tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145107492024-03-08T08:49:45.340+08:00CreationEvolutionDesignMy commentary on creation, evolution, intelligent design and the evidence for Christianity being objectively true. I am an Australian Christian old-Earth creationist biologist who accepts universal common ancestry (but <i>not</i> evolution).Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger550125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-70281717072893743802011-03-08T09:46:00.008+08:002023-05-28T07:37:13.593+08:00My Theory of Progressive Mediate Creation: 1.1. What is Progressive Mediate Creation?<p>This my CreationEvolutionDesign blog is closed. I won't be posting any more blog posts to it and I won't answer comments. My final post to this blog is my Theory of Progressive Mediate Creation. I am today confining my blogging to my <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/">The Shroud of Turin blog</a>. Since the evidence is <i>overwhelming</i> that the Shroud of Turin is the burial sheet of Jesus, and bears the image of His crucified and <i>resurrected</i> body, it is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Christianity is true and Naturalism is false!</p><hr><p>Continuing with my series, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2011/02/my-theory-of-progressive-mediate.html">My Theory of Progressive Mediate Creation</a>," here is part 1.1, "What <i>is</i> Progressive Mediate Creation?"</p> <p> <hr> </p> <p><b><center>My Theory of Progressive Mediate Creation<br>1.1. What <i>is</i> Progressive Mediate Creation?<br>© Stephen E. Jones</center></b></p> <p><b>1. Introduction</b></p> <p><b>1.1. What <i>is</i> Progressive Mediate Creation?</b><br><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://westminsterhoy.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/charles-hodge.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 280px;" src="http://westminsterhoy.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/charles-hodge.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>"<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/faqcmedc.html">Progressive Mediate Creation</a>" is the view, based on <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%201&version=NIV">Genesis 1</a>, </p> <p>[<a href="http://westminsterhoy.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/charles-hodge.jpg">Right</a>: Prof. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hodge">Charles Hodge</a> (1797-1878), the founder of the modern theory of Progressive Mediate Creation.]</p> <p>that God created the raw materials of the universe <i>immediately</i> from out-of-nothing (<i>ex nihilo</i>), and thereafter He created <i>mediately</i> by working (both naturally and supernaturally) through natural processes and existing materials.</p> <p>I take the name from the distinction by evangelical Presbyterian theologian <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hodge">Charles Hodge</a> (1797-1878) between "a first and second, or immediate and mediate creation," the latter being "a forming out of preexisting material," which he called "a mediate, progressive creation":<blockquote>"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 <i>ex nihilo</i> by the simple word of God, but a mediate, progressive creation; the power of God working in union with second causes." (Hodge, C., 1892, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-3-Charles-Hodge/dp/1565634594">Systematic Theology</a>," James Clark & Co: London, Vol. I , Reprinted, 1960, pp.556-557).</blockquote> <p>The same idea is expressed in the distinction between <i>primary</i> or immediate creation and <i>secondary</i> or mediate creation:<blockquote>"The phrase <i>Creatio prima seu immediata </i>signifies the originating act of the divine will whereby he brings, or has brought into being, out of nothing, the principles and elementary essences of all things. The phrase <i>Creatio secunda seu mediata </i>signifies the subsequent act of God in originating different forms of things, and especially different species of living beings out of the already created essences of things. The Christian Church holds both." (Hodge A.A., 1879, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Outlines-Theology-Hodge/dp/0851511600">Outlines of Theology</a>," Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, Second Edition, Reprinted, 1983, pp.238-239).</p></blockquote> <p>in which "God uses <i>previously created materials</i> in his creative work":<blockquote>"'Creation out of nothing', which we may call <i>primary</i> creation does not cover every occasion of creation. Scripture also uses the term creation for what we may call <i>secondary</i> creation, where God uses previously created materials in his creative work, as in the forming of man (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%202:7&version=NIV">Gn. 2:7</a>) or the beasts and birds (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%202:19&version=NIV">Gn. 2:19</a>)." (Milne, B., 1982, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Know-Truth-Handbook-Christian-Belief/dp/083081793X">Know the Truth</a>," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Reprint, 1988, p.73. My emphasis).</p></blockquote> <p>For example, "Man was not created <i>ex nihilo</i>, but out of the dust of the ground":<blockquote>"At the same time, however, it is clear that the idea of primary creation contained in the formula <i>creatio ex nihilo </i>does not exhaust the biblical teaching on the subject. Man was not created <i>ex nihilo</i>, but out of the dust of the ground <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/rsv/genesis/2-7.html">(Gn. 2:7</a>) and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air were formed out of the ground (<a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/rsv/genesis/2-19.html">Gn. 2:19</a>). This has been called secondary creation, a creative activity making use of already created materials, and stands alongside primary creation as part of the biblical testimony." (Douglas, J.D., ed., 1982, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/New-Bible-Dictionary-J-Douglas/dp/0842346678">The New Bible Dictionary</a>," Inter-Varsity Fellowship: London, Second edition, Reprinted, 1988p.245).</p></blockquote> <p>Progressive Mediate Creation (PMC) is a subset of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_creationism">Progressive Creation</a>, i.e. "Creation was not a single six-day event but occurred in stages over millions of years" as "God intervened supernaturally at strategic points along the way":<blockquote>"Progressive creationism accepts much of the scientific picture of the development of the universe, assuming that <i>for the most part</i> 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., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tower-Babel-Evidence-against-Creationism/dp/0262661659/">Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism</a>," MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1999, Fourth Printing, pp.26-27. Emphasis in original)</p></blockquote> <p>As a form of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism">Old Earth Creation</a> OEC), Progressive Creation (PC) differs from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism">Young Earth Creation</a> (YEC), which maintains that the Universe and Earth are only tens of thousands of years old.</p><p>PMC differs from those forms of PC which maintain that God created <i>ex nihilo</i> new species, including man, which even <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Ramm">Bernard L. Ramm</a> seemed to advocate</p><blockquote>"Progressive creationism endeavours to explain much that the theory of evolution tries to explain, and many of the things that the theory of evolution leaves unexplained. Gen. 1 records the broad outline of the successive creative acts of God in bringing the universe through the various stages from chaos to man. Being a very general sketch it leaves considerable room for the empirical determination of various facts. A multitude of biological facts now generally accepted by the biologists would remain unchanged. In progressive creationism there may be much horizontal radiation. The amount is to be determined by the geological record and biological experimentation. But there is no vertical radiation. Vertical radiation is only by fiat creation. A <I>root-species</I> may give rise to several species by horizontal radiation, through the process of the unraveling of gene potentialities or recombination. Horizontal radiation could account for much which now passes as evidence for the theory of evolution. The gaps in the geological record are gaps because vertical progress takes place only by creation." (Ramm, B.L., 1954, "<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/CHRISTIAN-VIEW-SCIENCE-SCRIPTURE/dp/B000J0ZDGM/">The Christian View of Science and Scripture</a>," Paternoster: London, Reprinted, 1960, p.191. Emphasis original).</blockquote><p>although Ramm does not actually say it was by <i>creation ex nihilo</i>. I call this position, that the first member of each major kind mentioned in Genesis 1, i.e. of plants, animals and man, was progressively created <i>ex nihilo</i>, Progressive Fiat Creation (PFC), to distinguish it from PMC. However, on reflection this is a misnomer, because PMC also accepts that creation of each major kind was by divine fiat, but not that it was <i>ex nihilo</i>. A better name for PFC would therefore be Progressive <i>Immediate</i> Creation (PIC).</p><p>PMC maintains that God created everything mediately (i.e. not <i>ex nihilo</i>) after the original immediate creation of the raw materials in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%201:1&version=NIV">Genesis 1:1</a>, with the possible exception of the infusion of man's soul. That is, according to PMC, God created by <i>modifying</i> existing materials, working (naturally and supernaturally) through natural processes. A corollary of this is that PMC accepts <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cmnctsry.html">Universal Common Ancestry</a>.</p> <p>PMC lies between <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution">Theistic Evolution</a> (TE) and Progressive Immediate Creation (PIC) on the <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/faqiposs.html">Creation-Evolution spectrum</a>. TE tends to deny (or downplay) God working supernaturally through natural processes, while PIC tends to deny (or downplay) God working naturally through natural causes.</p><hr><p>Comments are welcome but as per my <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/">Policies</a> on this blog's sidebar, those I consider off-topic (i.e. don't <i>explicitly</i> relate to my post they are under), offensive or sub-standard will not appear.</p> <p>Posted 8 March 2011. Updated 28 May 2023.</p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-73093733333907685762011-02-26T22:12:00.003+08:002011-02-27T11:53:14.007+08:00Re: I find some problems to believe that the earth is old<p><a href=""></a></p><p>AN</p> <p>Thanks for your message. However I have a long-standing policy not to get involved in private discussions of matters that are the</p> <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Saint_Augustine_by_Philippe_de_Champaigne.jpg/477px-Saint_Augustine_by_Philippe_de_Champaigne.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Saint_Augustine_by_Philippe_de_Champaigne.jpg/477px-Saint_Augustine_by_Philippe_de_Champaigne.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><p>[<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Saint_Augustine_by_Philippe_de_Champaigne.jpg/477px-Saint_Augustine_by_Philippe_de_Champaigne.jpg">Above</a>: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo">St. Augustine (354-430)</a>, who <i>over a thousand years before</i> science determined that the Earth and Universe were at least hundreds of millions of years old, realised from the text of Genesis 1 that its days were not literal 24 hours:<blockquote>"<i>Augustine's Analysis</i> Among all the early leaders of the Christian church, no one penned a more extensive analysis of the creation days than Augustine (AD 354-430). In <i>The City of God</i>, Augustine wrote, 'As for these "days,' it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think-let alone explain in words-what they mean." [Augustine, <i>The City of God</i>, XI.6]. In <i>The Literal Meaning of Genesis</i>, he added, `But at least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar.' [Augustine, <i>The Literal Meaning of Genesis</i>, V.2]. Elsewhere in that book he made this comment: `Seven days by our reckoning after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them.' [<i>The Literal Meaning of Genesis</i>, IV.27] Augustine took the evenings and mornings of the Genesis creation days in a figurative sense. ... In <i>Confessions</i> Augustine notes that for the seventh day Genesis makes no mention of an evening and a morning From this omission he deduced God sanctified the seventh day, making it an epoch extending onward into eternity. [Augustine, <i>The Confessions</i>, XIII.51]" (Ross, H.N., 1994, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Time-Perspective-Creation-Date-Controversy/dp/0891097767">Creation and Time</a>: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy," NavPress: Colorado Springs CO, pp.19-20). Emphasis original).]</p></blockquote> <p>topic of one of my blogs, in this case my <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2011/02/my-theory-of-progressive-mediate.html">CreationEvolutionDesign</a> blog, but to respond publicly, minus the senders personal identifying information, via that blog. Your words are <b>>bold </b>to distinguish them from mine.</p> <p>----- Original Message ----- <br>From: AN<br>To: Stephen E. Jones<br>Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 9:32 AM<br>Subject: Old Earth.</p><p><b>>Dear Stephen E Jones.<br>></b><br><b>>I've been reading your book "Problems Of Evolution" (Outline). Also I've checked around your terminated list CED.</b></p> <p>I have not continued with my book, "<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe00cont.html">Problems of Evolution</a>" partly because, as I explained in my last post, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2011/02/my-theory-of-progressive-mediate.html">My Theory of Progressive Mediate Creation: Index</a>," since I had been debating Creation/Evolution/Design from 1994, "I had quite frankly become bored with Creation/Evolution/Design issues, and more interested in posting on my other two blogs <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">The Shroud of Turin</a> and <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a>"</p> <p><b>>I understand that you are an "OLD EARTH CREATIONST" .</b></p> <p>Yes, I am an "Old Earth Creationist" (OEC) in that I accept the scientific evidence that the Earth and Universe are billions of years old:<blockquote>"Old Earth creationism (OEC) is an umbrella term for a number of types of creationism, including Gap creationism and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_creationism">Progressive creationism</a>. Their worldview is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of geology, cosmology and the age of the Earth, in comparison to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism">Young Earth creationism</a>; however, they still generally take the accounts of creation in Genesis more literally than theistic evolution (also known as evolutionary creationism) in that OEC rejects evolution by purely natural means." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism">Old Earth creationism</a>," Wikipedia, 15 November 2010).</p></blockquote> <p>See my web pages, "<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/oldearth.html">Why I believe in an old Earth</a>" and, "<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/yngearth.html">Problems of Young-Earth Creationism (YEC)</a>."</p> <p><b>>I am AN from Sweden, I belivie that the Bible is true.</b></p> <p>So do I and <i>all </i>Old Earth Creationists believe that the Bible is true. We differ from Young-Earth Creationists (YECs) in our <i>interpretation </i>of the Bible.</p> <p><b>>I feel that you are a thruth-loving man and that you understand much about geology.</b></p> <p>You are correct that I am a truth-loving man, and I completed a unit in Geology in my Biology degree. So while I don't claim to "understand much about geology" (compared to a professional geologist), I understand enough about Geology to know that <I>all</I> the scientific evidence points to the Earth being about 4.6 billion years old:<blockquote>"The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 10^9 years ± 1%) This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth">Age of the Earth</a>," Wikipedia, 6 February 2011).</p></blockquote> <p><b>>And you belivie that the earth is old.</b></p> <p>Yes. About 4.6 billion-years old (see above).</p> <p><b>>I find some problems to belivie that the earth is old, for example:</b></p> <p>In none of what follows do you cite the actual <i>scientific evidence</i> for the Earth being <i>thousands of millions</i> of years old, and then explain with other <i>scientific evidence</i> why the Earth is only <i>tens of thousands</i> of years old, as YEC claims. </p> <p><b>>I. OLD-EARTH is based on uniformatism, which may be what Peter warns that will be prevailing in the last times.</b></p> <p>No. That the Earth is old (and therefore Old Earth Creationism), is based on the <i>scientific evidence</i> which all points to the Earth and Universe being billions of years old. </p> <p>That the Earth and Universe are billions of years old is held by <i>both</i> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism">Uniformitarians</a>, i.e. those who maintain that observed present gradual geological processes operated uniformly in the past:<blockquote>"... uniformitarianism assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It is frequently summarized as `the present is the key to the past,' because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world. Uniformitarianism was formulated by Scottish naturalists in the late 18th century, starting with the work of the geologist James Hutton, which was refined by John Playfair and popularised by Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology in 1830. The term uniformitarianism was coined by William Whewell, who also coined the term catastrophism for the idea that the Earth was shaped by a series of sudden, short-lived, violent events. It is often confused with gradualism, which was just a part of Lyell's full meaning of the term ..." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism">Uniformitarianism</a>," Wikipedia, 28 January 2011).</p></blockquote> <p><i>and</i> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism">Catastrophists</a>, i.e. those maintain that "Earth has been affected in the past by sudden, short-lived, violent events" including "worldwide in scope":<blockquote>"Catastrophism is the idea that Earth has been affected in the past by sudden, short-lived, violent events, possibly worldwide in scope." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism">Catastrophism</a>," Wikipedia, 1 February 2011).</p></blockquote> <p><i>and</i> all those in between, e.g. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism#Current_application">Neo-catastrophists</a> who maintain that while the background rate of change has been gradual, past geological processes have been punctuated by sudden catastrophic "high magnitude, low frequency events":<blockquote>"Neocatastrophism is the explanation of sudden extinctions in the palaeontological record by high magnitude, low frequency events, as opposed to the more prevalent geomorphological thought which emphasises low magnitude, high frequency events." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism#Current_application">Catastrophism</a>," Wikipedia, 1 February 2011).</p></blockquote> <p> such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event">mass-extinctions</a>. </p> <p>That is, whether one believes the Earth is old or not has <i>nothing</i> to do with the <i>relative frequency of the rate of past geological change</i>, which is what Uniformitarians, Catastrophists and Neo-Catastrophists differ on.</p> <p>And Peter is not referring to Uniformitarianism, because it <i>did not exist until the 18th century</i>. He is referring to those who claimed that Jesus was coming because "since the fathers fell asleep" (i.e. the Old Testament patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, etc), "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation":<blockquote><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:3-4&version=KJV">2Pet 3:3-4</a> (KJV). Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.</p></blockquote> <p>But Old Earth Creationists, do not deny that Jesus coming. I personally believe that Jesus is coming <i>before 2037</i>, i.e. within the next 26 years:<blockquote><a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-i-believe-about-creation.html#JesusChristsreturn"><i>Jesus Christ's return (second coming)</i></a>. ... My interpretation is that we are in the period predicted by Jesus in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:24-28;&version=NIV;">Lk 21:24-28</a>, between Jerusalem being no longer under Gentile rule ("Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:24;&version=NIV;">v.24b</a>) <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/1967_and_now.stm">which happened in 1967</a>, and Jesus' return"with power and great glory" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:27;&version=NIV;">v.27</a>). That period will be characterised by "nations ... in anguish and perplexity" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:25;&version=NIV;">v.25</a>) and "Men ... faint[ing] from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:26;&version=NIV;">v.26</a>). "When these things begin to take place" Jesus encouragement to His followers is to "stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:28;&version=NIV;">v.28</a>). I assume (along with leading Christian theologians such as the late <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Future-Anthony-Hoekema/dp/0802808514">Anthony A. Hoekema</a> and <a href="http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=40663&event=CFN">William Hendriksen</a>) that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Jerusalem#Destruction_of_Jerusalem">destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70</a>, predicted by Jesus in the Olivet discourse (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2023:37-24:51,%20Mk%2013:1-37;%20Lk%2021:5-36;&version=NIV;"> Mt 23:37-24:51, Mk 13:1-37; Lk 21:5-36</a>), was a `type' of the second coming of Jesus. And therefore Jesus' prediction that "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:34;%20Mk%2013:30;%20Lk%2021:32;&version=NIV;">Mt 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk 21:32</a>) applies also to the generation that will live to see Jesus' return. And since Jerusalem no longer being under Gentile rule in 1967 is one of the "all these things" that that generation living at the time of Jesus' return will experience, I therefore assume that Jesus will return before the bulk of that generation that lived in 1967 passes away, i.e. before 2037. See also my posts "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/07/re-about-your-prediction-of-jesus.html">Re: about your prediction of Jesus' return by 2037</a>" and "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/11/re-what-would-happen-if-you-lived-to.html">Re: what would happen if I lived to 2037 and Jesus has not come?</a>"</p></blockquote> <p>Moreover, if they are non-Christians, geologists who are Uniformitarians, Catastrophists and Neo-Catastrophists, <i>all </i>would deny that Jesus is coming again. The real problem is not Uniformitarianism but <i>Naturalism</i>, "The idea or belief ... that `nature is all there is' ":<blockquote> "The idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world ... that nothing exists beyond the natural world. .... The strict naturalist believes that there are no supernatural agents or events, i.e., that there are only natural objects and events. ... that `nature is all there is' ..." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)">Naturalism</a>," Wikipedia, 10 February 2011).</p></blockquote> <p> "The scoffers ... Had they been alive today, they would have talked about the chain of cause and effect in a closed universe governed by natural laws, where miracles ... cannot happen":<blockquote>"[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Pet%203:4&version=KJV">2Pet 3:4</a>] The scoffers supported their scepticism that God would break decisively into history at the return of Christ, by emphasizing the immutability of the world. Had they been alive today, they would have talked about the chain of cause and effect in a closed universe governed by natural laws, where miracles, almost by definition, cannot happen. `The laws of nature', one can almost hear them saying, `disprove your <i>deus ex machina</i> doctrine of divine intervention to wind up the course of history.' Their mistake was to forget that the laws of nature are God's laws; their predictability springs from His faithfulness." (Green, E.M.B., 1968, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Second-Epistle-Peter-Jude-Introduction/dp/0802800785">The Second Epistle General of Peter</a>," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, pp.128-129).</p></blockquote> <p> "The argument of the false teachers is essentially a naturalistic one-a kind of uniformitarianism that rules out any divine intervention in history":<blockquote>"[2Pet 3:4] The false teachers ask, `Where is this `coming' he promised?' Mocking the faith of Christians, they support their own position by claiming, `Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.' Who are the persons Peter calls `our fathers'? ... `Fathers' are much more likely to be OT fathers as in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%206:31;Acts%203:13;Rom%209:5;Heb%201:1&version=NIV1984"><FON size="2" T>John 6:31, Acts 3:13, Romans 9:5, and Hebrews 1:1</a>. This is the normal NT usage ... The argument of the false teachers is essentially a naturalistic one-a kind of uniformitarianism that rules out any divine intervention in history." (Blum, E.A., "2 Peter," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., 1981, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Expositors-Commentary-Hebrews-through-Revelation/dp/0310365406/">The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 12 - Hebrews through Revelation</a>," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, pp.284-285).</p></blockquote> <p> </p> <p> <b>>II. OLD-EARTH denies the FLOOD! (Not necesary, but in practice.)) Which again Peter warns that in the last times people will by their on will not see that the earth was Flooded.</b></p> <p>And Old-Earth Creationists do not deny Noah's Flood. Most, but not all, OEC's like me, believe there really was a Flood, but it was local or regional, not global:<blockquote>"The Biblical Flood according to Old Earth Creationism. Old Earth Creationists reject flood geology, a position which leaves them open to accusations that they thereby reject the infallibility of scripture (which states that the Genesis flood covered the whole of the earth). In response, Old Earth Creationists cite verses in the Bible where the words `whole' and `all' clearly require a contextual interpretation." ." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism#The_Biblical_Flood_according_to_Old_Earth_Creationism">Old Earth creationism</a>," Wikipedia, 15 November 2010).</p></blockquote> <p> As the late <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Ramm">Bernard L. Ramm</a> observed, "The universality of the flood simply means the universality of the experience of the man who reported it": <blockquote>"First of all, in criticism of the universal flood interpretation, this theory ... <i>cannot demonstrate that totality of language necessitates a universal flood</i>. Fifteen minutes with a Bible concordance will reveal many instances in which universality of language is used but only a partial quantity is meant. <i>All</i> does not mean <i>every last one</i> in all of its usages. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%2022:17;&version=NIV;">Psa. 22:17</a> reads: `I may tell all my bones,' and hardly means that every single bone of the skeleton stood out prominently. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%204:39;&version=NIV;">John 4:39</a> cannot mean that Jesus <i>completely</i> recited the woman's biography. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%203:5;&version=NIV;">Matt. 3:5</a> cannot mean that every single individual from Judea and Jordan came to John the Baptist. There are cases where all means all, and every means every, but the context tells us where this is intended. ... The universality of the flood simply means the universality of the experience of the man who reported it. When God tells the Israelites He will put the fear of them upon the people <i>under the whole heaven</i>, it refers to all the peoples known to the Israelites (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dt%202:25;&version=NIV;">Deut. 2:25</a>). When <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%2041:57;&version=NIV;">Gen. 41:57</a> states that <i>all countries</i> came to Egypt to buy grain, it can only mean all peoples known to the Egyptians. Ahab certainly did not look for Elijah in every country of the earth even though the text says he looked for Elijah so thoroughly that he skipped <i>no nation or kingdom</i> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Ki%2018:10;&version=NIV;">1 Kings 18:10</a>). From the vantage point of the observer of the flood all mountains were covered, and all flesh died. We must concur that: `The language of the sacred historian by no means necessarily implies that the flood overspread the whole earth. Universal terms are frequently used in a partial and restricted sense in Scripture.' ("JFB Bible Commentary," 1870, Vol. I, p.98)." Ramm, B.L., 1954, "<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/CHRISTIAN-VIEW-SCIENCE-SCRIPTURE/dp/B000J0ZDGM/">The Christian View of Science and Scripture</a>," Paternoster: Exeter UK, Reprinted, 1960, p.234). </p></blockquote> <p>It is a fallacy to claim that by "earth" in the first century Peter in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Pet%203:5-6&version=KJV">2Pet 3:5-6</a> necessarily meant the <i>global</i> earth as we know it today:<blockquote><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Pet%203:5-6&version=KJV">2Pet 3:5-6</a> (KJV). For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth [Gk. <i>ge</i>] standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world [Gk. <i>kosmos</i>] that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:</p></blockquote> <p>The word Peter used for "earth" in the Greek is <i>ge </i>which primarily means "soil," according to my <i>Strong's Concordance</i>, and only by extension, can mean "a •region, or the solid part or the whole of the ... globe ...country, earth... ground, land, world":<blockquote><a href="http://studybible.info/strongs/G1093">1093</a>. <i>ge</i>, ghay; contr. from a prim. word; soil; by extens. a •region, or the solid part or the whole of the terrene globe • (includ. the occupants in each application):--country, earth •(-ly), ground, land, world.</p></blockquote> <p>Even the word <i>kosmos</i> which Peter also used, basically means "orderly arrangement" (e.g. system) and thus only "by implication the world" in both "a wide or narrow sense" and "including its inhabitants" and can be "literal or figurative" (my expansion of abbreviations):<blockquote><a href="http://studybible.info/strongs/G2889">2889</a>. <i>kosmos</i>, kos'-mos; prob. from the base of G2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by impl. the world (in a wide or narrow sense, includ. its inhab., lit. or fig. [mor.]):--adorning, world.</p></blockquote> <p>"This does not necessarily mean that the flood was universal. It may simply have extended to all the inhabited areas of earth": <blockquote> "[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Pet%203:6&version=NIV">2Pet 3:6</a>] <i>By these waters also the world ... was deluged and destroyed</i> Peter points out the fallacy of the scoffers' argument. There has been a divine intervention since the time of creation, namely, the flood. The term "world" may refer to the earth or, more probably, to the world of people (cf. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%203:16&version=NIV">Jn 3:16</a>. All the people except Noah and his family were overcome by the flood and perished. This does not necessarily mean that the flood was universal. It may simply have extended to all the inhabited areas of earth (see note on <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ge%206:17&version=NIV">Ge 6:17</a>)." (Barker, K., et al., eds., 1985, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/NIV-Study-Bible-Kenneth-Barker/dp/0310925681">The NIV Study Bible</a>," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.1903).</p></blockquote> <p> "The purpose of the flood was to blot out the wicked civilization of Mesopotamia ... Noah certainly was not a preacher of righteousness to the peoples of Africa, of India, of China or of America...":<blockquote>"The purpose of the flood was to blot out the wicked civilization of Mesopotamia ... the entire record must be interpreted phenomenally. If the flood is local though spoken of in universal terms, so the destruction of man is local though spoken of in universal terms. The record neither affirms nor denies that man existed beyond the Mesopotamian valley. Noah certainly was not a preacher of righteousness to the peoples of Africa, of India, of China or of America-places where there is evidence for the existence of man many thousands of years before the flood (10,000 to 15,000 years in America). The emphasis in Genesis is upon that group of cultures from which Abraham eventually came." (Ramm, B.L., 1954, "<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/CHRISTIAN-VIEW-SCIENCE-SCRIPTURE/dp/B000J0ZDGM/">The Christian View of Science and Scripture</a>," Paternoster: Exeter UK, Reprinted, 1960, p.163).</p></blockquote> <p>There is conclusive Biblical evidence that the Flood was not global, in that the Nephilim existed both before the Flood: <blockquote><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%206:4&version=NIV">Gn 6:4</a>. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.</p></blockquote> <p>and after the Flood:<blockquote><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Num%2013:33&version=NIV">Num 13:33</a>. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."</p></blockquote> <p>It is also fallacious to think that Peter is teaching <i>geology </i>when he really is teaching <i>theology</i>. Namely that the scoffers' claim that God is not going to supernaturally intervene in human history by Jesus returning in Judgment, because God has not supernaturally intervened in human history since Creation, is <i>false</i>, because God <i>already once did </i>supernaturally intervene in human history in Judgment in the Flood (which is the case whether the Flood was local or global):</p> <p>"Their premise (that this is a stable, unchanging world) is false; hence their conclusion (that it will remain so, and there will be no parousia) is false also. They wilfully neglected the flood, when God <i>did</i> intervene in judgment":<blockquote>"[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Pet%203:5&version=KJV">2Pet 3:5</a>] Peter takes their last argument first. Their premise (that this is a stable, unchanging world) is false; hence their conclusion (that it will remain so, and there will be no parousia) is false also. They wilfully neglected the flood, when God <i>did</i> intervene in judgment. The lesson taught by the flood was that this is a moral universe, that sin will not for ever go unpunished; and Jesus Himself used the flood to point this moral (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:37-39&version=KJV">Mt. 24:37-39</a>). But these men chose to neglect it. They were determined to lose sight of the fact that there were heavens in existence long ago, and an earth which was created by the divine fiat out of water, and sustained by water. Such seems to be the meaning; but it is a difficult verse. Peter refers, of course, to the watery chaos (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%201:2-6&version=KJV">Gn. 1:2-6</a>) out of which the world was formed at God's repeated word, `Let there be .' It was from water that the earth emerged; it was by water (rain, etc.) that life on earth was sustained; and yet this same water engulfed it, when God's word of judgment went forth at the flood. ... The emphasis in this verse on God's fiat in creation is important to Peter in arguing against the false teachers who apparently held the self-sufficiency and immutability of the natural order. On the contrary, he insists, the course of history is governed by the God who is both Creator and Judge of His world." (Green, 1968, pp.129-130. Emphasis original).</p></blockquote> <p> If you chose to interpret Peter in the 1st century, as intending to teach 18th-21st century geology, then to be consistent you would have to believe "that Peter is seeking to affirm that water was the basic material of creation", because he states that "the earth was formed out of water":<blockquote> "[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Pet%203:5-6&version=NIV1984">2Pet 3:5-6</a>] But they `deliberately [<i>thelontas</i>, `willingly'] forget' the great Flood, when God intervened in history by destroying the antediluvian world. What they forget is not only the Flood but also God's prior activity by his word-the existence of the heavens and the watery formation of the earth (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%201:2-10&version=NIV1984">Gen 1:2-10</a>). It seems unlikely that Peter is seeking to affirm that water was the basic material of creation .... He does not use the verb <i>ktizo</i> ('create') but says that `long ago by God's word the heavens existed [<i>esan</i>] and the earth was formed [<i>synestosa</i>] out of water and with water.' In Genesis the sky (firmament) separates the waters from the waters by the word of God and the land appears out of the water by the same word. ... Probably both water and the word are to be understood as the agents for destroying the former world (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Pet%203:6&version=NIV1984">v.6</a>), as the word and fire will be the destructive agents in the future (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Pet%203:7&version=NIV1984">v.7</a>). `The world of that time' translates the Greek <i>ho tote kosmos</i>. The globe was not destroyed, only its inhabitants and its ordered form." (Blum, 1981, p.285).</p></blockquote> <p> But just as in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Pet%202:4&version=HCSB">2Pet 2:4</a> (HCSB) where Peter uses the non-Biblical, pagan mythological, term "tartarus":<blockquote>"In classic mythology, below Uranus, Gaia, and Pontus is Tartarus, or Tartaros (Greek Τάρταρος, deep place). It is a deep, gloomy place, a pit, or an abyss used as a dungeon of torment and suffering that resides beneath the underworld. In the Gorgias, Plato (c. 400 BC) wrote that souls were judged after death and those who received punishment were sent to Tartarus." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartarus#New_Testament">Tartarus</a>," Wikipedia, 24 February 2011).</p></blockquote> <p> for the place where fallen angels were being held awaiting judgment:<blockquote>"For if God didn't spare the angels who sinned, but threw them down into Tartarus [Gk. <i>tartaroo</i>] and delivered them to be kept in chains of darkness until judgment; </p></blockquote> <p> Peter is evidently using terminology that is common to his former pagan readers:<blockquote>"[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Pet%202:4&version=KJV">2Pet 2:4</a>] <i>Cast them down to hell</i> is a single word in the Greek, occurring only here in the Bible, and meaning, 'consign to Tartarus'. Tartarus, in Greek mythology was the place of punishment for the departed spirits; of the very wicked, particularly rebellious gods like Tantalus. Just as Paul could quote an apt verse of the pagan poet Aratus (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:28&version=KJV">Acts xvii. 28</a>), so could Peter make use of this Homeric: imagery. Curiously enough, Josephus does the same, and talks of heathen gods chained in Tartarus. [<i>c. Apion.</i> ii. 34] The evil angels are in the place of torment now, although they must await the final Judgment. Peter's eschatology is characteristic of the whole New Testament, which sees God's future judgment as finalizing the choices men are making all their lives. There is a close parallel in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2020:10&version=KJV">Revelation xx. 10</a>, where the devil, though bound now, is destined for final judgment hereafter." (Green, 1968, pp.98-99. Emphasis original). </p></blockquote> <p><b>>III. There appears to be some good arguments for YEC example: Carbon-14 in diamonds.</b></p> <p>As has been pointed out, <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/14998">carbon-14 is [also] formed when uranium decays</a>. YEC physicists would know that, so they are being <i>dishonest </i>if they are not disclosing it to their readers.</p> <p>And since YECs must deny that carbon-14 dating works, they cannot <i>consistently</i> (let alone <i>honestly</i>) claim that <i>a tiny minority</i> of carbon-14 dating supports YEC, while rejecting the vast majority of carbon-14 dating that does not support YEC</p> <p>Also this citing of the odd apparent anomaly in radiometric dating misses the point that if YEC were true, and the Universe and Earth were both created in the same literal 24-hour Genesis 1 day, only<i> tens of thousands of years ago</i>, then <i>all</i> indicators for the age of the Universe and Earth would <i>converge on that one point</i>. And since it would be: 1) the <i>same literal 24-hour day</i>; and 2) <i>so recent, only tens of thousands of years ago, the</i> `signal in the noise' would be <i>deafening</i>. </p> <p>But that YEC is reduced to pointing to <i>isolated apparent anomalies </i>, like "carbon-14 in diamonds" is effectively an admission by YECs that the Earth and Universe were <i>not</i> created a mere tens of thousands of years ago and therefore that YEC is <i>false</i>. </p> <p><b>>IV. It's difficult to belivie that all these fossils should have been produced by ordinary means, like those we see today. (Polystrata fossils)</b></p> <p>This is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man">Straw Man </a>argument. Most (if not all) geologists these days do not claim that "<i>all</i> ... fossils ... have been produced by ordinary means, like those we see today." As pointed out above, many, if not most, geologists are either catastrophists or neo-catastrophists, and <i>all </i>geologists accept the fossils laid down in mass extinctions were <i>not</i> "produced by ordinary means, like those we see today."</p> <p>And as for Polystrate Fossils, i.e. "fossils ... [that] extend through more than one geological stratum" are easily explained as due to "Brief periods of rapid sedimentation":<blockquote>"<i>Polystrate fossils</i> of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) extend through more than one geological stratum. Entire `fossil forests' have been discovered. They are found worldwide and are common in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia, especially in areas where coal seams are present. ... Geological explanation ... Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil">Polystrate fossil</a>," Wikipedia, 8 December 2010).</p></blockquote> <p><b>>V. Does the geological column really exist?</b></p> <p>Yes and no. The Geological Column does exist as a "theoretical classification system for the layers of rocks and fossils that make up the Earth's crust":<blockquote>"The geological column is the theoretical classification system for the layers of rocks and fossils that make up the Earth's crust (also known as the standard geologic column)." ("<a href="http://creationwiki.org/Geological_column">Geological column</a>," CreationWiki, 18 July 2010).</p></blockquote> <p>It is not claimed, and never has been, that the <i>entire </i>Geological Column exists in any one place on Earth. </p> <p><b>>IF: Yes: VI. How will YEC explain the geological column?</b></p> <p>In my experience YECs inconsistently oscillate between: 1. denying the Geological Column exists; and 2. affirming it exists but then explaining it as laid down by Noah's Flood, i.e. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology">Flood Geology</a>. </p> <p><b>>VII. Wasn't the geological column "fixed" already in the ninthenth century?</b></p> <p>Not completely. But the major geological systems, like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian">Cambrian</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician">Ordovician</a>,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silurian"> Silurian</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devonian">Devonian</a>, etc, had all been identified in Britain and later correlated worldwide.</p> <p><b>>VIII. Circular reasoning in the gelogical column: The rocks dates the fossils, and the fossils dates the rocks.</b></p> <p>No. Fossils only date the rocks in <i>relative order</i>, e.g. by appearance in lowest (oldest) to highest (youngest) strata, e.g. invertebrates, vertebrates, reptiles, birds, mammals, humans. It was only when uranium-lead dating was discovered and applied to the Geological Column could the fossils be given an <i>absolute date</i>:<blockquote>"Hence, fossils range in age from the youngest at the start of the Holocene Epoch to the oldest from the Archean Eon several billion years old. The observations that certain fossils were associated with certain rock strata led early geologists to recognize a geological timescale in the 19th century. The development of radiometric dating techniques in the early 20th century allowed geologists to determine the numerical or `absolute' age of the various strata and thereby the included fossils" ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil">Fossil</a>," Wikipedia, 3 February 2011).</p></blockquote></p></p> <p><b>> I would like you to expand some about these verses of Peter. </b></p> <p>See above.</p> <p><b>>And also, What is your understanding of 1 MOS 1:1 - 2:3 ?</b></p> <p>If that is Mormonism's founder <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible">Joseph Smith's "Inspired Version of the Bible"</a> plagiarisation of <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%201:1-2:3&version=KJV">Genesis 1:1-2:3</a> (KJV), i.e. the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Moses">Book of Moses</a>, then even the<a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/?lang=eng"> LDS Church </a>is too embarrassed to <a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/jst?lang=eng">host it on its website</a>, and does not include it among its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Works">standard works</a>:<blockquote>"The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST), also called the Inspired Version of the Bible (I.V.), was a revision of the Bible by Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. Smith considered this work to be "a branch of his calling" as a prophet. Smith was murdered before he ever deemed it complete, though most of his work on it was performed about a decade previous. The work is the King James Version of the Bible (KJV) with some significant additions and revisions. It is considered a sacred text and is part of the canon of the Community of Christ, formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS), and other Latter Day Saint churches. Selections from the Joseph Smith Translation are also included in the footnotes and the appendix in the LDS-published King James Version of the Bible, but the LDS Church has only officially canonized certain excerpts that appear in its Pearl of Great Price." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible">Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible</a>," Wikipedia, 4 February 2011).</p></blockquote> <p>On my <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah! </a>blog I used to post on Mormonism, e.g. see my "<a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/2008/07/main-reasons-why-mormonism-is-false.html">Main reasons why Mormonism is false</a>." But I don't have the time to post on both Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnessism, so I no longer post on the former.</p> <p><b>>Would you be so kind to give me some thoughts about these matters?</b> </p> <p>See above.</p> <p><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology).<br>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">TheShroudofTurin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a></p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-30654683750544020642011-02-03T19:38:00.016+08:002011-03-08T11:05:30.511+08:00My Theory of Progressive Mediate Creation: Index<p>Having devoted fourteen years (1994-2008) to the Creation/Evolution debate, <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj64l014kEoDa0nSAFSRw4wKm_1H0KI90y6n9bbMm0IUK0OHzjkoy29gVntSJBN2Eho2WG3A_FuBUh6CgZExSee7WKLocsBFZQP7UaR9mbr7E_SRBmCAUKcIReQwD8lEhyphenhyphenfsHXK/s1600/Ramm02.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 220px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj64l014kEoDa0nSAFSRw4wKm_1H0KI90y6n9bbMm0IUK0OHzjkoy29gVntSJBN2Eho2WG3A_FuBUh6CgZExSee7WKLocsBFZQP7UaR9mbr7E_SRBmCAUKcIReQwD8lEhyphenhyphenfsHXK/s320/Ramm02.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5569433766259945442" /></a>including my own <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/">CreationEvolutionDesign</a> Yahoo discussion group (2001-2005), and </p><p>[<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/CHRISTIAN-VIEW-SCIENCE-SCRIPTURE/dp/B000J0ZDGM/">Right:</a> "<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/CHRISTIAN-VIEW-SCIENCE-SCRIPTURE/dp/B000J0ZDGM/">The Christian View of Science and Scripture</a>" (1954), by the late <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Ramm">Bernard L. Ramm</a> (1916-1992). Next to the Bible, this book has been the most influential in founding my views on Creation/ Evolution/Design. Ramm was an early advocate of a form of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_creationism">Progressive Creation</a>.]</p> <p>completing a Biology degree (2000-2004), I had quite frankly become bored with Creation/Evolution/Design issues, and more interested in posting on my other two blogs <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">The Shroud of Turin</a> and <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is </i>Jehovah!</a></p><p>One of the reasons for my loss of interest is that I am now even more persuaded that the evidence for Christianity being objectively true (i.e. true whether it is believed or not) is now so <i>overwhelming</i> (e.g. <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/07/daniels-70-weeks-proof-that-naturalism.html">Daniels' 70 weeks</a> and the <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2009/12/shroud-of-turin-is-burial-sheet-of.html">Shroud of Turin</a>), that some form of Creation <i>must</i> be true, and Progressive Creation best fits the Biblical and scientific evidence. And since Christianity is true, Evolution in "the standard scientific theory" sense "that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but <i>God had no part in this process</i>.'" (Shermer, M.B., "<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-gradual-illumination">The Gradual Illumination of the Mind</a>," <i>Scientific American</i>, February, 2002. My emphasis) <i>must </i>be false. </p> <p>I have decided toput my planned "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2010/10/messianic-prophecy-proof-that.html">Messianic Prophecy</a>" series on the backburner, and start a series on on <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-i-believe-about-creation.html#ProgressiveMediateCreation">my theory of Progressive Mediate Creation (PMC).</a> Factors that have played a part in this include two recent comments [<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/04/re-id-vs-darwinism-on-random-mutation.html?showComment=1294609940774#c6642604138529765284">here</a> and <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2010/01/re-baxter-ic-darwin-predestination-etc.html?showComment=1296644697023#c8351216210469086516">here</a>], especially the second one, to which I could not think of what to reply. I also feel that this my <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/faqcmedc.html">General Theory of Progressive Mediate Creation</a> is, in the final analysis, all that I have to offer in the Creation/Evolution/Design debate.</p><p>I have fallen behind in my reading of Creation/Evolution/Design issues, so what I post may have been said better by someone else more recently, or may even be factually wrong. If that is the case, I ask that a reader will let me know in a comment under that post. And due to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_(2007%E2%80%93present)">Global Financial Crisis</a> I have had to work as a high school relief (substitute, supply) teacher, mainly teaching Maths and Science, so I have less time to research issues in depth. </p></p><p>What I write will probably be mostly `off the top of my head' and not referenced or linked. This may be an advantage since I tend to get bogged down in detail! Each of these major headings will have minor headings inserted under them. And each heading, major and minor, will be linked to a separate post.</p><p>Comments are welcome, but if they are nasty, substandard or off-topic, they won't appear, as per my stated policy. </p> <p> <hr> </p> <p><b><center>My Theory of Progressive Mediate Creation: Index<br>© Stephen E. Jones</center></b></p> <p>1. INTRODUCTION<br>1.1. <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2011/03/my-theory-of-progressive-mediate.html">What <i>is</i> Progressive Mediate Creation?</a><br>1.2. What is Evolution?<br>1.3. Since Christianity <i>is</i> True, Naturalism is False!</p> <p>2. ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE<br>2.1. The Big Bang<br>2.2. Fine-tuning of the Universe<br>2.3. Before the Big Bang?</p> <p>3. ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM<br>3.1. The Sun<br>3.2. The Planets<br>3.3. Fine-tuning of the Solar System<br>3.4. Uniqueness of the Solar System</p> <p>4. ORIGIN OF THE EARTH<br>4.1. The Earth-Moon System<br>4.2. Fine-tuning of the Earth<br>4.3. Uniqueness of the Earth<br>4.4. Survival of the Earth</p><p>5. ORIGIN OF LIFE<br>5.1. Failure of All Naturalistic Origin of Life Theories<br>5.2. A Minimal Cell<br>5.3. Origin of all the Materials<br>5.4. All the Materials together at the Same Time and Place<br>5.5. Self-assembly of Materials into a Living Organism<br>5.6. Self-replication<br>5.7. Farsightedness of Life's Design</p> <p>6. ORIGIN OF LIFE'S MAJOR GROUPS<br>6.1. Universal Common Ancestry<br>6.2. Single-Celled Organisms<br>6.3. Multi-Celled Organisms<br>6.4. Plants<br>6.5. Fungi<br>6.6. Animals</p> <p>7. ORIGIN OF MAN<br>7.1. Bipedality<br>7.2. Stereoscopic colour vision<br>7.3. Arms, Hands and Tools<br>7.4. Intelligence<br>7.5. Language<br>7.6. Society<br>7.7. The Human Package</p> <p>8. CONCLUSION</p><hr><p><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology). <br>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">The Shroud of Turin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a></p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-87974095298637932842010-10-13T11:44:00.008+08:002011-01-03T09:23:48.637+08:00Messianic prophecy: Proof that Christianity is true!: Introduction & index<p>This is the first of a planned series on Messianic prophecy, subtitled: "Proof that Christianity is true and Naturalism is false!"</p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51BU%2BO3TX0L.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px;" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51BU%2BO3TX0L.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a></p><p>[<a href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51BU%2BO3TX0L.jpg">Right</a>: Kaiser, W.C., Jr., 1995, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Messiah-Old-Testament-Walter-Kaiser/dp/031020030X">The Messiah in the Old Testament</a>," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI.]</p><p>But because each subject line would be too long, I have abbreviated it to "Proof that Christianity is true!" It is part of my particular interest in presenting <i>objective</i> evidence (i.e. true whether it is believed or not) that Christianity is true, and therefore Naturalism is false. See my "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/07/daniels-70-weeks-proof-that-naturalism.html">Daniel's 70 `weeks': Proof that Naturalism is false and Christianity is true!</a>" And although I haven't yet posted a message with the subject: "The Shroud of Turin: Proof that Christianity is true and Naturalism is false!" on my <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">The Shroud of Turin blog</a>, I intend to do so.</p> <p>By "Christianity" I mean what Christian apologist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis">C.S. Lewis</a> called, "'mere' Christianity ... the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times":<blockquote>"Ever since I became a Christian I have thought that the best, perhaps the only, service I could do for my unbelieving neighbours was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times. ... what Baxter calls 'mere' Christianity." (Lewis, C.S., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926">Mere Christianity</a>," Fount: London, 1977, Reprinted, 1997, p.vi).</p></blockquote> <p> and by Naturalism I mean, "the metaphysical position that `nature is all there is ...'":<blockquote>"Metaphysical naturalism ... Naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)">Naturalism (philosophy)</a>," <i>Wikipedia</i>, 8 October 2010).</p></blockquote> <p> By "messianic prophecy" I mean predictions or allusions in the Old Testament that converge uniquely on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus">Jesus of Nazareth</a> being the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah">Messiah</a> (see below).</p> <p> By "proof" I mean beyond <i>reasonable</i> doubt. </p> <p> This Introduction page has an index to Bible verses containing messianic prophecies. The order is canonical but I will post each verse(s) in assumed chronological order. Each verse(s) will be linked to a page devoted to that specific messianic prophecy. As I post each new page, I will link it back to this first page. However, I may add and/or delete verses from this list. </p> <hr> <p><b><CENTER>Messianic Prophecy: Proof that Christianity is True!: Index</CENTER></b></p> <p>Gn 3:15; 9:26-27; 12:1-3; 17:1-6; 22:10; 38:11; 49:10-12; Num 24:15-19; Dt 18:15-18; 1Sam 2:1-10; 2:35-36; 2Sam 7:12-16; Job 9:33; 16:19-21; 23-21; 33:23-28; Ps 2:1-6; 8; 16:10; 22:1,7-8, 16-18; 35:11; 40; 45; 68::18; 69:4,9,21; 72; 78:1-2; 89; 102:25-27; 109:7-8, 25; 110:1-4; 118:22; 132; Isa 4:2-6; 7:14-16; 8:17-18; 9:1-7; 11:1-16; 16:5; 24:21-25; 28:16; 30:19-26; 31:5; 32:1-2; 33:5-6, 17; 35:11; 40:3; 41:9; 42:1-17; 49:1-13; 50:4-11; 52:13- 53:12; 55:3-5; 60:3; 61:1-11; 63:1-6; Jer 23:5-6; 30:9,21; 31:21-22; 33:14-26; Eze 17:22-24; 21:25-27; 34:23-31; 37:15-28; 44-48; Dn 2:44-45; 7:13-14; 9:24-2; Hos 1:10-2:17; Joel 2:23; 3:4-5; 11:1; Am 8:9; 9:11-15; Jnh 1:17; Mic 2:12-13; 5:1-14; Hab 3:12-15; Hag 2:6-9, 21-23; Zec 3:8-10; 6:9-15; 9:9-11; 10:4; 11:4-14; 12:10; 13:7; Mal 3:1; 4:2-5.]</p> <p>Jesus claimed that the Old Testament contained prophecies which were fulfilled in Him:<blockquote>"<i>Appeal to Messianic Prophecy</i> .... JESUS `Do not think that I came to abolish <b>the Law or the Prophets</b>; I did not come to abolish, but <b>to fulfill</b>.' - <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%205:17&version=NASB">Matthew 5:17</a>. `And beginning with <b>Moses and with all the prophets</b>, He explained to them <b>the things concerning Himself in the Scriptures</b>.' - <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2024:27&version=NASB">Luke 24:27</a>. `Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that <b>all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled</b>."' - <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2024:44&version=NASB">Luke 24:44</a>. `You search <b>the Scriptures</b>, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and <b>it is these that bear witness of Me</b> ...' -<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%205:39-40,46-47&version=NASB"> John 5:39-40</a> ..." (McDowell, J., 1979, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict-Historical/dp/B000H2MQLC/">Evidence That Demands a Verdict</a>," [1972], Here's Life Publishers: San Bernardino CA, Revised edition, Twenty-ninth printing, 1988, Vol. I, pp.142-143. Emphasis original).</p></blockquote> <p> The New Testament writers also claimed that the Old Testament contained prophecies which were fulfilled in Jesus:<blockquote>"NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS APPEAL TO PROPHECIES FULFILLED IN JESUS `But <b>the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets</b>, that His Christ should suffer, <b>He has thus fulfilled</b>.' - <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%203:18&version=NASB">Acts 3:18</a>. `<b>Of Him all the prophets bear witness</b> that through His name every one who believes in Him has received forgiveness of sins.' - <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:43&version=NASB">Acts 10:43</a>. `And <b>when they had carried out all that was written concerning Him</b>, they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb.' - <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2013:29&version=NASB">Acts 13:29</a>. `And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths <b>reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead</b>, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ."' - <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:2-3&version=NASB">Acts 17:2,3</a>. `For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, <b>that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures</b>.' - <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Cor%2015:3-4&version=NASB">I Corinthians 15:3,4</a>. `<b>Which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures</b>[, concerning His Son].' - <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%201:1-3&version=NASB">Romans 1:2</a>. ...." (McDowell, 1979, p.143. Emphasis original).