One is the rebellion. ... In classical Greek apostasia meant a political or military rebellion, but in LXX it is used of rebellion against God ... Paul is saying that in the last times there will be a great uprising of the powers of evil against God (cf. Mt. 24:10ff.; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-9; 4:3-4)." Morris, 1984, "Thessalonians," p.127).

And, as I have posted previously here on my CED blog, e.g. Re: Thoughts on your web page - Jesus' return #2 (21-Apr-07), as well as posts to my now-terminated Yahoo CED group: 23-May-03, 21-Apr-03 and 25-Feb-03 , I agree with the late great Bible commentator, William Hendriksen that we are in the period of the Great Apostasy, when just before Jesus returns, "the antichristian world ... shall battle against the Church and shall destroy it ," i.e. Christianity will appear to be totally defeated, as described in the Book of Revelation:

"Rev 11:3-14 ... The Church ... shall finish its testimony. ... the antichristian world ... shall battle against the Church and shall destroy it. This is the Battle of Harmagedon ... There are going to be believers on earth when Christ comes again, although they will be few in number ... But the Church itself ... will be destroyed. ... the Church ... has been silenced and smothered by the world ... in the midst of the world the Church is dead ... The world ... celebrates. ... Its joy is premature. ... In connection with Christ's second coming the Church is restored to life ... the world will become frozen with fear... the Church ascends to heaven in a cloud of glory" (Hendriksen, 1940, "More than Conquerors," pp.129-131).

Note that Hendriksen wrote that in 1940 - nearly seventy years ago! Subsequent world events have only further confirmed his insight.

In fact, the Protestant reformer John Calvin in 1540, nearly four hundred and seventy years ago, confirmed the Bible taught that before "The day of Christ" the "world [would have] fallen into apostasy" and "The Church must be reduced to a ... state of ruin":

"[2Th 2:]3. ... The day of Christ, he says, will not come until the world has fallen into apostasy ...the term apostasy to mean a treacherous rebellion from God. This would ... spread far and wide ... apostates ... those who have previously enlisted in the service of Christ .... Paul, then, is predicting a general defection on the part of the visible Church... `The Church must be reduced to a ghastly and horrifying state of ruin, before its full restoration is achieved.' ...it might have seemed ... [it] could not have been the work of God, had Paul not warned them long before that this would take place. " (Calvin, 1540, "Thessalonians," pp.398-399).

Here also are quotes from two other leading Christian theologians, confirming that the Bible teaches there will be "a final apostasy which will occur just before the Parousia" (Second coming of Christ):

"There is ... a ... New Testament passage which points ... to a final apostasy which will occur just before the Parousia ...for that day will not come, unless the rebellion [or apostasy; Greek, apostasia] comes first ... apostasia is preceded by a definite article: the apostasy or the rebellion. ... what is predicted here is a final, climactic apostasy just before the end-time. .... The fact that this sign is called a `falling away' or `apostasy' implies that this will be a rebellion against the Christian faith ... those who fall away will be at least outwardly associated with the people of God. The apostasy will occur within the ranks of the members of the visible church." (Hoekema, 1979, "The Bible and the Future," p.153).

that " before the Lord returns. ... there must be a rebellion (apostasy). ... a falling away from the faith ... a rebellion against God ... an apostasy... on the part of ... professing Christians":

"In 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, Paul indicates ... Two things must occur before the Lord returns. First, there must be a rebellion (apostasy). Second, there must be a revelation of the Man of Lawlessness [Antichrist]. ... As for the rebellion (apostasia), the word Paul uses here is used ... to speak of a religious crisis of some sort facing God's people-a falling away from the faith ... The word means a rebellion against God; specifically an apostasy (a falling away from the truth) on the part of God's people. Thus professing Christians ... must be the ones who fall away. " (Riddlebarger, 2006, "The Man of Sin," pp.124-125).

So we have a win-win situation. You, an "agnostic-deist" (see below), win by being able to gloat "that Christianity has no future as wordly religion, and [is] in decline" and I, a Christian, win by knowing that is in fact what the Bible teaches!

But the win-win is only apparent because it will, at Jesus unexpected return, suddenly and irrevocably turn into a loss-win, i.e. an infinite loss for non-Christians and an infinite win for Christians. So unless you (and any other non-Christian) changes sides before the "Battle of Harmagedon", i.e. to the side of the apparent loser, Christianity, you will remain on the side of the final loser, "the antichristian world"!

