Sunday, December 06, 2009

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).

Sunday, May 10, 2009

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).

Thursday, March 12, 2009

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!

Monday, February 02, 2009

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).