</p></blockquote> <p> There are <i>hundreds </i>of these messianic prophecies:<blockquote>"<i>Prophecy, as Proof of the Bible.</i> One of the strongest evidences that the Bible is inspired by God ... is its predictive prophecy. Unlike any other book, the Bible offers a multitude of specific predictions-some hundreds of years in advance-that have been literally fulfilled or else point to a definite future time when they will come true. In his comprehensive catalogue of prophecies, <i>Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecies</i>, J. Barton Payne lists 1817 predictions in the Bible, 1239 in the Old Testament and 578 in the New (674-75). The argument from prophecy is the argument <i>from</i> omniscience. Limited human beings know the future only if it is told to them by an omniscient Being ... <i>Messianic Predictions.</i> There are two broad categories of biblical prophecy: messianic and nonmessianic. Payne (ibid., 665-70) lists <b>191 prophecies concerning the anticipated Jewish Messiah</b> and Savior. <b>Each was</b> literally <b>fulfilled in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth</b> " (Geisler, N.L., 1999, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Christian-Apologetics-Reference-Library/dp/0801021510">Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics</a>," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, pp.609-610. Emphasis original).</p></blockquote> <p> Many were very specific and were beyond mere human ability to fake their fulfillment. And the probability that even sixteen of these messianic prophecies were fulfilled in one man, Jesus, is <i>astronomical</i>:<blockquote> "<i><b>Prophecy and the Messiah</b>.</i> It is important to note unique things about biblical prophecies. Unlike many psychic predictions, <b>many of these were very specific, giving, for example, the very name of the tribe, city, and time of Christ's coming</b>. Unlike forecasts found in tabloids at the supermarket checkout counter, none of these predictions failed. <b>Since these prophecies <i>were written hundreds of years</i> before Christ was born, the prophets could have been reading the trends of the times</b> or making intelligent guesses. <b>Many predictions were beyond human ability</b> to fake a fulfillment. If he were a mere human being, <b>Christ would have had no control over when</b> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:24-27&version=NASB">Dan. 9:24-27</a>), <b>where</b> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mic%205:2&version=NASB">Micah 5:2</a>), or <b>how he would be born</b> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa%207:14&version=NASB">Isa. 7:14</a>), <b>how he would die</b> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%2022;%20Isa%2053&version=NASB">Psalm 22; Isaiah 53</a>), <b>do miracles</b> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa%2035:5-6&version=NASB">Isa. 35:5-6</a>), or <b>rise from the dead</b> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%202,%2016&version=NASB">Psalms 2, 16</a>). <b>It is unlikely that all these events would have converged in the life of one man</b>. Mathematicians (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Science-Speaks-Evaluation-Christian-Evidences/dp/B000O2JI2K/">Stoner</a>, 108) have calculated the <b>probability of sixteen predictions being fulfilled in one man (e.g., Jesus) at 1 in 10<sup>45</sup></b>. That forty-eight predictions might meet in one person, the probability is 1 in 10<sup>157</sup>. It is almost impossible to conceive of a number that large. ... <b>All the evidence points to Jesus as the divinely appointed fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies</b>. He was God's man, confirmed by God's signs (Acts 2:22)." (Geisler, 1999, pp.612-613. Emphasis original).</p></blockquote> <p> Also, many of these messianic prophecies depended on the reactions of others to Jesus, over which, if He was merely a man, He would have no control:<blockquote>"Contrary to the `<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passover_Plot">Passover Plot</a>,' messianic prophecy is supernatural .... And <b>in the case of Christ there are many reasons that he could not have manipulated events to make it look like he fulfilled all the predictions</b> about the Old Testament Messiah. First of all, this was contrary to his honest character as noted above. It assumes he was one of the greatest deceivers of all time. It presupposes that he was not even a good person, to say nothing of the perfect man the Gospels affirm him to be. There are several lines of evidence that combine to demonstrate that this is a completely implausible thesis. Second, <b>there is no way Jesus could have controlled many events necessary for the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah</b>. For example, <b>he had no control over</b> where he would be born (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Sam%207:8,12&version=NASB">Mic. 5:2</a>), how he would be born of a virgin (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Sam%207:8,12&version=NASB">Isa. 7:14</a>), when he would die (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Sam%207:8,12&version=NASB">Dan. 9:25</a>), what tribe (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Sam%207:8,12&version=NASB">Gen. 49:10</a>) and lineage he would be from (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Sam%207:4-12&version=NASB">2 Sam. 7:12</a>), and numerous other things. Third, <b>there is no way short of being supernatural that Jesus could have manipulated the events and people in his life to respond in exactly the way necessary for it to appear that he was fulfilling all these prophecies</b>, including John's heralding him (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%203&version=NASB">Matt. 3</a>), his accuser's reactions (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2027:1-12&version=NASB">Matt. 27:12</a>), how the soldiers cast lots for his garments (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%2019:23-24&version=NASB">John 19:23, 24</a>), and how they would pierce his side with a spear (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%2019:34&version=NASB">John 19:34</a>). Indeed even Schonfield admits that the plot failed when the Romans actually pierced Christ. The fact is that <b>anyone with all this manipulative power would have to be divine</b>-the very thing the Passover hypothesis is attempting to avoid. In short, it takes a bigger miracle to believe the <i>Passover Plot</i> than to accept these prophecies as supernatural." (Geisler, 1999, pp.585-586. Emphasis original).</p></blockquote> <p> I will expand on these points in future posts in this series. To be continued in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%203:15&version=NIV">Gn 3:15</a>. "The seed of the woman who will crush the head of the serpent."</p> <p><b>References</b><br>Ankerberg, J., Weldon, J. & Kaiser, W.C., Jr., 1989, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Messiah-Incredible-Prophecies/dp/0890817723/">The Case for Jesus the Messiah</a>: Incredible Prophecies that Prove God Exists," Harvest House: Eugene OR.</p> <p>Delitzsch, F., 1891, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Messianic-Prophecies-Historic-Succession-Delitzsch/dp/1579100775">Messianic Prophecies in Historic Succession</a>," [1887], Curtiss, S.T., transl., Wipf & Stock: Eugene OR, Reprinted, 1998.</p> <p>Geisler, N.L., 1999, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Christian-Apologetics-Reference-Library/dp/0801021510">Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics</a>," Baker: Grand Rapids MI.</p> <p>Kaiser, W.C., Jr., 1995, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Messiah-Old-Testament-Walter-Kaiser/dp/031020030X">The Messiah in the Old Testament</a>," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI.</p> <p>Lockyer, H., 1973, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Messianic-Prophecies-Bible-Herbert-Lockyer/dp/0310280915/">All The Messianic Prophecies of the Bible</a>," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1995. </p> <p>McDowell, J., 1979, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict-Historical/dp/B000H2MQLC/">Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Volume 1: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith</a>," [1972], Here's Life Publishers: San Bernardino CA, Revised edition, Twenty-ninth printing, 1988. </p> <p>Smith, J.E., 1993, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Teaches-About-Promised-Messiah/dp/0840742398">What the Bible Teaches About the Promised Messiah</a>: An In-depth Study of 73 Key Old Testament Prophesies About the Messiah," Thomas Nelson Inc: Nashville TN.</p> <p>Stoner, P., 1963, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Science-Speaks-Evaluation-Christian-Evidences/dp/B000O2JI2K/">Science Speaks: An Evaluation of Certain Christian Evidences</a>," Moody Press: Chicago IL.</p> <p><b>Links</b><br>"<a href="http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/m_prophecies.shtml">Messianic Prophecies</a>," Clarifying Christianity, 13 October 2010.</p> <p>"<a href="http://bible.org/article/messianic-prophecies">Messianic Prophecies</a>," J. Hampton Keathley, III, Bible.org, 13 October 2010. </p> <p>"<a href="http://www.messianic-prophecy.net/">Messianic Prophecy - Compelling Predictions</a>," Messianic-Prophecy.net, 6 January 2010. </p> <p>"<a href="http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/messianic.htm">Messianic prophecy - Old Testament prophecies fulfilled by Jesus Christ</a>," AboutBibleProphecy.com, 13 October 2010 </p> <p>"<a href="http://jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy">Prophecies of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible</a>," Jews for Jesus, 13 October 2010.</p> <p> <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology).<br>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">The Shroud of Turin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a></p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-91013722112315871922010-07-03T19:41:00.013+08:002010-07-07T10:45:28.879+08:00Re: `The two bacteria are ... related ... undeniable proof that the flagellum ... evolved'<p>Henry R.</p><p>Thanks for your comment to my post "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/10/dawkins-on-bacterial-flagellums-tiny.html">Dawkins on the bacterial flagellum's `tiny molecular motor' #1</a>." I decided to answer your </p> <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.pnas.org/content/100/6/3027/F1.large.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px;" src="http://www.pnas.org/content/100/6/3027/F1.large.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><p>[<a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/100/6/3027/F1.large.jpg">Above</a> (click to enlarge): "Diagrams of known positions of major flagellar components (A) and established and <i>hypothetical</i> TTSS functional homologs (B)" (my emphasis): <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/100/6/3027/F1.expansion.html">PNAS</a>]</p> <p>comment in a new separate post. Your words are <b>bold</b> to distinguish them from mine.</p><p>----- Original Message ----- <br>From: Henry R. <br>To: Stephen E. Jones<br>Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 2:39 PM <br>Subject: [CreationEvolutionDesign] New comment on Dawkins on the bacterial flagellum's "tiny molecul....</p><p><b>>There is a different type of bacteria, (type three secretory) the one thought to be responsible for transmitting the bubonic plague and other viruses, Which has many but not all of the compositions found in the flagellum's rotary system but instead this bacteria used the filament to inject, kind of like a microscopic syringe, and therefore it does not rotate it's filament but it still serves a useful purpose. </b></p> <p>Agreed that not only does the bacterial Type III Secretory System "<i>not rotate</i>" but it also has "<i>not all</i> of the compositions found in the flagellum's rotary system" (see above diagram).</p> <p><b>>The two bacteria are undeniably related. </b></p> <p>Agreed, and so would <a href="http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html">Michael Behe</a>, who like me - see my "<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cmnctsry.html">Why I (a Creationist) Accept Common Ancestry (Not <i>Evolution</i>)</a>" - accepts Universal Common Ancestry, "that all organisms share a common ancestor":<blockquote>"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., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0684834936">Darwin's Black Box</a>: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 10th Anniversary Edition, 2006," 2006, p.5)</p></blockquote> <p>agree that "The two bacteria are undeniably <i>related</i>" (my emphasis). </p> <p><b>>Therefore it is undeniable proof that flagellum among all other organisms evolved from a less complex organism.</b> </p> <p>You are (perhaps unconsciously) playing the usual Darwinist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation">Fallacy of Equivocation</a> word-game, based on the multiple meanings of the word "evolved." But "<i>related</i>" by common ancestry does not necessarily mean "<i>evolved</i>" (see below).</p> <p>First, that the Type III Secretory System <i>shares a common ancestry</i> with the Bacterial Flagellum's rotary motor is <i>not</i> "proof" that <i>the latter descended from the former</i>. The former could have descended from the latter. This is in fact what "Current opinion tends to favor," that "the <i>flagellum evolved first</i> and the <i>T3SS is derived from that structure</i>" (my emphasis):<blockquote>"<i>Evolution.</i> As mentioned, the T3SS is closely related to the bacterial flagellum. <i>It is unresolved, however, exactly how the two are related</i>. There are three competing hypotheses: first, that <i>the flagellum evolved first and the T3SS is derived from that structure</i>, second, that the T3SS evolved first and the flagellum is derived from it, and third, that the two structures are derived from a common ancestor. <i>Current opinion tends to favor the first option</i>, where <i>the T3SS is derived from an early flagellum</i>." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_three_secretion_system#Unresolved_issues">Type three secretion system: Unresolved issues</a>," Wikipedia, 10 June 2010. My emphasis).</p></blockquote> <p>Second, even if the Bacterial Flagellum's rotary motor <i>did</i> descend from the Type III Secretory System, that is <i>not</i> "proof" that it "evolved" by the <i>Darwinist mechanism of the natural selection of random micromutations</i>:<blockquote>"In line with the previous concern, Van Till offers the type III secretory system as a possible precursor to the bacterial flagellum. This ignores that the current evidence points to the type III system as evolving from the flagellum and not vice versa (cf. Milt Saier's recent work at UCSD). But beyond that, finding a component of a functional system that performs some other function is hardly an argument for the original system evolving from that other system. One might just as well say that because the motor in a motorcycle can be used as a blender, therefore the motor evolved into the motorcycle. Perhaps, but not without intelligent design. Even if it could be shown that the type III system predated the flagellum (contrary to Milt Saier's work), it could at best represent one possible step in the indirect Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum. But that still wouldn't constitute a solution to the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. What's needed is a complete evolutionary path and not merely a possible oasis along the way. To claim otherwise is like saying we can travel by foot from Los Angeles to Tokyo because we've discovered the Hawaiian Islands. Evolutionary biology needs to do better than that." (Dembski, W.A., "<a href="http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.09.Van_Till_Response.htm">Naturalism's Argument from Invincible Ignorance</a>: A Response to Howard Van Till," Design Inference Website, September 2002).</p></blockquote> <p>Third, "<i>related</i>" by common descent is not necessarily "<i>evolved</i>" in "the standard scientific theory" sense of "developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, <i>but God had no part in this process</i>"(my emphasis): </p> <p> <blockquote>"... perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a <a href="http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm">2001 Gallup poll</a> 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, <i>but God had no part in this process</i>.'" (Shermer, M.B., 2002, "<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-gradual-illumination">The Gradual Illumination of the Mind</a>," <i>Scientific American</i>, February. My emphasis).</blockquote></p> <p>As I have pointed out <i>many</i> times, both Darwin and Dawkins have admitted that God <i>could</i> have supernaturally intervened at links in the chains of common descent, in which case it would not be "<i>evolution at all</i>" (my emphasis): <blockquote>"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.' .... For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God <i>was not evolution at all</i>." (Dawkins, R., 1986, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703">The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design</a>," W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, pp.248-249).</p></blockquote> <p>but a form of "<i>divine creation</i>" (my emphasis): </p> <p> <blockquote>"... many theologians ... smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken ... influencing key moments in evolutionary history ... In short, <i>divine creation,</i> whether instantaneous or <i>in the form of guided evolution</i>, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317. My emphasis). </p></blockquote> <p>Which is what my <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-i-believe-about-creation.html#ProgressiveMediateCreation">Theory of Progressive (Mediate) Creation</a> maintains, that "God intervened supernaturally at strategic points" in life's history: </p> <p> <blockquote>"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 <i>God intervened supernaturally at strategic points along the way</i>. On their view, Creation was not a single six-day event but <i>occurred in stages over millions of years</i> ... The PC view tends to overlap with other views, particularly with old-earth creationism." (Pennock, R.T., 1999, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tower-Babel-Evidence-against-Creationism/dp/0262661659">Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism</a>," MIT Press: Cambridge MA, Fourth Printing, pp.26- 27. My emphasis)</blockquote></p> by inserting new genetic information, leaving chains of descent intact:<blockquote>"Suppose contemporary evolutionary theory had blind chance built into it so firmly that there was simply no way of reconciling it with any sort of divine guidance. 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 <i>God on occasion abridged those laws and inserted some crucial mutation into the course of events</i>. Even were God to intervene directly to suspend natural law and <i>inject essential new genetic material at various points</i> in order to facilitate the emergence of new traits and, eventually, new species, that <i>miraculous and deliberate divine intervention</i> would by itself leave unchallenged such key theses of evolutionary theory as that <i>all species derive ultimately from some common ancestor</i>. Descent with genetic intervention is still descent-it is just descent with nonnatural elements in the process." (Ratzsch, D.L., 1996, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Beginnings-Neither-Winning-Creation-Evolution/dp/0830815295">The Battle of Beginnings</a>: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, pp.187-188. My emphasis).</blockquote></p><p><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology).<br>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">The Shroud of Turin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a></p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-30749441718037621412010-03-07T21:40:00.006+08:002010-03-16T07:14:57.557+08:00Re: `Venus Flytrap evolved step-by-step from Sundews ... evidence against Creation'<p>AN</p> <p>Thanks for your reply. But as is my longstanding policy which is stated on each of my blogs' front page, if I receive a private message on a topic covered by one of my blogs, <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Drawing_of_Venus_Flytrap.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 280px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Drawing_of_Venus_Flytrap.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>I will usually respond via that blog, after removing the sender's personal identifying information. </p> <p>[<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Drawing_of_Venus_Flytrap.jpg">Right</a> (click to enlarge): <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Flytrap">Illustration of the Venus Flytrap</a> (<i>Dionaea muscipula</i>) from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis's_Botanical_Magazine">Curtis's Botanical Magazine</a>: Wikipedia]</p><p>Your words are <b>bold </b>to distinguish them from mine. Brief quotes are linked to full quotes near the end of the post.</p> <p>----- Original Message ----- <br>From: AN <br>To: Stephen E. Jones <br>Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 2:20 AM <br>Subject: Re: Venus' Flytrap</p> <p><b>Thanks for your reply Stephen. I see from your website you seek explanation for carnivorous plant evolution. </b></p> <p>Presumably you are referring to my 2007 post, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/03/re-carnivorous-plants-as-behes.html">Re: Carnivorous plants as `Behe's mousetrap' #1</a>" (there was no #2) and/or my 2006 web page "<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe12plnt.html#crnvrs">Problems of Evolution: 12. Plants: Carnivorous plants</a>"? In each my request was for "a <i>detailed, step-by-step</i>, Darwinian explanation of how the <i>natural selection of random micromutations</i> produced the ... Venus flytrap":<blockquote>"I would like to see a detailed, step-by-step, Darwinian explanation of how the natural selection of random micromutations produced the elaborate traps of carnivorous plants, like the pitcher plant and the Venus flytrap. But I suspect there are none, because if there were, the Darwinists would not waste there time on peppered moths and finch beaks! Like Behe's mousetrap, all these parts are needed to be working together simultaneously as a coordinated system to catch insects."</p></blockquote> <p>And as for "evolution," I am persuaded by the evidence, both scientific and Biblical, that "evolution," i.e. "the standard scientific theory that `human beings [and all other living things] have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, <i>but God had no part in this process</i>"(my emphasis): <blockquote>"... perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a <a href="http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm">2001 Gallup poll</a> 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, <i>but God had no part in this process</i>.'" (Shermer, M.B., 2002, "<a href="#SM2002Feb">The Gradual Illumination of the Mind</a>," <i>Scientific American</i>, February. My emphasis)</p></blockquote><p>is <i>false</i> and the true explanation of life's origin and development is my <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/faqcmedc.html">General Theory of Progressive Mediate Creation</a>, i.e."that God created the raw materials of the universe <i>immediately</i> from out-of-nothing, and thereafter He created <i>mediately</i> by working (both naturally and supernaturally) through natural processes and existing materials."</p> <p><b>This is my specialty. Venus' Flytrap evolved step-by-step from Sundews (Drosera sp.) as confirmed by gene sequencing. </b></p> <p>You commit the fallacies of <a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html">Equivocation</a> and <a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html">Begging the question</a> by claiming that "Venus' Flytrap <i>evolved</i> ... from Sundews" when all "gene sequencing" can show is they <i>shared a common ancestor</i>, which is not necessarily evolution. As both Darwin and Dawkins admitted, God <i>could</i> have supernaturally intervened at links in the chains of common descent, in which case it would not be "<i>evolution at all</i>" (my emphasis):<blockquote>"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.' .... For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God <i>was not evolution at all</i>." (Dawkins, R., 1986, "<a href="#DRBW1986p248">The Blind Watchmaker</a>, pp.248-249. My emphasis).</p></blockquote> <p>but a form of "<i>divine creation</i>" (my emphasis): </p> <p> <blockquote>"... many theologians ... smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken ... influencing key moments in evolutionary history ... In short, <i>divine creation,</i> whether instantaneous or <i>in the form of guided evolution</i>, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (<a href="#DRBW1986p316">Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317</a>. My emphasis).</p> </blockquote> <p>And since I accept Universal Common Ancestry (see my "<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cmnctsry.html">Why I (a Creationist) Accept Common Ancestry (Not Evolution)</a>" I have no problem if Venus Flytrap <i>shared a common ancestor</i> with Sundews (Drosera sp.). Nevertheless, according to Wikipedia, "Scientists are currently <i>unsure about the evolutionary history</i> of the Venus flytrap" and have only "<i>made hypotheses</i> that the flytrap evolved from Drosera (sundews)": </p><blockquote>"The edges of the lobes are fringed by stiff hair-like protrusions or cilia, which mesh together and prevent large prey from escaping. (These protrusions, and the trigger hairs, also known as sensitive hairs, are probably homologous with the tentacles found in this plant's close relatives, the sundews.) Scientists are currently unsure about the evolutionary history of the Venus flytrap; however scientists have made hypotheses that the flytrap evolved from Drosera (sundews)." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Flytrap#Description">Venus Flytrap: Description</a>," Wikipedia, 3 March 2010 ).</p></blockquote> <p><b>There is certainly no sudden appearance of irreducible complexity here. </b></p> <p>You are (as is typical with evolutionists in my experience), confusing common ancestry with "irreducible complexity." But the founder of the modern Theory of Irreducible Complexity, Prof. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe">Michael Behe</a>, accepts "the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor)":<blockquote>"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." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "<a href="#BM2006p5">Darwin's Black Box</a>," pp.5-6).</p></blockquote> <p>and has pointed out (as the did the then world's leading Darwinist, the late <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_W._Mayr">Ernst Mayr</a>) that the <i>relationship</i> of common ancestry is not the same as Darwinism <i>mechanism</i> of the natural selection of random mutations:<blockquote>"Discrimination among his various theories has not been helped by the fact that Darwin ... in ... the <i>Origin</i> and that he ascribed many phenomena ... to natural selection when they were really the consequences of common descent. ... I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories ... . (2) Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor ... (5) Natural selection. According to this theory .... The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. ... someone might claim that indeed these five theories are a logically inseparable package and that Darwin was quite correct in treating them as such. This claim, however, is refuted by the fact ... that most evolutionists in the immediate post-1859 period-that is, authors who had accepted the first theory- rejected one or several of Darwin's other four theories. This shows that the five theories are not one indivisible whole." (Mayr, E.W , 1991, "<a href="#ME1991p36">One Long Argument</a>," pp.36-37).</p></blockquote> <p> Therefore, "evidence of common descent is not evidence of natural selection" and so "knowledge of the sequence ... of relevant proteins [and DNA]... is by itself insufficient to justify a claim that evolution of a particular complex system occurred by natural selection":<blockquote>"... 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 ... 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 ... the distinction is often overlooked. ... 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., 2000, "<a href="#BM2000Jul31">In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade</a>," July 31. Emphasis original.)</p></blockquote> <p> which is all that the Theory of Irreducible Complexity challenges:<blockquote>"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.' It is safe to say that most of the scientific skepticism about Darwinism in the past century has centered on this requirement. ... 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 <i>irreducibly complex</i>, 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." (Behe, 2006, "<a href="#BM2006p39">Darwin's Black Box</a>," p.39. Emphasis original).</p></blockquote> <p><b>The trap of VFT is actually less complex than that of Drosera. </b></p> <p>That only means it has less parts. But having less parts, is actually <i>supportive</i> of Irreducible Complexity, as Behe's mousetrap example illustrates:<blockquote>"An irreducibly complex object will be composed of several parts, all of which contribute to the function. To avoid the problems encountered with extremely complex objects ... I will begin with a simple mechanical example: the humble mousetrap. ... [which] consist of a number of parts ... (1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base; (2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged; (4) a sensitive catch that releases when slight pressure is applied, and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back when the trap is charged. (There are also assorted staples to hold the system together.) The second step in determining if a system is irreducibly complex is to ask if all the components are required for the function. In this example, the answer is clearly yes. .... If the wooden base were gone, there would be no platform for attaching the other components. If the hammer were gone, the mouse could dance all night on the platform without becoming pinned to the wooden base. If there were no spring, the hammer and platform would jangle loosely, and again the rodent would be unimpeded. If there were no catch or metal holding bar, then the spring would snap the hammer shut as soon as you let go of it; in order to use a trap like that you would have to chase the mouse around while holding the trap open."(Behe, 2006, "<a href="#BM2006p42">Darwin's Black Box</a>," p.42).</p></blockquote> <p><b>So, this case is actually more evidence against Creation. </b></p> <p>Thanks for showing by your "against Creation" that like Darwin your <i>primary</i> motivation is <i>not scientific</i> but <i>religious</i>, i.e. anti-<i>religious</i><blockquote>"I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; <i>firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created</i>, and <i>secondly</i>, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change ... ... hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power ... or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to <i>overthrow the dogma of separate creations</i>." (Darwin, C.R., 1874, "<a href="#DC1874p92">The Descent of Man</a>," p.92. My emphasis).</p></blockquote> <p> Also you are also committing the fallacy of <a href="http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-pbc-circular.htm">Circular Reasoning</a>. That is, you <i>assumed </i>"evolution" <i>in the premises</i> of your argument that "Venus' Flytrap evolved step-by-step from Sundews" and then you <i>concluded </i>that this is "evidence against Creation."</p> <p> <b>Hope that helps. Please ask if you have any further questions. ~AN</b></p> <p>Thanks, but it did not help, except to give me something to blog about! Yours is just the same old Darwinist anti-Christian, "deceiving and being deceived" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Tim%203:13&version=NIV">2Tim 3:13</a>), "powerful delusion" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Th%202:11&version=NIV">2Th 2:11</a>), due to your mind having been taken "captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on ... the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Col+2:8&version=NIV">Col 2:8</a>), namely "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)">Naturalism ... the metaphysical position that `nature is all there is</a> ...'," that I experienced in my ~11 years of debating evolutionists between 1993-2005.</p> <p>Only when you can actually cite in a <i>peer-reviewed scientific journal</i> a <i>fully documented</i> and <i>detailed</i> explanation of <i>how exactly</i> "Venus' Flytrap evolved step-by-step from Sundews (Drosera sp.)" <i>by the natural selection of random micromutations </i>would you have shown that the Venus Flytrap is not irreducibly complex. </p> <p> <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology).<BR>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">The Shroud of Turin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a> </p> <hr> <p>"<a name="BM2000Jul31"></a>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., 2000, "<a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_indefenseofbloodclottingcascade.htm">In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade</a>: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison," Discovery Institute, July 31. Emphasis original.)</p> <p>"<a name="BM2006p5"></a>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, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0684834936">Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution</a>," [1996], Free Press: New York NY, 10th Anniversary Edition, pp.5-6).</p> <p>"<a name="BM2006p39"></a>," 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 <i>irreducibly complex</i>, 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, p.39. Emphasis original).</p> <p>"<a name="BM2006p42"></a>The first step in determining irreducible complexity is to specify both the function of the system and all system components. An irreducibly complex object will be composed of several parts, all of which contribute to the function. To avoid the problems encountered with extremely complex objects (such as eyes, beetles, or other multicellular biological systems) I will begin with a simple mechanical example: the humble mousetrap. The function of a mousetrap is to immobilize a mouse so that it can't perform such unfriendly acts as chewing through sacks of flour or electrical cords, or leaving little reminders of its presence in unswept comers. The mousetraps that my family uses consist of a number of parts (Figure 2-2): (1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base; (2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged; (4) a sensitive catch that releases when slight pressure is applied, and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back when the trap is charged. (There are also assorted staples to hold the system together.) The second step in determining if a system is irreducibly complex is to ask if all the components are required for the function. In this example, the answer is clearly yes. Suppose that while reading one evening, you hear the patter of little feet in the pantry, and you go to the utility drawer to get a mousetrap. Unfortunately, due to faulty manufacture, the trap is missing one of the parts listed above. Which part could be missing and still allow you to catch a mouse? If the wooden base were gone, there would be no platform for attaching the other components. If the hammer were gone, the mouse could dance all night on the platform without becoming pinned to the wooden base. If there were no spring, the hammer and platform would jangle loosely, and again the rodent would be unimpeded. If there were no catch or metal holding bar, then the spring would snap the hammer shut as soon as you let go of it; in order to use a trap like that you would have to chase the mouse around while holding the trap open." (Behe, M.J., 2006, "Darwin's Black Box," p.42).</p> <p>"<a name="DC1874p92"></a>I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change, though largely aided by the inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct action of the surrounding conditions. I was not, however, able to annul the influence of my former belief, then almost universal, that each species had been purposely created; and this led to my tacit assumption that every detail of structure, excepting rudiments, was of some special, though unrecognised, service. Any one with this assumption in his mind would naturally extend too far the action of natural selection, either during past or present times. Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticizing my book [<i>The Origin of Species</i>], that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." (Darwin, C.R., 1874., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Descent-Man-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140436316">The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex</a>," [1871], John Murray: London, Second edition, Reprinted, 1922, p.92).</p> <p>"<a name="DRBW1986p248"></a>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 <i>point</i> of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a <i>non-</i> 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, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703">The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design</a>," W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, pp.248-249).</p> <p>"<a name="DRBW1986p316"></a>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, <i>human</i> evolutionary history), or even meddling more comprehensively in the day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary change. ... In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317).</p> <p>"<a name="ME1991p36"></a>Discrimination among his various theories has not been helped by the fact that Darwin treated speciation under natural selection in ... the <i>Origin</i> and that he ascribed many phenomena, particularly those of geographic distribution, to natural selection when they were really the consequences of common descent. Under the circumstances I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution into a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However, when later authors referred to Darwin's theory they invariably had a combination of some of the following five theories in mind: (1) Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant nor recently created nor perpetually cycling but rather is steadily changing and that organisms are transformed in time. (2) Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth. (3) Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding," that is, by the establishment of geographically isolated founder populations that evolve into new species. (4) Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type. (5) Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about through the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation. For Darwin himself these five theories were apparently a unity, and someone might claim that indeed these five theories are a logically inseparable package and that Darwin was quite correct in treating them as such. This claim, however, is refuted by the fact ... that most evolutionists in the immediate post-1859 period-that is, authors who had accepted the first theory- rejected one or several of Darwin's other four theories. This shows that the five theories are not one indivisible whole." (Mayr, E.W , 1991, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/One-Long-Argument-Evolutionary-Questions/dp/0674639065">One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought</a>," Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, pp.36-37).</p> <p>"<a name="SM2002Feb"></a>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 <a href="http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm">2001 Gallup poll</a> 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, <i>but God had no part in this process</i>.'" (Shermer, M.B., "<a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000447A8-10B7-1CC6-B4A8809EC588EEDF">The Gradual Illumination of the Mind</a>," <i>Scientific American</i>, February 2002. My emphasis)</p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-16403707303027307672010-01-27T21:20:00.017+08:002010-01-31T13:52:50.137+08:00Re: `Pascal's Wager is a completely pointless argument, and is easily rebutted by any thinking atheist'<p>James</p> <p>This is my response to your comment under my post, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-i-believe-about-creation.html">What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Design</a>" and in particular to </p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy_z0147W96lzaClCQ5h5ekzBNMnE88wTqZ7FtIrUwYCWrkClg-wQeLuh6FDG-gOim3mwEz2AafG33CnMak1WWJTy17m6U6JADa2A9c7lGxnsChdDR5SrJheoq9uY7CpnMqyPe/s1600-h/PascalsWager.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy_z0147W96lzaClCQ5h5ekzBNMnE88wTqZ7FtIrUwYCWrkClg-wQeLuh6FDG-gOim3mwEz2AafG33CnMak1WWJTy17m6U6JADa2A9c7lGxnsChdDR5SrJheoq9uY7CpnMqyPe/s320/PascalsWager.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5431437333279625010" /></a><p>[Above (click to enlarge): Diagram of my version of <a href="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0185.html">Pascal's Wager</a>.]</p><p>the section:<blockquote>"<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-i-believe-about-creation.html#PascalsWager"><i>Pascal's Wager</i></a> My simplified form of <a href="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0185.html">Pascal's Wager</a> that I employed in debates with atheists is: <blockquote>Neither the atheist, nor the Christian, can <i>absolutely prove</i> that his position is true. Nevertheless the <i>consequences</i> for either the atheist or the Christian being right (or wrong) is clear. If atheism is true, then both the atheist and Christian will die and <i>neither</i> will know that the atheist was right. On the other hand, if Christianity is true, then the atheist and Christian will die (or <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-i-believe-about-creation.html#JesusChristsreturn">Jesus will return</a>) and <i>both</i> will know that the Christian was right. Moreover, if the atheist was right, he would have <i>gained nothing</i> and the Christian would have <i>lost nothing</i> (I personally have had a <i>great</i> life since becoming a Christian in 1967). But if the Christian was right, the atheist would have <i>lost everything</i> and the Christian would have <i>gained everything</i>!"</p></blockquote></blockquote> <p>----- Original Message ----- <br>From: james roy<br>To: Stephen E. Jones<br>Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 7:04 AM<br>Subject: [CreationEvolutionDesign] New comment on What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Desig....</p> <b>>Pascal's Wager is a completely pointless argument, and is easily rebutted by any thinking atheist.</b> </p> <p>No. Pascal was a <i>genius</i>, being a "mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher. ... a child prodigy who ... was a mathematician of the first order":<blockquote>"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal">Blaise Pascal</a> [1623-1662] ... was a French mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher. He was a child prodigy who was educated by his father, a civil servant. Pascal's earliest work was in the natural and applied sciences where he made important contributions to the construction of mechanical calculators, the study of fluids, and clarified the concepts of pressure and vacuum .... Pascal also wrote in defense of the scientific method. Pascal was a mathematician of the first order. He helped create two major new areas of research. He wrote a significant treatise on the subject of projective geometry at the age of sixteen, and later corresponded with Pierre de Fermat on probability theory, strongly influencing the development of modern economics and social science." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal">Blaise Pascal</a>," Wikipedia, 23 January 2010).</p></blockquote> <p>Indeed according to this site, Pascal is in the <i>top 10 of all known geniuses</i>, with an estimated <i>IQ of 195</i>: <blockquote> "6. Blaise Pascal IQ: 195 Blaise Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, religious philosopher, and master of prose. He laid the foundation for the modern theory of probabilities, formulated what came to be known as Pascal's law of pressure, and propagated a religious doctrine that taught the experience of God through the heart rather than through reason. The establishment of his principle of intuitionism had an impact on such later philosophers as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Henri Bergson and also on the Existentialists." ("<a href="http://listverse.com/2007/10/06/top-10-geniuses/">Top 10 Geniuses</a>," Listverse, October 6, 2007)</p></blockquote> <p> And, as Christian philosopher <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kreeft">Peter Kreeft</a> points out, of all the arguments for believing in the existence of God, Pascal thought his Wager was the<i> strongest</i>:<blockquote>"Most philosophers think Pascal's Wager is the weakest of all arguments for believing in the existence of God. Pascal thought it was the strongest. After finishing the argument in his Pensees, he wrote, `This is conclusive, and if men are capable of any truth, this is it.' That is the only time Pascal ever wrote a sentence like that, for he was one of the most sceptical philosophers who ever wrote." (Kreeft, P., "<a href="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm">Argument from Pascal's Wager</a>," in Kreeft, P., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Faith-Essays-Christian-Apologetics/dp/089870202X">Fundamentals of the Faith</a>: Essays in Christian Apologetics," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, 1988.) </p></blockquote></p> <p>I myself debated my version of Pascal's Wager against atheists on creation/evolution/design Internet discussion groups open to all-comers between (1993-2005) and <i>no</i> atheist <i>ever</i> refuted my arguments. Here they are again, point-by-point (with updates): <blockquote>1. Neither the atheist, nor the Christian, can <i>absolutely prove</i> that his position is true. <br> <br>2. Nevertheless the <i>consequences</i> for either the atheist or the Christian being right (or wrong) is clear. <br> <br>3. If atheism is true, then both the atheist and Christian will die and <i>neither</i> will know that the atheist was right. <br> <br>4. On the other hand, if Christianity is true, then the atheist and Christian will die (or <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-i-believe-about-creation.html#JesusChristsreturn">Jesus will return</a>) and <i>both</i> will know that the Christian was right. <br> <br>5. Moreover, if the atheist was right, he would have <i>gained nothing</i> and the Christian would have <i>lost nothing</i>. <br> <br>6. But if the Christian was right, the atheist would have <i>lost everything</i> and the Christian would have <i>gained everything</i>!"</p></blockquote> <p>Each of the above 6 points of my Pascal's Wager argument are <i>patently</i> true, given historic Christian Biblical teaching, e.g. as set forth in major creeds like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith">Westminster Confession of Faith</a>: <blockquote>"SECTION II.-The end of God's appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy in the eternal salvation of the elect, and of his justice in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy and refreshing which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. [<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2025:31-40;%20Rom%202:5-6;%209:22-23;%20Mt%2025:21;%20Acts%203:19;%202Th%201:7-10&version=KJV">Matt. xxv. 31-40; Rom. ii. 5, 6; ix. 22, 23. Matt. xxv. 21; Acts iii. 19; 2 Thess. i. 7-10</a>]" (Hodge, A.A., 1869, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Confession-Faith-Handbook-Christian-Doctrine/dp/0851512755">The Confession of Faith</a>: A Handbook of Christian Doctrine Expounding The Westminster Confession," Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, 1958, Reprinted, 1983, p.389. Emphasis original).</p></blockquote></p> <p>that if Christianity is true, then Christians ("the righteous") will "go into <i>everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy</i> and refreshing which shall come from the presence of the Lord" and non-Christians ("the wicked") will "be cast into <i>eternal torments</i>, and be <i>punished with everlasting destruction</i> from the presence of the Lord." </p> <p><b>>Basically what it says is that if you believe in God, the worst you can expect is the same as the unbeliever, but the best you can expect is eternal life. However, if you don't believe in God, the best you can expect is nothing, but the worst you can expect is eternal damnation. So therefore it's safest to believe in God.</b></p> <p> </p> <p>No. Between the atheist and the Christian it is not a case of "the worst you <i>can expect</i> " and "the best you <i>can expect</i>." If Christianity is true, then according to historic Biblical Christianity (see above), Christians <i>will </i>receive "eternal life" and "the unbeliever" <i>will </i>receive "eternal damnation."</p> <p>Former atheist turned Christian <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n10_v14/ai_20391692/">Patrick Glynn </a>confirms this: "If we bet against God, and revelation proves to be true, <i>we will suffer eternal torment</i>. If we bet for God, and revelation proves to have been an illusion, we lose nothing":<blockquote>"Responding to the first generation of modern atheistic rationalists in the seventeenth century, the mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal offered an interesting `thought experiment' concerning religious belief. He conceived of the issue as a bet or wager. His reasoning was as follows: Revelation teaches that God rewards faithful believers with eternal happiness and that those who reject God suffer eternal torment after death. There is no way for reason, Pascal conceded to his contemporaries, to know whether revelation's claim is true. But we may consider our life as a wager (one that, in the nature of things, we can't avoid). If we bet against God, and revelation proves to be true, we will suffer eternal torment. If we bet for God, and revelation proves to have been an illusion, we lose nothing, for we shall cease to exist at death in any case." (Glynn, P., 1997, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/God-Evidence-Reconciliation-Reason-Postsecular/dp/0761519645">God: The Evidence</a>: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World," Forum: Rocklin CA, pp.76-77).</p></blockquote> <p><b>>But how is it possible to believe in something based on its potential benefits?</b> </p> <p>We <i>all do</i>! We all make decisions <i>every day</i> based on the "potential benefits" of a thing or a course of action, weighed against its potential costs. And where the potential benefits are great and the costs low, e.g. "spend a dollar on the good chance of winning a million" then "No reasonable person can be or ever is in doubt in such cases." But "deciding whether to believe in God is a case like these, argues Pascal", : <blockquote>"Suppose someone terribly precious to you lay dying, and the doctor offered to try a new `miracle drug' that he could not guarantee but that seemed to have a 50-50 chance of saving your beloved friend's life. Would it be reasonable to try it, even if it cost a little money? And suppose it were free- wouldn't it be utterly reasonable to try it and unreasonable not to? Suppose you hear reports that your house is on fire and your children are inside. You do not know whether the reports are true or false. What is the reasonable thing to do-to ignore them or to take the time to run home or at least phone home just in case the reports are true? Suppose a winning sweepstakes ticket is worth a million dollars, and there are only two tickets left. You know that one of them is the winning ticket, while the other is worth nothing, and you are allowed to buy only one of the two tickets, at random. Would it be a good investment to spend a dollar on the good chance of winning a million? No reasonable person can be or ever is in doubt in such cases. But deciding whether to believe in God is a case like these, argues Pascal. It is therefore the height of folly not to `bet' on God, even if you have no certainty, no proof, no guarantee that your bet will win. Atheism is a terrible bet. It gives you no chance of winning the prize." (Kreeft, P., "<a href="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm">Argument from Pascal's Wager</a>," in Kreeft, 1988).</p></blockquote> <p><b>>Belief comes out of an interpretation of evidence, and if it employs pro/con lists, those lists can only be used to establish the relative evidential merits of each possibility. </b></p> <p>This misunderstands the background and specific purpose of Pascal's Wager, i.e. it accepts, for the sake of argument, the sceptics' attitude of his day that had lost "confidence in reason to prove God's existence" and so"The Wager appeals not to a high ideal ... but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy":<blockquote>"To understand Pascal's Wager you have to understand the background of the argument. Pascal lived in a time of great scepticism. Medieval philosophy was dead, and medieval theology was being ignored or sneered at by the new intellectuals of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. Montaigne, the great sceptical essayist, was the most popular writer of the day. The classic arguments for the existence of God were no longer popularly believed. What could the Christian apologist say to the sceptical mind of this age? Suppose such a typical mind lacked both the gift of faith and the confidence in reason to prove God's existence; could there be a third ladder out of the pit of unbelief into the light of belief? Pascal's Wager claims to be that third ladder. Pascal well knew that it was a low ladder. If you believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy. But on that low natural level, it has tremendous force. " (Kreeft, 1988). </p></blockquote> <p> That is, "Pascal prefaces his argument with" the <i>sceptic's position</i> that, "Either God is, or he is not. ... Reason cannot decide this question":<blockquote>"Thus Pascal prefaces his argument with the words, `Let us now speak according to our natural lights.' Imagine you are playing a game for two prizes. You wager blue chips to win blue prizes and red chips to win red prizes. The blue chips are your mind, your reason, and the blue prize is the truth about God's existence. The red chips are your will, your desires, and the red prize is heavenly happiness. Everyone wants both prizes, truth and happiness. Now suppose there is no way of calculating how to play the blue chips. Suppose your reason cannot win you the truth. In that case, you can still calculate how to play the red chips. Believe in God not because your reason can prove with certainty that it is true that God exists but because your will seeks happiness, and God is your only chance of attaining happiness eternally. Pascal says, `Either God is, or he is not. But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. [Remember that Pascal's Wager is an argument for sceptics.] Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance [death] a coin is being spun that will come down heads [God] or tails [no God]. How will you wager?' (Kreeft, 1988).</p></blockquote> <p> Elsewhere in his <i>Pensees</i> Pascal gave <i>good reasons</i> for believing that Christianity is true:<blockquote>"To bring some men to the point of faith, Pascal knew that it was necessary to remind them of the odds that are at stake. Hence his celebrated wager, Turnell, M., transl., "Pascal's Pensees," Harvill Press, London, 1962, pp. 200 ff.] in which he challenges men to gamble their lives on the possibility that Christianity might be true. We cannot see God. We cannot prove the truth of the gospel to exclude every possible doubt. We can only find out the truth of Christianity by risking our whole lives on it. ... Sometimes Pascal's teaching is classified as voluntarism, the implication being that he sets greater store by the will than by the intellect. It is even represented as a kind of self-inflicted brain-washing, in which the will to believe is allowed to banish all intellectual considerations. But this is a caricature. It neglects to mention that the idea of the wager was addressed to the sporting men of the day, reminding them of a greater game played at infinitely greater odds. It does not take into account the fact that Pascal devoted a great deal of energy to rational argument. [Turnell, M., transl., "Pascal's Pensees," Harvill Press, London, 1962, pp.231ff, 281ff., 291]" (Brown, C. , 1969, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Christian-Faith-Historical-Present/dp/0877847126">Philosophy and the Christian Faith</a>," Tyndale Press: London, pp.59-60).</blockquote></p><p>But the problem with atheists is that they are so prejudiced against the existence of the Christian God to whom they will have "to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds, and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil":<blockquote> "OF THE LAST JUDGMENT. SECTION I.-God hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ, [<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:31&version=KJV">Acts xvii. 31</a>] to whom all power and judgment is given of tho Father, [<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%205:22,27&version=KJV">John v. 22, 27</a>] In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, [<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Cor%206:3;%20Jude%201:6;%202Pet%202:4&version=KJV">1 Cor. vi. 3; Jude 6; 2 Pet. ii. 4</a>] but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds, and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil. [<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Cor%205:10;%20Ecc%2012:14;%20Rom%202:16;%2014:10,12;%20Mt%2012:36-37&version=KJV">2 Cor. v. 10; Eccles. xii. 14; Rom. ii. 16; xiv. 10, 12; Matt. xii. 36, 37</a>]" (Hodge, 1869, p.389. Emphasis original).</p></blockquote> <p> that what the atheists <i>include</i> in their their "pro/con lists," <i>before</i> they even get to the "interpretation of evidence," ensures that atheism always `wins'.</p> <p> For example, the evidence is <i>overwhelming</i> that "<a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2009/12/shroud-of-turin-is-burial-sheet-of.html">The Shroud of Turin <i>is</i> the Burial Sheet of Jesus!</a>" and bears the image of His crucified and <i>resurrected</i> body! But atheists just reject that <i>possibility </i>out of hand, and chose instead the best of the remaining atheistic alternatives. This has become such an ingrained habit of thought that atheists in my experience do this <i>automatically </i>without even being aware of the fallaciousness of their circular reasoning.</p> <p> Your own "Pascal's Wager is a <i>completely pointless</i> argument, and is <i>easily</i> rebutted by <i>any</i> <i>thinking</i> atheist" is a typical example of how atheists are so prejudiced against the existence of the Christian God that they rule out in advance as "completely pointless" any evidence for His existence. Therefore what remains as evidence in the atheists' "pro/con lists" makes it a foregone conclusion that the atheists' "interpretation of [that] evidence" is that <i>for them</i> atheism is true.</p> <p><b>>If anyone thinks that God will reward a belief in him that is based on the 'best possible outcome', then they're playing God for a fool.</b> </p> <p>No. The Bible says that God <i>will </i>reward <i>belief </i>in Jesus with eternal life:<blockquote><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&version=NIV">John 3:16</a> "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.</p></blockquote> <p>There are no stated pre-conditions of the <i>reasons </i>for that belief, i.e. fear of Hell, or desire of Heaven, or love of God, etc. And as Kreeft says above:<blockquote>"If you believe in God only as a bet, it is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, <i>it is a start.</i>"</p></blockquote><p>Another Christian philosopher, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Rescher">Nicolas Rescher</a> also makes the point that Pascal's Wager argument is only a first step:<blockquote>"<i>The Wager Argument as a First Step</i> No doubt God must be expected to have a value framework akin to the human in this regard; at any rate, he, like us, would prefer to be loved for himself alone rather than for strictly prudential motives. Still, the journey toward disinterested love must make a start someplace. A human lover would certainly rather have that love reciprocated for his wealth or <i>beaux yeux</i> than not reciprocated at all. Wisely he recognizes that the love which begins in crass considerations of personal advantage, social conformity, or parental pressure may in time be purified by habit and the natural evolution of shared concerns into genuine communion and true affection." (Rescher, N., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Pascals-Wager-Practical-Reasoning-Philosophical/dp/0268015562">Pascal's Wager</a>: A Study of Practical Reasoning in Philosophical Theology," University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame IA, 1985, p.121. Emphasis original).