You see, we Christians have read, "the end of the book and

[Right: Album Michael W. Smith 2 by Michael W. Smith, which contains the song "End Of The Book" with the following lyrics:

When things get bad and you can't stand to look
It's time to read to the end of the book
Don't put it down 'til you get to the end
When Jesus come and His Kingdom begins
'Til He comes
God the Son
Teaches us to use the sword
And every fight
Has a light
When you know we win the war]

WE WIN!!!:

Rev 21:3-4; 22:1-5. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and GOD HIMSELF WILL BE WITH THEM and be their God. He will WIPE EVERY TEAR FROM THEIR EYES. There will be NO MORE DEATH OR MOURNING OR CRYING OR PAIN, for the old order of things has passed away." ...Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. THEY WILL SEE HIS FACE, and his name will be on their foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And THEY WILL REIGN FOR EVER AND EVER.

4. It seems that you by yourself, after accepting Christianity 40 years ago ,are not sure %100 that Christianity is true,you still seem to struggle and convince yourself . It follows from some of your posts, where you state that "it can not be provable", and your post about Daniel doesn't seem convincing, sorry.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am fully convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true, and have been the entire 41 years of my Christian life. The only difference is that I am even more convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true than I was when I became a Christian in 1967. Far from having to struggle to convince myself that Christianity is true, I would have to struggle to convince myself that Christianity is not true!

I would like to get your response on "CreationEvolutionDesign", or even in private mail.

Sorry, but I do not get involved in extended private email discussions on topics that are covered by my blogs. You now have this my response via my blog CED.

Best regards,
AN (agnostic-deist)

Thanks. But there is no such position as "agnostic-deist". It is self-contradictory, since an "agnostic" is "a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God:

"agnostic ... noun a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God. adjective relating to agnostics. - DERIVATIVES agnosticism noun." ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 2008)

and a "deist" is a person who believes in the existence of God but He "does not intervene in the universe":

"deism ... noun belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. Compare with THEISM. - DERIVATIVES deist noun deistic adjective" ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 2008).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!

---

"One scholar put his finger on the problem when he explained that belief in the deity of Jesus-his unique status among human beings as God in the flesh-implies that Jesus is the only way for people to be properly related to God:

Traditional orthodoxy says that Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate ... who became man to die for the sins of the world and who founded the church to proclaim this to the ends of the earth, so that all who sincerely take Jesus as their Lord and Savior are justified by his atoning death and will inherit eternal life. It follows from this that Christianity, alone among the world religions, was founded by God in person. God came down from heaven to earth and launched the salvific movement that came to be known as Christianity. From this premise it seems obvious that God must wish all human beings to enter this stream of saved life, so that Christianity shall supersede all the other world faiths. They may perhaps have some good in them and be able to function to some extent as a preparation for the gospel, but nevertheless Christianity alone is God's own religion.... It is therefore divinely intended for all men and women without exception. All this follows logically from the central dogma of the deity of Jesus.' [Hick J., "A Pluralist View," in Okholm, D.L. & Phillips, T.R., 1995, "Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, pp.51-52]

It is remarkable, however, that the person who made this observation doesn't believe in the deity of Jesus. He is, in fact, a well-known opponent of that doctrine." (Bowman, R.M., Jr. & Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, pp.18-19).

"[2Th 2:]3. Let no man beguile you. In order to keep from vainly promising themselves the glad day of redemption within so short a period, he gives them a gloomy prediction concerning the future dispersion of the Church. This discourse corresponds in every respect to that which was addressed by Christ to His disciples when they had asked Him about the end of the world. [Mt 24:3-14] ... The day of Christ, he says, will not come until the world has fallen into apostasy, and the rule of Antichrist has held sway in the Church. ... Paul, therefore, uses the term apostasy to mean a treacherous rebellion from God. This would not be confined to a single individual or even a few, but would spread far and wide among a considerably large number of persons. When the word apostasy is used without any addition it cannot be confined to a few individuals. Now the word apostates can be understood only of those who have previously enlisted in the service of Christ and His Gospel. Paul, then, is predicting a general defection on the part of the visible Church, as if he were saying, `The Church must be reduced to a ghastly and horrifying state of ruin, before its full restoration is achieved.' From this we may at once conclude how useful this prediction of Paul's is. For it might have seemed that a building which was suddenly destroyed, and which lay for so long in ruins, could not have been the work of God, had Paul not warned them long before that this would take place. " (Calvin, J., 1540, "The Epistles of Paul to the Romans and Thessalonians," Mackenzie, R., transl., Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1960, Reprinted, 1980, pp.398-399).