</p></blockquote> <p><b>>And if God sees and hears all, there's a good chance he's smarter than that.</b> </p> <p>A God who "sees and hears all" would also be able to <i>see into an atheists' heart</i> and know what the <i>real </i>motive behind that atheist's high-sounding reasons why God (who the atheist doesn't believe exists) would not "reward a belief in him that is based on the 'best possible outcome'."</p> <p>The bottom line is that you have wagered <i>everything</i> on what you consider to be "a good chance" that the Christian God doesn't exist. But " the atheist ... If, after death, he should find out that there is a God, <i>his loss has been irreparable</i> ... death has opened the door to <i>an ultimate and eternal lostness</i>. ... It is an <i>all-or-nothing gamble of himself</i>, thrust into the slot machine of life. It is <i>a faith beyond the scope of reason</i>":<blockquote>"But that is not all that is lost for the atheist. One other aspect must be stated: if the atheist is wrong, there is no recovery of that which he has lost. This was precisely Pascal's wager: Should a man be in error in supposing the Christian religion to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake. But how irreparable is his loss, and how inescapable is his danger should he err in supposing it to be false. [Pascal, Pensees] ... Pascal ... had everything the Christian faith promised to him, including the climactic hope beyond the grave. Should, however, death be the end, he did not sense any loss, for contentment in life was still his. .... The atheist, on the other hand, having rejected God ... If, after death, he should find out that there is a God, his loss has been irreparable; for not only did contentment and peace elude him in this life, but death has opened the door to an ultimate and eternal lostness. All judgments bring with them a margin of error. But no judgment ought to carry with it the potential for so irretrievable a loss that every possible gain is unworthy of merit. The atheist makes precisely such a hazardous judgment. It is an all-or-nothing gamble of himself, thrust into the slot machine of life. It is a faith beyond the scope of reason. The atheist risks everything for the present and the future, on the basis of a belief that he is uncaused by any intelligent being. Man just happens to be here. He is willing to live and die in that belief-a very high price to pay for conjecture." (Zacharias, R.K., 1990, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Visage-Real-Face-Atheism/dp/0801099382">A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism</a>," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Third printing, 1994, pp.165-166).</p></blockquote> <p> The fact is, as Pascal realised, it is not the lack of "<i>reason" </i>that prevents an atheist from becoming a Christian, but the atheist's "<i>passions</i>" supported by his atheistic <i>lifestyle</i>. Pascal's practical advice to the atheist is to not "Concentrate ... on .... proofs of God's existence but ... <i>diminishing your passions</i>." And one practical way to do that is for the atheist to change their atheistic lifestyle and start behaving "just as if they did believe":<blockquote>"Because the whole argument moves on the practical rather than the theoretical level, it is fitting that Pascal next imagines the listener offering the practical objection that he just cannot bring himself to believe. Pascal then answers the objection with stunningly practical psychology, with the suggestion that the prospective convert `act into' his belief if he cannot yet `act out' of it. If you are unable to believe, it is because of your passions since reason impels you to believe and yet you cannot do so. Concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God's existence but by diminishing your passions. You want to find faith, and you do not know the road. You want to be cured of unbelief, and you ask for the remedy: learn from those who were once bound like you and who now wager all they have... . They behaved just as if they did believe. .... living the Faith can be a way of getting the Faith... As Pascal says: `That will make you believe quite naturally and will make you more docile.' `But that is what I am afraid of.' `But why? What have you to lose?" (Kreeft, 1988) </p></blockquote> <p>For example an atheist could do what I, a former atheist, did 40+ years ago. Start going to church, make friends of Christian people, join in singing Christian hymns, listen to the Bible being preached. In short meet God half-way. The Bible promises that if you "Come near to God ... he will come near to you" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%204:8&version=NIV">James 4:8</a>)</p><p>Millions of Christians down through the ages (including me), have tried coming near to God and found that His promise is true that <i>He will</i> then come near to you. But if you are not willing to meet God halfway, then He will never meet you half-way. Then if Christianity is true (as <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/07/daniels-70-weeks-proof-that-naturalism.html">Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks</a> and <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2009/12/shroud-of-turin-is-burial-sheet-of.html">The Shroud of Turin</a> <i>prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is</i>) and you are still a non-Christian when you die, then you will find out, <i>too late</i>, that you bet your life on a losing `horse' and <i>lost everything</i>:<blockquote>"Pascal states the argument this way: `You have two things to lose: the true and the good; and two things to stake: your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to avoid: error and wretchedness. Since you must necessarily choose, your reason is no more affronted by choosing one rather than the other. That is one point cleared up. But your happiness? Let us weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that God exists. Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything: if you lose, you lose nothing. Do not hesitate then: wager that he does exist. If God does not exist, it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win after death and nothing to lose after death. But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is to believe, and your only chance of losing it is to refuse to believe.' As Pascal says, `I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true.' If you believe too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if you believe too little, you risk losing everything.'" (Kreeft, 1988).</blockquote></p> <p>Your wager-your consequences.</p> <p><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology).<br>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">The Shroud of Turin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a> </p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-52270245342669546122010-01-15T23:04:00.018+08:002010-01-17T13:51:48.069+08:00Re: Baxter, Darwin, predestination, damnation, etc<p> Tom <p>I have just realised that I never answered your comment in <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJvwGg9BFwlXnT8Rsf8GVCfgcel-4g24b2x50KJ0xAA9qAUkchYnQvytDVoIbOv5_gxDrUfN27XdMB9bIVLB-5rR70AjhoJxfMT0TPkXFKrWADbUnqaMu_TKRhCfls9cgjEXWR/s1600-h/BaxterReformedPastor.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJvwGg9BFwlXnT8Rsf8GVCfgcel-4g24b2x50KJ0xAA9qAUkchYnQvytDVoIbOv5_gxDrUfN27XdMB9bIVLB-5rR70AjhoJxfMT0TPkXFKrWADbUnqaMu_TKRhCfls9cgjEXWR/s320/BaxterReformedPastor.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5427075351038854882" /></a>May 2009 under my post, </p> <p>[Right: "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Reformed-Pastor-Richard-Baxter/dp/0851511910">The Reformed Pastor</a>" (1656) by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Baxter">Richard Baxter (1615-1691)</a>. See below]</p> <p>"<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2009/05/re-if-behe-believes-in-common-descent.html">Re: If Behe believes in common descent, how does he explain the transition from a more "primitive" blood-clotting system?</a>" after promising to do so in a separate post. My apologies. I was reminded by someone else's comment on your comment. Although you probably have long since stopped checking, I will now answer your comment. Your words are in bold to distinguish them from mine.</p> <p>----- Original Message -----<br>From: tom quick<br>To: Stephen E. Jones<br>Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:56 AM<br>Subject: [CreationEvolutionDesign] New comment on Re: If Behe believes in common descent, how does h....</p> <p><b>>I'm not a biologist. I'm a chemical engineer who reads Packer and Proust.</b> </p> <p>Presumably that is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._I._Packer">J.I. Packer</a> (1926-), the evangelical Christian theologian, some of whose books I own and have read. I am unfamiliar with the works of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Proust">Marcel Proust (1871-1922)</a> so I won't comment on him.</p> <p><b>>But a few months ago I saw the great joust on PBS over irreducible complexity in Pennsylvania.</b> </p> <p>Being an Australian, I did not see that program. I have taken a `sabbatical' from Creation/Evolution/Design, my interests having shifted over to my other blogs <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">The Shroud of Turin</a> and</p><p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjm81DKkiLmPXtGC9HM9mm3FCamBVBJKEjpe0dP9Va8jYQq9kbhAZRJUGbqEB-sIH3Cp6dUqXDG_Iqm0f1eBlrVXDrsAM7hlBhQH29rv6iEUs3nJRSIHGwnRVXqsvQCd0u1Oc8tHQ/s1600-h/Enrieface800.JPG"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjm81DKkiLmPXtGC9HM9mm3FCamBVBJKEjpe0dP9Va8jYQq9kbhAZRJUGbqEB-sIH3Cp6dUqXDG_Iqm0f1eBlrVXDrsAM7hlBhQH29rv6iEUs3nJRSIHGwnRVXqsvQCd0u1Oc8tHQ/s320/Enrieface800.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5420668148375312290" /></a> <p>[Above (click to enlarge): <a href="http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/images01.htm">Negative of a negative and therefore positive</a> photograph of the face of the Man on the Shroud of Turin: Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Turin-Shroud-Illustrated-Evidence/dp/1854795015">The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence</a>," Michael O'Mara: London, p.28:<blockquote>"`Were those the lips that spoke the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Rich Fool?'; `Is this the Face that is to be my judge on the Last Day?'" (Wilson, I. , 1991, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Faces-Secret-Places-Wilson/dp/0385269455">Holy Faces, Secret Places</a>: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.189).]</blockquote></p> <p><a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a> The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin">Shroud of Turin </a>indirectly defeats atheistic evolution (i.e. Darwinism) because the evidence is <i>overwhelming </i>that it <i>is</i> the burial sheet of Jesus, bearing the image of His flogged, crowned with thorns, crucified, dead, buried and <i>resurrected</i> body! See my post, "<a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2009/12/shroud-of-turin-is-burial-sheet-of.html">The Shroud of Turin <i>is</i> the Burial Sheet of Jesus!</a>"</p> <p><b>>Judging from the minutiae under discussion, the discussion seemed less relevant compared to the superior attitudes shown by the so-called scientists. </b></p> <p>This is a problem for <a href="http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840">Irreducible Complexity</a> (IC). The average person (including even the average <i>scientist</i>) probably cannot understand "the minutiae" or is bored by it.</p> <p>But the average person <i>can</i> understand that an arrogant attitude is probably a mask to cover an underlying insecurity about the correctness of one's position.</p> <p><b>>So I took it upon myself to read a good bit of Dobzhansky and Darwin (Origin of the Species) in order tho try and learn what made these scientists so pontifically wise.</b></p> <p>You don't mention what book(s) by Dobzhansky, i.e. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_Dobzhansky">Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) </a> the leading founder of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis">Neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis</a> you had read. I have many of Dobzhansky's books.</p> <p>There is no doubt that Dobzhansky and Darwin <i>were</i> wise, and they certainly knew their <i>biology</i>. The problem was their naturalist (anti-supernaturalist) and therefore anti-Christian <i>philosophy</i>. If Christianity is true (which <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/07/daniels-70-weeks-proof-that-naturalism.html">Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks</a> and <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2009/12/shroud-of-turin-is-burial-sheet-of.html">the Shroud of Turin</a> (to mention only two of many other Christian lines of evidence) prove beyond reasonable doubt that it <i>is</i>, then Naturalism and Darwinism are <i>false</i>!</p><p><b>>... In the greater sense what does it matter? On the one hand, selection occurs. It's the basis of agriculture as we know it. But it's in the past, and there's nothing useful gained in debating it, that I can see. On the other hand, what makes Darwin worthy of such laud and honor? </b></p> <p>Darwin is indeed "worthy of ... laud and honor" but only to the extent that he was a great scientist who <i>discovered </i>truth about the natural world that <i>God put there</i> in the first place.</p> <p>But the operative word is "<i>such</i> laud and honor." Darwin is lauded and honoured by those with the same anti-supernaturalist and therefore anti-Christian philosophy that he had because they <i>falsely</i> think that Darwin confirmed there was no need for God in creation and therefore Christianity is irrelevant. </p> <p>But Darwin <i>assumed as a first principle of his theory</i> that there was no Christian God who could or would intervene supernaturally in chains of common descent. Both he and his modern disciple Dawkins admitted, that if there <i>was </i>such a God who <i>did</i> intervene supernaturally in chains of common descent, then it "was <i>not evolution</i> at all":<blockquote>"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 <I>point</I> of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a <I>non</I>-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., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703">The Blind Watchmaker</a>: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, pp.248-249. Emphasis original)</p></blockquote> <p>but a form of "<i>divine creation</i>":<blockquote>"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, <I>human</I> evolutionary history), or even meddling more comprehensively in the day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary change. ... In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317. Emphasis original)</p></blockquote> <p><b>>Now for Packer. I'm in the middle of reading his PhD thesis on Baxter. </b></p> <p>I assume you mean Packer's PhD thesis on Baxter which has been published in a book, Packer, J.I., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Redemption-Restoration-Thought-Richard-Christian/dp/1842271474">The Redemption and Restoration of Man in the Thought of Richard Baxter</a>," Paternoster, 2003. There is an <a href="http://www.rbtr.org/bookreviewpackerrenihan.pdf">online review of this book</a> which I don't agree with, having read Packer's Introduction to Baxter's "<a href="http://www.reformed.org/books/baxter/reformed_pastor/index.html">The Reformed Pastor</a>," in which Packer is well aware of Baxter's faults.</p> <p><b>>I often see Baxter seeking a unity - trying to reconcile the incongruities of Calvinism (such as double predestination making God the author of evil), or trying to thread a line between Antinomianism and legalism. Controversial in his time, tremendously well educated, yet bound to overreach. A hundred years later what he did was forgotten in the details, but remembered in a holistic sense, and he became a touchstone for both Wesleyans and Unitarians. </b></p> <p>Although I own Baxter's "The Reformed Pastor," I haven't read it (except now the Introduction by Packer). I am not really up on Baxter or his attempts to "reconcile the incongruities of Calvinism (such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvinism)#Double_predestination">double predestination</a> ...)." But I am aware that Baxter was a 17th century Puritan who by pastoral visitation converted almost an entire town (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Baxter#Kidderminster">Kiddderminster</a>) to Christianity!</p> <p>But I myself am a life-long Calvinist and I don't believe in "double predestination" i.e. God not only <i>positively</i> predestined some (the elect) to salvation (which I do accept) but also God <i>positively</i> predestined the rest (the reprobate) to damnation. I regard that position as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-Calvinism">hyper-Calvinism</a>, even though it may well have been what "Calvinism" meant in Baxter's day (i.e. it was the majority position).</p> <p>The Calvinist position which I hold (because I believe it is the Biblical one) is <i>single</i> predestination, i,e. God only <i>positively predestined</i> some (the elect) to salvation and so <i>negatively passes over </i>the rest (the reprobate) leaving them to the consequences of their sin, which is damnation.</p> <p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguHTAXbzHJn_hS27acAWA9SyN91QsRStEx-Y6eX2kVEWfMzavHAwFWg-G30cb4eQTVMue7xbzxf1HsHUYJUYOJ596kAydAj0J08TxqnUBybJxwMj68OFu2iFJevlQP6G7tTWFJ/s1600-h/WendelCalvin.JPG"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguHTAXbzHJn_hS27acAWA9SyN91QsRStEx-Y6eX2kVEWfMzavHAwFWg-G30cb4eQTVMue7xbzxf1HsHUYJUYOJ596kAydAj0J08TxqnUBybJxwMj68OFu2iFJevlQP6G7tTWFJ/s320/WendelCalvin.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5427080800600576802" /></a>This is the view Calvin held,as evident in that</p> <p>[Left: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin">John Calvin (1509-1564</a>): Wendel, F., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Calvin-Origins-Development-Religious-Thought/dp/B000HIRZKI">Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought</a> (1963)." ]</p> <p>while he calls "predestination the eternal decree of God by which he ... <i>ordains some to eternal life</i>, the <i>others to eternal damnation</i>," he clarifies the latter as being that God "<i>lets go</i> of the others and <i>leaves them</i>":<blockquote>"But Calvin gave forcible emphasis to the distinction between predestination and foreknowledge. `We say rightly that [God] foresees all things, even as he disposes of them; but it is confusing everything to say that God elects and rejects according to his foresight of this or that. When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that all things have always been and eternally remain under his observation, so that nothing is either future or past to his knowledge: he sees and regards them in the truth, as though they were before his face. We say that this foreknowledge extends throughout the circuit of the world and over all his creatures. We call predestination the eternal decree of God by which he decided what he would do with each man. For he does not create them all in like condition, but ordains some to eternal life, the others to eternal damnation.' [<i>Inst</i>. III, 21, 5] The distinction was vital to him, for we find him frequently returning to it even in his sermons, in order to throw into relief the absolutely gratuitous nature of election. Election, like reprobation, is an entirely free act of the divine will. `If we ask why God takes pity on some, and why he lets go of the others and leaves them, there is no other answer but that it pleased him to do so.' [<i>Sermon on Ephesians</i> 1.3-4]" (Wendel, F., 1963, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Calvin-Origins-Development-Religious-Thought/dp/B000HIRZKI">Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought</a>," [1950], Mairet, P., transl., Fontana: London, Reprinted, 1965, pp.272-273).</p></blockquote> <p> That is, God <i>actively predestines</i> the elect to salvation but <i>passively passes over</i> the non-elect or reprobate. God <i>does not actively</i> elect the reprobate to damnation. Note that if any of the reprobate wanted to be saved God would not reject them:<blockquote><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2022:17&version=NIV">Rev 22:17</a>. The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" <i>Whoever </i>is thirsty, let him come; and<i> whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life</i>.<br> <br> <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:37&version=NIV">Jn 6:37</a>. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and <i>whoever comes to me I will never drive away</i>.</p></blockquote> <p> This is confirmed by leading Reformed (Calvinist) systematic theologian, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Berkhof">Louis Berkhof (1873-1957)</a>, that "Predestination includes two parts ... <i>election and reprobation</i>" with "Election" <i>being .</i> "the election of individuals unto salvation" and "Reprobation" being "God's eternal purpose to <i>pass some men by</i>":<blockquote>"<i>Predestination.</i> Predestination is the plan or purpose of God respecting His moral creatures. It pertains to men, both good and bad, to angels and devils, and to Christ as the Mediator. Predestination includes two parts, namely, <i>election and reprobation</i>." (Berkhof, L., 1960, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Summary-Christian-Doctrine-Louis-Berkhof/dp/0802815138">A Summary of Christian Doctrine</a>," Banner of Truth Trust: London, Third Impression, 1968, p.43)<br> <br>"<i>Election.</i> The Bible speaks of election in more than one sense, as (1) the election of Israel as the Old Testament people of God, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dt%204:37;%207:6-8;%2010:15;%20Hos%2013:5&version=KJV">Deut. 4:37; 7:6-8; 10:15; Hos. 13:5</a>; (2) the election of persons to some special office or service, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dt%2018:5;%201Sam%2010:24;%20Ps%2078:70&version=KJV">Deut. 18:5; I Sam. 10:24; Ps. 78:70</a>; and (3) the election of individuals unto salvation, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2022:14;%20Rom%2011:5;%20Eph%201:4&version=KJV">Matt. 22:14; Rom. 11:5; Eph. 1:4</a>. The last is the election to which we refer in this connection. It may be defined as God's eternal purpose <i>to save some of the human race</i> in and by Jesus Christ." (Berkhof, 1960, pp.43-44)<br> <br>"<i>Reprobation.</i> The doctrine of election naturally implies that God did not intend to save all. If He purposed to save some, He naturally also <i>purposed not to save others</i>. This is also in harmony with the teachings of Scripture, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2011:25-26;%20Rom%209:13,%2017-18,%2021-22;%2011:7-8;%202Pet%202:9;%20Jude%201:4&version=KJV">Matt. 11:25, 26; Rom. 9:13, 17, 18, 21, 22; 11:7, 8; II Pet. 2:9; Jude 4</a>. Reprobation may be defined as God's eternal purpose to <i>pass some men by</i> with the operation of His special grace, and to punish them for their sin. It really embodies a twofold purpose therefore: (1) to pass some by in the bestowal of saving grace; and (2) to punish them for their sins." (Berkhof, 1960, p.44).</p></blockquote> <p> The bottom line is that "all men have forfeited the blessings of God" by their sin and God does <i>not </i>"owe... man eternal salvation":<blockquote>"<i>Objection to Predestination</i> It is sometimes said that the doctrine of predestination exposes God to the charge of injustice. But this is hardly correct. We could speak of injustice only if man had a claim on God, and God owed man eternal salvation. But the situation is entirely different if all men have forfeited the blessings of God, as they have. No one has the right to call God to account for electing some and rejecting others. He would have been perfectly just, if He had not saved any, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2020:14-15;%20Rom%209:14-15&version=KJV">Matt. 20:14, 15; Rom. 9:14, 15</a>." (Berkhof, 1960, p.44. Emphasis original).</p></blockquote> <p>But as for damnation, since having read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Pinnock">Clark H. Pinnock</a>'s "Conditional View" chapter in "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Four-Views-Hell-William-Crockett/dp/0310212685">Four Views of Hell</a>," 1997), I am persuaded by the weight of Biblical evidence that Hell is not <i>everlasting</i> conscious punishment, i.e. "the experience of endless torment ... eternal punishing" but rather it is "a divine judgment whose results cannot be reversed" and which finally, after each person receives no more and no less than the just punishment due for their sins, terminates in "annihilation":<blockquote>"Nevertheless, the Bible does leave us a strong general impression in regard to the nature of hell-the impression of final, irreversible destruction, of closure with God. The language and imagery used by Scripture is so powerful in that direction that it is surprising that more theologians have not picked up on it before now. The Bible uses the language of death and destruction, of ruin and perishing, when it speaks of the fate of the impenitent wicked. It uses the imagery of fire that consumes whatever is thrown into it; linking together images of fire and destruction suggests annihilation. One receives the impression that `eternal punishment' refers to a divine judgment whose results cannot be reversed rather than to the experience of endless torment (i.e., eternal punishing). Although there are many good reasons for questioning the traditional view of the nature of hell, the most important reason is the fact that the Bible does not teach it. Contrary to the loud claims of the traditionalists, it is not a biblical doctrine. .... The Bible gives a strong impression to any honest reader that hell denotes final destruction, so the burden of proof rests with those who refuse to believe and accept this teaching." (Pinnock, C.H., "The Conditional View," in Crockett, W.V., ed., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Four-Views-Hell-William-Crockett/dp/0310212685">Four Views on Hell</a>," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1992, Reprinted, 1996, pp.144-145).</p></blockquote> <p> In "the Old Testament ... the basic imagery overwhelmingly denotes <i>destruction and perishing</i> and sets the tone for the New Testament doctrine": <blockquote>"The Old Testament gives us a clear picture of the end of the wicked in terms of destruction and supplies the basic imagery of divine judgment for the New Testament to use. In <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%2037&version=NIV">Psalm 37</a>, for example, we read that the wicked will fade like the grass and wither like the herb (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%2037:2&version=NIV">v. 2</a>), that they will be cut off and be no more (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%2037:9-10&version=NIV">vv. 9-10</a>), that they will perish and vanish like smoke (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%2037:20&version=NIV">v. 20</a>), and that they will be altogether destroyed (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%2037:38&version=NIV">v. 38</a>). One finds the same imagery in an oracle from the prophet Malachi: `Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire,' says the LORD Almighty. `Not a root or a branch will be left to them' (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mal%204:1-2&version=NIV">Mal. 4:1-2</a>). While it is true that the point of reference for these warnings in the Old Testament is this-worldly, the basic imagery overwhelmingly denotes destruction and perishing and sets the tone for the New Testament doctrine." (Pinnock, 1992, p.145).</p></blockquote> <p> Also in "the New Testament ... Jesus said many things that support the impression that the Old Testament gives of hell as <i>final destruction</i>": <blockquote>"Turning to the New Testament, Jesus' teaching about the eternal destiny of the wicked is bold in its warnings but modest when it comes to precise description. Refraining from creating a clear picture of hell, he did not dwell on the act of damnation or on the torments of the damned (unlike the <i>Apocalypse of Peter</i>). Jesus' words on the subject are poised to underline the importance of the decision that needs to be made here and now and not to deal in speculations about the exact nature of heaven and hell. He did not speak of hell in order to convey information about it as a place beyond present human experience and then use that data to press the decision the gospel calls for. At the same time, Jesus said many things that support the impression that the Old Testament gives of hell as final destruction. Our Lord spoke plainly of God's judgment as the annihilation of the wicked when he warned about God's ability to destroy body and soul in hell (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2010:28&version=NIV">Matt. 10:28</a>). He was echoing the terms that John the Baptist had used when he pictured the wicked as dry wood about to be thrown into the fire and chaff about to be burned (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%203:10,%2012&version=NIV">Matt. 3:10, 12</a>). Jesus warned that the wicked would be cast into hell (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%205:30&version=NIV">Matt. 5:30</a>), like garbage thrown into <i>gehenna</i>-an allusion to the valley outside Jerusalem where sacrifices were once offered to Moloch (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Ki%2016:3;%2021:6&version=NIV">2 Kings 16:3; 21:6</a>) and where garbage may have smoldered and burned in Jesus' day. The wicked would be burned up just like weeds thrown into the fire (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2013:30,%2042,%2049-50&version=NIV">Matt. 13:30, 42, 49-50</a>). Thus the impression Jesus leaves us with is a strong one: The impenitent wicked can expect to be destroyed by the wrath of God." (Pinnock, 1992, p.145).</p></blockquote> <p> As did the "apostle Paul create... the same impression when he wrote of the <i>everlasting destruction</i> that would come upon unrepentant sinners": <blockquote>"The apostle Paul creates the same impression when he wrote of the everlasting destruction that would come upon unrepentant sinners (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Th%201:9&version=NIV">2 Thess. 1:9</a>). He warned that the wicked would reap corruption (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal%206:8&version=NIV">Gal. 6:8</a>) and stated that God would destroy the wicked (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Cor%203:17;%20Php%201:28&version=NIV">1 Cor. 3:17; Phil. 1:28</a>); he spoke of their fate as a death that they deserved to die (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%201:32&version=NIV">Rom. 1:32</a>), the wages of their sins (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%206:23&version=NIV">6:23</a>). Concerning the wicked, the apostle stated plainly and concisely: `Their destiny is destruction' (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Php%203:19&version=NIV">Phil. 3:19</a>). In all these verses, Paul made it clear that hell would mean termination." (Pinnock, 1992, p.146).</p></blockquote> <p> Likewise the apostle "Peter spoke of the `destruction of ungodly men' " and "throughout ... the New Testament employs images of death, perishing, destruction, and corruption to describe the end of the wicked. ... final destruction":<blockquote>"It is no different in any other New Testament book. Peter spoke of the `destruction of ungodly men' (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Pet%203:7&version=NIV">2 Peter 3:7</a>) and of false teachers who denied the Lord, thus bringing upon themselves `swift destruction' (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Pet%202:1,3&version=NIV">2:1, 3</a>). He said that they would be like the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah that were burned to ashes (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Pet%202:6&version=NIV">2:6</a>), and that they would perish like the ancient world perished in the great Flood (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Pet%203:6-7&version=NIV">3:6-7</a>). The author of Hebrews likewise referred to the wicked who shrank back and would be destroyed (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb%2010:39&version=NIV">Heb. 10:39</a>). Jude pointed to Sodom as an analogy to God's final judgment, being the city that underwent `the punishment of eternal fire' (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude%201:7&version=NIV">Jude 7</a>). Similarly, the apocalypse of John speaks both of a lake of fire that will consume the wicked and of the second death (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2020:14-15&version=NIV">Rev. 20:14-15</a>). Throughout its pages, following the Old Testament lead, the New Testament employs images of death, perishing, destruction, and corruption to describe the end of the wicked. A fair person would have to conclude from such texts that the Bible can reasonably be read to teach the final destruction of the wicked. " (Pinnock, 1992, pp.146-147).</p></blockquote> <p>See also Pinnock, C.H., 2005, "<a href="http://grcog.homestead.com/destruction_of_the_finally_impen.htm">The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent</a>," 11 May; and Fudge, E., 1984, "<a href="http://www.edwardfudge.com/JETS_final_end_wicked.pdf">The Final End of the Wicked</a>," <i>Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society</i>, 27.3, September, pp.325-334 (PDF).</p> <p><b>>I see similar overreaching with Darwinism, as well as that halo effect a century after. Darwin's Origin of Species collection of animal stories implies evolution in a macro sense. </b></p> <p>This is another point about Darwin being "worthy of <i>such</i> laud and honor." Darwin's <i>observations</i> only helped establish <i>one</i> mechanism (the natural selection of chance variations) of <i>micro</i>-evolution, i.e. change at or within the <i>species</i> level. Darwin then (as Darwinists have continued to do), pursuant to his (their) anti-supernaturalist and therefore anti-Christian philosophy, <i>extrapolated</i> his limited observations to the <i>whole</i> of nature, <i>past</i> and present.</p> <p><b>>This is what launched Jack London and Adolph Hitler, and it carries the poison of racism. Yet all this detail is forgotten, and Darwin has now become a friendly bust in the bourgeois "scientist's" library. He is given credit for scientific advances in genetics and biology which occurred in spite of him (Dobzhansky points out that he was generally discarded as useful to science by 1900, and is immortalized in the selection coefficient named for him). </b></p> <p>Darwin has been largely superseded and even discarded as wrong in <i>biology</i>. But Darwin's value is as a <i>token symbol</i>, indeed a <i>totem</i>, in anti-supernaturalism's <i>war</i> against God and especially Christianity with its God who supernaturally intervenes in His creation.</p> <p>But I would be interested in a reference to where "Dobzhansky points out that he [Darwin] was generally discarded as useful to science by 1900." </p> <p><b>>So what hath Darwinism (aka Origin of Species) wrought? Death camps, gulags, modern racisms, World War 2, etc. - in short, a collection of nihilisms. </b></p> <p>It has been so swept under the carpet that it is not realised that Darwin gave <i>scientific support</i> to not just racism but <i>racial extermination</i>, when he predicted that "A some future period .. the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world:"<blockquote>"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Darwin, C.R., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Descent-Man-Selection-Relation-Sex/dp/0691023697">The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex</a>," [1871], John Murray: London, 1874, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242)</p></blockquote> <p>In the above, Darwin, writing in 1871, especially singled out the "Australian" aborigine as lying between " the Caucasian" and "the gorilla" and so he provided <i>scientific support</i> for the then British Government's (there was no Australian government until 1910) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Australia">policy of exterminating the Australian aborigines</a>.</p> <p><b>>While it is claimed now that Darwinism answers everything (and it goes without saying that those nihilisms should be ignored for the sake of polite conversation with the "scientists"), in reality it answers nothing. </b></p> <p>When it is said, or implied, that "Darwinism answers everything" what is meant is that <i>Naturalism</i>, i.e. "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)">nature is all there is</a>" (Wikipedia), there is no supernatural, no God, and Christianity is false, is itself <i>false</i>. That is because :Christianity is true as proven by: 1) the resurrection of Jesus; 2) <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/07/daniels-70-weeks-proof-that-naturalism.html">Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks</a> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:24-27&version=NIV">Dn 9:24</a>) and 3) the <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2009/12/shroud-of-turin-is-burial-sheet-of.html">Shroud of Turin</a>, which all defeat all naturalistic explanations. . </p> <p><b>I'm happier with what Christ has wrought: hospitals, an end to slavery, literacy and schools, etc. And always hope.</b> </p> <p>You could have added <i>science</i> itself, because as the non-Christians <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead">Alfred North Whitehead </a>and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loren_Eiseley">Loren Eiseley</a> admitted, "it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself". <blockquote>"Although we may recognize the frailties of Christian dogma and deplore the unconscionable persecution of thought which is one of the less appetizing aspects of medieval history, we must also observe that in one of those strange permutations of which history yields occasional rare examples, it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself. Many things undoubtedly went into that amalgam: Greek logic and philosophy, the experimental methods of craftsmen in the arts as opposed to the aristocratic thinker-all these things have been debated. But perhaps the most curious element of them all is the factor dwelt upon by Whitehead-the sheer act of faith that the universe possessed order and could be interpreted by rational minds [Whitehead, A.N., <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Science-Modern-World-Alfred-Whitehead/dp/0684836394">"Science and the Modern World</a>," Mentor, 1948, pp.4-15]. For, as Whitehead rightly observes, [Ibid., p.17] the philosophy of experimental science was not impressive. It began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond men's wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something-to the Christian conception of the nature of God [Ibid., p. 14]. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today-is sustained by that assumption." (Eiseley, L.C., 1958, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Century-Evolution-Men-Discovered/dp/0385081413">Darwin's Century</a>: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered It," Anchor Books: Doubleday & Co: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1961, p.62).</p></blockquote> <p>:<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology).<br>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">The Shroud of Turin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a> </p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-34546621986994458382009-12-06T16:30:00.004+08:002009-12-07T22:46:11.290+08:00Re: I'm a bit confused about some of the things I've been reading in your blog<p>Steve</p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Charles_Hodge.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 250px; height: 318px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Charles_Hodge.JPG" border="0" alt="" /></a> <p>Thank you for your comment under my </p> <p>[<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Charles_Hodge.JPG">Right</a>: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hodge">Charles Hodge (1797-1878)</a>: Wikipedia. Hodge coined the term, "mediate, progressive creation" (see below), and therefore I acknowledge him as the founder of my General Theory of <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-i-believe-about-creation.html#ProgressiveMediateCreation">Progressive Mediate Creation</a>.]</p> <p>post "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2009/03/i-am-training-to-be-high-school-biology.html">I am training to be a high school biology teacher, so less blogging!</a>" Your words are <b>bold</b> to distinguish them from mine.</p> <p> ----- Original Message ----- <br>From: Steve Cook<BR>To: Stephen E. Jones<BR>Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 9:07 PM<BR>Subject: [CreationEvolutionDesign] New comment on I am training to be a high school biology teacher,....</p><p><b>>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.</b></p> <p>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.</p> <p> <b>>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.</b> </p> <p>You do not say which of my posts you were reading. But I presume that one of them is my, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-i-believe-about-creation.html">What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Design</a>."</p> <p><b>>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. </b></p> <p>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, <i>but God had no part in this process</i>'":<blockquote>"... 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 <i>the standard scientific theory</i> that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, <i>but God had no part in this process</i>.'" (Shermer, M.B., 2002, "<a href="#SM2002">The Gradual Illumination of the Mind</a>," <i>Scientific American</i>, February. My emphasis).</p></blockquote> <p> That is, I do not agree with <i>fully Naturalistic</i> (i.e. <i>Atheistic</i> Evolution). I do however agree with "decent with modification" and indeed with <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cmnctsry.html">Universal Common Descent</a> that "all organisms share a common ancestor":<blockquote>"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, "<a href="#BM2006p5">Darwin's Black Box</a>," pp.5-6).</p></blockquote> <p> They are not the same thing. As both Darwin and Dawkins admitted, God <i>could</i> have supernaturally intervened at links in the chains of common descent, in which case it would not be "<i>evolution at all</i>" (my emphasis):<blockquote>"Darwin ... wrote ... I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires <i>miraculous additions at any one stage of descent</i>.' ... For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God <i>was not evolution at all</i>." (<a href="#DRBW1986p248">Dawkins, 1986, pp.248-249</a>)</p></blockquote> <p>but a form of "<i>divine creation</i>" (my emphasis):<blockquote>"... 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, <i>divine creation,</i> whether instantaneous or <i>in the form of guided evolution</i>, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (<a href="#DRBW1986p316">Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317</a>).</p></blockquote> <p>And note that Darwin and Dawkins say it would not be "<i>evolution</i>," not that it would not be "descent with modification."</p> <p> <b>>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. </b></p> <p> "Natural" in PMC (my General Theory of <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-i-believe-about-creation.html#ProgressiveMediateCreation">Progressive Mediate Creation</a>) means all the proven natural mechanisms of biological change, including natural selection and genetic drift. </p> <p> But you beg the question by claiming that they are mechanisms of <i>evolution</i>, when as Dawkins and Darwin pointed out above, if God supernaturally intervened in common descent, then it would <i>not be evolution at all</i> but a form of <i>divine creation</i>. 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": <blockquote> "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, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Beginnings-Neither-Winning-Creation-Evolution/dp/0830815295">The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate</a>," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, pp.187-188).</p></blockquote> <p><b>>Genetic drift is something that scientists have observed in many populations of species including humans (CCR5 and blood type in native americans). </b></p> <p>I have no problem with genetic drift, or indeed any proven mechanism of biological change (see above). But that there are <i>natural</i> mechanisms of biological change does not preclude God also <i>supernaturally intervening</i> at strategic points in life's history, as Progressive Creation (including Progressive Mediate Creation) maintains:<blockquote>"Progressive creationism accepts much of the scientific picture of the development of the universe, assuming that <i>for the most part</i> 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, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tower-Babel-Evidence-against-Creationism/dp/0262661659">Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism</a>," MIT Press: Cambridge MA, Fourth Printing, pp.26- 27. Emphasis original).</p></blockquote> <p><b>>I'm guessing that supernatural changes would be whole genes/genomes appearing ex nihilo to account for irreducible complexity. </b></p> <p>Not <i> ex nihilo</i> in PMC but <i>ex materia</i>, i.e. from pre-existing material. The <i>Mediate</i> in Progressive Mediate Creation means that the changes were <i>mediate</i>, in the sense of the opposite of i<i>mmediate</i> ( i.e. immediate with no intervening secondary causes or materials and were therefore <i>ex nihilo</i>). The leading 19th century theologian <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hodge">Charles Hodge</a> (see above) contrasted "<i>Immediate Creation</i> ... which ... was instantaneous and immediate, i. e. without the intervention of any second causes" with "<i>Mediate ... Creation ...</i>gradual ...:forming out of preexisting material ... the power of God working in union with second causes." <blockquote>"<i>Mediate and Immediate Creation</i>. 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 <i>ex nihilo</i> by the simple word of God, but a mediate, progressive creation; the power of God working in union with second causes." (Hodge, C., "<a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology1.txt">Systematic Theology</a>," [1892], James Clark & Co: London, Vol. I, 1960, reprint, pp.556-557. Emphasis original)</p></blockquote> <p> 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 ` (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%201:24&version=KJV">Gen. 1:24</a>) does not exclude the idea of <i>mediate creation, through natural generation</i>":<blockquote>"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' (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%201:24&version=KJV">Gen. 1:24</a>) does not exclude the idea of mediate creation, through natural generation, so the forming of man `of the dust of the ground' (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%202:7&version=KJV">Gen. 2:7</a>) does not in itself determine whether the creation of man's body was mediate or immediate." (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Hopkins_Strong">Strong, A.H.</a>, 1907, "<a href="#SA1907p465">Systematic Theology</a>," p.465).</p></blockquote> <p>"... after <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%201:1&version=KJV">Genesis 1:1</a> the narrator deals with a <i>mediate creation</i>, which involves the <i>actualizing of potentialities latent in the original creation</i>":<blockquote>"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 (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%201:24&version=KJV">Gen. 1:24</a>). The Bible does not explicate man's physical origin in detail. The fact that, after <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%201:1&version=KJV">Genesis 1:1</a> 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." (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_F._H._Henry">Henry, C.F.H</a>., 1957, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Evangelical-Thought-Survey-Brooks/dp/B000V8476O/">Contemporary Evangelical Thought: A Survey</a>," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1968, p.282).</p></blockquote> <p> "By <i>mediate creation</i> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._B._Warfield">Warfield</a> meant that God acted, or intervened, <i>with already existing material</i> to bring something new into existence":<blockquote>"Warfield's third category was ... mediate creation-in effect, a via media between evolution and creation <i>ex nihilo</i> .... 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 <i>ex nihilo</i>, mediate creation required a direct act of God. Like evolution, mediate creation featured already existing material." (Noll M.A. & Livingstone D.N., 2000, "<a href="#NM&LD2000p34">B.B. Warfield: Evolution, Science and Scripture</a>," pp.34-35).</p></blockquote> <p> "... God ... in the beginning brought forth the whole visible and invisible universe, <i>without the use of preexistent material</i> ... this ... applies only to what is generally known as primary or <i>immediate creation</i> ... in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%201:1&version=KJV">Gen. 1:1</a>. But the Bible clearly uses the word `create' also in cases in which <i>God did make use of preexisting materials ... through secondary causes</i>":<blockquote>"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 <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%201:1&version=KJV">Gen. 1:1</a>. 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, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%20104:30;%20Isa%2045:7-8;%20Jer.%2031:22;%20Am%204:13&version=KJV">Ps. 104:30; Isa. 45:7,8; Jer. 31:22; Amos 4:13</a>, and produces results which only He could produce." (Berkhof, L., 1949, "<a href="#BL1949p128">Systematic Theology</a>," pp.128-129).</p></blockquote> <p><b>>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.</b></p> <p>I am not sure what are these "all the same arguments about IC" (<a href="http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840">Irreducible Complexity</a>) 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":<blockquote>"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 <i>irreducibly complex</i>, 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, "<a href="#BM2006p39">Darwin's Black Box</a>," p.39. Emphasis original).</p></blockquote> <p> since Darwin was being <i>deliberately dishonest</i>, and <i>unscientific, </i>in protecting his theory from falsification, by demanding that critics of his theory had to show the <i>impossible,</i> "a complex organ existed, which <i>could not possibly</i> have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications."</p> <p>And the<i> ultimate complex organ is the first living cell</i> (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 <i>single-step</i> chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself" but <i>"</i>the ... machinery of replication ... seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection":<blockquote>"Cumulative selection is the key but it had to get started, and we cannot escape the need to postulate a <i>single-step</i> 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, "<a href="#DR1986p140">The Blind Watchmaker</a>," pp.140-141. Emphasis original).</p></blockquote> <p><b>>Finally, consider the consequences of a God who is all knowing, all powerful, and beyond human comprehension in any respect.</b> </p> <p>Agreed that while God can be known by man, He cannot be comprehended (i.e. <i>fully</i> known)<i> </i>by man: <blockquote><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%205:9&version=NIV">Job 5:9</a>. He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2011:7&version=NIV">Job 11:7</a>. "Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2026:14&version=NIV">Job 26:14</a>. 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?" <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecc%208:17&version=NIV">Ecc 8:17</a>. 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. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa%2055:8-9&version=NIV">Isa 55:8-9</a>. "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. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%2011:33&version=NIV">Rom 11:33</a>. Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Cor%2013:12&version=NIV">1Cor 13:12</a>. 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.</p></blockquote> <p><i>.></i><b>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? </b></p> <p>I am not sure what you mean by "no human could understand them <i>all </i>on an intuitive level." The laws of physics are <i>simple</i> and can typically be expressed in a brief mathematical formula, e.g. E=mc^2, F=ma, etc. It is perhaps the <i>ultimate</i> design argument that our minds are fitted to understand the underlying laws of nature:<blockquote>"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, "<a href="#DP1994p54">The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Science</a>," p.54).</p></blockquote> <p><b>>Quantum-mechanics would be a pretty good example of laws completely incomprehensible intuitively to humans. </b></p> <p>Again, physicists <i>understand </i>the laws of Quantum Mechanics (along with the other laws of physics), in that they can discover, formulate and apply them, but they cannot <i>fully comprehend </i>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. </p> <p><b>>And this being has already seen everything in the universe happen already . </b></p> <p>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." </p> <p><b>>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. </b></p> <p>Agreed.</p> <p><b>>He would have made living things have DNA and made that DNA mutate causing variations in populations. </b></p> <p>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.</p> <p><b>>It would be how he designed those variations to change when selective pressures were applied to them etc etc. </b></p> <p>Agreed, but within the <i>limits observed</i> in nature. It is a <i>leap of Darwinian faith</i>, based on there being "no mechanism ... known ... that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random":<blockquote>"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." (<a href="#DR1986p312">Dawkins, 1986, p.312</a>).</p></blockquote> <p> but that <i>assumes that there is no God</i> who could have supernaturally intervened to "guide mutation in directions that are non-random."</p> <p><b>>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. </b></p> <p>There is ambiguity in your "expected it to" such that, together with "a perfect design" makes it sounds like God <i>approved</i> "every event, including <i>every sin</i>, which are events. And that Jesus commanded us to pray that the Father's will be done on earth as it is in heaven : <blockquote><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%206:9-10&version=NIV">Mt 6:9-10</a>. "This, then, is how you should pray: `'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, <i>your will be done on earth as it is in heaven</i>.'"</p></blockquote> <p>show that His perfect will is <i>not</i> yet being done on earth.</p> <p><b>>Doesn't this sound like a god thats described with all powerful, all knowing, etc? </b></p> <p>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.</p> <p><b>>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?</b></p> <p>There are different levels of design, as leading ID theorist <a href="http://www.discovery.org/p/32">Bill Dembski </a>explains, using the analogy of painting on a canvas:<blockquote>"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, "<a href="#DW1999p13">Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology</a>," pp.13-14).</p></blockquote> <p>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. </p> <p>And to talk of "evolution" being designed is to commit the <a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html">fallacy of equivocation</a>. As pointed out above, "evolution" in the "standard scientific theory" sense is that "God (including an Intelligent Designer) had <i>no part</i> in this process." </p> <p>However, if there is a God then <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism">Naturalism</a> (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.</p> <p> <b>>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.</b> </p> <p>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.</p> <p>The problem with TE (Theistic Evolution) is that in my experience its proponents always end up arguing for Naturalistic (i.e. <i>Atheistic</i>) Evolution!</p> <p><b>>Evolution does not demand atheism at all but it is observable in every aspect of biology. </b></p> <p><i>Naturalistic</i> evolution (including <i>Darwinian</i> evolution), which is the only acceptable evolution in <i>science, </i>does assume Atheism by its claim that there was nothing available "that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random." </p> <p>Darwin admitted to the Christian botanist Asa Gray that he wrote "atheistically" in his <i>Origin of Species</i>:<blockquote>"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], "<a href="#DC1898p105">The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin</a>," p.105).</p></blockquote> <p>And what's more Darwin was <i>lying</i> 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:<blockquote>"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 "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ever-Since-Darwin-Reflections-Natural/dp/0393308189">Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History</a>," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1991, pp.24-25. Ellipses Gould's).</p></blockquote> <p><b>>It would be a shame for a fellow biologist to miss the elegance in a system that describes so well the greatness of god.</b></p> <p>What am I missing out on? I <i>accept</i> that the proven natural mechanisms of biological change over time testify to the greatness of God (capital "G"). </p> <p>You may not realise it but your claim, or implication, that a god who works <i>only</i> 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: <blockquote>"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, "<a href="#HC2001p129">Darwin's God</a>," p.129).</p></blockquote> <p>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 <i>any</i> philosophy of men, let alone an <i>Atheistic</i> philosophy like Naturalism.</p> <p><b>>--Steve Cook </b></p> <p>It is ironic that former atheist <a href="http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/">Antony Flew</a>, who now believes in a God who supernaturally intervened to create the first living cell:<blockquote>"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, `<a href="http://www.sciencefindsgod.com/">Has Science Discovered God?</a>' .... The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's <i><a href="http://www.philosophynow.org/issue47/47flew.htm">Philosophy Now</a></i> 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, "<a href="#OR20041210">Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God</a>," <i>Livescience</i>, 10 December).</p></blockquote></p> <p>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!</p> <p><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology). <br>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">The Shroud of Turin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a> </p> <hr> <p>"<a name="BM2006p5"></a>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, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0684834936">Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution</a>," [1996], Free Press: New York NY, 10th Anniversary Edition, pp.5-6).</p> <p>"<a name="BM2006p39"></a>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 <i>irreducibly complex</i>, 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).</p> <p> "<a name="BL1949p128"></a>It should be noted that Scripture does not always use the Hebrew word <i>bara'</i> and the Greek term <i>ktizein</i> 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, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%201:21,27;%205:1;Isa%206:7,12;%2054:16;Amos%204:13;1Cor%2011:9;Rev%2010:6&version=KJV"><FON size="2" T>Gen. 1:21,27; 5:1; Isa. 6:7,12; 54:16; Amos 4:13; I Cor. 11:9; Rev. 10:6</a>. It even uses them to designate that which comes into existence under the providential guidance of God, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%20104:30;%20Isa%2045:7-8;%2065:18;%201Tim%204:4&version=KJV">Ps. 104:30; Isa. 45:7,8; 65:18; I Tim. 4:4</a>. two other terms are used synonymously with the term `to create,' namely, `to make' (Heb., <i>'asah</i>; Greek, <i>poiein</i>) and `to form' (Heb. <i>yatsar</i>; Greek, <i>plasso</i>). The former is clearly used in all the three senses indicated in the preceding: of primary creation in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%202:4;Pr.%2016:4;Ac%2017:24&version=KJV">Gen. 2:4; Prov. 16:4; Acts 17:24</a>; more frequently of secondary creation, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%201:7,16,26;%202:22;%20Ps%2089:47&version=KJV">Gen. 1:7,16,26; 2:22; Ps. 89:47</a>; and of the work of providence in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%2074:17&version=KJV">Ps. 74:17</a>. The latter is used similarly of primary creation, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%2090:2&version=KJV">Ps. 90:2</a> (perhaps the only instance of this use); of secondary creation, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%202:7,19;%20Ps%20104:26;%20Amos%204:13;%20Zec%2012:1&version=KJV">Gen. 2:7,19; Ps. 104:26; Amos 4:13; Zech. 12:1</a>; and of the work of providence, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dt%2032:18;%20Isa%2043:1,7,21;%2045:7&version=KJV">Deut. 32:18; Isa. 43:1,7,21; 45:7</a>. All three words are found together in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa%2045:7&version=KJV">Isa. 45:7</a>. 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 <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%201:1&version=KJV">Gen. 1:1</a>. 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, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%20104:30;%20Isa%2045:7-8;%20Jer.%2031:22;%20Am%204:13&version=KJV">Ps. 104:30; Isa. 45:7,8; Jer. 31:22; Amos 4:13</a>, and produces results which only He could produce." (Berkhof, L., 1949, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Louis-Berkhof/dp/0802838200">Systematic Theology</a>," Banner of Truth: London, 1966, Reprinted, pp.128-129).</p> <p>"<a name="DC1898p105"></a>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).</p> <p>"<a name="DP1994p54"></a><i>The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Science</i>. 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., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Purpose-Scientists-Discover-Creator/dp/0826406491">Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator</a>," Continuum: New York NY, 1994, p.54).</p> <p>"<a name="DR1986p140"></a>Cumulative selection is the key but it had to get started, and we cannot escape the need to postulate a <i>single-step</i> 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 <i>blind</i> watchmaker but a far-sighted supernatural watchmaker." (Dawkins, R., 1986, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703">The Blind Watchmaker</a>: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, pp.140-141. Emphasis original).</p> <p>"<a name="DRBW1986p248"></a>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 <i>point</i> of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a <i>non-</i> 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).</p> <p>"<a name="DR1986p312"></a>There is a fifth respect in which mutation <i>might</i> 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).</p> <p>"<a name="DRBW1986p316"></a>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, <i>human</i> 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).</p> <p>"<a name="DW1999p13"></a>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, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Between-Science-Theology/dp/0830815813">Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology</a>," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, pp.13-14).</p> <p>"<a name="HC2001p129"></a>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, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-God-Evolution-Problem-Evil/dp/1587430118">Darwin's God Evolution and the Problem of Evil</a>," Brazos Press: Grand Rapids MI, p.129).</p> <p>"<a name="NM&LD2000p34"></a>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 <i>ex nihilo</i>, 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 <i>ex nihilo</i> 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 <i>ex nihilo</i>, mediate creation required a direct act of God. Like evolution, mediate creation featured already existing material." (Noll M.A. & Livingstone D.N., eds, 2000, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Science-Scripture-Selected-Writings/dp/0801022177">B.B. Warfield: Evolution, Science and Scripture: Selected Writings</a>," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, pp.34-35).</p> <p>"<a name="OR20041210"></a>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, `<a href="http://www.sciencefindsgod.com/">Has Science Discovered God?</a>' .... The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's <i><a href="http://www.philosophynow.org/issue47/47flew.htm">Philosophy Now</a></i> 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, "<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/AFlew.html">Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God</a>," Livescience/Associated Press, 10 December).</p>"<a name="SM2002"></a>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, <i>but God had no part in this process</i>.'" (Shermer, M.B., 2002, "<a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000447A8-10B7-1CC6-B4A8809EC588EEDF">The Gradual Illumination of the Mind</a>," <i>Scientific American</i>, February. My emphasis).</p> <p>"<a name="SA1907p465"></a>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 ` (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%201:24&version=KJV">Gen. 1:24</a>) does not exclude the idea of mediate creation, through natural generation, so the forming of man `of the dust of the ground' (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%202:7&version=KJV">Gen. 2:7</a>) 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 (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2014:19&version=KJV">Mat. 14:19</a>), or which the wine sustained to the water which was transformed at Cana (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn+2%3A7-10&version=NIV">John 2:7-10</a>), or which the multiplied oil sustained to the original oil in the O.T. miracle (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Ki%204:1-7&version=KJV">2 K. 4:1-7</a>) The `dust,' before the breathing of the spirit into it, may have been animated dust." (Strong, A.H., 1907, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Augustus-Hopkins-Strong/dp/0817001778">Systematic Theology</a>," Judson Press: Valley Forge PA, Reprinted, 1967, p.465).</p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-59148537705269862602009-05-10T21:55:00.009+08:002009-08-07T19:01:47.048+08:00Re: If Behe believes in common descent, how does he explain the transition from a more "primitive" blood-clotting system?<p>Thanks for your comment under my post, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/09/pierre-grasse-and-irreducible.html">Pierre Grasse and the `irreducible complexity' of the blood-clotting cascade</a>" and my </p> <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.setma.com/images/FibrinolyticDysfunction2.gif"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px;" src="http://www.setma.com/images/FibrinolyticDysfunction2.gif" border="0" alt="" /></a><p>[<a href="http://www.setma.com/images/FibrinolyticDysfunction2.gif">Above</a> (click to enlarge): <a href="http://www.setma.com/article.cfm?ID=330">Coagulation and Fibrinolytic Pathways</a>: James L. Holly M.D, SETMA:<blockquote>"... 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, "<a href="#HJ2007">Cardiometabolic Risk Syndrome Part V: Fibrinolytic Dysfunction</a>").]</p></blockquote> <p>apologies for the delay in responding (due in part to my having <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2009/03/i-am-training-to-be-high-school-biology.html">gone back to university to become a biology teacher</a>). 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 <b>bold </b>to differentiate them from mine.<br><br>---- Original Message ----- <br>From: Kevin Eubanks <br>To: Stephen E. Jones, <br>Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 6:37 AM <br>Subject: [CreationEvolutionDesign] New comment on Pierre Grasse and the `irreducible complexity' of ....<br><br><b>>Kevin Eubanks has left a new comment on your post "Pierre Grasse and the `irreducible complexity' of ...": <br>><br>>I'm an English teacher in Texas, but I deal with the Intelligent Design issue in my courses. </b> </p> <p>This shows how <i>insecure</i> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism">Darwinism</a> (aka. atheistic evolution) is, that it cannot meet ID face-to-face in a <i>science</i> course, but must be protected from competition and criticism by `quarantining' ID in an <i>English</i> course! Students will rightly think among themselves, "what are the Darwinists <i>afraid</i> of?" If the Darwinists thought they had the truth, they would <i>want</i> to confront ID head on, as the founder of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design">ID Movement</a>, Law Professor <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson">Phillip E. Johnson</a> pointed out:<blockquote>"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, "<a href="#PJ2004p141">The Wedge of Truth</a>," p.141).</p></blockquote> <p><b>>This week, I had a student write an essay in support of Behe's argument that the blood clotting system is irreducibly complex. </b> </p> <p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/images/behe1.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 250px;" src="http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/images/behe1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>Great! Although this is only one student, </p> <p>[<a href="http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/images/behe1.jpg">Right</a>: <a href="http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html">Michael J. Behe</a>, Ph.D. Professor of Biochemistry: Lehigh University, Bethlehem PA.]</p> <p>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 <a href="http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html">Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael J. Behe</a>'s claim that the vertebrate <a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_indefenseofbloodclottingcascade.htm">blood clotting cascade is irreducibly complex</a>, i.e. it is a complex biological system that could not <i>plausibly</i> "be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications" which Darwin admitted would cause his theory of evolution by natural selection to "absolutely break down":<blockquote>"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, "<a href="#BM2006p251">Darwin's Black Box</a>," p.251).</p></blockquote><p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Coagulation_full.svg/750px-Coagulation_full.svg.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; " src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Coagulation_full.svg/750px-Coagulation_full.svg.png" border="0" alt="" /></a>[<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Coagulation_full.svg/750px-Coagulation_full.svg.png">Above</a> (click to enlarge): <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coagulation#The_coagulation_cascade">The coagulation cascade</a>: Wikipedia]</p><p><b>>In trying to respond to her essay, I got stuck on one issue. </b> </p> <p>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 <i>science</i> of her essay. All you could <i>legitimately</i> do is comment on whether her argument and evidence is <i>logically</i> 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 <i>poor</i> teacher if you marked her down if she did not agree with your <i>personal</i> philosophy.</p> <p><b>>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?</b> </p> <p>This shows a common error that even many (if not most) biologists make (including Darwin), confusing the <i>relationship</i> of common descent with a <i>mechanism</i> (one of many) by which that relationship is <i>conserved</i>, 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):<blockquote>"... 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, "<a href=#BM2000a>In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade</a>").</p></blockquote> <p> Behe's <i>major</i> claim is that his proposed examples of irreducible complexity are evidence that they <i>did not</i> arise by the <i>Darwinian mechanism</i> of the natural selection of "numerous, successive, <i>slight modifications.</i>" He <i>does not</i> 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."</p> <p> Darwin was well aware, as are modern Darwinists like Dawkins, that God <i>could</i> have intervened supernaturally at links in the chain of common descent, i.e. "<i>miraculous additions</i> at <i>any one stage of descent</i>," leaving the chain (and therefore the fact of universal common ancestry) intact:<blockquote>"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 <i>point</i> of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a <i>non</i>-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, "<a href="#DR1986p248">The Blind Watchmaker</a>," pp.248-249).</p></blockquote> <p>Note that neither Darwin nor Dawkins denied that there <i>could</i> be supernatural intervention by God in the chain of common descent. Indeed, they both admitted that there <i>could</i> have been "<i>miraculous additions</i> at <i>any one stage of descent</i>." And they <i>don't</i> say that the <i>theory of universal common ancestry</i> would then be "rubbish" (see <a href="#DR1986p248">full quote below</a>) if "evolution" was in that way "helped over the jumps by God. They say that Darwin's "<i>theory of natural selection</i>" would then be "rubbish," i.e. as a <i>general</i> theory of evolution and in particular an explanation of complex biological design. Darwin's theory of natural selection would still explain some aspects of <i>microevolution</i>, i.e. change at or below the species level. </p> <p>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 <i>how</i> the Intelligent Designer (who he, like me, <i>believes</i> is the Christian God) <i>did</i> build Behe's claimed irreducibly complex systems like the blood clotting cascade. However, Behe has indicated elsewhere that he believes in `God-guided evolution':<blockquote>"[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, "<a href=#BM2000b>Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism</a>").</p></blockquote> <p> by which I assume he believes that instead of Darwinism's random, i.e. <i>undirected</i> mutations:<blockquote>"There is a fifth respect in which mutation <i>might</i> 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, <a href="#DR1986p312">Ibid.</a>, p.312).</p></blockquote> <p> the Intelligent Designer (God) <i>supernaturally directed</i> mutations to build irreducibly complex designs. This is basically my position, except I agree with Dawkins that "any evolution that had to be <i>helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all</i>." (Dawkins, 1986, <a href="#DR1986p248">Ibid</a>, p.249) but rather, "guided evolution" is a form of "<i>divine creation</i>"!<blockquote>"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, <a href="#DR1986p248">Ibid</a>, pp.287, 316-317).</p></blockquote> <p><b>>From personal experience, I know how busy you must be! But any help you could offer would be greatly appreciated.</b> </p> <p>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 <a href="mailto:mjb1@lehigh.edu"> his email address</a> on his <a href="http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html">Lehigh University page</a>) and ask him personally what his answer is.</p> <p> <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology). <br>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">TheShroudofTurin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah! </a></p> <hr> <p>"<a name="BM2000a"></a>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, "<a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_indefenseofbloodclottingcascade.htm">In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade</a>: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison," Discovery Institute, July 31. Uppercase emphasis Behe's).</p> <p>"<a name="BM2000b"></a>[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., "<a href="http://ecoserver.imbb.forth.gr/microbiology/s-e-papers/e-papers/flagellar_motor.pdf">The Turn of the Screw: The Bacterial Flagellar Motor</a>," <i>Cell</i>, 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, "<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/288/5467/813?ck=nck#165">Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism</a>," <i>Science</i>, dEbate, 7 July).</p> <p>"<a name="BM2006p251"></a>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 <i>irreducibly complex</i>, 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, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0684834936">Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution</a>," [1996], Free Press: New York NY, Tenth Anniversary Edition, p.251).</p> <p>"<a name="DR1986p248"></a>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 <i>point</i> of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a <i>non</i>-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, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703">The Blind Watchmaker</a>: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, pp.248-249).</p> <p>"<a name="DR1986p312"></a>There is a fifth respect in which mutation <i>might</i> 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).</p> <p>"<a name="DR1986p287"></a>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).</p> <p>"<a name="HJ2007"></a>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, "<a href="http://www.setma.com/article.cfm?ID=330">Cardiometabolic Risk Syndrome Part V: Fibrinolytic Dysfunction</a>," <i>Your Life Your Heath - The Examiner</i>, January 11). </p> <p>"<a name="PJ2004p141"></a>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, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Wedge-Truth-Splitting-Foundations-Naturalism/dp/0830822674">The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism</a>," Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, p.141). </p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-83745270778518654902009-03-12T05:16:00.010+09:002011-02-03T16:36:05.786+08:00I am training to be a high school biology teacher, so less blogging!<p>In 2004 when I finished my biology degree, I originally intended to do further training to become a high school biology teacher. </p> <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.duluxprotectivecoatings.com.au/images/gallery/schools/edith-cowan-university-joondalup-campus.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px;" src="http://www.duluxprotectivecoatings.com.au/images/gallery/schools/edith-cowan-university-joondalup-campus.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><p>[<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/ECU.jpg">Above</a>: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Cowan_University">Edith Cowan University, Joondalup</a>: Wikipedia]</p> <p>However, by then our superannuation was doing so well, I did not need to work, so I decided to retire instead.</p> <p>But now due to the financial crash, I have had to revert to plan A, and am 3 weeks into a 1 year <a href="http://handbook.ecu.edu.au/CourseStructure.asp?disyear=2008&CID=1110&USID=0&Ver=3&HB=HB&SC=PG">Graduate Diploma of Education (Secondary)</a>, majoring in Biological Science, at <a href="http://www.ecu.edu.au/">Edith Cowan University</a>, Joondalup, where I did my biology degree.</p> <p>So I now have a <i>lot less</i> 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 <i>very</i> busy, even in school holidays!</p><p><FONT color=#ff0000>Update:</FONT> 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!</p> <p><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology). <br>Blogs: <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/">CreationEvolutionDesign</a>, <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">TheShroudofTurin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a></p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-15947035779525077342009-02-02T23:42:00.011+09:002009-02-03T13:33:45.382+09:00Re: Daniel's 70 weeks: interpretation of the Hebrew word for `Weeks'<p>AN</p> <p>Thank you for your message. As per my stated policy about </p> <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Arch_of_Titus_Menorah.png/800px-Arch_of_Titus_Menorah.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Arch_of_Titus_Menorah.png/800px-Arch_of_Titus_Menorah.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><p>[<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Arch_of_Titus_Menorah.png/800px-Arch_of_Titus_Menorah.png">Above</a> (click to enlarge): The victory spoils from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70)">the sack of Jerusalem</a> in AD 70, <a title="Arch of Titus" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_Titus">Arch of Titus</a>, Rome: Wikipedia. Most Christian commentators have interpreted (as I do):<blockquote>"The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:26;&version=31;">Dn 9:26</a>)</blockquote></p><p>as a prediction by Daniel in 539/538 BC of this destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by a Roman army led by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus">Titus Vespasian</a> in AD 70. And therefore Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks was <i>completely fulfilled</i> by AD 70.]</p> <p>when I receive a private message on a topic covered by one of my blogs, I will respond to your message via my <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/">CED</a> blog, after removing your personal identifying information. Your words are <b>bold </b>to distinguish them from my response. Also, since you have used <FONT color=#ff0000><b>red</b></FONT> to emphasis some of your words below, I will use <FONT color=#008000><b>green</b></FONT> to emphasise some of mine. <br><br>----- Original Message ---- - <br>From: AN <br>To: Stephen E. Jones<br>Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 12:53 AM<br>Subject: Daniel's 70 weeks<br> <br>><b>I've looked at your blog every now and then over the years. Recently I was sent a version of Daniel's 70</b> <b>weeks (</b><b>Dan 9:24-27</b><b>) by a friend that I had never heard before.</b> </p> <p>You don't mention it, but I assume you are aware of my 2008 blog post, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/10/re-i-am-requesting-your-help-involving.html">Re: I am requesting your help involving Daniel 9:24-27</a>," which in turn refers to my 2005 post, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/07/daniels-70-weeks-proof-that-naturalism.html">Daniel's 70 `weeks': Proof that Naturalism is false and Christianity is true!</a>." </p> <p>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 <i>every</i> Hebrew word in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:24-27;&version=31;">Dan 9:24-27</a>. 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 "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Brown-Driver-Briggs-Hebrew-English-Lexicon-Francis/dp/1565632060">Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew English Lexicon</a>" (1996), which I have only had since December. </p><p>As this post shows, it is <i>essential</i> to first find out what the <i>words</i> of this prophecy <i>actually say</i> , before attempting to <i>interpret</i> and <i>apply</i> the prophecy to historical persons, events and times.</p> <p>><b>I have never really been drawn to this particular prophecy as all of the interpretations never felt quite right, so I ignored it. </b></p> <p>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? </p> <p><b>>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</b><br>><br>><b>I believe they are a Messianic Church out of OK</b> <a href="http://www.danielstimeline.com/danielstimeline.html">http://www.danielstimeline.com/danielstimeline.html</a></p> <p>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.</p> <p>><b>Of most interest to me <FONT color=#ff0000>is the interpretation of the Hebraic word for "Weeks" or Shavuot</FONT>. </b></p> <p>According to my four Hebrew lexicons, the website is simply <i>wrong</i> in its central claim that "the Hebrew word <i>Shabuwa</i>" means "a period of Seven <FONT color=#008000><b>and also Feast of Weeks</b></FONT>":<blockquote>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:<blockquote>SHABUWA (shaw-boo'-ah); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 7620: seven, period of seven (days or years), heptad, week; <FONT color=#008000><b>Feast of Weeks (Shavuot)</b></FONT></blockquote> 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 <FONT color=#008000><b>Shavuots</b></FONT> are determined." (<a href="http://www.danielstimeline.com/danielstimeline.html">Daniel's Timeline Report</a>, 19 November 2007).</p></blockquote> <p>The fundamental error above is the ignoring (or not even realising) that Strong's Concordance does not give the meaning of <FONT color=#008000><b>every</b></FONT> Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek word, but only of every <FONT color=#008000><b>root</b></FONT> word:<blockquote>"... in Strong's Concordance ... Not every distinct word is assigned a number, but only the root words. " ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong's_Concordance">Strong's Concordance</a>," Wikipedia, 3 January 2009).</p></blockquote> <p>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 <FONT color=#008000><b>every English word</b></FONT> in the KJV Bible (or other English translation), <FONT color=#008000><b>not every Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek word</b></FONT> underlying those English words. </p> <p>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):<blockquote>"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, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/James-Strongs-Exhaustive-Concordance-Bible/dp/0785247238">New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance</a>: King James Version," [1890], Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, Reprinted, 2007, p.1440)</p></blockquote> <p>And in the "Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary" section at the back it has the following explanation of Strong's number 7620:<blockquote>"7620. ... <i>shabuwa`</i>, shaw-boo-ah; or ... <i>shabua`</i>, shaw-boo-ah; also (fem.) ... shebu`ah, sheb-oo-aw ; prop. pass. part. of 7650 as a denom. of 7851; lit. <i>sevened</i>, i.e. a <i>week</i> (spec. of years):- seven, week." (Strong, 1996, Ibid, "Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary," p.136).</p></blockquote> <p>As can be seen above, even though it lists under 7620 those verses containing "Feast of the Weeks" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ex%2034:22;%20Dt%2016:16;%202Ch%208:13;&version=31;">Ex 34:22; Deut 16:16; 2Chr 8:13</a>), 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:<blockquote>"H7620 .. <i>shabuwa` shabua` shebu`ah</i> .. Properly passive participle of H7650 as a denominative of H7651; literally <i>sevened</i>, that is, a <i>week</i> (specifically of years): - seven, week."</p></blockquote> <p>Also, I have my Hebrew Bible open in front of me and the word in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209.24;&version=31;">Dan 9:24</a> which is translated `weeks' by most English Bibles is (from right to left) <i>shabu`im</i>. And <i>shabu`im</i> is, according to my Davidson's "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Analytical-Chaldee-Lexicon-Benjamin-Davidson/dp/0913573035">Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon</a>," the "noun masc pl" of "<i>shabu`a</i>," which in turn means "seven":<blockquote>"<i>Shabu`a</i> ... <i>seven</i> ... <FONT color=#008000><b><i>shabu`im</i> .. noun masc., pl.</b></FONT> of <i>shabu`a</i> ..." (Davidson, 1966, "<a href="#DB1966p698">The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon</a>," pp.698-699).</p></blockquote> <p>Davidson's lexicon also states that <i>shabu`im</i> means, "<i>a week of years</i>" in "Da. 9:24":<blockquote>"... <i><FONT color=#008000><b>shabu`im</b></FONT> ..</i>. a <FONT color=#008000><b>week of years</b></FONT>, comp. Da. 9.24." (Davidson, 1966, <a href="#DB1966p698">Ibid</a>., p.698).</p></blockquote> <p> and his lexicon also has "the feast of weeks" as being <FONT color=#008000><b><i>two different</i></b></FONT> Heb. words,<i> <FONT color=#008000><b>hag shabu`ot</b></FONT></i>:<blockquote>"... <i><FONT color=#008000><b>shabu`oth</b></FONT></i> ... I. <i>a week</i>, <i>seven days</i>; <FONT color=#008000><b><i>hag shabu`oth</i> the feast of weeks</b></FONT> ..." (Davidson, 1966, <a href="#DB1966p698">Ibid</a>., p.698).</p></blockquote> <p>The "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Theological-Wordbook-Old-Testament-2-vol/dp/0802486312">Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament</a>" (TWOT) also says that "the Feast of Weeks" is the two different words, <i>hag shabu`ot</i>, and the latter is the same word as the above website's "shavuot" but transliterated slightly differently:<blockquote>"... the <FONT color=#008000><b>Feast of Weeks</b></FONT> (<FONT color=#008000><b>hag shabu`ot</b></FONT>), i.e. the Feast of Seven-Periods. American Jewry often still call this feast `<i>Shavuos</i>,' but today's Israeli pronunciation is `<i>Shavuot'</i>." (Harris, <i>et al</i>., 1992, "<a href="#HAW1992p2:899">Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament</a>," p.2:899).</p></blockquote> <p>The TWOT also states that in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dan%209:24-27;&version=31;">Dan 9:24-27</a>, "<i>shabu'a</i> ... denotes <i>a period of seven years</i> in each of its appearances in these four verses" :<blockquote>"While in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dt%2016:9;&version=31;">Deut 16:9</a> ... <i>shabu'a</i> represents a period of seven days, <FONT color=#008000><b>in</b></FONT> <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dan%209:24-27;&version=31;">Dan 9:24,25,26,27</a><b><FONT color=#008000> it denotes a period of seven years</b></FONT> in each of its appearances in these four verses." (Harris, <i>et al</i>., 1992, <a href="#HAW1992p2:899">Ibid</a>., p.2:899).</p></blockquote> <p>Brown-Driver-Brigg's "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Brown-Driver-Briggs-Hebrew-English-Lexicon-Francis/dp/1565632060">Hebrew-English Lexicon</a>" gives for <i>shabu`a</i>, "n[oun] m[asculine] <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:27;&version=31;">Dn 9:27</a> <b><FONT color=#008000>period of seven (days or years), heptad</b></FONT>," which is the last week (singular) in v.27 of the seventy weeks (plural) in v.24, the plural being <i>shabu`im</i> <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:24;&version=31;">Dn 9:24</a> .. <i>heptad</i> or <i>seven</i> of years":<blockquote>"<a name="BDB1996p988"></a><i><FONT color=#008000><b>Shabu`a</b></FONT></i> n.m. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:27;&version=31;">Dn 9:27</a> <i><FONT color=#008000><b>period of seven</b></FONT></i> (days, <FONT color=#008000><b>years</b></FONT>), <i><FONT color=#008000><b>heptad</b></FONT>, week</i> ... <FONT color=#008000><b><i>shabu`im</i> </b></FONT><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:24;&version=31;">Dn 9:24</a><b><FONT color=#008000> .. <i>heptad</i> or <i>seven</i> of years</b></FONT> ... <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:24,25,26,27;&version=31;">Dn 9:24,25,26,27</a> ...<i></i>" (Brown, <i>et al</i>., 1996, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Brown-Driver-Briggs-Hebrew-English-Lexicon-Francis/dp/1565632060">Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew English Lexicon</a>," pp.988-989).</p></blockquote> <p> Brown-Driver-Briggs also gives <i>hag shabu`ot</i> as "feast of weeks":<blockquote>"... <i><FONT color=#008000><b>hag shabu`oth</b></FONT></i> <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ex%2034:22;&version=31;">Ex 34:22</a> (J) <i><FONT color=#008000><b>feast of weeks</b></FONT></i> (ending seven weeks of harvest), <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dt%2016:10,16;%202Ch%208:13;&version=31;">Dt 16:10,16 2 Ch 8:13</a> ..." (Brown, <i>et al</i>., 1996, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Brown-Driver-Briggs-Hebrew-English-Lexicon-Francis/dp/1565632060">Ibid</a>.," p.989).</p></blockquote> <p>Tregelles' "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gesenius-Hebrew-Chaldee-Lexicon-Testament/dp/0801037360">Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures</a>" also distinguishes between "<i>hag shabu`oth the feast of</i> (seven) <i>weeks</i>" and "<i>shabu`im</i> .. <i>a hebdomad of years</i>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:24;&version=31;">Dan. 9:24</a>":<blockquote>"<i>Shabu`a</i> m. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:27%20;&version=31;">Dan. 9:27</a> .. pl. <i>shabu`im</i> m. .. (1) ... <i>hag shabu`oth the feast of</i> (seven) <i>weeks ...</i> (2) <i>a hebdomad of years</i>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:24;&version=31;">Dan. 9:24</a>, seqq. ..." (Tregelles, 1949, "<a href="#TS1949p800">Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures</a>," p.800).</p></blockquote> <p>So that Messianic Jewish website's interpretation <i>fails at the most basic level</i>, that of the actual Hebrew word(s) translated "week(s)" in Dn 9:24-27, namely, <i>shabu`a</i> (singular) and <i>shabu`im</i> (plural). These, in their unusual masculine gender form mean "`weeks' of years" or "heptads of years":<blockquote>"<i>The prophecy of the Seventy Weeks</i> ... Here we simply point out that the term <FONT color=#008000><b>`weeks'</b></FONT> (rendered in NIV as `sevens') is <i><FONT color=#008000><b>sabu'im</b></FONT></i>, from <i>sabua`</i>, which <FONT color=#008000><b>always takes a feminine plural, <i>sebu'ot</i>, when it means a seven of days</b></FONT>, namely, a `week.' The <FONT color=#008000><b>masculine plural here probably indicates that the word is meant as a heptad ... of years</b></FONT>." (Archer, G.L., 1985, "Daniel," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Daniel-Minor-Prophets-Gleason-Archer/dp/0310364906">The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Daniel and the Minor Prophets</a>," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Vol. 7, p.26. Emphasis original).<br> <br>"[Dan 9:24]... <i>Seventy sevens</i> ... The <FONT color=#008000><b>word <I>sevens</I> here</b></FONT> occurs in the <FONT color=#008000><b>m[asculine].pl[ural].</b></FONT>, whereas it <FONT color=#008000><b>generally has a f[eminine].pl[ural]</b></FONT>. ... The reason for this <FONT color=#008000><b>m[asculine].</b></FONT> form ... is not clear unless it was for the deliberate purpose of <b><FONT color=#008000>calling attention to the fact that the word sevens is employed in an unusual sense</b></FONT>. " (Young, E.J., 1949, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Prophecy-Daniel-Commentary-Edward-Young/dp/0802833128">A Commentary on Daniel</a>," Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, British edition, 1972, Reprinted, 1978, p.195. Emphasis original).</p></blockquote> <p>They do <i>not</i> mean "the Feast of Weeks" which is <i>two different</i> words, <i>hag shabu`oth</i>." </p> <p><b>>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 <FONT color=#ff0000>a very different and very timely</FONT> prophecy.</b></p> <p>See above. I assume you mean "seven <i>year</i> period of time" That "the Hebraic word for `Weeks'" in Dan 9:24-27, <i>shabu`im</i> (plural) and <i>shabu`a</i> (singular), "has always" (or at least <i>mostly</i>) "been translated as a seven"<i> year</i> "period of time" is because <i>that is what they mean</i>!</p> <p>Preferring an interpretation <i>merely</i> because it is "timely," i.e. applies to the near future, may make it <i>seem</i> more interesting to this current generation, but it is an <i>irrelevant</i> criteria for discovering to what period the prophecy <i>actually</i> applies to. </p> <p>><b>Thank you very much</b><br>><br>>AN</p> <p>You're welcome. I hope this has been of some help.</p> <p><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology). <br>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">TheShroudofTurin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus<i> is</i> Jehovah! </a></p> <hr> <p> "<a name="BDB1996p988"></a><i>Shabu`a</i> n.m. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:27;&version=31;">Dn 9:27</a> <i>period of seven</i> (days, years), <i>heptad, week</i> (on format. v. Lag. BN 67);-abs. <i>sh'</i> Dn 9:27; cstr. <i>shebu`a</i> Gn 29:27-28; du. <i>shebu`im</i> Lev 12:5 pl. <i>shab`</i> (<i>o</i>)<i> th</i> Ex 34:22 + 4t. Dt. + (in term. techn.) 2 Ch 8:13; late <i>shabu`im</i> Dn 9:24 + 4 t. Dn; cstr. <i>sheb`ith</i> Je 5:24 (Ez 45:21 read <i>shibe`ath</i> with Vrss and all mod., v. <i>sheba`</i>); sf. <i>shabu`othokem</i> Nu 28:26; - 1. period of <i>seven days</i> (fr. a given time), <i>week</i>: Dt 16:9 Lv 12:5 (P) ; of marriage feast Gn 29:27-28 (E; cf. Ju 14:12 Tob 11:19); <i>yamim shabu`im</i> Dn 10:2-3 three <i>weeks</i>, <i>days</i> (three weeks long); <i>qatsir huqoth</i> Je 5:24 <i>weeks of statutes</i> (i.e. weeks appointed by) <i>for harvest</i>; term. techn. <i>hag shabu`oth</i> <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ex%2034:22%20;&version=31;">Ex 34:22</a> (J) <i>feast of weeks</i> (ending seven weeks of harvest), <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dt%2016:10,16;%202Ch%208:13;&version=31;">Dt 16:10,16 2 Ch 8:13</a>, so <i>sh'</i> alone Nu 28:26 (P). 2. <i>heptad</i> or <i>seven</i> of years, late, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:24,25,26,27;&version=31;">Dn 9:24,25,26,27</a>. - <i>shebu`oth shebu`o</i> Ez 21:28 v. [<i>shaba`</i>]" (Brown, F., Driver, S.R. & Briggs, C.A., 1996, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Brown-Driver-Briggs-Hebrew-English-Lexicon-Francis/dp/1565632060">Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew English Lexicon</a>," Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody MA, pp.988-989. My transliteration).</p> <p>"<a name="DB1966p698"></a><i>Shabu`a</i> ... <i>sheba`</i> § 35. rem. 7) fem. <i>shibe`ath</i> masc. (constr. <i>shibe`ath</i>).-I. num. card. <i>seven</i>; <i>seba` shanim seven years</i>, and with the constr. <i>shib`eath yamim seven days</i>; less frequently preceded by the noun, as <i>shibe`ah 'elim seven rams</i>; also as an ordinal when preceded by a noun in the construct state, as <i>sheba` shenath seventh year</i>; <i>shibe`ah shibe`ah by sevens</i>; <i>`ese'rah sheba`</i> fem. & <i>`ashar shibe`ah</i> masc. <i>seventeen.</i> - II. (<i>sheba`</i>) adv. <i>seven times</i>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%20119:164;%20Pr%2024:16;&version=31;">Ps. 119.164; Pr 24.16</a>. Du. <i>shibe`athaim sevenfold</i>. Pl. <i>shibe`im</i> (§ 35. rem. 16) <i>seventy</i>. For another <i>sheba`</i> (& <i>shib`ah</i>) see below. ... <i>shabu`im</i>, <i>shabu`oth</i> with suff. <i>shabu`othokem</i> (§ 32 rem. 1). - I. <i>a week</i>, <i>seven days</i>; <i>hag shabu`oth the feast of weeks</i>, <i>pentecost</i>, -II. <i>a week of years</i>, comp. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209.24;&version=31;">Da. 9.24</a>, seq. <i>shebi`i</i> masc. <i>shibi`ith</i> fem. adj. ordin. from <i>shaba`</i>, <i>seventh</i>. ... <i>shabu`im</i> .. noun masc., pl. of <i>shabu`a</i> (§ 32 rem. 1). <i>shaba`</i>" (Davidson, B., 1966, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Analytical-Chaldee-Lexicon-Benjamin-Davidson/dp/0913573035">The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon</a>," Samuel Bagster & Sons: London, pp.698-699. My transliteration).</p> <p><a name="HAW1992p2:899"></a><i>shabua`. A period of seven, a week, the Feast of Weeks.</i> This term occurs twenty times in the or, always indicating a period of seven. Indeed, the word obviously comes to us from <i>sheba'</i> (q.v.) and could literally be translated always as `seven-period.' In <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dt%2016:9;&version=31;">Deut 16:9</a>, <i>shabu'a</i> represents a period of seven days (literally `seven seven-periods you-shall-number-to-you'). The context in verses <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dt%2016:9-16;&version=31;">9, 10, and 16</a> 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 <i>waw</i>-is omitted (<i>shabu`ot</i>), as it is also at times in the singular (e.g. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%2029:27;&version=31;">Gen 29:27</a>, <i>shebua`</i>) where in an unpointed text it would then be spelled identically to seven, <i>sheba'</i>, in the feminine. While in Deut 16:9, discussed above, <i>shabu'a</i> represents a period of seven days, in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dan%209:24-27;&version=31;">Dan 9:24,25,26,27</a> it denotes a period of seven years in each of its appearances in these four verses. ... <i>shabua`</i> is also used as a technical term in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dt%2016:10,16%20;&version=31;">Deut 16:10,16</a> where it denotes the Feast of Weeks (<i>hag shabu`ot</i>), i.e. the Feast of Seven-Periods. American Jewry often still call this feast `<i>Shavuos</i>,' but today's Israeli pronunciation is `<i>Shavuot</i>'. It was so named because it was to be celebrated `on the morrow after' the seventh sabbath after the day of firstfruits (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev%2023:15-16;&version=31;">Lev 23:15-16</a>)! Hence it was the feast of the day following the seven seven-periods, or the feast of <i>Hamishim Yom</i>, 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 (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=31;">Acts 2</a>). As Christ was the `firstfruits' (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Cor%2015:20-23;&version=31;">I Cor 15:20,23</a>), many also see in this later Feast of Weeks, <i>shabua`</i>, a picture of the coming resurrection of all the redeemed." (Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. & Waltke, B.K., eds, 1980, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Theological-Wordbook-Old-Testament-2-vol/dp/0802486312">Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament</a>," Moody Press: Chicago IL, Twelfth Printing, 1992, Vol. II, p.899. My transliteration).</p> <p>"<a name="TS1949p800"></a><i>Shabu`a</i> m. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:27%20;&version=31;">Dan. 9:27</a> (<i>shebu`a ze'th</i> Gen. 29:27, should be rendered <i>the week of this</i> woman); const. <i>shebu`a</i> Gen. 29:27, 28; dual <i>shebu`aim</i> Levit. 12:5; pl. <i>shabu`im</i> m. (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:25;%2010:2-3;&version=31;">Dan. 9:25; 10:2, 3</a>), and <i>shabu`oth</i> const. <i>shebu`oth</i> with suff. <i>shabu`othokem</i> Nu. 28:26, <i>a hebdomad</i>, <i>ebdomas septenary number</i> (denom. from <i>shba`</i> seven, compare <i>`asor</i> a decade). (1) of days, <i>a week</i>, Gen. 29:27, 28. Dan. 10: 2, <i>shelshah yamim shabu`im</i> "through three weeks" (where <i>yamim</i> is not a genit., see <i>yamim</i> No. 2, <i>b</i>, page CCCXLII, A). <i>hag shabu`oth the feast of</i> (seven) <i>weeks</i>, <i>pentecost</i>, so called from the seven weeks which were counted from the passover to this festival, Deu. 16:9. Fully, Tob. 2:1, <i>agia epta ebdomador</i>. But, Eze. 45:21, <i>hag shebu`oth yamim</i> the feast of hebdomads of days is the passover, which was celebrated through the whole of seven days. (2) <i>a hebdomad of years</i>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:24;&version=31;">Dan. 9:24</a>, seqq. Compare Hebdomas annorum, Gell. N. A. iii. 10." (Tregelles, S.P., transl. , 1949, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gesenius-Hebrew-Chaldee-Lexicon-Testament/dp/0801037360">Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures</a>," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Eighth printing, 1967, p.800. My transliteration).</p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-10200426656424588772008-12-08T19:05:00.008+09:002008-12-10T20:08:17.604+09:00Re: Christianity has no future and is in decline<p>AN<br><br>Continuing from <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/12/re-anthony-flew-leaving-atheism-more.html">Re: Anthony Flew leaving Atheism ... more accurate to state "Victory of Deism"</a>. As before, your words</p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/images/piecharts500.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px;" src="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/images/piecharts500.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a> <p>[<a href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/images/piecharts500.jpg">Above</a> (click to enlarge): "<a href="http://www.edge.org:80/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html">Why the Gods are not Winning</a>," by Gregory Paul & Phil Zuckerman, Edge, 2007:<blockquote>"Since 1900 Christians have made up about a third of the global population, and <i>are edging downwards</i>. ... <i>Christianity has withered dramatically</i> in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. ... Churches are being converted into libraries, laundromats and pubs. ... the churches ... are in danger of dwindling past the demographic and organizational <i>point of no return</i>. Every time a nation becomes truly advanced in terms of democratic, egalitarian education and prosperity <i>it loses the faith</i>. ... Disbelief now rivals the great faiths in numbers and influence. <i>Never before has religion faced such enormous levels of disbelief</i>..." </p></blockquote> <p>This, paradoxically, is further evidence that <i>Christianity is true</i>, i.e. that we are in the <i>Great Apostasy</i> predicted by Jesus and the Apostles, which is a precursor of Jesus' <i>imminent</i> return. Indeed, such anti-Christian <i>gloating</i> over Christianity's demise is actually <i>predicted</i> in the Book of Revelation (see below). The <i>gods</i> are not winning but <i>God</i> is!]</p> <p>are <b>bold</b> to distinguish them from mine.<br><br><b>3.One person stated about Christianity on your blog, that "it should be difficult to devote yourself to something that has no future". To that you replied, that "only under premices</b> [sic] <b>of Christianity there IS 'future' "(which is untrue, there is 'future' under Judaism as well).</b> </p> <p> What I actually wrote in a comment under my post, <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com:80/2006/11/what-i-believe-about-creation.html">What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Design</a> was:<blockquote>As for me, for these past nearly 40 years a Christian, it has been a <i>joy</i> to devote my entire life to the <i>only</i> "something" that <i>has</i> a future!</p></blockquote> <p>Which as a consistent Christian, I stand by. Because since Jesus (who was God-see below) taught that <i>only Christians</i> will be saved, and <i>all non-Christians</i>, will be lost:<blockquote><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%203:16,18;&version=31;">John 3:16,18</a> "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that<i> whoever believes in him shall not perish</i> but have eternal life. ... Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but <i>whoever does not believe stands condemned already</i> because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.<br> <br><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%2014:6;&version=31;">John 14:6</a> Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. <i>No one comes to the Father except through me</i>. <br> <br><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%204:10,12;&version=31;">Acts 4:10,12</a> ... It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead... <i>Salvation is found in no one else</i>, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." </p></blockquote> <p>therefore, <i>only Christians</i> have a future (i.e. a future to <i>look forward</i> to).</p> <p>The reason is, as even <i>non</i>-Christian philosopher of religion <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hick">John Hick</a> pointed out, if "Traditional orthodoxy" was right that "Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate ... It follows ... that Christianity, <i>alone among the world religions</i>, was founded by God in person" and so "Christianity <i>alone is God's own religion</i>" and "God must wish ... Christianity shall <i>supersede all the other world faiths</i>":<blockquote>"Traditional orthodoxy says that <i>Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate</i> ... It follows from this that <i>Christianity, alone among the world religions, was founded by God in person</i>. ... From this premise it seems obvious that <i>God must wish all human beings to enter this stream of saved life</i>, so that <i>Christianity shall supersede all the other world faiths</i>. ... <i>Christianity alone is God's own religion</i>.... It is therefore <i>divinely intended for all men and women without exception</i>. All this <i>follows logically from the central dogma of the deity of Jesus</i>." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, "<a href="#BK2007p18">Putting Jesus In His Place</a>,"pp.18-19).</p></blockquote> <p> <b>But it seems that you just diverted the question. What person meant, it's not premices</b> [sic] <b> of Christianity, but the fact that Christianity has no future as wordly religion, and in decline, and that's true:</b> <a href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html">http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html</a></p> <p>I did <i>not</i> divert the question, and in fact there was <i>no</i> question. All his anonymous comment <i>stated</i> was, "It must be tough to devote your entire life to something that has no future - only a past" and I responded <i>directly</i> to his claim that Christianity "has no future - only a past" with, it is in fact "<i>only</i> ... Christianity ... that has a future!" </DT></p> <p>Nor was there anything <i>explicitly</i> in his comment which claimed "Christianity [was] ... in decline." Christianity could be increasing in numbers and yet have no future (as in fact <i>non</i>-Christianity <i>is</i>). And if there <i>had</i> been anything <i> explicitly</i> in his comment that claimed Christianity was in decline, far from diverting it, I would have <i>agreed</i> with him! That is because it is in fact a <i>prediction</i> of Jesus that Christianity will decline in a "Great Apostasy" before He returns:<blockquote><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:10-12;&version=31;">Mt 24:10-12</a> At that time <i>many will turn away from the faith</i> and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, <i>the love of most will grow cold</i><br> <br><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2018:8;&version=31;">Lk 18:8</a> ... However, when the Son of Man comes, <i>will he find faith on the earth</i>?"<br> <br><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Th%202:3;&version=9;">2Th 2:3</a>: Let no man deceive you by any means: <i>for that day</i> [Jesus' Second Coming] <i>shall not come</i>, except there come <i>a falling away</i> [Gk. <i>apostasia</i>] <i>first</i> ...</p></blockquote> <p> Here are quotes from my commentaries on the above, i.e. "It is a sombre picture of <i>a church in decline</i> ... <i>before 'the end' comes</i> ...":<blockquote>"[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:9-12;&version=31;">Mt 24:] <i>9-12</i></a>. ... the persecution is to come from <i>all nations</i> ... an <i>international</i> involvement of the disciples is envisaged ... <i>many will fall away</i> ... It is a sombre <i>picture of a church in decline</i>. ... which must run its course <i>before 'the end' comes</i> ..." (France, 1985, "<a href="#FR1985p338">Matthew</a>," pp.338-339).<br> <br>"[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2018:8;&version=31;">Lk 18:]<i>8</i></a>. ... Jesus is speaking of the certainty of speedy action when the time comes. When He asks whether the Son of man will <i>find faith on earth</i>, he is not suggesting that there will be no believers. He is saying that the characteristic of <i>the world's people at that time will not be faith</i>." (Morris, 1974, "<a href="#ML1974p263">Luke</a>," pp.263-264).<br> <br>"[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Th%202:3;&version=31;">2Th 2:]3</a>. ... While the coming of <i>'the day of the Lord'</i> will be unexpected (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Th%205:2-3;&version=31;">1 Thes. 5:2-3</a>), certain <i>things will precede it.</i> One is <i>the rebellion.</i> ... In classical Greek <i>apostasia</i> meant a political or military rebellion, but in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint">LXX</a> it is used of <i>rebellion against God</i> ... Paul is saying that in the last times there will be a <i>great uprising of the powers of evil against God</i> (cf. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:10-14;%201Tim%204:1-3;%202Tim%203:1-9;%204:3-4;&version=31;">Mt. 24:10ff.; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-9; 4:3-4</a>)." Morris, 1984, "<a href="#ML1984p127">Thessalonians</a>," p.127).</p></blockquote> <p> And, as I have posted previously here on my CED blog, e.g. <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/04/re-thoughts-on-your-web-page-jesus_21.html">Re: Thoughts on your web page - Jesus' return #2</a> (21-Apr-07), as well as posts to my now-terminated Yahoo CED group: <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/5170">23-May-03</a>, <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/4895">21-Apr-03</a> and <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/4410">25-Feb-03 </a>, I agree with the late great Bible commentator, William Hendriksen that we are in the period of the Great Apostasy, when just before Jesus returns, "the antichristian world ... shall battle against the Church and shall destroy it ," i.e. Christianity will <i>appear</i> to be <i>totally defeated</i>, as described in the Book of Revelation:<blockquote>"<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2011:3-14;&version=31;">Rev 11:3-14</a> ... The Church ... <i>shall finish its testimony</i>. ... the antichristian world ... shall battle against the Church and shall <i>destroy it</i>. This is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon">Battle of Harmagedon</a> ... There are going to be believers on earth when Christ comes again, although they will be <i>few in number</i> ... But the Church itself ... <i>will be destroyed</i>. ... the Church ... has been <i>silenced and smothered by the world</i> ... in the midst of the world the <i>Church is dead</i> ... The world ... celebrates. ... Its joy is premature. ... In connection with <i>Christ's second coming the Church is restored to life</i> ... the world will become frozen with fear... <i>the Church ascends to heaven in a cloud of glory</i>" (Hendriksen, 1940, "<a href="#WH1949p129">More than Conquerors</a>," pp.129-131).</p></blockquote> <p>Note that Hendriksen wrote that in <i>1940</i> - nearly <i>seventy</i> years ago! Subsequent world events have only further confirmed his insight.</p><p>In fact, the Protestant reformer <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin">John Calvin</a> in <i>1540</i>, nearly <i>four hundred</i> and seventy years ago, confirmed the Bible taught that before "The day of Christ" the "<i>world</i> [would have]<i> fallen into apostasy</i>" and "The Church must be <i>reduced to a ... state of ruin</i>":<blockquote>"[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Th%202:3;&version=31;">2Th 2:]3</a>. ... The day of Christ, he says, will not come until <i>the world has fallen into apostasy</i> ...the term apostasy to mean <i>a treacherous rebellion from God</i>. This would ... spread <i>far and wide</i> ... apostates ... <i>those who have previously enlisted in the service of Christ</i> .... Paul, then, is predicting a <i>general defection on the part of the visible Church</i>... `The Church must be <i>reduced to a ghastly and horrifying state of ruin</i>, before its full restoration is achieved.' ...it might have seemed ... [it] could not have been the work of God, <i>had Paul not warned them long before that this would take place</i>. " (Calvin, 1540, "<a href="#CJ1540p398">Thessalonians</a>," pp.398-399).</p></blockquote> <p> Here also are quotes from two other leading Christian theologians, confirming that the Bible teaches there will be "a <i>final apostasy which will occur just before the Parousia</i>" (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Coming">Second coming of Christ</a>):<blockquote>"There is ... a ... New Testament passage which points ... to <i>a final apostasy which will occur just before the Parousia</i> ...for that day will not come, <i>unless the rebellion [or apostasy; Greek, <i>apostasia</i>] comes first</i> ... <i>apostasia</i> is preceded by a definite article: <i>the</i> apostasy or <i>the</i> rebellion. ... what is predicted here is a <i>final, climactic apostasy</i> just before the end-time. .... The fact that this sign is called a `falling away' or `apostasy' implies that <i>this will be a rebellion against the Christian faith</i> ... those who fall away will be at least outwardly associated with the people of God. The apostasy will occur within the ranks of the members of the visible church." (Hoekema, 1979, "<a href="#HA1979p153">The Bible and the Future</a>," p.153).</p></blockquote> <p>that " <i>before the Lord returns</i>. ... there must be <i>a rebellion</i> (apostasy). ... a <i>falling away</i> from the faith ... a <i>rebellion against God</i> ... an apostasy... <i>on the part of ... professing Christians</i>":<blockquote>"In <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Th%202:3-4;&version=31;">2 Thessalonians 2:3-4</a>, Paul indicates ... Two things must occur<i> before the Lord returns</i>. First, <i>there must be a rebellion (apostasy)</i>. Second, there must be a revelation of the Man of Lawlessness [Antichrist]. ... As for the <i>rebellion (apostasia),</i> the word Paul uses here is used ... to speak of <i>a religious crisis</i> of some sort <i>facing God's people</i>-a <i>falling away from the faith</i> ... The word means a <i>rebellion against God</i>; specifically <i>an apostasy</i> (a <i>falling away from the truth</i>) on the part of <i>God's people</i>. Thus<i> professing Christians</i> ... must be <i>the ones who fall away</i>. " (Riddlebarger, 2006, "<a href="#RK2006p124">The Man of Sin</a>," pp.124-125).</p></blockquote><p>So we have a <i>win-win</i> situation. You, an "agnostic-deist" (see below), win by being able to gloat "that Christianity has no future as wordly religion, and [is] in decline" and I, a Christian, win by knowing that is in fact <i>what the Bible teaches</i>!</p> <p>But the win-win is only <i>apparent</i> because it will, at Jesus <i>unexpected</i> return, <i>suddenly</i> and <i>irrevocably</i> turn into a <i>loss</i>-win, i.e. an <i>infinite loss</i> for non-Christians and an <i>infinite win</i> for Christians. So unless you (and any other non-Christian) changes sides <i>before</i> the "Battle of Harmagedon", i.e. to the side of the <i>apparent</i> loser, Christianity, you will remain on the side of the <i>final</i> loser, "the antichristian world"! </p> <p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/Mws2.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 290px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/Mws2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>You see, we Christians have read, "<FONT color=#ff0000><b>the end of the book</FONT></b> and </p> <p>[<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/Mws2.jpg">Right</a>: Album <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._Smith_2">Michael W. Smith 2</a> by <a title="Michael W. Smith" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._Smith">Michael W. Smith</a>, which contains the song "<a href="http://www.lyricstime.com/michael-w-smith-end-of-the-book-lyrics.html">End Of The Book</a>" with the following lyrics:<blockquote>When things get bad and you can't stand to look<br>It's time to read to <FONT color=#ff0000><b>the end of the book</b></FONT><br>Don't put it down 'til you get to the end<br><FONT color=#ff0000><b>When Jesus come</b></FONT> and His Kingdom begins<br>'Til He comes<br>God the Son<br>Teaches us to use the sword<br>And every fight<br>Has a light<br>When you know <FONT color=#ff0000><b>we win</b></FONT> the war]</p></blockquote> <p><b><i><FONT color=#ff0000>WE WIN</FONT></i></b>!!!:<blockquote><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2021:3-4;%2022:1-5;&version=31;">Rev 21:3-4; 22:1-5</a>. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and GOD HIMSELF WILL BE WITH THEM and be their God. He will WIPE EVERY TEAR FROM THEIR EYES. There will be NO MORE DEATH OR MOURNING OR CRYING OR PAIN, for the old order of things has passed away." ...Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. THEY WILL SEE HIS FACE, and his name will be on their foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And THEY WILL REIGN FOR EVER AND EVER.</blockquote> </p> <p><b>4. It seems that you by yourself, after accepting Christianity 40 years ago ,are not sure %100 that Christianity is true,you still seem to struggle and convince yourself . It follows from some of your posts, where you state that "it can not be provable", and your post about Daniel doesn't seem convincing, sorry.</b></p> <p>Sorry to disappoint you, but I am <i>fully</i> convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true, and have been the entire 41 years of my Christian life. The only difference is that I am <i>even more</i> convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true than I was when I became a Christian in 1967. Far from having to <i>struggle</i> to convince myself that Christianity is true, I would have to struggle to convince myself that Christianity is <i>not</i> true!<br><br><b>I would like to get your response on "CreationEvolutionDesign", or even in private mail.</b></p> <p><b></b> </p> <p>Sorry, but I do not get involved in extended private email discussions on topics that are covered by my blogs. You now have this my response via my blog CED.</p> <p><b>Best regards,<br>AN (agnostic-deist)</b></p> <p>Thanks. But there is<i> no such position</i> as "agnostic-deist". It is <i>self-contradictory</i>, since an "agnostic" is "a person who believes that <i>nothing can be known concerning the existence of God</i>:<blockquote>"<a href="http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/agnostic?view=uk"><i>agnostic</i></a> ... noun a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God. adjective relating to agnostics. - DERIVATIVES agnosticism noun." ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 2008)</p></blockquote> <p> and a "deist" is a person who believes in the existence of God but He "does not intervene in the universe":<blockquote>"<a href="http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/theism?view=uk">deism</a> ... noun belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. Compare with THEISM. - DERIVATIVES deist noun deistic adjective" ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 2008).</p></blockquote> <p><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology). <br>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">TheShroudofTurin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a> </p><p><hr> </p><p> "<a name="BK2007p18"></a>One scholar put his finger on the problem when he explained that belief in the <b>deity of Jesus</b>-<b>his unique status</b> among human beings as <b>God in the flesh</b>-implies that <b>Jesus is the only way</b> for people to be properly related to God: <blockquote>Traditional orthodoxy says that <b>Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate</b> ... who became man to die for the sins of the world and who founded the church to proclaim this to the ends of the earth, so that all who sincerely take Jesus as their Lord and Savior are justified by his atoning death and will inherit eternal life. It follows from this that <b>Christianity, alone among the world religions</b>, was founded by God in person. God came down from heaven to earth and launched the salvific movement that came to be known as Christianity. From this premise it seems obvious that <b>God must wish all human beings</b> to enter this stream of saved life, so that Christianity shall supersede <b>all the other world faiths</b>. They may perhaps have some good in them and be able to function to some extent as a preparation for the gospel, but nevertheless <b>Christianity alone is God's own religion</b>.... It is therefore divinely intended for <b>all men and women without exception</b>. All this <b>follows logically from the central dogma of the deity of Jesus</b>.' [Hick J., "A Pluralist View," in Okholm, D.L. & Phillips, T.R., 1995, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Four-Views-Salvation-Pluralistic-World/dp/0310212766">Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World</a>," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, pp.51-52]</p></blockquote> <p>It is remarkable, however, that the person who made this observation <b>doesn't believe in the deity of Jesus</b>. He is, in fact, <b>a well-known opponent of that doctrine</b>." (Bowman, R.M., Jr. & Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Putting-Jesus-His-Place-Christ/dp/0825429838">Putting Jesus In His Place</a>," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, pp.18-19).</p> <p>"<a name="CJ1540p398"></a>[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Th%202:3;&version=31;">2Th 2:]3</a>. <i>Let no man beguile you</i>. In order to keep from vainly promising themselves the glad day of redemption within so short a period, he gives them <b>a gloomy prediction concerning the future dispersion of the Church</b>. This discourse corresponds in every respect to that which was addressed by Christ to His disciples when they had asked Him about the end of the world. [<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:3-14;&version=31;">Mt 24:3-14</a>] ... <b>The day of Christ, he says, will not come until the world has fallen into apostasy</b>, and the rule of Antichrist has held sway in the Church. ... Paul, therefore, uses the term <b>apostasy to mean a treacherous rebellion from God</b>. This would not be confined to a single individual or even a few, but <b>would spread far and wide</b> among a considerably large number of persons. When the word apostasy is used without any addition it cannot be confined to a few individuals. Now the word <b>apostates can be understood only of those who have previously enlisted in the service of Christ</b> and His Gospel. Paul, then, is predicting <b>a general defection on the part of the visible Church</b>, as if he were saying, `<b>The Church must be reduced to a ghastly and horrifying state of ruin</b>, before its full restoration is achieved.' From this we may at once conclude how useful this prediction of Paul's is. For it might have seemed that a building which was suddenly destroyed, and which lay for so long in ruins, could not have been the work of God, <b>had Paul not warned them long before that this would take place</b>. " (Calvin, J., 1540, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Romans-Thessalonians-Calvins-Testament-Commentaries/dp/0802808085">The Epistles of Paul to the Romans and Thessalonians</a>," Mackenzie, R., transl., Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1960, Reprinted, 1980, pp.398-399). </p> <p>"<a name="FR1985p338"></a>[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:9-12;&version=31;">Mt 24:] <i>9-12</i></a>. These verses similarly speak in general terms of the sufferings to come, not now in relation to the world at large, but more with reference to Jesus' disciples. They will, as he has predicted already, be persecuted and hated. (Cf. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2010:17-22;&version=31;">10:17-22</a>, a passage closely related to this, and closer in wording to the parallel passage in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mk%2013:9-13;&version=31;">Mk. 13:9-13</a>. It is interesting that here, in contrast to both 10:17-22 and Mk. 13:9-23, <b>the persecution is to come from <i>all nations</i>, not just from the Jews</b>; in ch. 10 a mission to Jews only was in view (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2010:5-6,%2023;&version=31;">10:5-6, 23</a>), but now <b>an international involvement of the disciples is envisaged</b>, as <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2028:18-19;&version=31;">28:18-19 </a>will spell out.) <b>This persecution will take its toll, in that <i>many will fall away</i></b> ('be tripped up', the same verb as in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%205:29-%2030;%2013:21;%2018:6-9;&version=31;">5:29-30; 13:21; 18:6-9</a>; etc.; here it echoes particularly <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%2011:41;&version=31;">Dn. 11:41</a>), and the disciple group itself will be the scene of betrayal, hatred, false prophecy and <i>wickedness</i> (lit. 'lawlessness'). And lawlessness will lead to the cooling off of <i>love</i>, a connection to be noted. Most men's love is literally 'the love of the many', which could mean disciples' love <i>for</i> 'the many' outside; but the sequence of thought in these verses, where it is the disciple group itself which is under pressure, suggests that <b>it means that 'the majority' (of the disciples) will cool off in their love</b>, whether for God or for their fellow-men. <b>It is a sombre picture of a church in decline</b>. All this, the context indicates, is <b>part of the history which must run its course before 'the end' comes</b>; but there is no indication as to the temporal relation between such a situation and 'the end'." (France, R.T., 1985, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Matthew-Introduction-Commentaries/dp/0802800637">Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary</a>," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, pp.338-339).</p> <p>"<a name="WH1949p129"></a>The two witnesses ([<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2011:3-14;&version=31;">Rev.] 11:3-14</a>) ... <b>This gospel age is, however, going to come to an end</b> (cf. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:14;&version=31;">Mt. 24:14</a>). The Church, as a mighty missionary organization, shall finish its testimony. The beast that comes up out of the abyss, that is,<b> the antichristian world, urged on by hell, shall battle against the Church and shall destroy it</b>. This is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon">Battle of Harmagedon</a>. The beast will not kill every believer. There are going to be believers on earth when Christ comes again, although they will be few in number (Lk. 18:8). But <b>the Church itself, as a mighty organization for the dissemination of the gospel and regular ministry of the Word, will be destroyed</b>. ... Thus, just before the second coming, the corpse of <b>the Church, whose public and official testimony has been silenced and smothered by the world</b>, lies on the great city's High Street. ... So when we read that the corpse of the Church is lying on the broad avenues of the great city, this simply means that <b>in the midst of the world the Church is dead</b>: it no longer exists as an influential and powerful missionary institution! Its leaders have been slaughtered; <b>its voice has been silenced</b>. This condition lasts three days and a half, which is a very brief time. (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:22;%20Rev%2020:7-9;&version=31;">Mt. 24:22; cf. Rev. 20:7-9</a>.) The world does not even allow the dead bodies of the witnesses to be buried. In the High Street lie these corpses, exposed to insects, birds, and dogs. <b>The world has a grand picnic: it celebrates</b>. People send each other presents and gloat over these witnesses ... Their word will not torment them any more. <b>Foolish world! Its joy is premature</b>. The corpse suddenly begins to stir; the breath of life from God has entered into it; the witnesses stand upon their feet. <b>In connection with Christ's second coming the Church is restored to life</b>, to honour, to power, to influence. <b>For the world the hour of opportunity is gone, and gone for ever</b>. On the day of judgment when <b>the world shall see the Church restored to honour and glory, the world will become frozen with fear</b>. The Church still under the symbolism of the two witnesses-now hears a voice, 'Come up hither'. Thereupon <b>the Church ascends to heaven in a cloud of glory</b>. 'And their enemies beheld them.' This is no secret rapture!" (Hendriksen, W., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/More-Than-Conquerors-Interpretation-Revelation/dp/0801057922">More than Conquerors</a>: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation," [1940], Tyndale Press: London, Reprinted, 1966, pp.129-131).</p> <p>"<a name="HA1979p153"></a>There is, however, a specific New Testament passage which <b>points unambiguously to a final apostasy which will occur just before the Parousia</b> [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Coming">Second coming of Christ</a>]. We turn now to Paul's second epistle to the Thessalonians: `Now concerning the coming (<i>parousia</i>) of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren, not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way; <b>for that day will not come, unless the rebellion [or apostasy; Greek, <i>apostasia</i>] comes first</b>, and the man of lawlessness [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist">Antichrist</a>] is revealed.. ." ([<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Th%202:1-3;&version=31;">2Th ]2:1-3</a>). ... The word <i>apostasia</i> is derived from the verb <i>aphistemi</i> which when it is used intransitively means `to fall away' or `to become apostate.' As used in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Th%202:3;&version=31;">II Thessalonians 2:3</a>, <i>apostasia</i> is preceded by a definite article: <b><i>the</i> apostasy or <i>the</i> rebellion</b>. Both the definite article and the statement that this happening must precede the Parousia indicate that what is predicted here is <b>a final, climactic apostasy just before the end-time</b>. It should be noted, however, that this apostasy will be an intensification and culmination of a rebellion which has already begun, since in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Th%202:7;&version=31;">verse 7</a> Paul says, `For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work.' We may see a parallel, therefore, between this sign and the sign of tribulation: both are evident throughout the present age but come to a climactic and final form just before Christ returns. The fact that <b>this sign is called a `falling away' or `apostasy' implies that this will be a rebellion against the Christian faith</b> as it has been heard or professed. We may therefore assume that <b>those who fall away will be at least outwardly associated with the people of God. The apostasy will occur within the ranks of the members of the visible church</b>. Those who are true believers will not fall away (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%2010:27-29;%201Pet%201:3-5;&version=31;">John 10:27-29; I Pet. 1:3-5</a>); but many who have made an outward profession of the faith will do so." (Hoekema, A.A., 1979, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Future-Anthony-Hoekema/dp/0802808514">The Bible and the Future</a>," [1978], Paternoster Press: Exeter UK, p.153). </p> <p> "<a name="ML1974p263"></a>[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2018:8;&version=31;">Lk 18:]<i>8</i></a>. Vindication will be done <i>speedily</i>, but we should understand this in terms of God's time (in which one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Pet%203:8;&version=31;">2 Pet. 3:8</a>). Jesus is speaking of the certainty of speedy action when the time comes. <b>When He asks whether the Son of man will <i>find faith on earth</i></b>, he is not suggesting that there will be no believers. <b>He is saying that the characteristic of the world's people at that time will not be faith</b>. Men of the world never recognize the ways of God and they will not see His vindication of His elect." (Morris, L.L., 1974, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Luke-Introduction-Commentary-Testament-Commentaries/dp/0802804195">The Gospel According to Luke</a>: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press Leicester UK, Reprinted, 1986, pp.263-264).</p> <p>"<a name="ML1984p127"></a>[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Th%202:3;&version=31;">2Th 2:]3</a>. The Thessalonians must not be deceived <i>in any way</i>, whether by the things listed in verse 2 or by anything else whatever. The construction is broken in the following clause, but NIV is surely right in supplying the words <i>that day will not come</i>. <b>While the coming of 'the day of the Lord' will be unexpected (</b><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Th%205:2-3;&version=31;">1 Thes. 5:2-3</a><b>), certain things will precede it. One is <i>the rebellion</i>.</b> The definite article shows that the rebellion was well known to the readers; evidently it had formed part of Paul's previous teaching. Our difficulty is that we do not know what he had told them. In classical Greek <b><i>apostasia</i> meant a political or military rebellion, but in LXX it is used of rebellion against God (e.g.</b> <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jos%2022:22;&version=31;">Jos. 22:22</a><b>), and this became the accepted biblical usage</b>. Paul is saying that <b>in the last times there will be a great uprising of the powers of evil against God</b> (cf. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:10-14;%201Tim%204:1-3;%202Tim%203:1-9;%204:3-4;&version=31;">Mt. 24:10ff.; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-9; 4:3-4</a>). It is as though Satan were throwing all his forces into one last despairing effort." (Morris, L.L., 1984, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Epistles-Paul-Thessalonians-Leon-Morris/dp/0802814123">The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians</a>: An Introduction and Commentary," [1956], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Second edition, p.127).</p> <p></p> <p> "<a name="RK2006p124"></a>In <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Th%202:3-4;&version=31;">2 Thessalonians 2:3-4</a>, Paul indicates that the reason people are not to be startled is that two signs must be fulfilled before the Lord returns. `Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for <b>that day will not come until the rebellion occurs</b> and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.' Paul is crystal clear. Two things must occur before the Lord returns. <b>First, there must be a rebellion (apostasy).</b> Second, there must be a revelation of the Man of Lawlessness. ...<b> As for the rebellion (<i>apostasia</i>), the word Paul</b> <b>uses here is used</b> throughout the Septuagint (LXX) and elsewhere in the New Testament <b>to speak of a religious crisis of some sort facing God's people-a falling away from the faith</b> in some sense. As Beale points out, `Such a meaning is apparent because of the immediate context of false teaching (vv. 1-2 and vv. 9-12) and the clear allusions to Daniel's prediction of an end-time opponent who will bring about <b>a large-scale compromise of faith among God's people</b>. ' [Beale, G.K., "The Temple and the Church's Mission," IVP: Downers Grove IL, 2004, pp.271-272] This seems to connect Paul's comments to both John's and our Lord's warnings about false teachers and people who claim to be believers but who fall away and take a number of followers with them (see <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:10-12,%2023-24;%201Jn%202:18-19;&version=31;">Matt. 24:10-12, 23-24; 1 John 2:18-19</a>). ... The word means <b>a rebellion against God; specifically an apostasy (a falling away from the truth) on the part of God's people</b>. Thus <b>professing Christians ... must be the ones who fall away</b>. [Beale, G. K., "1-2 Thessalonians," IVP: Downers Grove IL, 2003, pp.207-209] While there were some apostates in the apostolic church just as there are in ours, God restrains false teachers and antichrists from gaining the upper hand until the appointed time. Because the final apostasy has not yet taken place, the Thessalonians can be assured that the Lord has not yet returned, nor has the day of the Lord already occurred." (Riddlebarger, K. , 2006, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Man-Sin-Uncovering-Truth-Antichrist/dp/0801066069">The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist</a>," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, pp.124-125).</p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-61732340256128871612008-12-04T12:21:00.005+09:002008-12-08T22:12:51.666+09:00Re: Anthony Flew leaving Atheism ... more accurate to state "Victory of Deism"<p>AN<br></p> <p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512Cow1agBL.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px;" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512Cow1agBL.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>Continuing from my <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/11/re-what-would-happen-if-you-lived-to.html">Re: what would happen if I lived to 2037 and Jesus has not come?</a> with your next question:</p> <p>[<a href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512Cow1agBL.jpg">Left</a>: Former atheist philosopher Antony Flew's book, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335290">There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind</a>" (2007).]</p> <p></p> <p><b>2. Regarding Anthony Flew leaving Atheism. You stated : "Victory of Theism". I think it's more accurate to state "Victory of Deism", since Flew didn't subscribe to any particular religion.</b></p><p>I never claimed that Flew <i>did</i> subscribe to any particular religion. And I maintain an up-to-date copy of every blog post I have made, and a search of those does not find where I stated that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew">Antony Flew</a>'s conversion from atheism to deism was a "victory of theism."</p><p>Although since atheism, "the belief that <i>God does not exist</i>," is the negation of theism:"<blockquote><i><a href="http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk">atheism</a></i> ... noun the belief that God does not exist. - DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective. - ORIGIN from Greek <i>a</i>- ‘without’ + <i>theos</i> `god'." ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 2008),</blockquote></p><p>then "leaving Atheism" by Flew, who was one of the world's leading atheists, was in that sense a "victory of theism."</p><p>And even if I had stated that Flew's leaving atheism was a "victory of theism," since deism is a form of theism, because theism in the broadest sense is the view that there is a God:<blockquote>"<i>theism</i> <i>Belief in the existence of God</i>." (Blackburn, 1994, "<a href="#BS1994p375">The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy</a>," p.375).<br><br>"<i>theism</i> ... is the view that <i>there is such a thing as GOD</i>." (Vesey & Foulkes, 1990, "<a href="#V&F1990p283">Collins Dictionary of Philosophy</a>," p.283). <br><br>"<i>theism</i> ... the belief that there is one God, a personal being with every perfection ... existing entirely separately from the world ... <i>the view that God interacts with the world is rejected by deism</i>, which ascribes to God a decisive <i>role in originating the world, but none in keeping the world going</i> ..." (Mautner, 2000, "<a href="#MT2000p561">The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy</a>," p.561).</p></blockquote> <p>and deism also affirms there is a God, but denies that God is concerned with human affairs and/or intervenes in His creation, including in giving special revelation like the Bible:<blockquote>"<i>deism</i> Historically, a term referring to the doctrine of `natural religion' ... according to which while reason ... assures us that <i>there is a God</i>, additional <i>revelation, dogma, or supernatural commerce with the deity are all excluded</i>. ... God may only be thought of as <i>an 'absentee landlord'</i>." (Blackburn, 1994, <a href="#BS1994p110">Ibid.</a>, p.110).<br><br>"<i>deism</i> ... belief in <i>God as a perfect personal being</i>; differs from THEISM by<i> not accepting doctrines that require belief in revelation</i>. ... there is one supreme God; .... True religion is identified with Christianity-but a reinterpreted `rational' Christianity which has <i>no place for any special revelation</i>." (Mautner, 2000, <a href="#MT2000p126">Ibid.</a>, pp.126-127).<br><br>"<i>deism</i> ... a line of rationalistic religious thought that <i>affirms that there is a GOD</i> but denies that he should be understood in any mystical way. The antecedents of deism go back to ARISTOTLE'S First Mover, who ...is otherwise <i>unconcerned with human affairs</i>." (Vesey & Foulkes, <a href="#V&F1990p76">Ibid.</a>, 1990, p.76).</p></blockquote> <p>But even if theism is defined in a narrower sense of "belief in the existence of ... a creator who <i>intervenes in the universe</i>":<blockquote>"<i><a href="http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/theism?view=uk">theism</a></i> ... noun belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who <i>intervenes in the universe</i>. Compare with DEISM. - DERIVATIVES theist noun theistic ... adjective. - ORIGIN from Greek <i>theos</i> `god'." ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," 2008).</p></blockquote> <p> and deism is then defined in the sense of "belief in the existence of ... a creator who <i>does not intervene in the universe</i>":<blockquote>"<i><a href="http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/theism?view=uk">deism</a></i> ... noun belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who <i>does not intervene in the universe</i>. Compare with THEISM. - DERIVATIVES deist noun deistic adjective" ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," 2008)</p></blockquote> <p> then Flew's position is not deism but <i>theism</i>, because he believes that there is a God who intervened in the Universe to create the first living organism (see below).</p> <p>Flew had claimed his version of deism affirmed that "God was not actively involved in people's lives":<blockquote>"A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century ... now <i>believes in God</i> ... Flew said he's best labeled a <i>deist</i> like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson">Thomas Jefferson</a>, whose <i>God was not actively involved in people's lives</i>." (Ostling, 2004, "<a href="#OR2004">Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God</a>," <i>Livescience</i>).</p></blockquote> <p>and he later defined his God as "not the God of revelation": <blockquote>"... Deists believe in the existence of a God <i>but not the God of revelation</i>." (Flew, 2008, "<a href="#FA2008p48">The Atheist Delusion Of Richard Dawkins</a>," pp.48-49).</p></blockquote> <p> But Flew also affirms that God intervened supernaturally in the already existing Universe to create the first life:<blockquote> "Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. <i>A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life</i> and the complexity of nature, Flew said ... biologists' investigation of DNA `has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the <i>arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved</i>,' Flew says ... `It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution <i>of that first reproducing organism</i>,' he wrote." (Ostling, 2004, <a href="#OR2004">Ibid.</a>)<br> <br> "... when asked if recent <i>work on the origin of life</i> pointed to the activity of <i>a creative Intelligence</i>, I said: `<i>Yes</i> ... because ... the DNA material has ... shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the <i>arrangements which are needed to produce (life)</i>, that <i>intelligence must have been involved</i> in <i>getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together</i>. It's the enormous complexity of <i>the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together</i>. The <i>meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute</i>. It is all a matter of <i>the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved</i>, which looked to me like the <i>work of intelligence</i>.'" (Flew, 2007, "<a href="#FA2007p74">There Is a God</a>," pp.74-75).</p></blockquote> <p> Therefore, according to the Oxford Dictionary above, Flew's position is actually "<i><a href="http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/theism?view=uk">theism</a></i> ... belief in the existence of<i> ... a creator who intervenes in the universe</i>".</p> <p> Moreover, Flew's version of deism (which is actually theism) cannot logically deny that God could also intervene in the Universe at strategic points in life's history, as my Progressive Creation position maintains:<blockquote>"Progressive creationism accepts much of the scientific picture of the development of the universe, assuming that <i>for the most part</i> it developed according to natural laws. However, especially with regard to life on earth, <i>PCs hold that God intervened supernaturally at strategic points along the way</i>. On their view, Creation was not a single six-day event but occurred in stages over millions of years..." (Pennock, R.T. , 1999, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tower-Babel-Evidence-against-Creationism/dp/0262661659">Tower of Babel</a>: The Evidence Against the New Creationism," MIT Press: Cambridge MA, Fourth printing, pp.26-27).</p></blockquote> <p> And therefore neither could Flew logically claim that "God was not actively involved in people's lives", because a God who can and did intervene supernaturally in the Universe to produce "that first reproducing organism," could also be "actively involved in people's lives" (as uncountable <i>millions</i> of people - including me - have claimed down through the ages and still claim today).</p> <p> And in fact Flew's position is that the God he believes in is "a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, <i>omnipotent, and omniscient Being</i>": <blockquote> "I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led me to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, <i>omnipotent, and omniscient Being</i>." (Flew, <a href="#FA2007p155">Ibid.</a>, 2007, p.155).</p></blockquote> <p>who he admits is God:<blockquote>"The last of my public debates, a symposium at New York University, occurred in May 2004. .... To the surprise of all concerned, I announced at the start that <i>I now accepted the existence of a God</i>." (Flew, 2007, "<a href="#FA2007p74">There Is a God</a>," pp.74-75).</p></blockquote> <p> But "self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient" are attributes of the <i>Christian</i> God who "intervenes in the universe" and is "the God of revelation." And Flew admits that "You <i>cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence</i> ... <i>Everything else is open to omnipotence</i>":<blockquote> "... the question of whether <i>the Divine has revealed itself in human history remains a valid topic</i> of discussion. You <i>cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence</i> except to produce the logically impossible. <i>Everything else is open to omnipotence</i>." (Flew, 2007, <a href="#FA2007p157">Ibid</a>, p.157).<br><br><p>Is it possible that <i>there has been or can be divine revelation</i>? As I said, <i>you cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence</i> except to produce the logically impossible. <i>Everything else is open to omnipotence</i>." (Flew, 2007, <a href="#FA2007p213">Ibid.</a>, p.213).</p></p></blockquote> <p> which means that the "<i>omnipotent</i>, and omniscient" God that Flew believes in, <i>could</i> have supernaturally intervened in His Universe, in progressive creation, special revelation and "in people's lives."</p> <p> In fact, while Flew has in the past has "<i>taken issue</i> with many of the <i>claims of divine revelation or intervention</i>" his "current position ... is<i> more open to</i> at least certain of <i>these claims</i>." <blockquote>"In both my antitheological books and various debates, <i>I have taken issue</i> with many of the <i>claims of divine revelation or intervention</i>. My current position, however, is <i>more open to</i> at least certain of <i>these claims</i>." (Flew, 2007, <a href="#FA2007p185">Ibid</a>, p.185).</p></blockquote> <p> Moreover, Flew regards Christianity, among all "other religions" as "<i>the one to beat</i>": <blockquote>"As I have said more than once, no other religion enjoys anything like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. <i>If you're wanting omnipotence to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to beat!</i>" (Flew, 2007, <a href="#FA2007p157">Ibid</a>, p.157)<br><br>"... I think that <i>the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected</i> whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. ... If you're wanting <i>Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat</i>." (Flew, 2007, <a href="#FA2007p185">Ibid.</a>, pp.185-186)</p></blockquote> <p> In particular, Flew admits that, "the claim concerning <i>the resurrection</i> [of Christ] <i>is more impressive than any</i> by the religious competition":<blockquote>"... I addressed the claims of Christianity to some extent. ... <i>Today, I would say the claim concerning the resurrection is more impressive than any by the religious competition</i>." (Flew, 2007, <a href="#FA2007p187">Ibid</a>, p.187).</p></blockquote> <p> Indeed, Flew has not ruled out the possibility of him becoming a Christian, and he even suggests the problem of unbelief in Christianity is on his side, i.e. <i>he</i> has not "<i>made contact</i> with this Mind. ...<i>yet</i>" but "Someday <i>I might hear</i> a Voice that says, `<i>Can you hear me now</i>?'":<blockquote> "The discovery of phenomena like the [fine-tuned] laws of nature ... has led scientists, philosophers, and others to <i>accept the existence of an infinitely intelligent Mind</i>. Some claim to have <i>made contact with this Mind. I have not-yet</i>. But who knows what could happen next? <i>Someday I might hear a Voice that says, `Can you hear me now?</i>'" (Flew, 2007, <a href="#FA2007p157">Ibid</a>, pp.157-158).</p></blockquote> <p>As I have previously pointed out, Flew is actually more theistic than most theistic evolutionists I have debated, because most of them, even though they claimed to be Christians, denied that God supernaturally intervened even to produce the first life:<blockquote>I pointed out in my debates with atheists on my (now terminated) list CED that Antony Flew, although now he calls himself a "deist", is more theistic than most of the "theistic evolutionists" I have encountered, in that few of them would concede that God supernaturally intervened, even at the origin of life. ("<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/07/roman-catholic-churchs-wedge.html">Roman Catholic Church's `wedge'</a>", July 15, 2005).</blockquote></p> <p>So although Flew <i>claims</i> he is a "deist" his position actually is <i>already</i> theism (in that he accepts that there is a God who has intervened supernaturally in the Universe to bring about the origin of life) and he is moving towards <i>Christian</i> theism!</p> <p>Continued in "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/12/re-christianity-has-no-future-and-is-in.html">Re: Christianity has no future and is in decline</a>."</p> <p><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology). <br>My other blogs: , <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">TheShroudofTurin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a> </p><hr><p>"<a name="BS1994p110"></a><i>deism</i> Historically, a term referring to the doctrine of `natural religion' emerging in England and France in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, according to which while reason (particularly the argument to design) assures us that <i>there is a God, additional revelation, dogma, or supernatural commerce with the deity are all excluded</i>. Supplication and prayer in particular are fruitless: <i>God may only be thought of as an 'absentee landlord'</i>. Leading deists included Herbert, John Toland (1670-1722), whose <i>Christianity not Mysterious</i> (1696) was an influence on Berkeley, and Anthony Collins (1676-1729) as well as Shaftesbury and, arguably, Locke. The belief that remains is abstract to vanishing point, as witnessed in Diderot's remark that a deist is someone who has not lived long enough to become an atheist." (Blackburn, S., 1994, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Dictionary-Philosophy-Paperback-Reference/dp/0192831348">The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy</a>," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Reprinted, 1996, p.110).</p> <p> "<a name="BS1994p375"></a><i>theism</i> <i>Belief in the existence of God</i>. Theism is also a morbid condition brought on by excessive tea-drinking, but this is a different sense of the word, or an instance of homonymy. See also deism, monotheism, polytheism, and different topics within the philosophy of religion." (Blackburn, 1994, p.375).</p> <p> "<a name="FA2007p74"></a>The last of my public debates, a symposium at New York University, occurred in May 2004. The other participants were the Israeli scientist Gerald Schroeder, author of best sellers on science and religion, notably <i>The Science of God</i>, and the Scottish philosopher John Haldane, whose <i>Theism and Atheism</i> was a debate on God's existence with my friend Jack Smart. <b>To the surprise of all concerned, I announced at the start that I now accepted the existence of a God</b>. What might have been an intense exchange of opposing views ended up as a joint exploration of the developments in modern science that seemed to point to a higher Intelligence. In the video of the symposium, the announcer suggested that <b>of all the great discoveries of modern science, the greatest was God</b>. In this symposium, <b>when asked if recent work on the origin of life pointed to the activity of a creative Intelligence, I said: `Yes</b>, I now think it does ... almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think <b>the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together</b>. It's <b>the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together</b>. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of <b>the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence</b>.' This statement represented a major change of course for me, but it was nevertheless consistent with the principle I have embraced since the beginning of my philosophical life-of following the argument no matter where it leads." (Flew, A.G.N., 2007, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335290">There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind</a>," HarperCollins: New York NY, pp.74-75).</p><p>"<a name="FA2007p155"></a>Science qua science cannot furnish an argument for God's existence. But the three items of evidence we have considered in this volume-the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization, and the existence of the universe--can only be explained in the light of an Intelligence that explains both its own existence and that of the world. Such a discovery of the Divine does not come through experiments and equations, but through an understanding of the structures they unveil and map. Now, all this might sound abstract and impersonal. How, it might be asked, do I as a person respond to the discovery of an Ultimate Reality that is an omnipresent and omniscient Spirit? I must say again that the journey to my discovery of the Divine has thus far been a pilgrimage of reason. I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led me<b>to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being</b>." (Flew, 2007, p.155).</p><p>"<a name="FA2007p157"></a>Where do I go from here? In the first place, I am entirely open to learning more about the divine Reality, especially in the light of what we know about the history of nature. Second, <b>the question of whether the Divine has revealed itself in human history remains a valid topic</b> of discussion. <b>You cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence</b> except to produce the logically impossible. <b>Everything else is open to omnipotence </b>.... As I have said more than once, no other religion enjoys anything like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. <b>If you're wanting omnipotence to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to beat</b>!" (Flew, 2007, p.157).</p><p>"<a name="FA2007p158"></a>The discovery of phenomena like the [fine-tuned] laws of nature-the communications network of the parable-has led scientists, philosophers, and others to accept the existence of an infinitely intelligent Mind. <b>Some claim to have made contact with this Mind. I have not-yet.</b> But who knows what could happen next? Someday <b>I might hear a Voice that says, `Can you hear me now?'</b>" (Flew, 2007, p.158).</p><p>"<a name="FA2007p185"></a>Up to this point I have discussed the data that led me to accept the existence of a divine Mind. Those who hear these arguments almost inevitably ask what I think about the claims of divine revelation. In both my antitheological books and various debates, <b>I have taken issue with many of the claims of divine revelation or intervention</b>. My current position, however, is <b>more open to at least certain of these claims</b>. In point of fact, <b>I think that the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected</b> whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. There is nothing like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. Virtually all the argument about the content of the religion was produced by St. Paul, who had a brilliant philosophical mind and could both speak and write-in all the relevant languages. <b>If you're wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat</b>." (Flew, 2007, pp.185-186).</p><p>"<a name="FA2007p187"></a>Today, I would say <b>the claim concerning the resurrection is more impressive than any by the religious competition.</b> I still believe that when historians professionally are looking at the evidence, they surely need much more than what is available. They need evidence of a different kind. I think the claim that God was incarnate in Jesus Christ is unique. It is difficult, I think, to realize how you are going to judge this other than by believing or not believing. I cannot quite see that there are general principles to guide you in this." (Flew, 2007, p.187).</p><p>"<a name="FA2007p213"></a>I am very much impressed with Bishop Wright's approach, which is absolutely fresh. He presents the case for Christianity as something new for the first time. This is enormously important, especially in the United Kingdom, where the Christian religion has virtually disappeared. It is absolutely wonderful, absolutely radical, and very powerful. <b>Is it possible that there has been or can be divine revelation?</b> As I said, <b>you cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence</b> except to produce the logically impossible. <b>Everything else is open to omnipotence</b>." (Flew, 2007, p.213).</p> <p> "<a name="FA2008p48"></a>A less important point which needs to be made in this piece is that although the index of <i>The God Delusion</i> notes six references to Deism it provides no definition of the word <i>deism</i>. This enables Dawkins in his reference to Deism to suggest that Deists are a miscellany of believers in this and that. The truth, which Dawkins ought to have learnt before his book went to the printers, is that <b>Deists believe in the existence of a God but not the God of revelation</b>. In fact, the first notable public appearance of the notion of Deism was the American Revolution. The young man who drafted the Declaration of Independence and who later became President Jefferson was a Deist, as were several of the other founding fathers of that abidingly important institution, the United States." (Flew, A.G.N., 2008, "<a href="http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+atheist+delusion+of+Richard+Dawkins.-a0188275369">The Atheist Delusion Of Richard Dawkins</a>," <i>Quadrant</i>, October, pp.48-49).</p> <p>"<a name="MT2000p126"></a><i><b>deism</b></i>... (Lat. <i>deus</i> god) <i>n</i>. <b>belief in God as a perfect personal being; differs from THEISM by not accepting doctrines that require belief in revelation</b>. Post-Reformation religious conflicts led many thinkers to attempt systems of NATURAL RELIGION which would be based on rational insight, independently of any revelation, and therefore universally acceptable. They were also driven in this direction by the difficulties arising from the attempts to reconcile reason and religion. The word deism, which can be traced back to French writings in the 1560s, was used for many of these systems. (So was the word theism: its modern sense is quite recent.) Herbert of Cherbury is commonly regarded as the first English thinker to have provided a formulation of deism, in the 1620s. He held that there are <b>five basic tenets</b> or common notions of natural religion: (1) <b>there is one supreme God</b>; (2) God ought to be worshipped; (3) worship consists in virtue and piety; (4) wrongdoing should be repented; (5) there are divine rewards and punishments in this life and the next. These tenets are rationally knowable and constitute the basis for a true universal religion. The main thrust of deism comes to expression in the titles of works like John Toland's (1670-1722) <i>Christianity not mysterious: or a treatise showing that there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to reason, nor above it: and that no Christian doctrine can be properly called a mystery</i> 1696, and Mathew Tindal's (c. 1657-1733) <i>Christianity as old as the creation: or, the Gospel the republication of the religion of nature</i> 1730. True religion is identified with Christianity-but <b>a reinterpreted `rational' Christianity which has no place for any special revelation</b>. A classical formulation of a deistic view is Rousseau's `The profession of faith of the Savoyard vicar' in Book 4 of his <i>Emile</i> 1762." (Mautner, T., ed., 2000, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Penguin-Dictionary-Philosophy/dp/0140512500">The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy</a>," [1996], Penguin: London, Revised, p.126-127).</p> <p>"<a name="MT2000p561"></a><i><b>theism</b></i> ... (Gr. <i>theos</i> god) n. <b>the belief that there is one God, a personal being with every perfection</b> (perfect power, perfect knowledge, perfect goodness, perfect justice, etc.); creator of the world, manifested in the world, interacting with the world, but nevertheless existing entirely separately from the world; a being that is the one and only proper object of worship and obedience. Theism is common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Theism can be contrasted with a variety of views: (1) the view that there is one God is rejected by polytheism, which claims that there are many gods; in contrast, traditional Western religions are also said to be monotheistic; (2) the view that God is a personal being is rejected as anthropomorphic in some philosophical systems, which rather conceive of God as an absolute, nonpersonal being; (3) the view that God is distinct from the world is rejected by pantheism, which identifies God and the world; (4) the view <b>that God interacts with the world is rejected by deism, which ascribes to God a decisive role in originating the world, but none in keeping the world going</b>; (5) the denial of the existence of any divine being is called atheism; (6) the suspension of judgement on the question whether theism is true is called agnosticism. Many of the teleological, cosmological, ontological, moral, etc. arguments for the existence of God are intended to establish theism." (Mautner, 2000, p.561).</p> <p>"<a name="OR2004"></a>A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. <b>He now believes in God</b> -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. ... 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, `<a href="http://www.sciencefindsgod.com/">Has Science Discovered God?</a> .... The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's <i><a href="http://www.philosophynow.org/issue47/47flew.htm">Philosophy Now</a></i> 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." (Ostling, R.N., "<a href="http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/atheist_philosopher_041210.html">Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God</a>," Livescience/Associated Press, 10 December 2004).</p> <p>"<a name="V&F1990p76"></a><i><b>deism</b></i>, <i>n</i>. (from Latin <i>deus</i> god) <b>a line of rationalistic religious thought that affirms that there is a GOD but denies that he should be understood in any mystical way</b>. The antecedents of deism go back to ARISTOTLE'S First Mover, who moved `the first heaven' at the circumference of the universe but <b>is otherwise unconcerned with human affairs</b>. Deism proper arose with the RENAISSANCE and particularly the ENLIGHTENMENT. It is not a school in any sense, but rather typifies a general approach to religion: individualistic, non-mystical, non-institutional and often anti-clerical. To mention only two great philosophical figures, both LOCKE and KANT took a deist position. As an anti-authoritarian way of thinking, deism in modern times is one of the results of the Protestant REFORMATION. Insofar as it implies a general spirit of tolerance (witness Frederick the Great's dictum that in his realm everyone could save his soul in his own fashion), deism remains in effect a living force today. Besides, toleration in religious matters tends to spread to other human concerns, particularly social and political." (Vesey, G. & Foulkes, P., 1990, "<a href="http://www.amazon.ca/Collins-Dictionary-Philosophy-Godfrey-Vesey/dp/0004343700">Collins Dictionary of Philosophy</a>," HarperCollins: Glasgow, Reprinted, 1999, p.76).</p> <p>"<a name="V&F1990p283"></a><i><b>theism</b></i>, <i>n</i>. (from Greek <i>theos</i> god) is <b>the view that there is such a thing as GOD</b>. Depending on how many of them one takes there to be, we have monotheism (one god), polytheism (many gods) and appropriate compound terms for numbers in between. Theistic views may be based either on simple faith, or on attempts at accounting for what happens in the world. For the latter case, a whole range of arguments for the existence of god has been considered by philosophers over the ages. All of these proofs have been rejected by some philosophers, but the question remains controversial in that some others may accept them. Much here depends on what the god in question is taken to be like, and what his existence must account for: some regard god as the creator of the universe, as a giver of moral laws, as a source of universal benevolence, as an ultimate judge, or as several of these at once. Whether the proofs carry weight depends on whether one accepts the premisses. Where the only ground for admitting the existence of a god is unexamined belief, argument is of course ineffective either way. Some arguments have been conclusively refuted. Thus, the notion that there could be no morality without a god has been quite undermined by PLATO in the <i>Euthyphro</i>. That the thought of a powerful being who can put things to right offers comfort to many, is indubitable. VOLTAIRE, with tongue in cheek, says that if God did not exist one would have to invent him." (Vesey & Foulkes, 1990, p.283). </p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-16028920721147937502008-11-30T23:09:00.009+09:002010-10-30T13:38:25.978+08:00Re: what would happen if I lived to 2037 and Jesus has not come?<p>AN<br><br>Thanks for your message. As per my stated policy, I will respond</p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/MARTIN_John_Great_Day_of_His_Wrath.jpg/800px-MARTIN_John_Great_Day_of_His_Wrath.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/MARTIN_John_Great_Day_of_His_Wrath.jpg/800px-MARTIN_John_Great_Day_of_His_Wrath.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a> <p>[<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8d/MARTIN_John_Great_Day_of_His_Wrath.jpg/800px-MARTIN_John_Great_Day_of_His_Wrath.jpg">Above</a> (click to enlarge): "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Day_of_His_Wrath">The Great Day of His Wrath</a>," John Martin, 1851-1853, Tate Gallery, London: Wikipedia. <blockquote>"For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%206:17;&version=9;">Rev 6:17</a> KJV)]</blockquote></p> <p>to your questions about topics posted on my <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/">CED</a> blog to that blog, minus your personally identifying information. Because of its length, I have split my response into three parts. Your words are <b>bold </b>to distinguish them from mine.<br><br>----- Original Message ----- <br>From: AN<br>To: Stephen E. Jones<br>Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:48 AM<br>Subject: From AN - remarks<br><br><b>>Hello Stephen,<br>1.Wow, <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/07/re-about-your-prediction-of-jesus.html">your predictions about Jesus coming back before 2037</a> are bold one...</b></p> <p>As I said in that post, it is not my "prediction" but my <i>interpretation</i>:<blockquote>Although I have used your word "prediction" in the title of this post, I do not claim or agree that it is my <i>prediction</i> that Jesus will return before 2037, but rather it is my "<i>interpretation</i>" of Jesus' <i>prediction</i> in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:24-31%20;&version=31;">Lk 21:24b-31</a> ... </p></blockquote> <p>And I don't regard it as "bold," but a <i>logical deduction</i> from the Biblical data. Specifically, if the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70)">destruction of Jerusalem</a> in AD 70 is a type of the Second Coming of Jesus:<blockquote>"In the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivet_discourse">Olivet Discourse</a>, therefore, Jesus is proclaiming events in the distant future in close connection with events in the near future'. <i>The destruction of Jerusalem which lies in the near future is a type of the end of the world</i>; hence the intermingling. The passage, therefore, deals neither exclusively with the destruction of Jerusalem nor exclusively with the end of the world; <i>it deals with both-sometimes with the latter in terms of the former</i>." (Hoekema, 1978, "<a href="#HA1978p148">The Bible and the Future</a>," pp.148-149).<br> <br>"`How much of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled by the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 ... How many of these events will be fulfilled in the future ...? ... double fulfillments may be in view here, with the <i>events of A.D. 70 as shadows of a universal and final cataclysm</i> at the end of the age... <i>We must allow for a double reference</i>, for a mingling of historical and eschatological.' .... <i>In fact, the historical fulfillments may be types of future fulfillment</i>." (Riddlebarger, 2003, "<a href="#RK2003p159">A Case for Amillennialism</a>," pp.159-160). <br> <br>"It must be said for this view that it is not easy in this great eschatological discourse to tell clearly when Jesus is discussing the destruction of Jerusalem and when the second coming. Plummer offers this solution: `The reference, therefore, is to <i>the destruction of Jerusalem regarded as the type of the end of the world</i>.'" (Robertson, 1930, "<a href="#RA1978p261">Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume II</a>: The Gospel According to Luke,"pp.261-262).<br> <br>"The question of the disciples in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:7;&version=31;">verse 7</a> clearly refers to the date of the fall of Jerusalem, but it also seems to involve the date of the end of this age. <i>The fall of Jerusalem becomes a type of the end times</i>." (Shreiner, 1989, "Luke," in Elwell, "<a href="#ST1989p834">Evangelical Commentary on the Bible</a>," pp.834-835).</p></blockquote> <p>then Jesus' warning that "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:34;%20Mk%2013:30;%20Lk%2021:32;&version=31;">Mt 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk 21:32</a>); has a double-fulfillment to the generation that saw "all these things," i.e. the generation that saw all the signs leading up to: 1) the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, which was the end of the "old covenant" (Old Testament) age; and 2) the generation that saw the all the signs leading up to the Second Coming of Jesus, the end of this New Testament age (which is "the end of time"):<blockquote>"... the <i>catastrophe in Jerusalem (A.D. 70)</i> in a microcosmic view... a <i>harbinger of the crisis which Jesus</i> ... coming ... <i>will bring to 'all who dwell upon the entire face of the earth'</i> ... the first is the inevitable forerunner and <i>prefiguration of the second</i>. The destruction of Jerusalem marks <i>the end of the old covenant</i> ... Such a decisive intervention in the history of salvation will not occur again until <i>the end of time</i> when God will judge the whole human race ..." (Bloesch, 2004, "<a href="#BD2004p81">The Last Things</a>," pp.81-82).</p></blockquote> <p>And one sign, found only in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:24;&version=31;">Luke 21:24</a>: <blockquote>"They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. <i>Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until</i> the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."</p></blockquote> <p>was fulfilled <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War">in 1967 when Jerusalem came under Jewish control</a>, for the first time since AD 70. This is the <i>only</i> sign pointing to "the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:27;&version=31;">Lk 21:27</a>) that now has a date.</p> <p>Therefore, if my interpretation is correct, the generation that saw the sign of Jerusalem no longer "trampled on by the Gentiles," i.e. that was alive in 1967, will not pass away until Jesus comes again. And assuming that a generation is 70 years (see supporting quotes in my <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/07/re-about-your-prediction-of-jesus.html">Re: about your prediction of Jesus' return by 2037</a>), then I expect Jesus will return before 2037.</p> <p><b>>Well, if Bertrand Russell ,"bleak atheist" managed to live up to the age of 98, so surely can you,"cheerful christian".</b></p> <p>Sorry, but I fail to follow your reasoning. Even if "cheerful Christians," on average, tended to outlive "bleak atheists," and there is some evidence that they do:<blockquote>"Here are some interesting data from a study by Hummer <i>et al</i>. (<i>Demography</i>, May 1999). They examined data from 21,000 individuals over an eight year period and observed death rates as a function of various personal characteristics, one of which was religious attendance. From that they estimated life expectancies for sample members, and they found a surprisingly big difference. So, a twenty year old who goes to church more than once a week can be expected to live 8 years longer than a twenty year old who doesn't go to church. (I.e., live to be 72.9 years old) What does this mean? Well, the data don't have measures of types of religion, so we can't disentangle Christian vs. Jew vs. Muslim, but we can assume that he great majority of church goers in the sample are Christians. Why does this occur? There's a big literature on "why" religion is associated with longer lives, which I may blog about some time, but for now it suffices to say that church going Christians live longer than people who don't go to church." (Wright, B., "<a href="http://brewright.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html">Do Christians live longer?</a>," Bradley Wright's Weblog, September 28, 2007).</p></blockquote> <p>presumably there still would be individual "bleak atheists" who outlive individual "cheerful Christians." I consider it unlikely that I will live till I am 98 (or 91 - see below), even though at 62, I am in excellent health. Nevertheless, one of my goals is to be in that unique group of Christians in all of history, "who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord":<blockquote><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Th%204:15-17;&version=31;">1Th 4:15-17</a> According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that <i>we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord</i>, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, <i>we who are still alive and are left</i> will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.</p></blockquote> <p> <b>>I wish you that. But what would happen if you live up to that date and Jesus ... has not come?Would that be the great source of your disappointment? Would you then reconsider your attitude to Christianity? </b><b>If by 2037 Jesus will NOT come, should I wish you NOT to live up till then, for not to be disappointed? Sorry, I cannot wish you that...</b></p> <p>Thanks for your concern. But I would be <i>infinitely</i> less disappointed if Jesus <i>did not</i> return by 2037, than you, an "agnostic-deist" (see <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/12/re-christianity-has-no-future-and-is-in.html">part #3</a>) would be if Jesus <i>did</i> return by 2037! </p> <p>And since I am firmly convinced that Jesus <i>will</i> return before 2037, i.e. within the next <i>29 years</i>, I see no reason to consider what will my response will be if He does not. Except to say, it is just my <i>interpretation</i> and I could be wrong. And as I would then be 91 in 2037, it is more likely than not that I will not be alive (at least not down here on Earth) to know that I was wrong. </p> <p>Moreover, I could be wrong about the "by 2037" but right about Jesus returning before the generation that was alive in 1967 passes away. That is, if "generation" means more than 70 years and/or "passes away" means not <i>most</i> of that generation but the <i>entire</i> generation, as I pointed out <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/07/re-about-your-prediction-of-jesus.html">in my post</a>:<blockquote>However, note that 70 is just the traditional "normal span of life" ballpark figure. It may be that the actual normal average lifespan of those born in 1967 is more like 80. And since the text says, "this <i>generation</i> will certainly not pass away," strictly literally it would mean that the <i>entire</i> generation that was alive in 1967 could almost pass away before Jesus returned:</p></blockquote> <p>Continued in <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/12/re-anthony-flew-leaving-atheism-more.html">Re: Anthony Flew leaving Atheism ... more accurate to state "Victory of Deism"</a>.</p> <p><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology). <br>My other blogs: , <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">TheShroudofTurin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a> </p> <hr> <p>"<a name="BD2004p81"></a>Commenting on Luke's rendition of Jesus' eschatological discourse ... Joseph Fitzmyer contends that the `Lucan discourse looks back at <b>the catastrophe in Jerusalem (A.D. 70) in a microcosmic view</b>; it sees the crisis that the earthly coming of Jesus brought into the lives of his own generation, but sees it now as <b>a harbinger of the crisis which Jesus and his message, and above all his coming as the Son of Man, will bring to 'all who dwell upon the entire face of the earth'</b> ([<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:34-35;&version=31;">Lk] 21:35</a>).' [Fitzmyer, J.A., "The Gospel According to Luke, X-XXIV," Anchor Bible, Doubleday: New York, 1985, p.1329] The notes on Matthew in <i>The New Jerusalem Bible</i> reflect a similar stance: `This eschatological discourse of Matthew combines the announcement of the destruction of Jerusalem with that of the end of the world.... Though separated in time, these two [events] are inseparable in the sense that <b>the first is the inevitable forerunner and prefiguration of the second</b>. The <b>destruction of Jerusalem marks the end of the old covenant</b>-Christ has thus manifestly returned to inaugurate his kingly rule. Such a decisive intervention in the history of salvation <b>will not occur again until the end of time when God will judge the whole human race</b>, now chosen in Christ, with the same judgment he pronounced (in A.D. 70) upon the first chosen people.' ["New Jerusalem Bible," Doubleday: New York, 1985, p.1649]" (Bloesch, D.G., 2004, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Last-Things-Resurrection-Christian-Foundations/dp/0830814175">The Last Things</a>: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, pp.81-82).