"[Mt 24:] 9-12. These verses similarly speak in general terms of the sufferings to come, not now in relation to the world at large, but more with reference to Jesus' disciples. They will, as he has predicted already, be persecuted and hated. (Cf. 10:17-22, a passage closely related to this, and closer in wording to the parallel passage in Mk. 13:9-13. It is interesting that here, in contrast to both 10:17-22 and Mk. 13:9-23, the persecution is to come from all nations, not just from the Jews; in ch. 10 a mission to Jews only was in view (10:5-6, 23), but now an international involvement of the disciples is envisaged, as 28:18-19 will spell out.) This persecution will take its toll, in that many will fall away ('be tripped up', the same verb as in 5:29-30; 13:21; 18:6-9; etc.; here it echoes particularly Dn. 11:41), and the disciple group itself will be the scene of betrayal, hatred, false prophecy and wickedness (lit. 'lawlessness'). And lawlessness will lead to the cooling off of love, a connection to be noted. Most men's love is literally 'the love of the many', which could mean disciples' love for 'the many' outside; but the sequence of thought in these verses, where it is the disciple group itself which is under pressure, suggests that it means that 'the majority' (of the disciples) will cool off in their love, whether for God or for their fellow-men. It is a sombre picture of a church in decline. All this, the context indicates, is part of the history which must run its course before 'the end' comes; but there is no indication as to the temporal relation between such a situation and 'the end'." (France, R.T., 1985, "Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, pp.338-339).

"The two witnesses ([Rev.] 11:3-14) ... This gospel age is, however, going to come to an end (cf. Mt. 24:14). The Church, as a mighty missionary organization, shall finish its testimony. The beast that comes up out of the abyss, that is, the antichristian world, urged on by hell, shall battle against the Church and shall destroy it. This is the Battle of Harmagedon. The beast will not kill every believer. There are going to be believers on earth when Christ comes again, although they will be few in number (Lk. 18:8). But the Church itself, as a mighty organization for the dissemination of the gospel and regular ministry of the Word, will be destroyed. ... Thus, just before the second coming, the corpse of the Church, whose public and official testimony has been silenced and smothered by the world, lies on the great city's High Street. ... So when we read that the corpse of the Church is lying on the broad avenues of the great city, this simply means that in the midst of the world the Church is dead: it no longer exists as an influential and powerful missionary institution! Its leaders have been slaughtered; its voice has been silenced. This condition lasts three days and a half, which is a very brief time. (Mt. 24:22; cf. Rev. 20:7-9.) The world does not even allow the dead bodies of the witnesses to be buried. In the High Street lie these corpses, exposed to insects, birds, and dogs. The world has a grand picnic: it celebrates. People send each other presents and gloat over these witnesses ... Their word will not torment them any more. Foolish world! Its joy is premature. The corpse suddenly begins to stir; the breath of life from God has entered into it; the witnesses stand upon their feet. In connection with Christ's second coming the Church is restored to life, to honour, to power, to influence. For the world the hour of opportunity is gone, and gone for ever. On the day of judgment when the world shall see the Church restored to honour and glory, the world will become frozen with fear. The Church still under the symbolism of the two witnesses-now hears a voice, 'Come up hither'. Thereupon the Church ascends to heaven in a cloud of glory. 'And their enemies beheld them.' This is no secret rapture!" (Hendriksen, W., "More than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation," [1940], Tyndale Press: London, Reprinted, 1966, pp.129-131).