</p> <p>"<a name="HA1978p148"></a>When we ask what the New Testament teaches about the sign of tribulation, we must, look first of all at the so-called `Olivet Discourse' - Jesus' eschatological discourse found in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:3-51;%20Mk%2013:3-37;%20Lk%2021:5-36;&version=31;">Matthew 24:3-51, Mark 13:3-37, and Luke 21:5-36</a>. This is, however, a very difficult passage to interpret. What makes it so difficult is that some parts of the discourse obviously refer to the destruction of Jerusalem which lies in the near future, whereas other parts of it refer to the events which will accompany the Parousia at the end of the age. The setting for the discourse is as follows: when the disciples pointed out to Jesus the buildings of the temple, Jesus replied, `I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down' (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:2;&version=31;">Matt. 24:2</a>). When Jesus had seated himself on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him and said, `Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?' (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:3;&version=31;">v. 3</a>). Note that ... the question of the disciples concerns two topics: (1) when will <i>this</i> be? (literally, <i>these things</i>; Greek, <i>tauta</i>)-an obvious reference to the destruction of the temple Jesus had just predicted; and (2) what will be the sign of your <i>coming</i> (Greek, <i>parousia</i>) and of the <i>close of the age</i>?-a reference to Christ's Second Coming. We may properly conclude, therefore, that the discourse will deal with both of these topics. As we read the discourse, however, we find that aspects of these two topics are intermingled; matters concerning the destruction of Jerusalem (epitomized by the destruction of the temple) are mingled together with matters which concern the end of the world-so much so that it is sometimes hard to determine whether Jesus is referring to the one or the other or perhaps to both. Obviously the method of teaching used here by Jesus is that of prophetic foreshortening, in which events far removed in time and events in the near future are spoken of as if they were very close together. The phenomenon has been compared to what happens when one looks at distant mountains; peaks which are many miles apart may be seen as if they are close together. ... In the Olivet Discourse, therefore, Jesus is proclaiming events in the distant future in close connection with events in the near future'. <b>The destruction of Jerusalem which lies in the near future is a type of the end of the world</b>; hence the intermingling. <b>The passage, therefore, deals neither exclusively with the destruction of Jerusalem nor exclusively with the end of the world; it deals with both-sometimes with the latter in terms of the former</b>. ... Though the, tribulation, persecution, suffering, and trials here predicted are described in terms which concern Palestine and the Jews, they must not be interpreted as having to do only with the Jews. Jesus was describing future events in terms which would be understandable to his hearers, in terms which had local ethnic and geographic color. We are not warranted, however, in applying these predictions only to the Jews, or in restricting their occurrence only to Palestine." (Hoekema, A.A., 1978, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Future-Anthony-Hoekema/dp/0802808514">The Bible and the Future</a>," Paternoster Press: Exeter, Devon UK, Reprinted, 1979, pp.148-149).</p> <p>"<a name="RK2003p159"></a>It is this immanent-future tension within the text itself which forces us to deal with the critical questions: `<b>How much of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled by the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70</b> (the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism">preterist</a> view)? <b>How many of these events will be fulfilled in the future</b> (the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism_(Christian_eschatology)">futurist</a> view)? The way one answers these questions is the source of the preterist-futurist debate. In another approach, some argue that this prophecy has both historical and future elements. <b>Portions of the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled by the events of A.D. 70, while others remain to be fulfilled at the end of the age</b>. Even <b>double fulfillments may be in view here, with the events of A.D. 70 as shadows of a universal and final cataclysm at the end of the age</b>. This is why C. E. B. Cranfield cautions that `neither an exclusively historical nor an exclusively eschatological interpretation is satisfactory ...<b>We must allow for a double referenc</b>e, for a mingling of historical and eschatological.' [Cranfield, C.E.B., "The Gospel According to St. Mark," Cambridge University Press: New York, 1983, pp.401-402] If Cranfield is correct, we should avoid reducing the Olivet Discourse to a prophecy of the events of A.D. 70 and a local judgment upon Israel, typical of preterism. We must also avoid treating the historical sections as though they are exclusively future, as is the case with many dispensational writers. <b>In fact, the historical fulfillments may be types of future fulfillment</b>. The difficulty in interpreting this text is to know which is which." (Riddlebarger, K., 2003, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Case-Amillennialism-Understanding-End-Times/dp/080106435X">A Case for Amillennialism</a>: Understanding the End Times," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, pp.159-160). </p> <p>"<a name="RA1978p261"></a>[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:32;&version=31;">Lk 21:]32</a> <i>This generation</i> (<i>he genea haute</i>). Naturally people then living. <i>Shall not pass away</i> (<i>ou me parelthei</i>). Second aorist active subjunctive of <i>parerchomai</i>. Strongest possible negative with <i>ou me</i>. Till all things be accomplished (<i>heos an panta genetai</i>). Second aorist middle subjunctive of <i>ginomai</i> with <i>heos</i>, common idiom. The words give a great deal of trouble to critics. Some apply them to the whole discourse including the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, the second coming and the end of the world. Some of these argue that Jesus was simply mistaken in his eschatology, some that he has not been properly reported in the Gospels. Others apply them only to the destruction of Jerusalem which did take place in A.D. 70 before that generation passed away. It must be said for this view that it is not easy in this great eschatological discourse to tell clearly when Jesus is discussing the destruction of Jerusalem and when the second coming. Plummer offers this solution: `<b>The reference, therefore, is to the destruction of Jerusalem regarded as the type of the end of the world</b>.'" (Robertson, A.T., 1930, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Word-Pictures-New-Testament-vol/dp/0825436419/">Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume II: The Gospel According to Luke</a>," Broadman Press, Nashville TN, pp.261-262).</p> <p>"<a name="ST1989p834"></a><i>Apocalyptic discourse ([<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:5-38;&version=31;">Lk ]21:5-38</a>).</i> The temple that elicited the admiration of his disciples was beautiful indeed. ... Jesus, however, predicts that the temple will be completely demolished (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:5-6;&version=31;">21:5-6</a>). The Romans fulfilled this prophecy in A.D. 70. ... Jesus now warns his disciples against eschatological enthusiasm and braces them for future persecution (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:7-19;&version=31;">21:7-19</a>). The question of the disciples in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:7;&version=31;">verse 7</a> clearly <b>refers to the date of the fall of Jerusalem, but it also seems to involve the date of the end of this age. The fall of Jerusalem becomes a type of the end times</b>. .... Jesus specifically answers the question about the destruction of Jerusalem (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:20-24;&version=31;">21:20-24</a>). One will know that Jerusalem's time of destruction has arrived when foreign armies surround it. This encirclement is a signal, not of the need for heroism, but the need to flee. God's avenging wrath will be poured out on the city, bringing distress to the entire populace. `The times of the Gentiles' (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:24;&version=31;">v. 24</a>) refers not to the Gentile mission but to Gentile authority over Jerusalem. Josephus's <i>Jewish War</i> contains a graphic commentary on the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. From the destruction of Jerusalem Luke moves to the coming of the Son of man (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:25-28;&version=31;">21:25-28</a>). Luke does not specify the temporal relationship between these events, but the former clearly functions as a correspondence of the latter. ... The signs picture in dramatic terms the breakup of the natural world order, and the resulting terror and fear which seize the human race. The Son of man will return during these troubled times. The message for believers is: When the world begins to convulse, take hope! Your redemption is imminent." (Shreiner, T.R., 1989, "Luke," in Elwell, W.A., ed., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evangelical-Commentary-Bible-Elwell-Walter/dp/B000WG5UJS/">Evangelical Commentary on the Bible</a>," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second printing, 1990, pp.834-835).</p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-36379604870795252532008-10-23T22:20:00.008+08:002008-10-24T08:19:38.691+08:00Re: I am requesting your help involving Daniel 9:24-27<p>AN</p> <p>Thanks for your message. As per my policy when I receive a </p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Daniel-prophet.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Daniel-prophet.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a> <p><A href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Daniel-prophet.jpg">Above</a>: An <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel#Prophet">18th century Russian icon of the prophet Daniel</A>, Kizhi monastery, Russia: Wikipedia]</p> <p>private message on one of my blog posts, in this case, <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/07/daniels-70-weeks-proof-that-naturalism.html">Daniel's 70 `weeks': Proof that Naturalism is false and Christianity is true!</a>, I will respond in due course via that blog, <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/">CED</a>, minus your personal identifying information. Your words are <b>bold </b>to distinguish them from mine.</p> <p>----- Original Message ----- <br>From: AN<br>To: Stephen E. Jones<br>Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:11 PM<br>Subject: For Mr. Jones<br><br><b>></b> ... <b>I am requesting your help here if that's ok involving the famous Daniel 9:24-27 passage, Mr. Jones. </b>...<br><b>> <br>>If I understand this correctly, in order to effectively conclude that the "Weeks" described specifically in Daniel 9:24-25 can be assumed to mean "Years" here-thus, the seventy "Sevens" of YEARS specifically, the Hebrew term for "Weeks" here, "Shabuwa'," which I understand WOULD BE the masculine, or "Shabua'," would have to unmistakably appear as such in the ancient Hebrew scrolls. </b></p> <p>As explained in <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/07/daniels-70-weeks-proof-that-naturalism.html#19">footnote 19</a> of my <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/07/daniels-70-weeks-proof-that-naturalism.html">Daniel's 70 `weeks': Proof that Naturalism is false and Christianity is true!</a>, "The Heb. <i>shebu`im</i> here" in Dn 9:24-26 translated "<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:24-26%20;&version=9;">weeks</a>" (KJV) or more accurately "<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:24-26%20;&version=31;">sevens</a>" (NIV) "is masculine, whereas the normal gender of seven, as in a seven-day week, is feminine, thus indicating that time units other than ordinary seven-day weeks is here intended": <blockquote>[19] The Heb. <i>shebu`im</i> here is literally "sevens." (Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. & Waltke, B.K., eds, 1980, "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," Moody Press: Chicago IL, 1992, Twelfth Printing, p.2:899). The Heb. here is masculine, whereas the normal gender of seven, as in a seven-day week, is feminine, thus indicating that time units other than ordinary seven-day weeks is here intended (Archer, G.L., 1982, "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.289). Clearly ordinary weeks of seven days cannot be intended, because then after 70 weeks (i.e. about a year and four months) Daniel would have been discredited as a false prophet (Archer, G.L., "Daniel," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Daniel and the Minor Prophets," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1985, Vol. 7, p.121).</p></blockquote> <p>Here are quotes to support that:<blockquote>"<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:24%20;&version=9;">Daniel 9:24</a> reads: `Seventy weeks have been determined for your people and your holy city ....' The word for `week' is <i>sabuac</i>, which is derived from <i>seba`</i> the word for `seven.' Its normal plural is feminine in form: <i>sebu`ot</i>. Only in this chapter of Daniel does it appear in the masculine plural <i>sabu`im</i>. (The only other occurrence is in the combination <i>sebu`e sebu`ot</i> ['heptads of weeks'] in Ezek. ... 21:23 ...). Therefore, it is strongly suggestive of the idea `heptad' (a series or combination of seven), rather than a `week' in the sense of a series of seven days. There is no doubt that in this case we are presented with seventy sevens of years rather than of days." (Archer, 1982, "<a href="#AG1982EBDp289">Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties</a>," p.289).<br> <br>"The `seventy `sevens' are usually understood to be `weeks' of years ... the <i>usual feminine form for `week,' ... is not used here</i>. ... what Daniel means by these seventy `heptads' is seventy units of seven years, or `seventy' times `seven' years (i.e., 490 years)." (Kaiser, 1995, "<a href="#KW1995MOTp202">The Messiah in the Old Testament</a>," p.202).<br> <br>"[Dn 9:24]. ... <i>Seventy sevens </i>... The word <i>sevens</i> here <i>occurs in the m.pl.</i> [masculine plural]<i>, whereas it generally has a f.pl.</i> [feminine plural] ... What led Dan. to employ the m. [masculine] instead of the f. [feminine] however, is not clear <i>unless it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word sevens is employed in an unusual sense</i>. .... It seems obvious that <i>ordinary weeks of 7 days are not intended</i>." (Young, 1972, "<a href="#YE1972CDp195">A Commentary on Daniel</a>," pp.195-196).</p></blockquote> <p><b>>Here again, I don't know anything about the Hebrew language or the ancient writings, and thus I am concerned about the fact that according to the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the amateur like myself cannot seem to determine whether the term appears in the masculine or feminine since Strong's also lists its feminine form of the Hebrew as a potential relation to the "Seventy weeks" term-"Shebu'ah."<br></b></p> <p>It is not the "seventy" that is the key word but the "sevens". It is the latter "sevens" or "weeks" which are the time <i>units</i>. "Seventy" is just the normal 70 times whatever the "sevens" time units are, i.e. 70 x 7 years = 490 years.</p> <p><b><br>>For the English "Seventy" translated from the Hebrew, however, I have noted that 7651 does seem to demand the masculine according to the Strong's-"Sheba'," or "Shib'ah."</b><br></p> <p>Strong's Exhaustive Concordance numbers are only to the <i>roots</i> of Heb. and Gk. words, not to every variant grammatical form of those words:<blockquote>"Not every distinct word is assigned a number, but only the root words. For example, <i>agapeseis</i> is assigned the same number as <i>agapate</i> - both are listed as Greek word #25 in Strong's `agapao'." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strongs_concordance">Strong's Concordance</a>," Wikipedia. My transliteration)</p></blockquote> <p> Also, you are looking up the Strong's number for the wrong word, "seventy." The Strong's number for "sevens" is 7620, i.e.: <blockquote>"<a href="http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07620&version=kjv">Strong's Number: 07620</a> ... Shabuwa ... Noun Masculine ... seven, period of seven (days or years), heptad, week period of seven days, a week Feast of Weeks heptad, seven (of years)" ("The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon," Crosswalk.com).</p></blockquote> <p><b> >Thus, according to the Hebrew language, is this a situation that because the "Seventy" can, beyond any doubt, be associated to the concept of "Years" that one is fully, unmistakably allowed to consider the conjoined "Seventy weeks" as a DIRECT association to YEARS? If so, why is this fundamentally true if in fact the actual "Weeks" cannot be determined to be masculine or feminine?</b></p> <p>See above where you are confusing the "seventy" which just means literally seventy (i.e. 70 multiplied by whatever the "sevens" time units are), with the "sevens" which are the time units and in the context mean "sevens of <i>years</i>": <blockquote>"<i>shabua`. A period of seven ... </i>in Dan 9:24,25,26,27 it denotes <i>a period of seven years</i> in each of its appearances in these four verses. This is proven by the context wherein Daniel recognizes that the <i>seventy-year</i> period of captivity is almost over. ...the angel Gabriel appears and informs him that Israel's restoration will not be complete until she goes through <i>another seventy periods-of-seven</i>, <i>shabua'</i> (Dan 9:24ff)!" (Harris, <i>et al</i>., eds, 1980, "<a href="#HR1980TWOTp2:899">Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament</a>," p.2:899).</p></blockquote> <p><b>>.... while I can see beyond any doubt that the city of Jerusalem could never have possibly been rebuilt over a period of 7x69 days, while such would seem just as unlikely, one would have to at least question the possibility that such could have been completed over a nine year period (69x7 actual weeks=9 years) depending specifically what God had in mind here. </b></p> <p>See above. The city of Jerusalem was in fact to be rebuilt in the</p><p> <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnSwarI_gtutT6IkX72s0Vh3RYUwVmtioQ2pqgGYCIhoihSjkDz96kyLaLeP9iFYO21SR6JB7Q75dkHTuJpqQkJqupLhQ7yBp4PUrKi-eqArYx9Xsl9jTlgKUegt7WvgXyT2Le/s1600-h/SmithDan9.JPG"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnSwarI_gtutT6IkX72s0Vh3RYUwVmtioQ2pqgGYCIhoihSjkDz96kyLaLeP9iFYO21SR6JB7Q75dkHTuJpqQkJqupLhQ7yBp4PUrKi-eqArYx9Xsl9jTlgKUegt7WvgXyT2Le/s320/SmithDan9.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5260363811748483522" /></a><p>[Above (click to enlarge): "The Traditional View" of <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:24-27%20;&version=31;">Daniel 9:24-27</a> (Smith, 1993, "<a href="#SJ1993WBTAPMp390">What the Bible Teaches About the Promised Messiah</a>," p.390).]</p><p>first "seven `sevens'" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:25;&version=31;">Dn 9:25</a>). If (<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/07/daniels-70-weeks-proof-that-naturalism.html">as I maintain</a>), the <i>terminus a quo</i> (starting point) is 457 BC, when <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra">Ezra</a> returned to Jerusalem in the seventh regnal year of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artaxerxes_I">Artaxerxes I</a> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezr%207:12-26;&version=31;">Ezra 7:12-26</a>) and the "sevens" time units are ordinary solar years, then that fits very well with "the first seven heptads as running from 457 to 408, within which time the rebuilding of the walls, streets, and moats was completed":<blockquote>"Verse 25 ...`From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One [<i>massiah</i>], the ruler, comes, there will be seven sevens,' and sixty-two `sevens.' ` It should be observed that only sixty-nine heptads are listed here, <i>broken into two segments</i>. <i>The first segment of seven amounts to forty-nine years</i>, during which the city of Jerusalem is to be `rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.' ... <i>If, then, the terminus a quo for the decree in v.25 be reckoned as 457 B.C.</i> (the date of Ezra's return to Jerusalem), then we may compute <i>the first seven heptads as running from 457 to 408</i>, within which time t<i>he rebuilding of the walls, streets, and moats was completed</i>." (Archer, 1985, "<a href="#AG1985EBCDMPp7:113">Daniel</a>," pp.7:113-114).</p></blockquote> <p><b>>At that point, I suppose the final requirement would be to go to the history books regarding the rebuilding of the 2nd Temple itself and determine specifically when such had been completed as it would related to the decree to rebuild the city and Temple itself. Thus, if history would be able to prove the fact that the city's reconstruction was not complete by 400 BC via the highly liberal estimation here, this would in fact prove to me that the prophecy really was intended to be about Jesus Himself.</b></p> <p>I don't know why you think that if "the city's reconstruction was <i>not </i>complete by 400 BC ... this would in fact prove ... that the prophecy really was intended to be about Jesus Himself." If the "issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" was the that of Artaxerxes I in 457 BC to Ezra, then Jerusalem and its temple would be "rebuilt with streets and a trench ... in times of trouble" in the period 457-408 BC:<blockquote>"we may compute <i>the first seven heptads as running from 457 to 408</i>, within which time t<i>he rebuilding of the walls, streets, and moats was completed</i>." (Archer, 1985, "<a href="#AG1985EBCDMPp7:113">Daniel</a>," pp.7:113-114). </p></blockquote> <p>which in fact is what happened:<blockquote> "... A period of seven weeks or forty-nine years came to a close about 408 B.C., and the reformation under Ezra and Nehemiah was conducted during this <i>period</i> and characterized this period as a whole. ... <i>Nehemiah's successor, who was a Persian ... was in office in 411 B.C</i>., before the close of the seventh week." (Davis, 1924, "<a href="#DJ1924DBp163">A Dictionary of the Bible</a>," p.163).<br> <br>"<i>Finally, in 445 BC</i>, Ezra was joined by a powerful contingent headed by a leading Jew and prominent Persian official called Nehemiah, who was given the governorship of Judah ... This fourth wave at last succeeded in <i>stabilizing the settlement</i> ... Nehemiah ... <i>rebuilt</i> with commendable speed <i>the walls of Jerusalem</i> ... The <i>rebuilt city</i> was smaller than Solomon's. ... The years <i>400-200 BC</i> are the lost centuries of Jewish history. <i>There were no great events</i> or calamities they chose to record." (Johnson, 1987, "<a href="#JP1987HJp86">A History of the Jews</a>," pp.86-87).<br> <br>"... the whole period of 70 weeks is divided into three successive periods, 7, 62, 1 ... the division would be unmeaning, unless something were assigned to this first portion. The text does assign it. It says, <i>the street shall be restored and be builded; and that, in troublous times</i>. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah give the explanation. Ezra came to Jerusalem, B.C. 457 ... Nehemiah was sent by Artaxerxes, B.C. 444. ... <i>Ezra and Nehemiah conjointly, a time somewhat exceeding 45 years; so that ... the restoration was completed in the latter part of the 7th week of years</i> ...." (Pusey, 1885, "<a href="#PE1885p189">Daniel the Prophet</a>, pp.189-191).</p></blockquote> <p> Note that in the first "seven `sevens'" during which "Jerusalem ... will be rebuilt with streets and a trench" would be "times of trouble" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:25;&version=31;">Dn 9:25</a>). But by 400 AD, the city was rebuilt and there were "no great events or calamities" recorded for the next 2 centuries. So the city's reconstruction <i>was</i> complete by 400 BC. </p><p> And also note that if the starting point is 457/458 BC and the time units ordinary solar years, then 7 + 62 = 69 "sevens" would be 69 x 7 = 483 years from 457/458, and after adding 1 since there is no year 0 between 1BC and AD 1, the ending point of the 69th "seven" is <FONT color=#ff0000><B>26/27 AD. Which `just happens' to be the <i>very year</i> of Jesus' baptism and the beginning His public ministry! </B></FONT> :<blockquote>"<i>If, then, the decree of 457</i> granted to Ezra himself is taken as the <i>terminus a quo</i> for the commencement of the 69 heptads ... we come out to the precise year of the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah ... 483 minus 457 comes out to A.D. 26. But since a year is gained in passing from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 ... it actually comes out to A.D. 27." (Archer, 1982, "<a href="#AG1982EBDp290">Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties</a>," pp.290-291).<br> <br>"Then from 408 we count off the sixty-two heptads also mentioned in v.25 and <i>come out to ... A.D. 27</i>, since a year is gained in our reckoning as we pass directly from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 (without any year zero in between)." (Archer, 1985, "<a href="#AG1985EBCDMPp7:113">Daniel</a>," pp.7:113-114).<br> <br>"Using the date of 457 B.C.E. as our starting point ... and putting the two sets of weeks together (7 x 7 + 7 x 62), we would arrive at a total of 483 years, ending in 27 C.E.-the very year that Jesus began his public ministry ... because there is no `zero year.' ... from 1 B.C.E.. to 1 C.E. ... What an incredibly accurate prophecy this would be!" (Brown, 2003, "<a href="#BM2003AJOp102">Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus</a>," pp.102, 220).<br> <br> "The <i>decree to rebuild Jerusalem, as noted above, was 457 B.C.</i> Adding 483 years to 457 B.C. brings us to <i>A.D. 26, the very year that Jesus was baptized and began his public ministry</i>. A most remarkable fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, <i>even to the year</i>." (Halley, 1965, "<a href="#HH1965HBHp349">Halley's Bible Handbook</a>," p.349).<br> <br>"The <i>terminus a quo</i> for the commencement of these sixty nine weeks of years is stated to be from the going forth of the word (or decree) to restore and build Jerusalem (ver 25). This may refer to ... (2) <i>the order of Artaxerxes to Ezra in 457 B.C.</i> .... Only (2) <i>comes out right according to regular solar years, for it yields the result as A.D. 27, or the commencement of Christ's ministry</i>." (Lindsell, 1964, "<a href="#LH1964HSBp1312">Harper Study Bible</a>," pp.1312-1313).<br> <br>"The term also corresponds. <i>Unto Messiah the Prince</i>, shall be <i>seven weeks and threescore and two weeks</i> [v.25 ... But <i>483 years from the beginning of B.C. 457 were completed at the beginning of 27 A.D. which ... would coincide with His Baptism</i>, `being about 30 years of age,' when the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Him manifested Him to be <i>the Anointed with the Holy Ghost, the Christ</i>." (Pusey, 1885, "<a href="#PE1885p189">Daniel the Prophet</a>, p.189).<br> <br>"... Ezra the Scribe .... issued the word to restore and to build Jerusalem in the spring of 457 B.C. ... from that date seven sevens and sixty two sevens of years would elapse before the appearance of Messiah-Prince. ... Subtracting 483 years from the starting point of 457 B.C. the year A.D. 27 is reached. ... there is no year zero. Hence the year A.D. 27 must be reduced by one .... According to Daniel, Messiah-Prince would appear in A.D. 26. It is surely more than a coincidence that the baptism of Jesus occurred in A.D. 26. ..." (Smith, 1993, "<a href="#SJ1993WBTAPMp386">What the Bible Teaches About the Promised Messiah</a>," p.386).</p></blockquote> <p> <FONT color=#ff0000><B>Therefore Christianity <i>is </i>true and Naturalism <i>is</i> false! </B></FONT></p> <p><b>>... if you can help me, here again I would appreciate that ever so much. ... thank you .... <br>> <br>AN</b></p><p>I hope this has helped, albeit belatedly.</p> <p>The quotes below (emphasis <i>italics</i> original, emphasis <b>bold </b>mine) are hyperlinked to the inline references above.</p> <p> <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology). <br>Blogs: <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/">CreationEvolutionDesign</a>, <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">TheShroudofTurin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a> </p> <p> <hr> </p> <p>"<a name="AG1982EBDp289"></a><i>How can we make any sense out of Daniel's prophecy of Seventy Weeks?</i> The prophecy of the Seventy Weeks in Daniel 9:24-27 is one of the most remarkable long-range predictions in the entire Bible. It is by all odds one of the most widely discussed by students and scholars of every persuasion within the spectrum of the Christian church. And yet when it is carefully examined in the light of all the relevant data of history and the information available from other parts of Scripture, it is quite clearly an accurate prediction of the time of Christ's coming advent and a preview of the thrilling final act of the drama of human history before that advent. Daniel 9:24 reads: `Seventy weeks have been determined for your people and your holy city [i.e., for the nation Israel and for Jerusalem].' <b>The word for `week' is <i>sabuac</i>, which is derived from <i>seba`</i> the word for `seven.' Its normal plural is feminine in form: <i>sebu`ot</i>. Only in this chapter of Daniel does it appear in the masculine plural <i>sabu`im</i></b>. (The only other occurrence is in the combination <i>sebu`e sebu`ot</i> ['heptads of weeks'] in Ezek. 21:28 [21:23 English text]). <b>Therefore, it is strongly suggestive of the idea `heptad' (a series or combination of seven), rather than a `week' in the sense of a series of seven days</b>. There is no doubt that in this case we are presented with seventy sevens of years rather than of days. This leads to a total of 490 years." (Archer, G.L., 1982, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Bible-Difficulties-G-Archer/dp/0310435706">Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties</a>," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.289).</p> <p>"<a name="AG1982EBDp290"></a><b>If, then, the decree of 457 granted to Ezra himself is taken as the <i>terminus a quo</i> for the commencement of the 69 heptads</b>, or 483 years, <b>we come out to the precise year of the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah</b> (or Christ): <b>483 minus 457 comes out to A.D. 26</b>. But since a year is gained in passing from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 (there being no such year as zero), <b>it actually comes out to A.D. 27</b>. It is generally agreed that Christ was crucified in A.D. 30, after a ministry of a little more than three years. This means His baptism and initial ministry must have taken place in A.D. 27. A most remarkable exactitude in the fulfillment of such an ancient prophecy. <b>Only God could have predicted the coming of His Son with such amazing precision; it defies all rationalistic explanation</b>." (Archer, 1982, pp.290-291).</p> <p>"<a name="AG1985EBCDMPp7:113"></a>[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:25-26;&version=31;">Dn 9:25-26</a>] Verse 25 is crucial: `From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One [<i>massiah</i>], the ruler, comes, there will be seven sevens,' and sixty-two `sevens.' ` It should be observed that only sixty-nine heptads are listed here, <b>broken into two segments</b>. <b>The first segment of seven amounts to forty-nine years</b>, during which the city of Jerusalem is to be `rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.' ... we note that v.25 specifies the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem with streets and moats, which will be completed within forty-nine years of the <i>terminus a quo</i>. ...<b>If, then, the <i>terminus a quo</i> for the decree in v.25 be reckoned as 457 B.C.</b> (the date of Ezra's return to Jerusalem), then we may compute <b>the first seven heptads as running from 457 to 408, within which time the rebuilding of the walls, streets, and moats was completed</b>. Then from 408 we count off the sixty-two heptads also mentioned in v.25 and come out to A.D. 26 (408 is 26 less than 434). But actually we come out to A.D. 27, since a year is gained in our reckoning as we pass directly from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 (without any year zero in between). If Christ was crucified on 14 Abib A.D. 30, as is generally believed ... this would come out to a remarkably exact fulfillment of the terms of v.25. Christ's public ministry, from the time of his baptism in the Jordan till his death and resurrection at Jerusalem, must have taken up about three years. The 483 years from the issuing of the decree of Artaxerxes came to an end in A.D. 27, the year of the `coming' of Messiah as Ruler (<i>nasi'</i>). It was indeed `after the sixty-two `sevens' `-three years after-that `the Anointed One' was `cut off.'" (Archer, G.L., 1985, "Daniel," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Daniel-Minor-Prophets-Gleason-Archer/dp/0310364906">The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Daniel and the Minor Prophets</a>," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Vol. 7, pp.113-114).</p> <p>"<a name="BM2003AJOp102"></a>The KJV, however, rendered this verse [<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:25;&version=9;">Dn 9:25</a>], `Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.' <b>Using the date of 457 B.C.E. as our starting point</b>, as suggested by some scholars, and <b>putting the two sets of weeks together</b> (7 x 7 + 7 x 62), we would arrive at a total of 483 years, <b>ending in 27 C.E.-the very year that Jesus began his public ministry</b>.[The reason there are only 483 years from 457 B.C.E.. to 27 C.E. (instead of 484 years) is because there is no `zero year.' In other words, we count directly from 1 B.C.E.. to 1 C.E.] <b>What an incredibly accurate prophecy this would be!</b>" (Brown, M.L., 2003, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Answering-Jewish-Objections-Jesus-vol/dp/0801064236">Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus</a>: Messianic Prophecy Objections," Vol. 3, Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Third printing, 2006, p.102, 220).</p> <p>"<a name="DJ1924DBp163"></a>The one combination which coincides with known history throughout starts with the decree of Artaxerxes in his seventh year, 457 B.C. <b>A period of seven weeks or forty-nine years came to a close about 408 B.C., and the reformation under Ezra and Nehemiah was conducted during this period and characterized this period as a whole</b>. When this reform ceased to be the dominating feature of God's kingdom is unknown, but <b>Nehemiah's successor [Bagoas], who was a Persian and naturally not a maintainer of the exclusiveness of Jehovah's religion, was in office in 411 B.C., before the close of the seventh week</b>." (Davis, J.D., 1924, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Bible-John-D-Davis/dp/B000UDKOY4/">A Dictionary of the Bible</a>," [1898], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth Edition, Fifteenth Printing, 1966, p.163).</p> <p>"<a name="HH1965HBHp349"></a><i>The Seventy Weeks</i> The Captivity, which was then drawing to a closes had lasted 70 years. Daniel is here told by the angel that it would yet be `70 weeks' till the coming of the Messiah (24). The `70 weeks' is generally understood to mean 70 weeks of years, that is as 70 sevens of years, or seven times 70 years, that is 490 years. As if the angel were saying, The Captivity has been 70 years; the period between the Captivity and the Coming of the Messiah will be seven times that long. Seven, and cycles of seven, sometimes have symbolic meanings; yet the actual facts of this prophecy are most amazing, as follows: The date from which the 70 weeks was to be counted was the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (25). There were three decrees issued by Persian kings for this purpose (536 B.C., 457 B.C., 444 B.C., see under Ezra). The principal one of these was 457 B.C. The 70 weeks is subdivided into 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and 1 week (25, 27). It is difficult to see the application of the `7 weeks'; but the 69 weeks (including the 7) equal 483 days, that is, on the year-day theory (Ezekiel 4:6), which is the commonly accepted interpretation, 483 years. This 483 years is the period between the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of the `Anointed One' (25). <b>The decree to rebuild Jerusalem, as noted above, was 457 B.C. Adding 483 years to 457 B.C. brings us to A.D. 26, the very year that Jesus was baptized and began his public ministry</b>. A most remarkable fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, even to the year. Further, within 3 ½ years Jesus was crucified, that is, `in the midst of the one week' `the Anointed One' was `cut off,' `purged away sin and brought in everlasting righteousness' (24, 26, 27). Thus Daniel foretold not only the Time at which the Messiah would appear, but also the Duration of his Public Ministry, and his Atoning Death for Human Sin. Some think that God's chronology was suspended at the death of Christ, to remain so while Israel is scattered, and that the last half of the `one week' belongs to the time of the End." (Halley, H.H., 1965, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Halleys-Bible-Handbook-Abbreviated-Commentary/dp/0310257204">Halley's Bible Handbook</a>: An Abbreviated Bible Commentary," [1927], Oliphants: London, Twenty-fourth edition, p.349).</p><p> "<a name="HR1980TWOTp2:899"></a><i><b>shabua`. A period of seven</b>, a week, the Feast of Weeks.</i> 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, <i>shabu'a</i> 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 <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dt%2016:9;&version=31;">Deut 16:9</a> in the spelling of the plural, the central vowel letter-the <i>waw</i>-is omitted (<i>shabu`ot</i>), as it is also at times in the singular (e.g. Gen 29:27, <i>shebua`</i>) where in an unpointed text it would then be spelled identically to seven, <i>sheba'</i>, in the feminine. While in Deut 16:9, discussed above, <i>shabu'a</i> represents a period of seven days, <b>in Dan 9:24,25,26,27 it denotes a period of seven years</b> in each of its appearances in these four verses. <b>This is proven by the context wherein Daniel recognizes that the seventy-year period of captivity is almost over</b>. The land had been fallow for seventy years and thus repaid the Lord the seventy sabbatical years owed to him for the prior seventy periods of seven years (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:2;%20Jer%2025:12;%202Chr%2036:21;&version=31;">Dan 9:2; Jer 25:12; cf. II Chr 36:21</a>!). Just as Daniel is in prayer concerning this matter, the angel Gabriel appears and informs him that <b>Israel's restoration will not be complete until she goes through another seventy periods-of-seven</b>, <i>shabua'</i> (Dan 9:24ff)! Note also the apparent reference in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%2012:11;&version=31;">Dan 12:11</a> to half of Daniel's last seventy (9:27); it is 1290 days, approximately three and a half years. Thus here it means years. <i>shabua`</i> is also used as a technical term in Deut 16:10,16 where it denotes the Feast of Weeks (<i>hag shabu`ot</i>), i.e. the Feast of Seven-Periods." (Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. & Waltke, B.K., eds, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Theological-Wordbook-Old-Testament-2-vol/dp/0802486312">Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament</a>," Moody Press: Chicago IL, 1980, Twelfth Printing, 1992, Vol. II, p.899. Emphasis original).</p> <p>"<a name="JP1987HJp86"></a>Despite Cyrus' support and command, the first return in 538, under Shenazar, son of the former King Jehoiakim, was a failure, for the poor Jews who had been left behind, the <i>am ha-arez</i>, resisted it, and in conjunction with Samaritans, Edomites and Arabs, prevented the settlers building walls. A second effort, with the full backing of Cyrus' son Darius, was made in 520 BC, under an official leader Zeurubbabel, whose authority as a descendant of David was reinforced by his appointment as Persian Governor of Judah. ... Work on the Temple began immediately... . In 458 BC it was reinforced by a third wave, led by Ezra, a priest and scribe of great learning and authority, who tried and failed to sort out the legal problems caused by heterodoxy, intermarriage and disputed ownership of land. <b>Finally, in 445 BC</b>, Ezra was joined by a powerful contingent headed by a leading Jew and prominent Persian official called <b>Nehemiah, who was given the governorship of Judah</b> and the authority to build it into an independent political unit within the empire. This fourth wave at last succeeded in <b>stabilizing the settlement</b>, chiefly because Nehemiah, a man of action as well as a diplomat and statesman, <b>rebuilt with commendable speed the walls of Jerusalem</b> and so created a secure enclave from which <b>the work of resettlement</b> could be directed. .... <b>The rebuilt city</b> was smaller than Solomon's, it was poor and to begin with it was sparsely populated. ... The years <b>400-200 BC are the lost centuries of Jewish</b> <b>history. There were no great events</b> or calamities they chose to record. Perhaps they were happy. The Jews certainly seem to have liked the Persians the best of all their rulers. They never revolted against them; on the contrary, Jewish mercenaries helped the Persians to put down Egyptian rebellion." (Johnson, P., 1987, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/History-Jews-Paul-M-Johnson/dp/0060915331">A History of the Jews</a>," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, pp.86-87).</p> <p>"<a name="KW1995MOTp202"></a>The `seventy `sevens' are usually understood to be `weeks' of years (the word `seven' can also mean `week'; cf. NIV note), but <b>the usual feminine form for `week,' which occurs elsewhere in the OT, is not used here</b>. Moreover, in accordance with the use found elsewhere in this book, <b>what Daniel means by these seventy `heptads' is seventy units of seven years, or `seventy' times `seven' years</b> (i.e., 490 years). These years have been `decreed' by God's predetermined plan for the ages and are now being announced to Daniel in one of the most amazing disclosures into the future to be found in the OT. But note that the `heptads' are for Daniel's people of <i>Israel</i> and for their capital city, <i>Jerusalem</i>." (Kaiser, W.C., Jr., 1995, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Messiah-Old-Testament-Walter-Kaiser/dp/031020030X">The Messiah in the Old Testament</a>," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.202).</p> <p>"<a name="LH1964HSBp1312"></a><b>The <i>terminus a quo</i> for the commencement of these sixty nine weeks of years</b> is stated to be <b>from the going forth of the word (or decree) to restore and build Jerusalem</b> (ver 25). This may refer to the divine decree, or one of three historical edicts: (1) decree of King Cyrus in 538 B.C. (Ezra -4); <b>(2) the order of Artaxerxes to Ezra in 457 B.C. </b>(which apparently involved authority to erect the walls of Jerusalem, cf. Ezra 7.6, 7; 9.9); (3) the order to Nehemiah in 445 B.C. to carry through the rebuilding of the walls (which Ezra had not been able to accomplish). Of these choices, (1) must be ruled out as coming nowhere to the time of Christ's ministry; (3) coming out too late, unless lunar years are used the computation. <b>Only (2) comes out right according to regular solar years, for it yields the result as A.D. 27, or the commencement of Christ's ministry</b>. Ezra and Nehemiah render an account of the rebuilding of Jerusalem in forty-nine years and troublous times. Then follow the sixty-two weeks, after which Messiah was cut off for sin." (Lindsell, H., ed., 1964, "<a href="http://www.amazon.ca/Harper-Study-Bible-NRSV-Harold-Lindsell/dp/0310902037/">Harper Study Bible</a>," Revised Standard Version, Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Nineteenth printing, 1983, pp.1312-1313).</p> <p>"<a name="PE1885p189"></a>The term also corresponds. <i>Unto Messiah the Prince</i>, shall be <i>seven weeks and threescore and two weeks</i> [v.25], i. e. the first 483 years of the period, the last 7 being parted off. <b>But 483 years from the beginning of B.C. 457 were completed at the beginning of 27 A.D. which (since the Nativity was 4 years earlier than our era) would coincide with His Baptism, `being about 30 years of age,' when the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Him manifested Him to be <i>the Anointed with the Holy Ghost, the Christ</i></b>. Further still, <b>the whole period of 70 weeks is divided into three successive periods, 7, 62, 1</b> ... But, in the prophecy of the 70 weeks, the portions also can be traced. The words are; <i>From the going forth of a commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince</i>, shall be <i>seven weeks and threescore and two weeks; street and wall' shall be restored and builded; and in strait of times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off.</i> [vv.25-26] Obviously, unless there had been a meaning in this division, it would have stood, ` shall be <i>threescore and nine weeks</i>,' `not, shall be <i><b>seven weeks</b>, and threescore and two weeks</i>.' For every word in this condensed prophecy has its place and meaning, and <b>the division would be unmeaning, unless something were assigned to this first portion. The text does assign it. It says, <i>the street shall be restored and be builded; and that, in troublous times</i></b>. <b>The books of Ezra and Nehemiah give the explanation. Ezra came to Jerusalem, B.C. 457</b>; he labored in restoring the Jewish polity, within and without, for 13 years before <b>Nehemiah was sent by Artaxerxes, B.C. 444</b>. [Neh 2:1ff] ... <b>We have any how for the period of the two great restorers of the Jewish polity, Ezra and Nehemiah conjointly, a time somewhat exceeding 45 years; so that we know that the restoration was completed in the latter part of the 7th week of years</b>, and it is probable that it was not closed until the end of it. In regard to <i>the strait of times</i>, amid which this restoration was to take place, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are the commentary. Up to the completion of the walls, there was one succession of vexations on the part of the enemies of the Jews." (Pusey, E.B., 1885, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Prophet-Lectures-Delivered-Divinity-University/dp/B001GIK2VC/">Daniel the Prophet</a>: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford. With Copious Notes." Funk & Wagnalls: New York NY, pp.189-191).</p> <p>"<a name="SJ1993WBTAPMp386"></a>Most likely <b>it was Ezra the Scribe who issued the word to restore and to build Jerusalem in the spring of 457 B.C.</b> .... This is the <i>terminus a quo</i> of the passage. Counting from that date seven sevens and sixty two sevens of years would elapse before the appearance of Messiah-Prince. Seven sevens of years are equal to 49 years; sixty-two sevens is equal to 434 years. ... <b>Subtracting 483 years from the starting point of 457 B.C. the year A.D. 27 is reached</b>. In the modern system of counting years there is no year zero. Hence the year A.D. 27 must be reduced by one for chronological accuracy. <b>According to Daniel, Messiah-Prince would appear in A.D. 26. It is surely more than a coincidence that the baptism of Jesus occurred in A.D. 26</b>.[Finegan (HBC, pp. 259-69) dates the baptism of Jesus to November, A.D. 26.] At that time John introduced him to the nation as their Messiah, the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world." (Smith, J.E. , 1993, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Teaches-About-Promised-Messiah/dp/0840742398">What the Bible Teaches About the Promised Messiah</a>: An In-depth Study of 73 Key Old Testament Prophesies About the Messiah," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.386).</p> <p>"<a name="SJ1993WBTAPMp390"></a><i>Traditional Interpretation.</i> This view is represented by E. B. Pusey, <i>Daniel the Prophet</i>, an excellent commentary which has been reprinted in the Barnes Notes series. Pusey <b>starts counting the seventy sevens from 458 B.C., the decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra. The first forty-nine years, which include the work of Nehemiah, terminate in 409 B.C. The anointed one is Christ who was baptized in A.D. 26</b> and immediately thereafter began his Messianic ministry. He was cut off by his death on the cross. <b>The prince who is to come in judgment on Jerusalem is</b> Christ or <b>Titus</b> who acts as an agent for Christ. The covenant to be made firm is Christ's new testament. <b>The Old Testament sacrificial system ended in the midst of the seventieth week when Christ died on the cross (A.D. 30)</b>. <b>The seventieth seven ends with the stoning of Stephen</b>, Jewish rejection of the New Testament, and the call of Paul (<b>A.D. 33</b>)." (Smith, 1993, p.390).</p> <p>"<a name="YE1972CDp195"></a>[Dn 9:24]. ... <i>Seventy sevens</i>]-lit., sevens seventy. the word <i>sevens</i>-usually translated <i>weeks</i>-is placed first for the sake of emphasis. It constitutes the great theme of the passage. For the same reason, the numeral here follows the noun, and does not precede it, as is usually the case. The thought of the author may then be paraphrased, `Sevens--and in fact seventy of them are decreed, etc.' <b>The word <i>sevens</i> here occurs in the m.pl. [masculine plural], whereas it generally has a f.pl. [feminine plural]</b> ... What led Dan. to employ the m. [masculine] instead of the f. [feminine] however, is not clear <b>unless it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word <i>sevens</i> is employed in an unusual sense</b>. .... It seems obvious that <b>ordinary weeks of 7 days are not intended</b>." (Young, E.J., 1972, "<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/commentary-Daniel-Edward-Joseph-Young/dp/B000WGS8PQ/">A Commentary on Daniel</a>," [1949], Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, British edition, Reprinted, 1978, pp.195-196).</p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-59811373962167030922008-10-17T22:30:00.006+08:002011-10-25T07:41:11.987+08:00Re: Fred Hoyle about the 747, the tornado and the junkyard<p>AN</p> <p>Thanks for your message. As is my usual policy when I receive a private message on evolution, I will answer it via my blog, </p><a href="http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/today-in-the-sky/airlines/boeing/everettx-large.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px;" src="http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/today-in-the-sky/airlines/boeing/everettx-large.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /> <p>[<a href="http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/today-in-the-sky/airlines/boeing/everettx-large.jpg">Above</a>: <a href="http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2011/02/photos-behind-the-scenes-at-the-boeing-factory/144670/1">Boeing 747 assembly at Everett, near Seattle</a>: USA Today]</p> <p><a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/">CreationEvolutionDesign</a>, minus your personal identifying information. Your words are <b>bold </b>to distinguish them from my comments.</p> <p>----- Original Message ----- <br>From: AN<br>To: Stephen E. Jones <br>Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 3:42 AM<br>Subject: RE: origin of life #2- a question<br><br><b>>... </b><b>My question concerns the famous statement of Sir Fred Hoyle about the 747, the tornado, and the junkyard. I have the page from your site with the exact quote from "The Intelligent Universe".</b> </p> <p>Here is the relevant part of that quote by Hoyle:<blockquote>"If you stir up simple nonorganic molecules like water, ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide and hydrogen cyanide with almost any form of intense energy ... some of the molecules reassemble themselves into amino acids ... demonstrated ... by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment">Stanley Miller and Harold Urey</a>. The ... building blocks of proteins can therefore be produced by natural means. But this is far from proving that life could have evolved in this way. <i>No one has shown that the correct arrangements of amino acids</i>, like the orderings in enzymes, can be produced by this method. .... A junkyard <i>contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747</i>, dismembered and in disarray. <i>A whirlwind</i> happens to blow through the yard. <i>What is the chance</i> that after its passage <i>a fully assembled 747</i>, ready to fly, will be found standing there? <i>So small as to be negligible</i>, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe." (Hoyle, F., "<a href="#HF1983IUp18">The Intelligent Universe</a>," Michael Joseph: London, 1983, pp.18-19).</blockquote></p> <p>The first instance that I am aware of Hoyle's use of that metaphor was reported in the science journal <i>Nature</i> in 1981:<blockquote>"Hoyle said last week that ... the <i>origin of life</i> ... the <i>information content</i> of the higher forms of life is represented by the number 10<sup>40 000</sup> - representing the specificity with which some 2,000 genes, each of which might be chosen from 10<sup>20</sup> nucleotide sequences of the appropriate length .... The <i>chance</i> that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that `<i>a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'</i>. " (Hoyle, F., in "Hoyle on evolution," <i>Nature</i>, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p.105).</blockquote></p> <p>The above quote is a bit confusing because it conflates "the origin of life" with "the higher forms of life." </p> <p>This conflation originates with Hoyle, because his 1 in "10<sup>40 000</sup>" chance of "2,000 genes" of "10<sup>20</sup> nucleotide ... length" arising spontaneously refers to the "about <i>two thousand</i>" "enzymes ... <i>across the whole of biology</i>" and "the <i>chance of obtaining them all</i> in a random trial" in an "organic soup":<blockquote>"... enzymes are a large class of molecule that for the most part runs across the whole of biology, without there being any hint of their mode of origin. ... Enzymes are polypeptides (proteins) .... their function. ... is determined by the particular sequence of amino acids in the polypeptide structure. .. There are ... twenty distinct amino acids ... and these simply <i>must be in the correct position in the polypeptide structure</i>. ... The chance of obtaining a suitable backbone can hardly be greater than <i>one part in 10<sup>15</sup></i>, and the chance of obtaining the appropriate active site can hardly be greater than <i>one part in 10<sup>5</sup></i>. .... The two small probabilities ...have to be multiplied, when they yield a<i> chance of one part in 10<sup>20</sup> of obtaining the required enzyme</i> in a functioning form. .... there are about <i>two thousand enzymes</i>, and the <i>chance of obtaining them all</i> in a random trial is only one part in (10<sup>20</sup>)<sup>2000</sup> = 10<sup>40,000</sup>, an outrageously small probability .... this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court." (Hoyle & Wickramasinghe, "<a href="#H&W1981EFSp19">Evolution from Space</a>," 1981, pp.19-21).</blockquote></p> <p>But Hoyle is right in requiring an explanation of where <i>all</i> the enzymes or proteins that exist "across the whole of biology" came from, given that the probability of even <i>one</i> small enzyme/protein of 100 amino acids arranged in a necessarily specific sequence would be 20<sup>100</sup> = ~10<sup>130</sup>, when there are ~10<sup>80</sup> protons in the entire universe:<blockquote>"... for a relatively <i>small protein of 100 amino acids</i>, selection of this correct sequence had to be made by chance from <i>10<sup>130</sup> alternative choices</i>. ... The <i>probability of such a chance occurrence</i> leading to the formation of one of the smallest protein molecules <i>is unimaginably small</i>. Within the boundary conditions of time and space which we are considering, <i>it is effectively zero</i>." (Brooks, "<a href="#BJOL1985p84">Origins of Life</a>," 1985, pp.84-85).<br> <br>".. why the <i>random self-assembly of proteins</i> seems a non-starter. .... <i>Proteins ... are very specific amino acid sequences</i> ... the <i>number of alternative permutations ... of amino acids is super-astronomical</i>. A small protein may typically contain <i>100 amino acids of 20 varieties</i>. There are <i>about 10<sup>130</sup> ... different arrangements</i> of the amino acids in a molecule of this length. .... Getting a useful configuration of amino acids from the <i>squillions of useless combinations</i> ... [would be] like trying to track down a site on the internet without a search engine." (Davies, "<a href="#DPFM1998p61">The Fifth Miracle</a>," 1998, p.61).<br> <br> "... <i>the entire mass of the universe</i>, expressed as a multiple of the mass of the hydrogen atom, <i>amounts to about 10<sup>80</sup> units</i>. ... Even <i>the smallest</i> catalytically active protein molecules of the living cell <i>consist of at least a hundred amino acid residues</i>, and they thus already possess <i>more than 10<sup>130</sup> sequence alternatives</i> ... ... a primitive organism has about the same chance of arising by pure chance ... as a general textbook of biochemistry has of arising by the random mixing of a sufficient number of letters." (Kuppers, "<a href="#KBIOL1986p60">Information and the Origin of Life</a>," 1986, p.60).</blockquote></p> <p> But minimal cell experiments have shown that the <i>simplest</i> (albeit parasitic) living organism requires "between <i>250 and 350 different proteins</i> to carry out <i>its most basic operations</i>" but "this bare form of life <i>cannot survive</i> long without a source of sugars, nucleotides, amino acids, and fatty acids":<blockquote>"Theoretical and experimental studies designed to discover the <i>bare minimum number of gene products</i> [proteins and RNAs] necessary for life all show significant agreement. Life seems to <i>require between 250 and 350 different proteins to carry out its most basic operations</i>. That this bare form of life <i>cannot survive long without a source of sugars, nucleotides, amino acids, and fatty acids</i> is worth noting." (Rana, F.R. & Ross, H.N., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Life-Biblical-Evolutionary-Models/dp/1576833445">Origins of Life: Biblical And Evolutionary Models Face Off</a>," Navpress: Colorado Springs CO, 2004, pp.162-163).</blockquote></p> <p> Between "<i>250 and 350 different proteins</i>" is bad enough for a spontaneous naturalistic origin of life, but the "microbial database" shows that the "smallest known genomes and capable of living <i>independently</i> in the environment ... requires a <i>minimum genome size of about 1,500 to 1,900 gene products</i>": <blockquote> "<i>Genome Size</i> ... The data indicate that the microbes possessing the smallest known genomes ... seems to suggest that, <i>to exist independently, life requires a minimum genome size of about 1,500 to 1,900 gene products</i>. ... all microbial genomes that fall below 1,500 belong to parasites." (Rana & Ross, <a href="#R&ROL2004p161">Ibid</a>, 2004, pp.161-162). </blockquote></p> <p> The late <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/k8pm7327603hh7u3/">Prof. Colin Patterson</a> acknowledged that:<blockquote>"the ... free-living bacterium, <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanococcus_jannaschii">Methanococcus</a></i>, which has 1.7 million base-pairs and about <i>1700 genes</i>, [is] perhaps <i>close to the minimum necessary for independent life</i>." (Patterson, "<a href="#PCE1999p23">Evolution</a>,"1999, p.23).</blockquote></p> <p> <b>>In Dawkins book (God Delusion) on Pg. 117, he mentions this statement of Hoyle's and implies that it was referring to natural selection and evolution. </b></p> <p>Here is the relevant part of that quote by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins">Richard Dawkins</a>:<blockquote>"Fred Hoyle was a brilliant physicist and cosmologist, but <i>his Boeing 747 misunderstanding</i>, and other mistakes in biology ... suggest that he needed to have his consciousness raised by some good exposure to the world of natural selection. <i>At an intellectual level, I suppose he understood natural selection</i>. But perhaps <i>you need to be steeped in natural selection</i>, immersed in it, swim about in it, <i>before you can truly appreciate its power</i>." (Dawkins, R., "<a href="#DR2006GDp117">The God Delusion</a>," Bantam Press: London, 2006, p.117).</blockquote></p> <p> This is Dawkins at his deceptive best (or worst). Dawkins <i>had not shown</i> that it was Hoyle's "Boeing 747 <i>misunderstanding</i>," nor that it had anything to do with "natural selection" (see below). And Dawkins admits of Hoyle that "At an <i>intellectual level</i> ... he <i>understood</i> natural selection" but one "need[s] to be <i>steeped in natural selection</i>" to "truly appreciate its power." Hoyle would no doubt respond that Dawkins has so "steeped" himself "in natural selection" that he cannot "truly appreciate" natural selection's <i>lack</i> of "power"! </p> <p> In fact Hoyle, being a mathematician, <i>completely re-worked out from scratch</i> the fundamental mathematics of Neo-Darwinism and found that "the Darwinian theory ... does not work at broader taxonomic levels; it cannot explain the major steps in evolution":<blockquote>"As it became clear that the Darwinian theory could not be broadly correct, a question still remained, however, for I found it difficult to accept that the theory could be wholly incorrect. ... The issue was a mathematical one ... .... Eventually therefore, I decided to tackle this mathematics myself working <i>de novo</i> ... Although my results were all arrived at independently, some-perhaps most-have been obtained before. Their arrangement, however, is I believe original. ... And the outcome of this essay? Well as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small but not in the large. ... the theory works at the level of varieties and species ... the theory does not work at broader taxonomic levels; it cannot explain the major steps in evolution." (Hoyle, F., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Evolution-Fred-Hoyle/dp/0966993403">Mathematics of Evolution</a>," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.5-6, 10).</blockquote></p> <p> <b>>It seemed clear to me that Hoyle was referring to origin of the first living organism, </b></p> <p>Yes. Earlier in his book Dawkins cites "Hoyle's ... image of the Boeing 747 and the scrapyard" as referring to "the probability of<i> life originating on Earth</i>": <blockquote>"The name comes from Fred Hoyle's amusing image of the Boeing 747 and the scrapyard. ... <i>Hoyle said that the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747</i>. ... This, in a nutshell, is the creationist's favourite argument - an argument that could be made only by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing about natural selection ..." (Dawkins, 2006, <a href="#DR2006GDp113">Ibid</a>, p.113).</blockquote></p> <p>Note Dawkins' self-contradiction, that Hoyle, "doesn't <i>understand</i> the first thing about natural selection," yet four pages later Hoyle, "At an intellectual level ... <i>understood</i> natural selection"!</p> <p><b>>and Dawkins is clearly misleading his readers to blunt what he knows is a devastating attack on a "naturalistic" origin of life.</b> </p> <p>Agreed. But Dawkins forgets that as he once admitted, that in:<blockquote> "... the problem of <i>how life originated</i> on Earth. .... we cannot escape the need to postulate <i>a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself ... </i>cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some <i>minimal machinery of replication</i> and replicator power, and <i>the only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence</i> by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection!." (Dawkins, "<a href="#DRBW1986p139">The Blind Watchmaker</a>," 1986, pp.139-141)</blockquote></p> <p>Dawkins then answered his own question:<blockquote>"... how much luck are we allowed to assume in a theory of the origin of life on Earth? ... when <i>both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence</i>. We can allow ourselves ...such an extravagant theory ... provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet <i>do not exceed 100 billion billion to one</i>." (Dawkins, <a href="#DRBW1986p143">Ibid</a>, 1986, pp.143,146).</blockquote></p> <p>But unfortunately for Dawkins, "1 in 100 billion billion" is only 1 in 10<sup>20</sup> (i.e. 10<sup>2</sup>*10<sup>9</sup>*10<sup>9</sup> = 10<sup>2+9+9</sup>). That is not enough for the chance assembly of a specific chain of <i>15</i> (20<sup>15</sup> = ~10<sup>19.5</sup>) amino acids, i.e. not even enough for <i>one</i> protein!</p> <p><b>>Dawkins by his own admission understands that all origin of life theories are nothing more than speculation. Do you think I understood it correctly?</b></p> <p>I cannot see where in the quote you refer to from page 117 of his "The God Delusion," that Dawkins admits that "all origin of life theories are nothing more than speculation." However, elsewhere in his writings Dawkins effectively does admit that:<blockquote>"The <i>account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative</i>; by definition, nobody was around to see what happened." (Dawkins, "<a href="#DRSG1989p14">The Selfish Gene</a>," 1989, pp.14-15).<br> <br>"So, <i>can we come up with any speculations</i> about relatively probable ways in which cumulative selection might have got its start? .... <i>We can hope for nothing more than speculation</i> when the events we are talking about took place four billion years ago ... in a world that must have been radically different from that which we know today." (Dawkins, <a href="#DRBW1986p147">Ibid</a>, 1986, p.147).<br> <br>"But <i>how did the whole process start?</i> .... Most, though not all, of <i>the informed speculation begins in what has been called the primeval soup</i> .... <i>Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow</i> ... a molecule arose that <i>just happened</i> to have the property of self-copying...." (Dawkins, "<a href="#DRCMI1996p259">Climbing Mount Improbable</a>," 1996, p.259).<br> <br>"Life may be common in the universe, but <i>we are also at liberty to speculate</i> that it is exceedingly rare. It therefore follows that the kind of event we are seeking, <i>when we speculate about the origin of life</i>, could be a very very improbable event ... <i>my intuition</i> is still that the arising of life on a planet is not all that unexpected an event" (Dawkins, <a href="#DRCMI1996p261">Ibid</a>, 1996, p.261).</blockquote></p> <p>><b>I did not see this particular quote on your site, but it's cute so I'm sending it to you. In an article found on American Scientist Online </b>["<a href="http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-beginnings-of-life-on-earth/1">The Beginnings of Life on Earth</a>"] <b>Nobel Prize winner Dr. Christian DeDuve writes "how this momentous event [origin of life] happened is still highly conjectural, though no longer purely speculative.."<br>><br>>I found the statement to be slightly confusing so I looked up "conjecture" on WordNet, an online dictionary and found the following: noun: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculation (syn-speculation) verb: to believe on uncertain or tentative grounds (syn.- speculate)<br></b>><b> <br></b>><b>I guess what he really meant was that it's highly speculative, though no longer purely conjectural.</b></p> <p> Thanks for the link. My take is that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_de_Duve">Christian de Duve</a>, like Dawkins, is another dogmatic materialist extremist. So what is <i>not</i> "speculative" to him is that the origin of life <i>must</i> have been materialistic and naturalistic. What <i>is</i> "conjectural" to De Duve is <i>which</i> particular "spontaneously by natural processes" <i>way</i> it happened. This is evident in de Duve's dogmatic requirement that "life arose spontaneously <i>by natural processes</i>" is "a <i>necessary</i> assumption "and "Any <i>hint of teleology must be avoided</i>": <blockquote>"... <i>life arose spontaneously by natural processes-a necessary assumption if we wish to remain within the realm of science</i> .... An important rule in this exercise is to reconstruct the earliest events in life's history <i>without assuming they proceeded with the benefit of foresight</i>. .... Each must stand on its own and <i>cannot be viewed as a preparation for things to come</i>. <i>Any hint of teleology must be avoided</i>." (de Duve, "<a href="#DDBLE1995p428">The Beginnings of Life on Earth</a>," 1995, p.428) </blockquote></p> <p>In other words, de Duve and his materialistic-naturalistic ilk would rather believe a <i>false</i> explanation of the origin of life that avoided "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology">teleology</a>," than a <i>true </i>explanation that "proceeded with the benefit of foresight" by God!</p> <p>[...]</p> <p><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology). <br>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">TheShroudofTurin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a> </p> <p> <hr> </p> <p>"<a name="BJOL1985p84"></a>This generalized proposition-that processes of chance and natural law led to living organisms emerging on Earth from the relatively simple organic molecules in 'primordial soups'-is valid only if there is a finite probability of the correct assembly of molecules occurring within the time-scale envisaged. Here there is another great problem. In the above example <b>for a relatively small protein of 100 amino acids, selection of this correct sequence had to be made by chance from 10<sup>130</sup> alternative choices</b>. The operation of pure chance would mean that within a maximum of about 500 million years (or somewhat less), the organic molecules in the 'primordial soup' might have to undergo 10<sup>130</sup> trial assemblies to hit on the correct sequence. <b>The probability of such a chance occurrence leading to the formation of one of the smallest protein molecules is unimaginably small. Within the boundary conditions of time and space which we are considering, it is effectively zero</b>." (Brooks, J., "<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Origins-Life-Jim-Brooks/dp/0867606282/">Origins of Life</a>," Lion: Tring, Hertfordshire UK, 1985, pp.84-85).</p> <p>"<a name="DPFM1998p61"></a>There is a more fundamental reason <b>why the random self-assembly of proteins seems a non-starter</b>. This has to do not with the formation of the chemical bonds as such, but with the particular order in which the amino acids link together. <b>Proteins do not consist of any old peptide chains; they are very specific amino acid sequences</b> that have specialized chemical properties needed for life. However, the number of alternative permutations available to a mixture of amino acids is super-astronomical. <b>A small protein may typically contain 100 amino acids of 20 varieties. There are about 10<sup>130</sup> (which is I followed by a 130 zeros) different arrangements of the amino acids in a molecule of this length</b>. Hitting the right one by accident would be no mean feat. <b>Getting a useful configuration of amino acids from the squillions of useless combinations</b> on offer can be thought of as <b>a mammoth information retrieval problem, like trying to track down a site on the internet without a search engine</b>." (Davies, P.C.W., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/FIFTH-MIRACLE-Search-Origin-Meaning/dp/068486309X">The Fifth Miracle</a>: The Search for the Origin of Life," Penguin: Ringwood Vic, Australia, 1998, p.61).</p> <p>"<a name="DRSG1989p14"></a><b>The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative</b>; by definition, nobody was around to see what happened. ... The simplified account I shall give is probably not too far from the truth. We do not know what chemical raw materials were abundant on earth before the coming of life, but among the plausible possibilities are water, carbon dioxide, methane, and ammonia ... Chemists have tried to imitate the chemical conditions of the young earth. They have put these simple substances in a flask and supplied a source of energy such as ultraviolet light or electric sparks-artificial simulation of primordial lightning. After a few weeks of this, something interesting is usually found inside the flask: a weak brown soup containing a large number of molecules more complex than the ones originally put in. In particular, amino acids have been found-the building blocks of proteins ... More recently, laboratory simulations of the chemical conditions of earth before the coming of life have yielded organic substances called purines and pyrimidines. These are building blocks of the genetic molecule, DNA itself. Processes analogous to these must have given rise to the 'primeval soup' which biologists and chemists believe constituted the seas some three to four thousand million years ago. The organic substances became locally concentrated, perhaps in drying scum round the shores, or in tiny suspended droplets. Under the further influence of energy such as ultraviolet light from the sun, they combined into larger molecules. ... At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the <i>Replicator</i>. It ... had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself." (Dawkins, R., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0192860925">The Selfish Gene</a>," [1976], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, New edition, 1989, pp.14-15. Emphasis original).</p> <p>"<a name="DRBW1986p139"></a>This example is <b>the problem of how life originated on Earth</b>. .... <b>Cumulative selection</b> is the key to all our modern explanations of life. ... but it <b>had to get started, and we cannot escape the need to postulate a <i>single-step</i> chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself</b>. ... 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. ... So, cumulative selection can manufacture complexity while single-step selection cannot. But <b>cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication</b> and replicator power, and <b>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</b>!." (Dawkins, R., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703">The Blind Watchmaker</a>: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, pp.139-141).</p> <p> "<a name="DRBW1986p143"></a>Our question was, <b>how much luck are we allowed to assume in a theory of the origin of life on Earth?</b> ... . Therefore we have at our disposal, if we want to use it, <b>odds of 1 in 100 billion billion</b> <b>as an upper limit</b> (or 1 in however many available planets we think there are) to spend in our theory of the origin of life. <b>This is the maximum amount of luck we are allowed to postulate</b> in our theory. Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began <b>when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence</b>. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet <b>do not exceed 100 billion billion to one</b>." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.143,146) .</p> <p>"<a name="DRBW1986p147"></a>If the theory that DNA and its copying machinery arose spontaneously is so improbable that it obliges us to assume that life is very rare in the universe, and may even be unique to Earth, our first resort is to try to find a more probable theory. So, <b>can we come up with any speculations about relatively probable ways in which cumulative selection might have got its start?</b> The word 'speculate' has pejorative overtones, but these are quite uncalled for here. <b>We can hope for nothing more than speculation when the events we are talking about took place four billion years ago</b> and took place, moreover, in a world that must have been radically different from that which we know today." (Dawkins, 1986, p.147).</p> <p> "<a name="DRCMI1996p259"></a>But <b>how did the whole process start?</b> To answer that, we have to go back a very long time, more than 3,000 million years, probably as long as 4,000 million years. In those days the world was very different. There was no life, no biology, only physics and chemistry, and the details of the Earth's chemistry were very different. Most, though not all, of <b>the informed speculation begins in what has been called the primeval soup</b>, a weak broth of simple organic chemicals in the sea. <b>Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow</b>, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, <b>a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying</b> - a replicator." (Dawkins, R., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Climbing-Mount-Improbable-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0393316823">Climbing Mount Improbable</a>," Penguin: London, 1996, p.259).</p><p>"<a name="DRCMI1996p261"></a>Life may be common in the universe, but <b>we are also at liberty to speculate</b> that it is exceedingly rare. It therefore follows that the kind of event we are seeking, <b>when we speculate about the origin of life</b>, could be a very very improbable event: not the kind of event that we can expect to duplicate in the laboratory and not the kind of event that a chemist will deem `plausible'. This is an interesting paradox ...We could be actively seeking a theory with the specific property that, when we find it, we shall judge it highly implausible! Looking at the matter in one way, we might even be positively worried if a chemist manages to support a theory of the origin of life which, using ordinary standards of probability, we judge to be plausible. On the other hand life seems to have arisen during the first half billion of the Earth's 4.5 billion years; we've been here for eight parts in nine of the Earth's age and <b>my intuition</b> is still that the arising of life on a planet is not all that unexpected an event." (Dawkins, 1996, p.261).</p> <p>"<a name="DR2006GDp113"></a>The name comes from <b>Fred Hoyle's amusing image of the Boeing 747 and the scrapyard</b>. I am not sure whether Hoyle ever wrote it down himself, but it was attributed to him by his close colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe and is presumably authentic. <b>Hoyle said that the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747</b>. Others have borrowed the metaphor to refer to the later evolution of complex living bodies, where it has a spurious plausibility. The odds against assembling a fully functioning horse, beetle or ostrich by randomly shuffling its parts are up there in 747 territory. <b>This, in a nutshell, is the creationist's favourite argument - an argument that could be made only by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing about natural selection</b>: somebody who thinks natural selection is a theory of chance whereas - in the relevant sense of chance - it is the opposite." (Dawkins, R., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004">The God Delusion</a>," Bantam Press: London, 2006, p.113).</p> <p>"<a name="DR2006GDp117"></a>It is surprising how necessary such consciousness-raising is, even in the minds of excellent scientists in fields other than biology. <b>Fred Hoyle was a brilliant physicist and cosmologist, but his Boeing 747 misunderstanding</b>, and other mistakes in biology such as his attempt to dismiss the fossil <i>Archaeopteryx</i> as a hoax, <b>suggest that he needed to have his consciousness raised by some good exposure to the world of natural selection</b>. At an intellectual level, I suppose <b>he understood natural selection</b>. But perhaps <b>you need to be steeped in natural selection, immersed in it, swim about in it, before you can truly appreciate its power</b>." (Dawkins, 2006, p.117).</p> <p>"<a name="DDBLE1995p428"></a><b>It is now generally agreed that if life arose spontaneously by natural processes-a necessary assumption if we wish to remain within the realm of science</b>-it must have arisen fairly quickly, more in a matter of millennia or centuries, perhaps even less, than in millions of years. Even if life came from elsewhere, we would still have to account for its first development. Thus we might as well assume that life started on earth. <b>How this momentous event happened is still highly conjectural, though no longer purely speculative</b>. The clues come from the earth, from outer space, from laboratory experiments, and, especially, from life itself. The history of life on earth is written in the cells and molecules of existing organisms. Thanks to the advances of cell biology, biochemistry and molecular biology, scientists are becoming increasingly adept at reading the text. <b>An important rule in this exercise is to reconstruct the earliest events in life's history without assuming they proceeded with the benefit of foresight</b>. Every step must be accounted for in terms of antecedent and concomitant events. <b>Each must stand on its own and cannot be viewed as a preparation for things to come</b>. <b>Any hint of teleology must be avoided</b>." (de Duve, C., "<a href="http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-beginnings-of-life-on-earth/1">The Beginnings of Life on Earth</a>," <i>American Scientist</i>, Vol. 83, September-October 1995, pp.428-437).</p> <p>"Hoyle said last week that, although content in the mid-1960s to give the supposed connection between the microwave background radiation and the big bang a `good run for its money' he had now lost patience with this approach. Two of his reasons involve <b>the origin of life-the calculated time since the origin of the Universe of 10,000 million years or so is not enough to account for the evolution of living forms</b>, while adiabatic expansion of the Universe would have been inimical to the evolution of highly ordered forms. But Hoyle also said that new evidence in support of the big-bang hypothesis was emerging only slowly. Yet `when people are on the right track, new facts emerge quickly', Hoyle said he would change his view if it turned out that neutrinos have a mass of between 20 and 30 electron volts. The essence of his argument last week was that <b>the information content of the higher forms of life is represented by the number 10<sup>40 000</sup> - representing the specificity with which some 2,000 genes, each of which might be chosen from 10<sup>20</sup> nucleotide sequences of the appropriate length, might be defined. Evolutionary processes would, Hoyle said, require several Hubble times to yield such a result. The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that `a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'.</b> Hoyle acknowledged that steady-state theories of cosmologies, of which he was one of the chief exponents in the 1950s, are not now tenable because of the evidence for evolutionary galactic and stellar processes. But the big-bang view is similarly not tenable because of the way in which it implies the degradation of information. <b>Of adherents of biological evolution, Hoyle said he was at a loss to understand `biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious'</b>. (Hoyle, F., in "Hoyle on evolution," <i>Nature</i>, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p.105).</p> <p>"<a name="HF1983IUp18"></a><b>The popular idea that life could have arisen spontaneously on Earth</b> dates back to experiments that caught the public imagination earlier this century. If you stir up simple nonorganic molecules like water, ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide and hydrogen cyanide with almost any form of intense energy, ultraviolet light for instance, some of the molecules reassemble themselves into amino acids, a result demonstrated about thirty years ago by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. <b>The amino acids, the individual building blocks of proteins can therefore be produced by natural means. But this is far from proving that life could have evolved in this way. No one has shown that the correct arrangements of amino acids, like the orderings in enzymes, can be produced by this method</b>. No evidence for this huge jump in complexity has ever been found, nor in my opinion will it be. Nevertheless, many scientists have made this leap-from the formation of individual amino acids to the random formation of whole chains of amino acids like enzymes-in spite of the obviously huge odds against such an event having ever taken place on the Earth, and this quite unjustified conclusion has stuck. In a popular lecture I once unflatteringly described the thinking of these scientists as a `junkyard mentality'. As this reference became widely and not quite accurately quoted I will repeat it here. <b>A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe</b>." (Hoyle, F., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Universe-View-Creation-Evolution/dp/B000QRXT6Y/">The Intelligent Universe</a>," Michael Joseph: London, 1983, pp.18-19). </p> <p>"<a name="H&W1981EFSp19"></a>In particular, the <b>enzymes are a large class of molecule that for the most part runs across the whole of biology</b>, without there being any hint of their mode of origin. <b>There are about two thousand of them</b>. Enzymes are polypeptides (proteins) that specialize in speeding up biological reactions, which they do with far greater efficiency than man-made catalysts. They act both to build up and to break down a wide range of biosubstances. <b>The surface shapes of enzymes are critical to their function</b>. ... <b>Surface shape is determined by the particular sequence of amino acids in the polypeptide structure</b>. One can think of getting the surface shape right in two stages of approximation. There are some ten to <b>twenty distinct amino acids which determine the basic backbone of the enzyme</b> and <b>these simply must be in the correct position in the polypeptide structure</b>. The rest of the amino acids, usually numbering a hundred or more, then control the finer details of the surface shape. There are also the active sites that eventually promote the biochemical reactions in question, and <b>these too must be correct in their atomic forms and locations</b>. Consider now <b>the chance that in a random ordering of the twenty different amino acids </b>which make up the polypeptides it just happens that the different kinds fall into the order appropriate to a particular enzyme. <b>The chance of obtaining a suitable backbone can hardly be greater than one part in 10<sup>15</sup></b>, and <b>the chance of obtaining the appropriate active site can hardly be greater than one part in 10<sup>5</sup></b>. Because the fine details of the surface shape can be varied we shall take the conservative line of not 'piling on the agony' by including any further small probability for the rest of the enzyme. The two small probabilities we are including are quite enough. <b>They have to be multiplied, when they yield a chance of one part in 10<sup>20</sup> of obtaining the required enzyme in a functioning form</b>. By itself, this small probability could be faced, because one must contemplate not just a single shot at obtaining the enzyme, but a very large number of trials such as are supposed to have occurred in an organic soup early in the history of the Earth. The trouble is that <b>there are about two thousand enzymes</b>, and <b>the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10<sup>20</sup>)<sup>2000</sup> = 10<sup>40,000</sup></b>, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that <b>life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court</b>." (Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinghe, N.C., <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Space-Paladin-Paperback-Books/dp/0586084215">"Evolution from Space</a>," Paladin: London, 1981, Reprinted, 1983, pp.19-21).</p> <p>"<a name="H&WOPC1993p151"></a>In this way, <b>amino acids can become linked together into long chains, named polypeptides or proteins</b>. <b>A chain of 100 links would be considered rather short</b> in biology. Yet <b>with 20 possible choices for R at each link, the total number of chains with 100 links is 20<sup>100</sup>, or 10<sup>130</sup></b>, to the nearest order of magnitude. The longest protein chains run to about 2000 links, for which the number of possibilities is 20<sup>2000</sup>, or about l0<sup>2600</sup>, truly a big number. Journalists like to use the phrase `astronomical numbers' for what they considered to be immensely large, but <b>these numbers are 'super-astronomical'</b> in their largeness. Big numbers in astronomy usually have about 40 zeros, as have those in physics. Even the ratio of the largest distances in astronomy to the smallest lengths in physics has only about 60 zeros." (Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinghe, N.C., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Our-Place-Cosmos-Unfinished-Revolution/dp/1857994337/">Our Place in the Cosmos</a>: The Unfinished Revolution," Phoenix: London, 1993, Reprinted, 1996, pp.151-152).</p> <p>"<a name="KBIOL1986p60"></a>Even in the simple case of a bacterium, the genome consists of some 4 x 10<sup>6</sup> nucleotides, and the number of combinatorially possible sequences is 4<sup>4</sup> million = 10<sup>2.4</sup> million The expectation probability for the nucleotide sequence of a bacterium is thus so slight that not even the entire space of the universe would be enough to make the random synthesis of a bacterial genome probable. For example, <b>the entire mass of the universe, expressed as a multiple of the mass of the hydrogen atom, amounts to about 10<sup>80</sup> units</b>. Even if all the matter in space consisted of DNA molecules of the structural complexity of the bacterial genome, with random sequences, then the chances of finding among them a bacterial genome or something resembling one would still be completely negligible. It can naturally be objected that our statistical arguments are based upon the assumption of an entity with the complexity of a bacterial genome, while the historical process of the origin of life possibly took place by way of simpler forms of life. However, an appropriate analysis, based on probability theory, shows that not even an optimised enzyme molecule can arise in a random synthesis. Even <b>the smallest catalytically active protein molecules of the living cell consist of at least a hundred amino acid residues, and they thus already possess more than 10<sup>130</sup> sequence alternatives</b> ... These striking numerical examples allow us to conclude with Monod that the design of <b>a primitive organism has about the same chance of arising by pure chance, in a molecular roulette, as a general textbook of biochemistry has of arising by the random mixing of a sufficient number of letters</b>." (Kuppers, B-O., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Information-Origin-Life-Bernd-Olaf-Küppers/dp/026211142X">Information and the Origin of Life</a>," MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1986, Reprinted, 1990, p.60).</p> <p>"<a name="PCE1999p23"></a>In July 1995 the entire DNA sequence of the bacterium <i>Haemophilus influenzae</i>, 1.8 million base-pairs, was elucidated, followed three months later by the sequence of a second parasitic bacterium. In April 1996 the complete sequence (12 million base-pairs) of yeast was announced, and in August 1996 the first complete sequence of <b>a free-living bacterium, <i>Methanococcus</i>, which has 1.7 million base-pairs and about 1700 genes, perhaps close to the minimum necessary for independent life</b>." (Patterson, C., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Comstock-Book-Colin-Patterson/dp/0801485940">Evolution</a>," [1978], Cornell University Press: Ithaca NY, Second edition, 1999, p.23).</p> <p> "<a name="R&ROL2004p161"></a><i>Genome Size</i> One way to explore the minimum complexity of independent life is to survey the microbial database for the smallest genome. ... The data indicate that the microbes possessing the smallest known genomes and capable of living <i>independently</i> in the environment are extremophilic archaea and eubacteria. ... These organisms also happen to represent what many scientists consider to be the oldest life on Earth. This crude estimate seems to suggest that, <b>to exist independently, life requires a minimum genome size of about 1,500 to 1,900 gene products</b>. (A gene product refers to proteins and functional RNAs, such as ribosomal and transfer RNA.) ... ... So far, as scientists have continued their sequencing efforts, <b>all microbial genomes that fall below 1,500 belong to parasites</b>. Organisms capable of permanent independent existence require more gene products. <b>A minimum genome size (for independent life) of 1,500 to 1,900 gene products</b> comports with what the geochemical and fossil evidence ... reveals about <b>the complexity of Earth's first life</b>. Earliest life forms displayed metabolic complexity that included: <ul><li> photosynthetic and chemoautotrophic processes</li><li> protein synthesis</li><li> the capacity to produce amino acids, nucleotides, fatty acids, and sugars </li><li> the machinery to reproduce </ul></p> <p> <b>Some 1,500 different gene products would seem the bare minimum to sustain this level of metabolic activity</b>. For instance, the <i>Methanococcus jannaschii</i> genome (the first to be sequenced for the archaea domain) possesses about <b>1,738 gene products</b>. This organism contains the enzymatic machinery for <b>energy metabolism and for the biosynthesis and processing of sugars, nucleotides, amino acids, and fatty acids</b>. In addition, the <i>M. jannaschii</i> genome can encode for <b>repair systems, DNA replication, and the cell division apparatus</b>. The genes for <b>protein synthesis and secretion</b> and the genes that specify the <b>construction and activity of the cell membrane and envelope</b> also belong as part of this organism's genome." (Rana, F.R. & Ross, H.N., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Life-Biblical-Evolutionary-Models/dp/1576833445">Origins of Life: Biblical And Evolutionary Models Face Off</a>," Navpress: Colorado Springs CO, 2004, pp.161-162).</p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-75122292404707169932008-10-04T14:25:00.003+08:002008-10-04T19:43:22.727+08:00Theory goes to water as fish finger found<p>The following article appeared the other day in Australia's national newspaper. My comments are <b>bold</b>.</p> <p><a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24386216-30417,00.html">Theory goes to water as fish finger found</a>, <i>The Australian</i>, September 23, 2008. PARIS: Scientists have traced the origin of</p> <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Panderichthys_BW.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Panderichthys_BW.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><p><b>[</b><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Panderichthys_BW.jpg"><b>Above</b></a><b> (click to enlarge): Reconstruction of </b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panderichthys"><b><i>Panderichthys</i></b></a><b>: Wikipedia]</b></p> <p>fingers and toes to fish-like creatures that roamed the seas 380 million years ago, a new study has found. <b><i>Panderichthys</i> was not "fish-<i>like</i>." It was a <i>fish</i>!</p><p> </b>The findings, published yesterday in the <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature07339.html">science journal <i>Nature</i></a>, upend the prevailing theory on the evolution of digits. It had long been assumed that the first creatures to develop primitive fingers were tetrapods, air-breathing animals that crawled from sea to land about 10 to 20 million years later. <b>So</b> <b>fingers arose <i>under water</i>, <i>10-20 million years</i> (or more) before they were needed on land. </b></p> <p>The need to adapt to swampy marshlands and terra firma, so the theory went, is what drove the gradual shift through natural selection from fish fins suitable only for swimming to weight-bearing limbs with articulated joints. <b>This is based on the original Darwinian `just-so' story:</b><blockquote>"Origin of tetrapods ... The Devonian, during which land adaptations originated, was seemingly a time of seasonal droughts when life in fresh waters must have been difficult. ... if the water dried up altogether, the amphibian had the better of it. The fish, incapable of land locomotion, must stay in the mud and, if the water did not soon return, must die. But <i>the amphibian, with his short and clumsy but effective limbs, could crawl out of the pool and walk overland ... and reach the next pool where water still remained</i>. Once this process had begun, <i>it is easy to see how a land fauna might eventually have been built up</i>." (Romer, A.S., 1945, "<a href="#RA1945VPp140">Vertebrate Paleontology</a>," pp.140-141. My emphasis).</p></blockquote> <p><b>Which shows that this major transition had little, if anything to do with the Darwinian natural selection of random micromutations.</b> </p> <p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.foxnews.com/images/441007/0_21_080921_panderichthys_fin.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 250px;" src="http://www.foxnews.com/images/441007/0_21_080921_panderichthys_fin.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>But the study reveals rudimentary fingers were already present inside the fins </p> <p><b>[</b><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/images/441007/0_21_080921_panderichthys_fin.jpg"><b>Right</b></a><b> (click to enlarge): Computerized 3D reconstruction of the fin bones of</b> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panderichthys"><b><i>Panderichthys</i></b></a><b>, showing precursors of fingers: </b><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426281,00.html">FOX News</a><b>]</b> </p> <p>of the shallow-water metre-long <i>Panderichthys</i>, a transitional species that was more fish than tetrapod. <b>Note that these "rudimentary fingers," complete with precursors of <i>all</i> the fore- and hind-leg bones:</b><blockquote>"<i>Panderichthys</i> ... the internal, endochondral bones of the fin are closely comparable to those of terrestrial vertebrates. There is a single proximal humerus and more distal ulna and radius in the forelimb, and the femur, tibia and fibula in the hind limb. They are succeeded distally by bones that are homologous with proximal elements of the wrist (intermedium, ulnare, and centralia) and ankle (fibulare, intermedium, and possibly distal tarsals) of land vertebrates..." (Carroll, 1997, "<a href="#CR1997PPVEp230">Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution</a>," pp.230-232. My emphasis).</blockquote> </p><p><b>were "present <i>inside</i> the fins" of this "species that was <i>more fish</i> than tetrapod" and therefore "they <i>could not have functioned</i> in the manner of these joints in terrestrial vertebrates":</b> <blockquote>"... but they <i>could not have functioned</i> in the manner of these joints in terrestrial vertebrates because they are <i>extensively overlapped</i> by the radius and the tibia. The <I>entire</i> endochondral skeleton is <i>within</i> a functionally continuous fin structure" (Carroll, 1997, <a href="#CR1997PPVEp230">Ibid</a>, pp.230-232. My emphasis).</blockquote> </p><p><b>That is, they could not be `seen' by the environment and so were `invisible' to natural selection. So natural selection cannot, <i>even in principle</i>, explain these major features of the fish-tetrapod transition. </b></p> <p>"What we have shown is that the hand and the foot emerge from pre-existing bits of the fin skeleton that were just reshaped, rather than being entirely new bits that were bolted onto the existing fin skeleton," said co-author <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6962/full/nj6962-104c.html">Per Ahlberg</a>, a researcher at Uppsala University in Sweden. <b>Again, note that "the hand and foot" of <i>all</i> subsequent land vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles,</b> <b>mammals and birds) "were already present <i>inside </i>the fins of" a "fish"!</b> </p> <p>The discovery did not come from a new archeological find but from a re-examination of the existing fossils, he said. Previous research, it turns out, simply overlooked what was there. "The problem is that all good specimens of Panderichthys come from one location" -- a brick quarry in Latvia -- "where the clay is almost exactly the same colour as the bones," Dr Ahlberg said. "If you are interested in tiny, fragile bones at the outer end of the fin skeleton, it's nearly impossible to see what is going on." <b>Clearly, these "<i>tiny, fragile</i>" finger and toe "bones at the outer end of the fin skeleton," conferred no selective advantage to:</b> <blockquote>"<i>Panderichthys</i> ... quite <i>a large</i> fish, with ... a total body length of <i>over a meter</i>" (Clack, 2002, "<a href="#CJ2002GGp64">Gaining Ground</a>," p.64. My emphasis).</blockquote></p> <p> So Dr Ahlberg and two colleagues ran a specimen, still embedded in clay, through a CT scanner at a hospital. The image shows stubby bones at the end of the fin skeleton clearly arrayed like four fingers, called distal radials. There are no joints, and the bones are quite short, but there could be no doubt as to what they were. <b>That there were "no joints" in these "fingers" shows that they could not function as fingers, nor would they be rigid. Therefore they could have no selective advantage for <i>Panderichthys</i> but would be a selective advantage to its descendants millions of years in the future which had functional fingers with joints. But in that case it would be a "part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species" and so "would <i>annihilate</i>" Darwin's "theory" </b>(Darwin, 1872, "<a href="#DC1872OOSp162">Origin of Species</a>," p.162)!</p> <p> <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426281,00.html">Primitive Fingers Found in Prehistoric Fish</a>, FOX News, September 23, 2008, Jeanna Bryner. An ancient fish sported something like fingers that were the precursors to our own digits, according to an analysis of a new fossil skeleton. <b>Since </b><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cmnctsry.html">I accept Universal Common Ancestry (but not <i>Evolution</i>)</a><b>, I</b> <b>agree that these fish "fingers ... were the precursors to our own digits." And also that:</b> <blockquote>"... all tetrapods [and therefore all land vertebrates-amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals] had a <i>single common ancestor</i>" (Clack, 2002, <a href="#CJ2002GGp66">Ibid</a>, p.66. My emphasis).</blockquote></p><p><b>And therefore if that <i>one</i> fish "single common ancestor" (out of uncountable <i>trillions</i> of fish) had not by one, or a series of, `lucky' mutations which created precursors of: 1) <i>both</i> forelimbs and hindlimbs, complete with "humerus ... ulna and radius" and "femur, tibia and fibula," as well as "wrist (intermedium, ulnare, and centralia) and ankle (fibulare, intermedium, and ... tarsals)" and "our own digits"; and 2) "pectoral and pelvic girdles" attached to the spine for those limbs to articulate to, neither we, nor <i>any</i> land vertebrate, would be here. But according to my</b> <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-i-believe-about-creation.html#ProgressiveMediateCreation">Progressive Mediate Creation</a><b> general theory, God supernaturally intervened in the genome of that "single common</b> <b>ancestor" to create the:</b> <blockquote>"blueprint of terrestrial limb structure [in] the genome... of the ["single common ancestor"] osteolepiform fish" (Wilcox, 1990, "<a href="#WD1990CEUTp23">Created in Eternity, Unfolded in Time</a>," pp.6:23-24).</blockquote></p> <p> "It's really the last piece of evidence to say fingers are not new. They were really present in fish," said lead researcher <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/526/129">Catherine Boisvert</a>, an evolutionary biologist at Uppsala University in Sweden. The fossilized skeleton belonged to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panderichthys">Panderichthys</a>, a predatory fish that spanned up to 4 feet (130 cm) and likely dwelled in shallow waters where it inched along the muddy bottom about 385 million years ago. <b>The problem for Darwinian `blind watchmaker' evolution by the natural selection of random mutations is to explain:</b> <blockquote>"How can the world of an <i>aquatic </i>predator quickly select, collect and individuate the information for a highly coherent adaptive blueprint of terrestrial limb structure?" (Wilcox, <a href="#WD1990CEUTp23">Ibid</a>, pp.6:23-24. My emphasis)</blockquote></p><p><b>by inching "along the muddy bottom" of "shallow waters".</b> </p> <p>While the fossil was discovered in the 1990s by chance in a brick quarry in Latvia in northern Europe, scientists only recently analyzed the fins with computed tomography (CT) and found that the right paddle is tipped with four bony extensions. If you were to turn back the clocks to the Devonian period when Panderichthys lived and spied the fish, you would not have noticed its "fingers," Boisvert explained. <b>Neither would natural selection "have noticed its `fingers'" being that tiny in proportion to <i>Panderichthys</i>' "4 feet (130 cm)" body.</b> </p> <p>The fan-like array of fingers, however, would have made Panderichthys' paddles broader at the ends. The broad fins would have made for stronger supports for the fish to lean on rather than for all-out swimming. <b>This sounds like yet another Darwinian `just-so' story. But it is <i>gross overkill</i></b> <b>for "a predatory fish that ... dwelled in shallow waters where it inched along the muddy bottom" to</b> <b>develop "inside" two pairs of fish fins all the fore- and hind-limb bones of "terrestrial vertebrates". </b> </p> <p>"It was probably using its front fins as supports to be able to look up, kind of doing push-ups at the bottom of the river looking outside with its eyes," Boisvert said, adding that the fish's eyes were on the top of its skull and thus probably good for looking above the mud for fish food. Though Panderichthys was not made for landlubbing, if the need to hop from the water arose, the fish had the means. "So if it was stuck in a pool and it was drying out, [the fish] would have been able to get itself out to the next water body," Boisvert told <a href="http://www.livescience.com/animals/080921-fish-fingers.html">LiveScience</a>. "It's doing push-ups on land with its big fins and then its pelvic fins (hind fins) are used for an anchor in the mud." <b>That the proto- fore- and hind-limb bones of future terrestrial vertebrates, <i>after</i> they had appeared, <i>may</i> have had <i>some</i> use for <i>Panderichthys</i> (and originally "the single common ancestor") does not thereby explain <i>why </i>they appeared. To just assume that would commit the <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc">post hoc ergo propter hoc</a></i> fallacy. </b></p><p>Basically, Panderichthys would have dragged its body along land. "It wouldn't have been pretty," she added. <b>The way that Boisvert puts this indicates she has no evidence that <i> Panderichthys</i> (or "the single common ancestor") ever "dragged its body along land."</b> The fossil finding, detailed in the <a href="http://www.nature.com:80/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature07339.html">Sept. 21 issue of the journal Nature</a>, fills in a gap in the evolution of tetrapods, or four-legged animals. About 380 million years ago, our fishy ancestors crept onto land. <b>And here we have a time problem, the time-frame of the fish-tetrapod transition was only <i>5-15</i> million years (my emphasis below):</b><blockquote>"<i>Panderichthys</i> and <i>Elpistostege</i> flourished in the early Frasnian and are some of the nearest relatives of tetrapods. But <i>tetrapods appear only about 5 to 10 million years later</i> in the late Frasnian, by which time they were widely distributed and had evolved into several groups ... This suggests that <i>the transition from fish to tetrapod occurred rapidly within this restricted time span</i>." (Clack, <a href="#CJ2002GGp96">Ibid</a>, 2002, p.96).<br><br>"The transition from fish to crawling four-legged tetrapod occurred ... about 360 million years ago <i>during a relatively short geological interval</i>-no more than probably <i>15 or 20 million years</i> ..." (Strickberger, 2000, "<a href="#SM2000Ep410">Evolution</a>," p.410).<br><br>"At least 377 million years ago a lineage of lobefins arose that was more tetrapodlike than <i>Eusthenopteron</i>. One of these was an animal called <i>Panderichthys</i>...<i> In 10 or 15 million years, however, relatives of <i>Panderichthys</i> reworked their bodies into tetrapod form</i>." (Zimmer, 1998, "<a href="#ZC1998AWEp104">At the Waters Edge</a>," pp.104-105).</blockquote></p><p><b>Which is a </b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronospecies"><b>chronospecies</b></a><b> problem, i.e. each change had to be "locked up":</b><blockquote>"morphological change may accumulate anywhere along the geological trajectory of a species. But unless that change be `locked up' by ... speciation ... it cannot persist ... and must be washed out ... among varying populations of a species. Thus, species ... provide the only mechanism for protecting change" (Gould & Eldredge, 1993, "<a href="#G&E1993PECAp226">Punctuated Equilibrium Comes of Age</a>," pp.226-227)</blockquote></p><p><b>in a sequence of separate species, "align[ed], end-to-end" i.e. a "chronospecies":</b><blockquote> "If an average chronospecies lasts nearly a million years, or even longer, and we have at our disposal only ten million years, then <i>we have only ten or fifteen chronospecies to align, end-to-end</i> ..... This is clearly preposterous. <i>Chronospecies, by definition, grade into each other, and each one encompasses very little change</i>. A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one ... form to a slightly different one..." (Stanley, 1981, "<a href="#SS1981NETp93">The New Evolutionary Timetable</a>," pp.93-94. My emphasis).</blockquote></p><p><b>But as with mammals, "A chain of <i>ten or fifteen</i> of these might move us <i>from one ... form to a slightly different one</i>."</b></p><p>Fossil evidence has continued to refine scientists' understanding of this transition, though they still have many questions regarding the fin-to-limb transition and development of other locomotion features. For instance, one such transitional fish called <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik">Tiktaalik roseae</a></i> lived about 375 million years ago and showed signs of both water living and land trekking. However, Boisvert said, even though Tiktaalik is closer evolutionarily to tetrapods, its specimens lack the distinct finger precursors seen on Panderichthys. <b>Therefore these "distinct finger precursors seen on Panderichthys" cannot be explained by natural selection for locomotion on land, including land underwater.</b> </p> <p><b>I agree with former atheist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew">Antony Flew</a> that:</b><blockquote>"The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of ... life ... is an infinitely intelligent Mind" (Flew, 2007, "<a href="#FA2007TIGp123">There Is a God</a>," p.123ff).</blockquote></p><p><b>But I see no reason why such an "infinitely intelligent Mind" (who I assume is the God of the Bible), would stop at the origin of life and not continue to supernaturally intervene at other strategic points in life's history, including the fish-to-tetrapod transition.</b></p> <p><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology).<br>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">TheShroudofTurin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a> </p> <hr> <p>"<a name="CR1997PPVEp230"></a>Neither the fossil record nor study of development in modern genera yet provides a complete picture of how the paired limbs in tetrapods evolved ... The closest comparison between the paired fins of obligatorily aquatic fish and animals that were at least facultatively terrestrial is provided by the osteolepiform sarcopterygians <i>Eusthenopteron</i> and <i>Panderichthys</i> and the stem tetrapods <i>Acanthostega</i> and <i>Ichthyostega</i>. ... Superficially, the paired fins of the fish appear typical of strictly aquatic vertebrates. They are small relative to the body; they narrow at the base that <b>articulated with the pectoral and pelvic girdles</b>, but broaden distally to form an effective surface for locomotion or directional control in the water. ... In contrast, the internal, endochondral bones of the fin are closely comparable to those of terrestrial vertebrates. <b>There is a single proximal humerus and more distal ulna and radius in the forelimb</b>, and <b>the femur, tibia and fibula in the hind limb</b>. They are succeeded distally by bones that are homologous with proximal elements of <b>the wrist (intermedium, ulnare, and centralia) and ankle (fibulare, intermedium, and possibly distal tarsals) </b>of land vertebrates, <b>but they could not have functioned in the manner of these joints in terrestrial vertebrates because they are extensively overlapped by the radius and the tibia</b>. <b>The entire endochondral skeleton is within a functionally continuous fin structure</b>, as seen from its scaly covering. There is no trace of endochondral skeletal elements comparable with the distal carpals or digits of terrestrial vertebrates. ... In contrast with the clear homology of the more proximal limb bones in osteolepiform fish and early tetrapods, no obvious homologues of the digits is evident in any sarcopterygian. These bones appear <i>de novo</i> in the Upper Devonian tetrapods. How can this be explained?" (Carroll, R.L., 1997, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Processes-Vertebrate-Evolution-Cambridge-Paleobiology/dp/052147809X">Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution</a>," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, pp.230-232).</p> <p>"<a name="CJ2002GGp64"></a><b><i>Panderichthys</i> was quite a large fish, with a skull about 300 mm long, and a total body length of over a meter</b> ... . Its body and skull were flattened and the snout rather pointed. The eyes were placed quite close together on the top of its head and were set beneath ridges, giving the impression of eyebrows and creating a subjectively tetrapodlike appearance. Other characters of the skull were also very tetrapodlike (Vorobyeva and Schultze 1991). <i>Elpistostege</i> is still relatively poorly known, and for understanding the story of the origin of tetrapods, <i>Panderichthys</i> will provide a satisfactory guide. By comparing its skull with that of a very early tetrapod such as <i>Acanthostega</i>, those tetrapodlike features that were present already in <i>Panderichthys</i> can be contrasted with those that had yet to evolve. This gives some ideas about the order and timing of the appearance of some tetrapod characters ..." (Clack, J.A., 2002, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gaining-Ground-Origin-Evolution-Tetrapods/dp/0253340543">Gaining Ground: The Origin and Evolution of Tetrapods</a>," Indiana University Press: Bloomington IN, p.64).</p> <p>"<a name="CJ2002GGp66"></a>This review of the lobe-finned fish groups is not complete without the tetrapods, because this is where, evolutionarily speaking, they (and humans) belong. Modern tetrapods include on the one hand the amphibians-frogs, newts, caecilians, and their kin-and on the other the amniotes-mammals plus the `reptile' groups, including turtles, lizards and snakes, and crocodiles and their closest living relatives, the birds. It includes creatures that, although they do not have legs (limbs with digits) themselves, are descended from some that did. So bats and whales are tetrapods, as are birds and snakes. It also includes all the fossil forms such as dinosaurs, flying or swimming reptiles, and many other more bizarre and less well-known kinds, so long as they are descended from ancestors with legs ... Most current views maintain that <b>tetrapods are a natural group, tied together by numerous unique characters that show that the group had a single common ancestor</b>. Among the unique features that tetrapods share is the possession of limbs with digits ..." (Clack, 2002, p.66).</p> <p>"<a name="CJ2002GGp96"></a>Some things are clear, however. Both <i>Elginerpeton</i> and <i>Obruchevichthys</i> appear more closely related to tetrapods than was <i>Panderichthys</i>. They are also very closely related to each other, sharing some details that cause them to be placed in the same family (Ahlberg 1995). This family was widely distributed in the Frasnian. They were also different from the slightly later Devonian tetrapods, which will be described in the next chapter. They may represent an early and specialized offshoot from the tetrapod branch. <b><i>Panderichthys</i> and <i>Elpistostege</i> flourished in the early Frasnian</b> and are some of the nearest relatives of tetrapods. <b>But tetrapods appear only about 5 to 10 million years later in the late Frasnian</b>, by which time they were widely distributed and had evolved into several groups, including the lineage leading to the tetrapods of the Famennian. This suggests that the transition from fish to tetrapod occurred rapidly within this restricted time span. Neither fishlike tetrapods nor tetrapodlike fish body fossils occur in the record before this (Clack 1997a). Indeed, the osteolepiforms as a whole are not found before the Middle Devonian. This lends weight to the suggestion that the tracks from the supposed Late Silurian or Early Devonian are not those of a tetrapod, and those from the Middle Devonian are unlikely to be so. Given our current understanding of phylogeny, tracks made by a terrestrial tetrapod are unlikely to be found before the late Frasnian, and the body fossil evidence conflicts with the interpretation of any pre-Famennian track as terrestrial." (Clack, 2002, p.96).</p> <p>"<a name="DC1872OOSp162"></a>Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in a species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of and profits by, the structures of others. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other animals, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that <b>any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory</b>, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." (Darwin, C.R., 1872, "<a href="http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F391&keywords=theory+my+annihilate&pageseq=190">The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection</a>," [1859], John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, Reprinted, 1882, p.162). </p> <p>"<a name="G&E1993PECAp226"></a>But continuing unhappiness, justified this time, focuses upon claims that speciation causes significant morphological change, for no validation of such a position has emerged .. but why then? For the association of morphological change with speciation remains as a major pattern in the fossil record. We believe that the solution to this dilemma may be provided in a brilliant but neglected suggestion of Futuyma [Futuyma, D.J., "On the role of species in anagenesis," <i>American Naturalist</i>, Vol. 130, 1987, pp.465-473)] He holds that morphological change may accumulate anywhere along the geological trajectory of a species. <b>But unless that change be `locked up' by acquisition of reproductive isolation (that is speciation), it cannot persist or accumulate and must be washed out</b> during the complexity of interdigitation through time among varying populations of a species. Thus, species are not special because their origin permits a unique moment for instigating change, but because they provide the only mechanism for protecting change. Futuyma writes: `In the absence of reproductive isolation, differentiation is broken down by recombination. Given reproductive isolation, however, a species can retain its distinctive complex of characters as its spatial distribution changes along with that of its habitat or niche...Although <b>speciation</b> does not accelerate evolution within populations, it <b>provides morphological changes with enough permanence to be registered in the fossil record</b>. Thus, it is plausible to expect many evolutionary changes in the fossil record to be associated with speciation.' By an extension of the same argument, sequences of speciation are then required for trends: `Each step has had a more than ephemeral existence only because reproductive isolation prevented the slippage consequent on interbreeding other populations...Speciation may facilitate anagenesis by retaining, stepwise, the advances made in any one direction.' Futuyma's simple yet profound insight may help to heal the remaining rifts and integrate punctuated equilibrium into an evolutionary theory hierarchically enriched in its light" (Gould, S.J. & Eldredge, N., 1993, "<a href="http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_comes-of-age.html">Punctuated Equilibrium Comes of Age</a>," <i>Nature</i>, 18 November, Vol 366, pp.223-227, pp.226-227. Ellipses original).</p><p>"<a name="FA2007TIGp123"></a>When the mass media first reported the change in my view of the world, I was quoted us saying that biologists' investigation of DNA has shown, <b>by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved</b>. I had previously written that there was room for <b>a new argument to design in explaining the first emergence of living from nonliving matter</b>-especially where this first living matter already possessed the capacity to reproduce itself genetically. I maintained that <b>there was no satisfactory naturalistic explanation for such a phenomenon</b>. ... The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: <b>How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and `coded</b> <b>chemistry'?</b> ... The <b>origin of self-reproduction is a second key problem</b>. ... A third philosophical dimension to the origin of life relates to <b>the origin of the coding and information processing</b> that is central to all life-forms. ... So how do we account for the origin of life? The Nobel Prize-winning physiologist George Wald once famously argued that `we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.' In later years, he concluded that a preexisting mind ... composed a physical universe that breeds life ... <b>This, too, is my conclusion. The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such `end-directed, self-replicating' life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind</b>." (Flew, A.G.N., 2007, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335290">There Is a God</a>: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," HarperCollins: New York NY, pp.123-125, 131-132).</p> <p>"<a name="RA1945VPp140"></a><b>Origin of tetrapods</b>.