"There is, however, a specific New Testament passage which points unambiguously to a final apostasy which will occur just before the Parousia [Second coming of Christ]. We turn now to Paul's second epistle to the Thessalonians: `Now concerning the coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren, not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion [or apostasy; Greek, apostasia] comes first, and the man of lawlessness [Antichrist] is revealed.. ." ([2Th ]2:1-3). ... The word apostasia is derived from the verb aphistemi which when it is used intransitively means `to fall away' or `to become apostate.' As used in II Thessalonians 2:3, apostasia is preceded by a definite article: the apostasy or the rebellion. Both the definite article and the statement that this happening must precede the Parousia indicate that what is predicted here is a final, climactic apostasy just before the end-time. It should be noted, however, that this apostasy will be an intensification and culmination of a rebellion which has already begun, since in verse 7 Paul says, `For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work.' We may see a parallel, therefore, between this sign and the sign of tribulation: both are evident throughout the present age but come to a climactic and final form just before Christ returns. The fact that this sign is called a `falling away' or `apostasy' implies that this will be a rebellion against the Christian faith as it has been heard or professed. We may therefore assume that those who fall away will be at least outwardly associated with the people of God. The apostasy will occur within the ranks of the members of the visible church. Those who are true believers will not fall away (John 10:27-29; I Pet. 1:3-5); but many who have made an outward profession of the faith will do so." (Hoekema, A.A., 1979, "The Bible and the Future," [1978], Paternoster Press: Exeter UK, p.153).

"[Lk 18:]8. Vindication will be done speedily, but we should understand this in terms of God's time (in which one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day, 2 Pet. 3:8). Jesus is speaking of the certainty of speedy action when the time comes. When He asks whether the Son of man will find faith on earth, he is not suggesting that there will be no believers. He is saying that the characteristic of the world's people at that time will not be faith. Men of the world never recognize the ways of God and they will not see His vindication of His elect." (Morris, L.L., 1974, "The Gospel According to Luke: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press Leicester UK, Reprinted, 1986, pp.263-264).

"[2Th 2:]3. The Thessalonians must not be deceived in any way, whether by the things listed in verse 2 or by anything else whatever. The construction is broken in the following clause, but NIV is surely right in supplying the words that day will not come. While the coming of 'the day of the Lord' will be unexpected (1 Thes. 5:2-3), certain things will precede it. One is the rebellion. The definite article shows that the rebellion was well known to the readers; evidently it had formed part of Paul's previous teaching. Our difficulty is that we do not know what he had told them. In classical Greek apostasia meant a political or military rebellion, but in LXX it is used of rebellion against God (e.g. Jos. 22:22), and this became the accepted biblical usage. Paul is saying that in the last times there will be a great uprising of the powers of evil against God (cf. Mt. 24:10ff.; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-9; 4:3-4). It is as though Satan were throwing all his forces into one last despairing effort." (Morris, L.L., 1984, "The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians: An Introduction and Commentary," [1956], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Second edition, p.127).

"In 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, Paul indicates that the reason people are not to be startled is that two signs must be fulfilled before the Lord returns. `Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.' Paul is crystal clear. Two things must occur before the Lord returns. First, there must be a rebellion (apostasy). Second, there must be a revelation of the Man of Lawlessness. ... As for the rebellion (apostasia), the word Paul uses here is used throughout the Septuagint (LXX) and elsewhere in the New Testament to speak of a religious crisis of some sort facing God's people-a falling away from the faith in some sense. As Beale points out, `Such a meaning is apparent because of the immediate context of false teaching (vv. 1-2 and vv. 9-12) and the clear allusions to Daniel's prediction of an end-time opponent who will bring about a large-scale compromise of faith among God's people. ' [Beale, G.K., "The Temple and the Church's Mission," IVP: Downers Grove IL, 2004, pp.271-272] This seems to connect Paul's comments to both John's and our Lord's warnings about false teachers and people who claim to be believers but who fall away and take a number of followers with them (see Matt. 24:10-12, 23-24; 1 John 2:18-19). ... The word means a rebellion against God; specifically an apostasy (a falling away from the truth) on the part of God's people. Thus professing Christians ... must be the ones who fall away. [Beale, G. K., "1-2 Thessalonians," IVP: Downers Grove IL, 2003, pp.207-209] While there were some apostates in the apostolic church just as there are in ours, God restrains false teachers and antichrists from gaining the upper hand until the appointed time. Because the final apostasy has not yet taken place, the Thessalonians can be assured that the Lord has not yet returned, nor has the day of the Lord already occurred." (Riddlebarger, K. , 2006, "The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, pp.124-125).