-The `why' of tetrapod origin has been often debated. Many of the earliest amphibians appear to have been fairly large forms of carnivorous habits, still spending a large portion of their time in fresh-water pools. Alongside them lived their close relatives, the crossopterygians, similar in food habits and in many structural features and differing markedly only in the lesser development of the paired limbs. Why did the amphibians leave the water? Not to breathe air, for that could be done by merely coming to the surface of the pool. Not because they were driven out in search of food-they were carnivores for whom there was little food on land. Not to escape enemies, for they were among the largest of vertebrates found in the fresh waters from which they came. Their appearance on land seems to have resulted as an adaptation for remaining in the water. The earliest-known amphibians lived much the same sort of life as the related contemporary crossopterygians. Both lived normally in the same streams and pools and both fed on the same fish food. As long as there was plenty of water, the crossopterygian probably was the better off of the two, for he was obviously the better swimmer-legs were in the way. <b>The Devonian, during which land adaptations originated, was seemingly a time of seasonal droughts when life in fresh waters must have been difficult</b>. Even then, if the water merely became stagnant and foul, the crossopterygian could come to the surface and breathe air as well as the amphibian. <b>But if the water dried up altogether, the amphibian had the better of it. The fish, incapable of land locomotion, must stay in the mud and, if the water did not soon return, must die. But the amphibian, with his short and clumsy but effective limbs, could crawl out of the pool and walk overland (probably very slowly and painfully at first) and reach the next pool where water still remained. Once this process had begun, it is easy to see how a land fauna might eventually have been built up</b>. Instead of seeking water immediately, the amphibian might linger on the banks and devour stranded fish. Some types might gradually take to eating insects (primitive ones resembling cockroaches and dragon flies were already abundant) and, finally, plant food. The larger carnivores might take to eating their smaller amphibian relatives. Thus a true terrestrial fauna might be established." (Romer, A.S., 1945, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Vertebrate-Paleontology-Alfred-Sherwood-Romer/dp/0226724883/">Vertebrate Paleontology</a>," [1933], University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Second edition, Fifth Impression, 1953, pp.140-141. Emphasis original). </p> <p>"<a name="SS1981NETp93"></a><b>Darwin was spared a confrontation with the extraordinarily rapid origins of modern groups of mammals</b>. He knew that the history of mammals extended back to the early part of the Mesozoic, but the record was not well enough studied in his day for him to recognize that the adaptive radiation of modern mammals did not commence until the start of the Cenozoic. Today, our more detailed knowledge of fossil mammals lays another knotty problem at the feet of gradualism. Given a simple little rondentlike animal as a starting point, what does it mean to form a bat in less than ten million years, or a whale in little more time? We can approach this question by measuring how long species of mammals have persisted in geological time. The results are striking; we can now show that fossil mammal populations assigned to a particular Cenozoic lineage typically span the better part of a million years without displaying sufficient net change to be recognized as a new species. The preceding observations permit us to engage in another thought experiment. Let us suppose that we wish, hypothetically, to form a bat or a whale without invoking change by rapid branching. In other words, we want to see what happens when we restrict evolution to the process of gradual transformation of established species. <b>If an average chronospecies lasts nearly a million years, or even longer, and we have at our disposal only ten million years, then we have only ten or fifteen chronospecies to align, end-to-end</b>, to form a continuous lineage connecting our primitive little mammal with a bat or a whale. This is clearly preposterous. <b>Chronospecies, by definition, grade into each other, and each one encompasses very little change</b>. <b>A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one small rodentlike form to a slightly different one</b>, perhaps representing a new genus, but not to a bat or a whale!" (Stanley, S.M., 1981, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/New-Evolutionary-Timetable-Steven-Stanley/dp/0465050131/">The New Evolutionary Timetable</a>: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species," Basic Books: New York NY, pp.93-94).</p> <p>"<a name="SM2000Ep410"></a>Although the details are not yet fully known ... many paleontologists agree that land vertebrates, however they first evolved, were related to sarcopterygian lobe-finned fishes. The <b>transition from fish to crawling four-legged tetrapod</b> occurred by the end of the Devonian period, about <b>360 million years ago during a relatively short geological interval-no more than probably 15 or 20 million years</b>-and encompassed perhaps three or more separate lineages (Carroll 1995)." (Strickberger, M.W., 2000, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Monroe-W-Strickberger/dp/0763710660">Evolution</a>," Jones & Bartlett: Sudbury MA, 1990, Third edition, p.410).</p> <p>"<a name="WD1990CEUTp23"></a>All in all, <i>Ichthyostega</i> is a mystery of the first water. The theory that the direct application of environmental selection can `collect' the necessary morphological information, integrate it into individuated error checked blueprints, and thus create novel structures in organisms seems impossible to apply to <i>Ichthyostega</i>. <b>How can the world of an aquatic predator quickly select, collect and individuate the information for a highly coherent adaptive blueprint of terrestrial limb structure?</b> <b>The theory that the blueprint already existed in some form in the genomes of the osteolepiform fish sounds more reasonable</b>, but sorting it out under water is still difficult. However, if it were true, and if a life style of living on fish stranded on the edge of the swamp could provide a mild selective pressure, the previous encoding of a individuated blueprint could at least explain its tight coherence when it first appears." (Wilcox, D.L., 1990, "Created in Eternity, Unfolded in Time," Eastern College: St. Davids PA, Unpublished manuscript, Chapter 6, pp.23-24).</p> <p>"<a name="ZC1998AWEp104"></a>Found in Latvia, this two-foot-long fish had a skull as flat as a coffee table and a smooth back that lacked the dorsal fins of other lobe-fins. Its shoulders-and the fins that attached to them-were so sturdy that it might have been able to move on them like crutches out of the water for short distances. Like coelacanths and lungfish, it probably could move with the left-right, left-right movements that would become our walk. <b>Still, it would be impossible to mistake <i>Panderichthys</i> for a tetrapod</b>. Its toeless limbs were buried inside a ring of fin rays, its braincase was still hinged, and instead of a stapes <i>Panderichthys</i> had a hyomandibular bone that was linked to its jaws and gills. <b>In 10 or 15 million years, however, relatives of <i>Panderichthys</i> reworked their bodies into tetrapod form</b>. <i>Elginerpeton</i>, the beast that Per Ahlberg found hiding in museum drawers, is not only the oldest tetrapod known but the most primitive as well. Its snout turned into a massive snapping trap, ligaments joined its pelvis to its spine. With only fragments of its limbs, it's impossible to know if there were toes yet, but <i>Elginerpeton</i> shows many signs of being an intermediate between lobe-fins like <i>Panderichthys</i> and later tetrapods. Its rear legs were twisted so much that its knees (if it had them) would have pointed to the ground, making the legs useless for walking but good for rowing. Judging from the fact that <i>Elginerpeton</i> was five feet long and hunted on river bottoms, one can assume that the first tetrapods must have been moderately successful at living like a lobe-fin. Within a few million years <i>Elginerpeton</i> was gone, but new kinds of tetrapods were evolving all around the world." (Zimmer, C., 1998, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/At-Waters-Edge-Fingers-Whales/dp/0684856239">At the Waters Edge</a>: Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs, and How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to Sea," Touchstone: New York NY, Reprinted, 1999, pp.104-105). </p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-42693905211751892532008-08-12T21:31:00.006+08:002008-08-12T23:30:20.654+08:00PoE: 1.1.3. Herbert Spencer's meaning of "evolution"<p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Spencer1.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Spencer1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>Continuing my book outline, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/07/problems-of-evolution-book-outline.html">Problems of Evolution</a>," </p> <p>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spencer1.jpg">Right</a>: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer">Herbert Spencer</a> (1820-1903), Wikipedia] </p> <p>with subsection, 1.1.3. Herbert Spencer's meaning of "evolution."</p> <p>References cited are supported by the <a href="#tq">`tagline' quotes</a> below (emphasis <i>italics </i>original, emphasis <b>bold</b> mine).</p> <br><p> <hr> </p><br> <p> <center><b>PROBLEMS OF EVOLUTION<br>© Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).</b></center></p> <p><b><a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/07/problems-of-evolution-book-outline.html">CONTENTS</a></b></p> <p><a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/08/problems-of-evolution-bibliography.html"><b>BIBLIOGRAPHY</b></a></p> <p><b>1. <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/08/problems-of-evolution-1-introduction.html">INTRODUCTION</a><br> </b></p> <p><b>1.1. <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/10/poe-11-what-is-evolution.html">What <i>is</i> "evolution"?</a></b></p> <p><b>1.1.2. <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/04/poe-112-original-meaning-of-evolution.html">The original meaning of "evolution"</a></b></p> <p><b>1.1.3. Herbert Spencer's meaning of "evolution."</b></p> <p>The word "evolution" was first used by the English philosopher <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer">Herbert Spencer</a> (1820-1903) in the sense of the progress of life from lower to higher forms (<a href="#GSJESD1978p36">Gould, 1978, pp.36-37</a>). It was also Spencer who most popularized the term "evolution" in that sense (<a href="#BPJEHI1989p8">Bowler, 1989, p.8</a>; <a href="#GSJIHL2002p245">Gould, 2002, p.245</a>).</p> <p>Spencer defined "evolution" as "an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion; during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity" (<a href="#SHFP1945p358">Spencer, 1945, p.358</a>; <a href="#GSJESD1978p36">Gould, 1978, pp.36-37</a>; <a href="#MEGBT1982p385">Mayr, 1982, pp.385-386</a>). But Spencer's "evolution" was "a metaphysical principle" that "has nothing to do with real biology" (<a href="#MEGBT1982p385">Mayr, 1982, pp.385-386</a>). Although Spencer "was not a specialist in biology, and his speculations on biological problems have not advanced that science to any very great extent" nevertheless "he became one of the most influential promoters of the new doctrine of evolution." (<a href="#NTHB1928p493">Nordenskiold, 1928, p.493</a>).</p> <p>It was Spencer's <i>a priori </i>belief in universal natural causation that led him to accept evolution, in the absence of scientific proof (<a href="#BJWE&S1966p205">Burrow, 1966, pp.205-206</a>). But once Spencer had accepted this metaphysical naturalism, his <i>only</i> alternative was <i>some</i> form of evolution (<a href="#PNYGL1998p79">Pearcey,1998, pp.79-80</a>). </p> <p>To Spencer there were only "<i>two</i> hypotheses" to choose between, either "the hypothesis of <i>Special Creation</i>" or "the hypothesis of <i>Evolution</i>" (<a href="#SHPB1910p415">Spencer, 1910, p.415</a>). The "<i>only alternative</i> to the hypothesis of Evolution is the hypothesis of Special Creation" (<a href="#SHPB1910p453">Spencer, 1910, pp.453-454</a>). That is, either the many different "kinds of organisms ... have been from time to time <i>separately made</i>; or they have arisen <i>by insensible steps, through actions such as we see habitually going</i>" (<a href="#SHPB1910p415">Spencer, 1910, p.416</a>). But then Spencer dismissed special creation as "<i>not even a thinkable hypothesis</i>" (<a href="#SHPB1910p554">Spencer, 1910, p.554</a>) and "<i>illegitimate</i>" (<a href="#SHPB1910pp420-421">Spencer, 1910, pp.420</a>;<a> </a><a href="#SHPB1910p435">435</a>).</p> <p>Therefore, by "evolution" Spencer meant the <i>very antithesis </i>of supernatural creation. Spencer regarded "the hypothesis of evolution" and "the hypothesis of special creation" as "<i>antagonist</i> hypotheses" (<a href="#SHPB1910p415">Spencer, 1910, pp.416</a>; <a href="#SHPB1910p439">439-440</a>). </p> <p>Spencer defined "special creation" as "the belief that <i>each species</i> of organism was specially created" (<a href="#SHPB1910p419">Spencer, 1910, p.419</a>), by a supernatural act" (<a href="#SHPB1910p431">Spencer, 1910, pp.431-432</a>), such that"<a>a new organism, when specially created, is <i>created out of nothing</i>" (<a href="#SHPB1910pp420-421">Spencer, 1910, p.420</a><a>). </a>Evolution on the other hand was defined by Spencer as all the different "kinds of organisms" have "arisen by insensible steps, through actions such as we see habitually going on" (<a href="#SHPB1910p415">Spencer, 1910, p.415</a>).</p> <p>Therefore Spencer had set up a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy">Fallacy of False Dilemma</a>, which "presumes that <i>only two alternatives</i> exist when in actuality <i>there are more than two</i>" (<a href="#S&VHTTWT1995p285">Schick & Vaughn, 1995, pp.285-286</a>). According to Spencer, it was "a<i>s if there were nothing</i> in heaven and earth except <i>an omnipotent deity acting as his own agent</i> or <i>natural selection of chance variations</i>." (<a href="#FWTBP1984p195">Fix, 1984, p.195</a>). But there is a third alternative, that God did not separately create <i>whole</i> "organisms" but rather supernaturally guided and/or supernaturally intervened in those "insensible steps" to bring about genetic changes that would not have otherwise occurred naturalistically.Having thus set up a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man">straw man</a> caricature of the creationist position, "<i>set up only to be knocked down</i>" (<a href="#GBEWE1982p139">Gale, 1982, p.139</a>); "<i>misrepresenting</i> an opponent's position ... then ... arguing against the imputed position <i>as though it were really that of your opponent</i>" (<a href="#HTOCP1995p854">Honderic, 1995, p.854</a>), "in order to improve the <i>appearance</i> of his own case" (<a href="#GNCDPC1979p19">Gillespie, 1979, pp.19-20</a>), Creation to Spencer was "<i>absolutely without evidence</i> to give it external support" (<a href="#SHPB1910pp420-421">Spencer, 1910, p.420</a>, <a href="#SHPB1910pp429-430">430</a>).</p> <p>So Spencer coined the word "evolution" to mean <i>fully naturalistic</i> evolution, the <i>opposite</i> of supernatural creation.</p> <p>The quotes below are hyperlinked from inline references above. Emphasis in <i>italics</i> are original and in <b>bold</b> are mine.</p> <p><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology).<br>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">TheShroudofTurin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus is Jehovah!</a></p> <hr> <p><a name="tq"></a> "<a name="BPJEHI1989p8"></a>The progressionist implication was retained in a rather different form by the philosopher <b>Herbert Spencer, the person who did most to popularize the term `evolution'</b> in its modern context. Spencer advocated a system of cosmic progress, which included a theory of <b>the inevitable evolution of life toward higher forms</b>. Darwin's theory came to be tagged `evolution,' even though he seldom used the term himself; and most people still imagine that evolution is an essentially progressive process" (Bowler, P.J., 1989, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/11/poe-bibliography-b.html#BowlerPJ1989">Evolution: The History of an Idea</a>," [1983], University of California Press: Berkeley CA, Revised edition, p.8). <p>"<a name="BJWE&S1966p205"></a><b>Spencer's belief in the universality of natural causation was</b>, together with his <i>laissez-faire</i> political creed, <b>the bedrock of his thinking</b>. It was this belief, more than anything else, that <b>led him to reject Christianity</b>, long before the great conflict of the eighteen-sixties. Moreover, <b>it was his belief in natural causation that led him to embrace the theory of evolution, not vice versa</b>. ... <b>His faith was so strong that it did not wait on scientific proof</b>. Spencer became an ardent evolutionist at a time when a cautious scientist would have been justified at least in suspending judgement. ... <b>for him the belief in natural causation was primary, the theory of evolution derivative</b>." (Burrow, J.W., 1966, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/11/poe-bibliography-b.html#BurrowJW1966">Evolution and Society</a>: A Study in Victorian Social Theory," Cambridge University Press: London, Reprinted, 1968, pp.205-206).</p> <p>"<a name="FWTBP1984p195"></a>It is easy enough to <b>set up a straw man</b>, to point to the whale's vestigial pelvic bones, for example, and to say that <b>if God had created the whale, directly and from nothing</b>, he wouldn't have included these useless parts. Typically, neo-Darwinists then argue that it simply does not make sense to attribute the whale to divine creation-<b>as if there were nothing in heaven and earth except an omnipotent deity acting as his own agent or natural selection of chance variations</b>." (Fix, W.R. , 1984, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bone-Peddlers-Selling-Evolution/dp/0025384805">The Bone Peddlers</a>: Selling Evolution," Macmillan: New York NY, p.195).</p> <p>"<a name="GNCDPC1979p19"></a>Darwin's contrast of the explanatory powers of his theory with the Creationist, especially in the areas of geographical distribution, morphology embryology, and rudimentary organs, represents, I think, the strongest line of arguments in the <i>Origin</i>. ... Yet even here, where Darwin's arguments are strongest, nagging questions remain. For example, a reader of the <i>Origin</i> might be justified in wondering what Creationist view Darwin is referring to. Perhaps this is a problem more for the present-day reader. Darwin's contemporaries may have known exactly what he meant, though I doubt it. <b>Often the Creationist position seems merely a straw man-set up only to be knocked down</b>. The constraints on space in the <i>Origin</i>, which led Darwin to abandon his original intention of arguing on both sides of the mutability issue, add to this feeling. The result is that the Creationist position is never clearly defined in the <i>Origin</i>." (Gale, B.G., 1982, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/01/poe-bibliography-g.html#GaleBG1982">Evolution Without Evidence</a>: Charles Darwin and <i>The Origin of Species</i>," University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque NM, p.139).</p> <p>"Charles <b>Darwin's hostile preoccupation with the belief that God had separately and individually created each of the animal and plant species</b> in the world is one of the most intriguing but neglected features of the <i>Origin of Species</i>. Historians have disagreed about what to make of it. ... Some have accused <b>Darwin of setting up a straw man in order to improve the appearance of his own case</b>. Lastly, there are those who believe, correctly I think, that Darwin's rejection of special creation was part of the transformation of biology into a positive science, one committed to thoroughly naturalistic explanations based on material causes and the uniformity of the laws of nature, a change to which the <i>Origin</i> was a signally important contribution. ... Consequently, it was not a harmless straw man, but a traditional bias found among scientists and laymen alike and one that stood in the path of any novel way of viewing the problem of species. Darwin, then, was not engaged in anachronistic shadowboxing, but had selected his target well and knew exactly what he was doing. His attack on special creation was a response to the crisis and an attempt to resolve it by helping to promote the restructuring of biology along positivist lines. The critique of special creation in the <i>Origin</i> was systematically organized to that end. ... There were then, in 1859, a minority of naturalists, some of them influential, who believed in miraculous creation; others, of shifting number, who believed in direct divine intervention in some mysterious but lawful manner to create each new species; a third group, a small minority, who had accepted the descent theory; a fourth, larger group who were moving away from a belief in direct divine intervention in favor of a natural cause, but who were either skeptical of its being found or who were engaged in a quest for laws rather than true causes; and, lastly, a group that busied itself with practical work and renounced theory altogether. All of these save the third combined willy-nilly to create a genuine obstacle in the path of the project Charles Darwin had undertaken." (Gillespie, N.C., 1979, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/01/poe-bibliography-g.html#GillespieNC1979">Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation</a>," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, pp.19-20,39).</p> <p>"<a name="GSJESD1978p36"></a><b>Evolution entered the English language as a synonym for `descent with modification' through the propaganda of Herbert Spencer</b>, that indefatigable Victorian pundit of nearly everything. Evolution, to Spencer, was the overarching law of all development. And, to a smug Victorian, what principle other than progress could rule the developmental processes of the universe? Thus, Spencer defined the universal law in his <i>First Principles</i> of 1862: `<b>Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion; during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite coherent heterogeneity</b>.' Two other aspects of Spencer's work contributed to the establishment of evolution in its present meaning: First, in writing his very popular <i>Principles of Biology</i> (1864-67), <b>Spencer constantly used `evolution' as a description of organic change</b>. Second, he did not view progress as an intrinsic capacity of matter, but as a result of `cooperation' between internal and external (environmental) forces. This view fit nicely with most nineteenth-century concepts of organic evolution, for Victorian scientists easily equated organic change with organic progress. Thus <b>evolution was available when many scientists felt a need for a term more succinct than Darwin's descent with modification</b>." (Gould, S.J., 1978, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/01/poe-bibliography-g.html#GouldSJ1978">Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History</a>," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1991, pp.36-37).</p><p>"<a name="GSJIHL2002p245"></a>Herbert Spencer's progressivist view of natural change probably exerted most influence in establishing `evolution' as the general name for Darwin's process-for Spencer held a dominating status as Victorian pundit and grand panjandrum of nearly everything conceptual. In any case, Darwin had too many other fish to fry, and didn't choose to fight a battle about words rather than things. He felt confident that his views would eventually prevail, even over the contrary etymology of word imposed upon his process by popular will. (He knew, after all, that meanings of words can transmute within new climates of immediate utility, just as species transform under new local environments of life and ecology!) <b>Darwin never used the `E' word extensively in his writings, but he did capitulate to a developing consensus by referring to his process as `evolution' for the first time in <i>The Descent of Man</i></b>, published in 1871. (Still, <b>Darwin never cited `evolution' in the title of any book</b>-and he chose, in labeling his major work on our species, to emphasize our genealogical `descent,' not our `ascent' to higher levels of consciousness.)" (Gould, S.J., 2002, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/01/poe-bibliography-g.html#GouldSJ2002a">I Have Landed: Splashes and Reflections in Natural History</a>," Vintage: London, Reprinted, 2003, p.245).</p> <p>"<a name="HTOCP1995p854"></a>The straw man fallacy is the tactic in argument of misrepresenting an opponent's position, making it appear more implausible, so that it can more easily be refuted, then going ahead and arguing against the imputed position as though it were really that of your opponent." (Honderic, T., ed., 1995, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/11/poe-bibliography-h.html#HonderichT1995">The Oxford Companion to Philosophy</a>," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, p.854).</p> </p> <p>"<a name="MEGBT1982p385"></a>Herbert Spencer is often cited as having anticipated Darwin in propounding a theory of evolution, but there is little validity in this assertion. <b>Evolution, for Spencer, was a metaphysical principle. The vacuousness of Spencer's theory is evident from his definition</b>: `Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion; during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity; and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel transformation' ([Spencer, H., "First Principles,"Williams & Norgate: London, Second edition, [1870: 396). The stress on matter, movement, and forces in this and other discussions of evolution is a typical example of an inappropriate eighteenth-century-type physicalist interpretation of ultimate causations in biological systems, and <b>has nothing to do with real biology</b>." (Mayr, E.W., 1982, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/11/poe-bibliography-m.html#MayrEW1982">The Growth of Biological Thought</a>: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, pp.385-386).</p> <p>"<a name="NTHB1928p493"></a><i>Spencer's idea of evolution</i> HERBERT <b>SPENCER was not a specialist in biology, and his speculations on biological problems have not advanced that science to any very great extent</b>. He nevertheless deserves a place in the history of biology as a rare example of a consummate and typical representative of that evolutional mode of thought which was awakened to life by the general tendency of the times in the middle of last century and which was promoted by Darwinism. He is commonly called the most consistent philosopher of evolution which that period produced - evolution forms the very groundwork of his system. In its essential features this system was already pretty definite before the advent of Darwin; it was promulgated in a number of small articles in periodicals, often characterized by masterly penetration and lucidity, afterwards brought together to form an imposing work entitled <i>A System of Synthetic Philosophy</i>, which was the fruits of thirty years' work and which gives `a broad, often too broad, development of what is recorded in the short treatises' (Hoffding). When Darwin produced his theory, Spencer associated himself with it, although he interprets it after his own mind, and <b>he became one of the most influential promoters of the new doctrine of evolution</b>. Otherwise he is said not to have been in favour of extensive studies; he preferred to think for himself and was very jealous of his independence." (Nordenskiold, E., 1928, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/07/poe-bibliography-n.html#NordenskioldE1928">The History of Biology</a>: A Survey," [1920-24], Eyre, L.B., transl., Tudor Publishing Co: New York NY, p.493. Emphasis original).</p> <p> <p>"<a name="PNYGL1998p79"></a>In his autobiography Herbert Spencer recounts in excruciating detail the process by which he developed a naturalistic outlook, beginning when he was a boy. Over time, he writes, <b>`a breach in the course of [physical] causation had come to be, if not an impossible thought, yet a thought never entertained'</b> (Spencer 1904, 1:172). As in Darwin's case, members of Spencer's family described his adherence to naturalism in near-religious terms. His father drew a parallel between the son's naturalism and the father's own religion: `From what I see of my son's mind, it appears to me that the laws of nature are to him what revealed religion is to us, and that any wilful infraction of those laws is to him as much a sin as to us is disbelief in what is revealed' (Spencer 1904, 1:655). This semireligious attachment to naturalism explains why Spencer eventually became a tireless promoter of Darwinism. It was not because he was persuaded by Darwin's scientific theory; he rejected Darwinism and embraced Lamarckianism. Yet Spencer saw clearly that <b>once he had embraced philosophical naturalism, he had no alternative but to accept some form of naturalistic evolution</b>. As he puts it, having discarded orthodox Christianity, he developed an `intellectual leaning towards belief in natural causation everywhere operating.' And <b>in that naturalistic leaning</b>, `doubtless ... <b>a belief in evolution at large was then latent</b>.' Why latent? Because `anyone who, abandoning the supernaturalism of theology, <b>accepts in full the naturalism of science, tacitly asserts that all things as they now exist have been evolved</b>.' <b>Spencer accepted naturalism first and then accepted evolution as a logical consequence</b>. He goes on: `<b>The doctrine of the universality of natural causation, has for its inevitable</b> <b>corollary the doctrine that the Universe</b> <b>and all things in it have reached their present forms through successive stages physically necessitated</b>' (Spencer 1904, 2:7). Just so: <b>Once one accepts the philosophy of naturalism, some form of naturalistic evolution is an `inevitable corollary.'</b> Finding a plausible scientific theory is secondary. In Spencer's writings we get a glimpse of the intellectual pressure that impelled him toward a naturalistic view of evolution. `I cheerfully acknowledge,' he writes in <i>The Principles of Psychology</i>, that <b>the hypothesis of evolution is beset by `serious difficulties' scientifically</b>. Yet, <b>`save for those who still adhere to</b> the Hebrew myth, or to <b>the doctrine of special creations</b> derived from it, <b>there is no alternative but this hypothesis</b> or no hypothesis.' And no one can long remain in `the neutral state of having no hypothesis' (Spencer 1896, 1:466n). Similarly, in an 1899 letter, he writes that already decades earlier, `in 1852 <b>the belief in organic evolution had taken deep root'</b>-not for scientific reasons but because of `<b>the necessity of accepting the hypothesis of Evolution when the hypothesis of Special Creation has been rejected</b>.' He concludes with these telling words: `<b>The Special Creation belief had dropped out of my mind many years before, and I could not remain in a suspended state: acceptance of the only conceivable alternative was peremptory</b>' (Duncan 1908, 2:319). Here is a candid admission that Spencer was driven by a sense of <b>philosophical necessity-naturalistic evolution was `the only conceivable alternative' to creation- more than by a dispassionate assessment of the scientific evidence</b>." (Pearcey, N.R., "<a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_youguyslost.htm">You Guys Lost: Is Design a Closed Issue?</a>," in Dembski, W.A., ed., "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/11/poe-bibliography-d.html#DembskiWA1998ed">Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design</a>," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1998, pp.79-80).</p> <p>"<a name="S&VHTTWT1995p285"></a>An argument proposes a <b>false dilemma when it presumes that only two alternatives exist when in actuality there are more than two</b>. For example, `Either science can explain how she was cured or it was a miracle. Science can't explain how she was cured. So it must be a miracle.' These two alternatives do not exhaust all the possibilities. It's possible, for example, that she was cured by some natural cause that scientists don't yet understand. Because the argument doesn't take this possibility into account, it's fallacious. Again: `Either have your horoscope charted by an astrologer or continue to stumble through life without knowing where you're going. You certainly don't want to continue your wayward ways. So you should have your horoscope charted by an astrologer.' If someone is concerned about the direction his or her life is taking, there are other things he or she can do about it than consult an astrologer. <b>Since there are other options, the argument is fallacious</b>." (Schick, T. & Vaughn, L., 1995, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/08/poe-bibliography-s.html#Schick&Vaughn1995">How to Think About Weird Things</a>: Critical Thinking for a New Age," Mayfield: Mountain View CA, California, Second edition, pp.285-286).</p> <p>"<a name="SHPB1910p415"></a>We have to choose between <b>two hypotheses-the hypothesis of Special Creation and the hypothesis of Evolution</b>. <b>Either the multitudinous kinds of organisms</b> which now exist, and the far more multitudinous kinds which have existed during past geologic eras, <b>have been from time to time separately made</b>; <b>or they have arisen by insensible steps, through actions such as we see habitually going on</b>. Both hypotheses imply a Cause. The last, certainly as much as the first, recognizes this Cause as inscrutable. The point at issue is, how this inscrutable Cause has worked in the production of living forms. This point, if it is to be decided. at all, is to be decided only by examination of evidence. Let us inquire <b>which of these antagonist hypotheses is most congruous with established facts</b>." (Spencer, H., 1910, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/08/poe-bibliography-s.html#SpencerH1910">The Principles of Biology</a>," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, pp.415-416). </p> <p>"<a name="SHPB1910p419"></a>If, then, of this once-numerous family of beliefs the immense majority have become extinct, we may not unreasonably expect that the few remaining members of the family will become extinct. One of these is the belief we are here considering-the belief that <b>each species of organism was specially created</b>. Many who in all else have abandoned the aboriginal theory of things, still hold this remnant of the aboriginal theory. Ask any well-informed man whether he accepts the cosmogony of the Indians, or the Greeks, or the Hebrews, and he will regard the question as next to an insult. Yet one element common to these cosmogonies he very likely retains: not bearing in mind its origin. For whence did he get the doctrine of special creations? Catechise him, and he is forced to confess that it was put into his mind in childhood, as one portion of a story which, as a whole, he has long since rejected. Why this fragment is likely to be right while all the rest is wrong, he is unable to say. May we not then expect that the relinquishment of all other parts of this story, will by and by be followed by the relinquishment of this remaining part of it?" (Spencer, 1910, p.419). </p><p>"<a name="SHPB1910pp419-420"></a>The belief which we find thus questionable; both as being a primitive belief and as being a belief belonging to an almost-extinct family, is <b>a belief not countenanced by a single fact</b>. No one ever saw a special creation; no one ever found proof of an indirect kind that a special creation had taken place. It is significant, as Dr. Hooker remarks, that naturalists who suppose <b>new species to be miraculously originated</b>, habitually suppose the origination to occur in some region remote from human observation. Wherever the order of organic nature is exposed to the view of zoologists and botanists, it expels this conception; and the conception survives only in connexion with imagined places, where the order of organic nature is unknown." (Spencer, 1910, pp.419-420).</a></p> <p>"<a name="SHPB1910pp420-421"></a>Besides being <b>absolutely without evidence to give it external support, this hypothesis of special creations</b> cannot support itself internally-cannot be framed into a coherent thought. <b>It is one of those illegitimate symbolic conceptions</b> which are mistaken for legitimate symbolic conceptions (_First Principles_, § 9), because they remain untested. Immediately an attempt is made to elaborate the idea into anything like a definite shape, it proves to be a pseud-idea, admitting of no definite shape. Is it supposed that <b>a new organism, when specially created, is created out of nothing?</b> If so, there is a supposed creation of matter; and the creation of matter is inconceivable-implies the establishment of a relation in thought between nothing and something-a relation of which one term is absent-an impossible relation. Is it supposed that the matter of which the new organism consists is not created for the occasion, but is taken out of its pre-existing forms and arranged into a new form? If so, we are met by the question-how is the re-arrangement effected? Of the myriad atoms going to the composition of the new organism, all of them previously dispersed through the neighbouring air and earth, does each, suddenly disengaging itself from its combinations, rush to meet the rest, unite with them into the appropriate chemical compounds, and then fall with certain others into its appointed place in the aggregate of complex tissues and organs? Surely thus to assume a myriad supernatural impulses, differing in their directions and amounts, given to as many different atoms, is a multiplication of mysteries rather than the solution of a mystery. For every one of these impulses, not being the, result of a force locally existing in some other form, implies the creation of force; and the creation of force is just as inconceivable as the creation of matter. It is thus with all attempted ways of representing the process." (Spencer, 1910, pp.420-421).</p> <p> <p>"<a name="SHPB1910pp429-430"></a><b>The belief in special creations</b> of organisms arose among men during the era of profoundest darkness; and it belongs to a family of beliefs which have nearly all died out as enlightenment has increased. It is without a solitary established fact on which to stand; and when the attempt is made to put it into definite shape in the mind, it turns out to be only a pseud-idea. <b>This mere verbal hypothesis, which men idly accept as a real or thinkable hypothesis</b>, is of the same nature as would be one, based on a day's observation of human life, that each man and woman was specially created -an hypothesis not suggested by evidence but by lack of evidence-an hypothesis which formulates ignorance into a semblance of knowledge. Further, we see that this hypothesis, failing to satisfy men's intellectual need of an interpretation, fails also to satisfy their moral sentiment. It is quite inconsistent with those conceptions of the divine nature which they profess to entertain. If infinite power was to be demonstrated, then, either by the special creation of every individual, or by the production of species by some method of natural genesis, it would be better demonstrated than by the use of two methods, as assumed by the hypothesis. And if infinite goodness was to be demonstrated, then, not only do the provisions of organic structure, if they are specially devised, fail to demonstrate it, but there is an enormous mass of them which imply malevolence rather than benevolence. Thus <b>the hypothesis of special creations turns out to be</b> worthless by its derivation; worthless in its intrinsic incoherence; worthless as <b>absolutely without evidence</b>; worthless as not supplying an intellectual need; worthless as not satisfying a moral want. We must therefore consider it as counting for nothing, in opposition to any other hypothesis respecting the origin of organic beings." (Spencer, 1910, pp.429-430).</p> <p>"<a name="SHPB1910p431"></a>A kindred antithesis exists between the two families of beliefs, to which the beliefs we are comparing severally belong. While the one family has been dying out the other family has been multiplying. As fast as men have ceased to regard different classes of phenomena as caused by special personal agents, acting irregularly; so fast have they come to regard these different classes of phenomena as caused by a general agency acting uniformly-the two changes being correlatives. And as, on the one hand, <b>the hypothesis that each species resulted from a supernatural act</b>, having lost nearly all its kindred hypotheses, may be expected soon to die; so, on the other hand, the hypothesis that each species resulted from the action of natural causes, being one of an increasing family of hypotheses, may be expected to survive." (Spencer, 1910, pp.431-432).</p> <p>"<a name="SHPB1910p435"></a><b>The hypothesis of evolution is contrasted with the hypothesis of special creations, in a further respect. It is not simply legitimate instead of illegitimate</b>, because representable in thought instead of unrepresentable; but it has the support of some evidence, instead of being absolutely unsupported by evidence. Though the facts at present assignable in <i>direct</i> proof that by progressive modifications, races of organisms which are apparently distinct from antecedent races have descended from them, are not sufficient; yet there are numerous facts of the order required. Beyond all question unlikenesses of structure gradually arise among the members of successive generations. We find that there is going on a modifying process of the kind alleged as the source of specific differences: a process which, though slow, does, in time, produce conspicuous changes-a process which, to all appearance, would produce in millions of years, any amount of change." (Spencer, 1910, pp.435-436).</p> <p>"<a name="SHPB1910p439"></a>In all respects, then, <b>the hypothesis of evolution contrasts</b> favourably <b>with the hypothesis of special creation</b>. It has arisen in comparatively-instructed times and in the most cultivated class. It is one of those beliefs in the uniform concurrence of phenomena, which are gradually supplanting beliefs in their irregular and arbitrary concurrence; and it belongs to a genus of these beliefs which has of late been rapidly spreading. It is a definitely-conceivable hypothesis; being simply an extension to the organic world at large, of a conception framed from our experiences of individual organisms; just as the hypothesis of universal gravitation was an extension of the conception which our experiences of terrestrial gravitation had produced. This definitely-conceivable hypothesis, besides the support of numerous analogies, has the support of direct evidence. We have proof that there is going on a process of the kind alleged; and though the results of this process, as actually witnessed, are minute in comparison with the totality of results ascribed to it, yet they bear to such totality a ratio as great as that by which an analogous hypothesis is justified. Lastly, that sentiment which the doctrine of special creations is thought necessary to satisfy, is much better satisfied by <b>the doctrine of evolution</b>; since this doctrine raises no contradictory implications respecting the Unknown Cause, such as are raised by <b>the antagonist doctrine</b>." (Spencer, 1910, pp.439-440).</p> <p>"<a name="SHPB1910p453"></a>Von Baer lived in the days when the Development Hypothesis was mentioned only to be ridiculed, and he joined in the ridicule. What he conceived to be the meaning of these groupings of organisms and these relations among their embryological histories, is not obvious.<b> The only alternative to the hypothesis of Evolution is the hypothesis of Special Creation</b>; and as he did not accept the one it is inferable that he accepted the other. But if he did this he must in the first place have found no answer to the inquiry why organisms specially created should have the embryological kinships he described. And in the second place, after discovering that his alleged law was traversed by many and various nonconformities, he would have been without any explanation of these." (Spencer, 1910, pp.453-454).</p> <p>"<a name="SHPB1910p554"></a>On considering the `General Aspects of <b>the Special-creation hypothesis</b>,' we discovered it to be worthless. Discredited by its origin, and wholly without any basis of observed fact, we found that it <b>was not even a thinkable hypothesis</b>; and, while thus intellectually illusive, it turned out to have moral implications irreconcilable with the professed beliefs of those who hold it. Contrariwise, the `General Aspects of the Evolution-hypothesis' begot the stronger faith in it the more nearly they were considered. By its lineage and its kindred, it was found to be as closely allied with the proved truths of modern science, as is the antagonist hypothesis with the proved errors of ancient ignorance. We saw that instead of being a mere pseud-idea, it admits of elaboration into a definite conception: so showing its legitimacy as an hypothesis. Instead of positing a purely fictitious process, the process which it alleges proves to be one actually going on around us. To which add that, morally considered, this hypothesis presents no radical incongruities. Thus, even were we without further means of judging there could be no rational hesitation which of the two views should be entertained." (Spencer, 1910, pp.554-555).</p> <p>"<a name="SHFP1945p358"></a>Our formula, therefore, needs an additional clause. To combine this satisfactorily with the clauses as they stand in the last chapter, is scarcely practicable; and for convenience of expression it will be best to change their order. Doing this, and making the requisite addition, the formula finally stands thus:-<i><b>Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion; during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneit</b>y; and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel transformation</i>." (Spencer, H., 1945, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/08/poe-bibliography-s.html#SpencerH1945">First Principles</a>," [1862], Watts & Co: London, Sixth edition, Revised, 1945, p.358). </p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-19536629179726237432008-08-02T15:09:00.007+08:002008-08-12T23:25:02.724+08:00PoE: Bibliography "S"<p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://people.ucsc.edu/~laporte/simpson/Images/annex.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 220px;" src="http://people.ucsc.edu/~laporte/simpson/Images/annex.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>This is the <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/08/problems-of-evolution-bibliography.html">Bibliography</a> "S" page for author's surnames beginning</p> <p>[<a href="http://people.ucsc.edu/~laporte/simpson/Images/annex.jpg">Right</a>: <a href="http://people.ucsc.edu/~laporte/simpson/Index.html">George Gaylord Simpson</a>, Paleontologist & Evolutionist, 1902-1984: Léo F. Laporte. See `tagline' quotes below (emphasis <i>italics</i> original, emphasis <b>bold</b> mine), all by Simpson.] </p> <p> with "S" of books and journals which I may refer to in my book outline, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/07/problems-of-evolution-book-outline.html">Problems of Evolution</a>." </p> <p>Simpson was an a co-founder of the Neo-Darwinian <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis">Modern Synthesis</a>, but he had the honesty to admit that the fossil record was <i>not</i> Darwinian!:<blockquote>"<b>PALEONTOLOGY</b>, once more, furnishes both the most direct evidence <i>for</i> the fact of evolution, and <b>the most imposing evidence <i>against</i> the conception of evolution as a continuous, gradual pro</b>gression of adaptive relationships. `Gaps in the fossil record' were a serious stumbling block in Darwin's time, and despite the discovery of many missing links - for example the striking completion of horse family history, or the discovery of the bird ancestor <i>Archaeopteryx</i>, with its reptilian features-they still persist. Moreover, <b>they persist systematically: over and over, with suddenness termed `explosive,'</b> a bewildering variety of new types appear: this is true, notably, for example, of the origin of the major mammalian types. <b>Thus, as G.G. Simpson's calculations of rates of evolution show, the bat's wing if evolved by `normal' Mendelian mutation and selective pressure, would have had to begin developing well before the origin of the earth!</b> " (Grene, M.G., 1959, "The Faith of Darwinism," <i>Encounter</i>, Vol. 74, November, p.54).<br><br>"<b>At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble</b>, though it remains the `official' position of most Western evolutionists. <b>Smooth intermediates between <i>Baupläne</i> [body plans] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments</b>; there is certainly <b>no evidence for them in the fossil record</b> (curious mosaics like <i>Archaeopteryx</i> do not count). Even so convinced a gradualist as G. G. Simpson (1944) invoked <b>quantum evolution</b> and <b>inadaptive phases</b> to explain these transitions." (Gould, S.J. & Eldredge, N., 1977, "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered," <i>Paleobiology</i>, Vol. 3, April, pp.115-147, p.147).<br> <br>"In example after example, <b>Simpson saw that new groups seemed to appear suddenly in the fossil record</b>. <b>New higher taxa</b> such as whales (mammalian order Cetacea), bats (order Chiroptera), or even the lineage of grass-grazing horses that evolved from leaf-browsing ancestors <b>all made sudden appearances. Seldom was there a long series of intermediate forms that could be traced back through the tens of millions of years</b> that such large-scale evolution would seem to call for. Moreover, <b>Simpson saw that these new groups first appear pretty much in recognizable form</b>. ... As one might expect, they were primitive in certain ways as whales; for example, they bore serrated teeth and still retained a pair of pelvic flippers. <b>But those earliest whales were by no means half-way between a four-legged terrestrial mammalian ancestor and a modern sperm whale. They were much more like the latter than the former. Bats offer an even more dramatic example. The earliest ones known, also from the Eocene Epoch, have not only wings but also the distinctive inner-ear apparatus to show that echolocation had already evolved!</b> And here is the kicker. <b>The earliest whales Simpson knew about are some 55 million years old</b>. If one could devise some sort of measure of rate of evolutionary change, the rate of change within whales over the past 55 million years would seem to be slow to moderate. <i><b>If that rate were then extrapolated back to encompass the far greater anatomical changes between the earliest whales and their wholly terrestrial, four-legged mammalian ancestors, we would have to place the beginnings of whale evolution hundreds of millions of years back in geological time</b></i>! And that is a patent absurdity, as <b>placental mammals of any kind had appeared at most only a few tens of millions of years prior to the advent of the earliest whales</b>." (Eldredge, N., 1998, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Pattern-Evolution-Niles-Eldredge/dp/0716739631/">The Pattern of Evolution</a>," W.H. Freeman & Co: New York NY, Reprinted, 2000, pp.134-135).</p></blockquote><p></p> <hr> <p><center><b>PROBLEMS OF EVOLUTION<br>© Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology)</b></center></p> <p><a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/07/problems-of-evolution-book-outline.html"><b>CONTENTS</b></a></p> <p><b><a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/08/problems-of-evolution-bibliography.html"><b>BIBLIOGRAPHY</b></a> "S"</b><br><b><a name=""></a>Sagan, C.E.</b>, 1973, "The Cosmic Connection: An Extraterrestrial Perspective," Coronet Books: London, Reprinted, 1975.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sagan, C.E.</b>, 1974, "Broca's Brain: The Romance of Science," Coronet Books: London, Reprinted, 1980.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sagan, C.E.</b>, 1977, "The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence," Ballantine Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1978.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sagan, C.E.</b>, 1980, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Carl-Sagan/dp/0345331354">Cosmos</a>," Macdonald: London, Reprinted, 1981.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sagan, C.E.</b>, 1985, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Contact-Carl-Sagan/dp/0671004107">Contact</a>," Pocket Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1986.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sagan, C.E.</b>, 1994, "Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space," Random House: New York NY<br><b><a name=""></a>Sagan, C.E.</b>, 1996, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," Headline: London, Reprinted, 1997.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sagan, C.E.</b>, 1997, "Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium," Headline: London.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sagan, C.E. & Druyan, A.</b>, 1985, "Comet," Guild Publishing: London.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sagan, C.E. & Druyan, A.</b>, 1992, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Forgotten-Ancestors-Carl-Sagan/dp/0345384725">Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors</a>: A Search for Who We Are," Arrow: London, Reprinted, 1993.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sagan, D.</b>, 1990, "Biospheres: Metamorphosis of Planet Earth," Arkana: London, Reprinted, 1991.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sahlins, M.</b>, 1976, "The Use and Abuse of Biology: An Anthropological Critique of Sociobiology," University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor MI, 1979, Fifth printing.<br><b><a name=""></a>Savage, J.M.</b>, 1963, "Evolution," Modern Biology Series: Holt, Rinehart & Winston: New York NY.<br><b><a name="Schick&Vaughn1995"></a>Schick, T. & Vaughn, L.</b>, 1995, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com:80/How-Think-About-Weird-Things/dp/0767400135">How to Think About Weird Things</a>: Critical Thinking for a New Age," Mayfield: Mountain View CA, California, Second edition.<br><b><a name=""></a>Schmidt-Nielsen, K.</b>, 1997, "Animal Physiology: Adaptation and Environment," [1975], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, Fifth edition, Reprinted, 1998.<br><b><a name=""></a>Schopf, J.W.</b>, 1999, "Cradle of Life: The Discovery of Earth's Earliest Fossils," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ.<br><b><a name=""></a>Schrödinger, E.</b>, 1943, "What is Life?: The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell," Folio Society: London, Reprinted, 2000.<br><b><a name=""></a>Schroeder, G.L.</b>, 1990, "Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible," Bantam: New York NY.<br><b><a name=""></a>Schroeder, G.L.</b>, 2001, "The Hidden Face of God: How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth," The Free Press: New York NY.<br><b><a name=""></a>Schroeder, G.L.</b>, 1998, "The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom," Broadway Books: New York NY.<br><b><a name=""></a>Schumacher, E.F.</b>, 1977, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Perplexed-E-F-Schumacher/dp/0060906111">A Guide for the Perplexed</a>," Harper & Row: New York NY, Reprinted, 1978.<br><b><a name=""></a>Schutzenberger, M-P.</b>, 1996, in "<a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm">The Miracles of Darwinism</a>: Interview with Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger," <i>Origins & Design</i>, Vol. 17, No. 2, Spring, pp.10-15.<br><b><a name=""></a>Schwartz, J.H.</b>, 1999, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sudden-Origins-Fossils-Emergence-Species/dp/0471329851">Sudden Origins</a>: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY.<br><b><a name=""></a>Scott, A.</b>, 1986, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Life-Past-Future-Alien/dp/0631148833">The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien</a>," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK.<br><b><a name=""></a>Scott, A.</b>, 1988, "Vital Principles: The Molecular Mechanisms of Life," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK.<br><b><a name=""></a>Searle, J.R.</b>, 1984, "Minds, Brains and Science," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1997, Eleventh printing.<br><b><a name=""></a>Searle, J.R.</b>, 1992, "The Rediscovery of the Mind," MIT Press: Cambridge MA.<br><b><a name=""></a>Searle, J.R.</b>, 1997, "The Mystery of Consciousness: and Exchanges with Daniel C. Dennett and David J. Chalmers," Granta Publications: London, 1998.<br><b><a name=""></a>Selkirk, D.R. & Burrows, F.J.</b>, eds, 1988, "Confronting Creationism: Defending Darwin," New South Wales University Press: Kensington NSW, Australia.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sermonti, G.</b>, 2005, "Why is a Fly Not a Horse?," Discovery Institute: Seattle WA.<br><b><a name=""></a>Shapiro, R.</b>, 1986, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Skeptics-Guide-Creation-Earth/dp/0671459392/">Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth</a>," Summit Books: New York NY.<br><b><a name=""></a>Shapiro, R.</b>, 1999, "Planetary Dreams: The Quest to Discover Life beyond Earth," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sheldrake, R.</b>, 1981, "A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance," Park Street Press: Rochester VT, Reprinted, 1995.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sheldrake, R.</b>, 1994, "Seven Experiments that Could Change the World: A Do-It-Yourself Guide to Revolutionary Science," Fourth Estate: London, Reprinted, 1995.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sheldrake, R.</b>, 2003, "The Sense of Being Stared At: And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind," Crown Publishers New York NY.<br><b><a name=""></a>Shermer, M.B.</b>, 1995, "Teach Your Child Science: Making Science Fun for the Both of You," Lowell House: Los Angeles CA.<br><b><a name=""></a>Shermer, M.B.</b>, 1997, "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time," W.H. Freeman & Co: New York NY.<br><b><a name=""></a>Shipman, P.</b> , "Taking Wing: <i>Archaeopteryx</i> and the Evolution of Bird Flight," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998.<br><b><a name=""></a>Shklovskii, I.S. & Sagan, C.</b>, 1977, "Intelligent Life in the Universe," [1966], Picador: London.<br><b><a name=""></a>Shostak, G.S.</b>, 1998, "Sharing the Universe: The Quest for Extraterrestrial Life," Lansdowne: Sydney NSW, Australia.<br><b><a name=""></a>Shrock, R.R. & Twenhofel, W.H.</b>, 1953, "Principles of Invertebrate Paleontology," [1935], McGraw-Hill: New York NY, Second edition.<br><b><a name=""></a>Shute, E.</b>, 1962, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Flaws-theory-evolution-Evan-Shute/dp/B0007FQYN0">Flaws in the Theory of Evolution</a>," Baker: Grand Rapids MI , Eighth printing, 1980.<br><b><a name=""></a>Silver, B.L.</b>, 1998, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ascent-Science-Brian-L-Silver/dp/0195134273">The Ascent of Science</a>," Oxford University Press: New York NY.<br><b><a name=""></a>Simmons, G.</b>, 2004, "What Darwin Didn't Know: A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution," Harvest House: Eugene OR.<br><b><a name=""></a>Simpson, G.G.</b>, 1944, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/TEMPO-EVOLUTION-George-Gaylord-Simpson/dp/B000UHLBRE/">Tempo and Mode in Evolution</a>," Columbia University Press: New York NY, Third printing, 1949.<br><b><a name=""></a>Simpson, G.G.</b>, 1949, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Meaning-Evolution-George-Gaylord-Simpson/dp/B000QH4AN0/">The Meaning of Evolution</a>: A Study of the History of Life and of its Significance for Man," Yale University Press: New Haven CT, Reprinted, 1960.<br><b><a name=""></a>Simpson, G.G.</b>, 1951, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Horses-family-Through-Million-History/dp/B000LCIWY8/">Horses</a>: The Story of the Horse Family in the Modern World and through Sixty Million Years of History," Doubleday & Co: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1961.<br><b><a name=""></a>Simpson, G.G.</b>, 1953a, "Life of the Past: An Introduction to Paleontology," Yale University Press: New Haven CT.<br><b><a name=""></a>Simpson, G.G.</b>, 1953b, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/THE-MAJOR-FEATURES-OF-EVOLUTION/dp/B001AGRA0Q/">The Major Features of Evolution</a>," Columbia University Press: New York NY, Second printing, 1955.<br><b><a name=""></a>Simpson, G.G.</b> 1960, "The History of Life," in Tax, S., ed., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-After-Darwin-Origin-History/dp/B000VQDJJ2/">Evolution After Darwin</a>: The Evolution of Life: Its Origin, History and Future," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Vol. I.<br><b><a name=""></a>Simpson, G.G.</b>, 1964, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/This-view-life-world-evolutionist/dp/B0006BLZ3Y">This View of Life</a>: The World of an Evolutionist," Harcourt, Brace & World: New York NY.<br><b><a name=""></a>Simpson, G.G.</b>, 1966, "The Biological Nature of Man," <i>Science</i>, Vol. 152, 22 April, pp.472-478.<br><b><a name=""></a>Simpson, G.G.</b> , ed., 1982, "The Book of Darwin," Washington Square: New York NY, Reprinted, 1983.<br><b><a name=""></a>Simpson, G.G. & Beck, W.S.</b>, 1965, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Life-William-S-Beck/dp/0060406038/">Life: An Introduction to Biology</a>," [1957], Routledge & Kegan Paul: London, Second edition.<br><b><a name=""></a>Singer, P.</b>, ed., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Oxford-Readers-Peter-Singer/dp/0192892452/">Ethics</a>," Oxford Readers, Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1994.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sire, J.W.</b>, 1988, "The Universe Next Door: A Basic World View Catalog," [1976], InterVarsity Press Downers Grove IL, Second edition.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sire, J.W.</b>, 1994, "Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?," Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL.<br><b><a name=""></a>Slack, A.</b>, 1979, "Carnivorous Plants," Doubleday: Sydney NSW, Australia, Second edition, 1981.<br><b><a name=""></a>Smart, W.M.</b>, 1951, "The Origin of the Earth," Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, Reprinted, 1955.<br><b><a name=""></a>Smith, W.</b>, 1984, "Cosmos & Transcendence: Breaking Through the Barrier of Scientistic Belief," Sherwood Sugden & Co: La Salle IL.<br><b><a name=""></a>Smith, W.</b>, 1995, "The Quantum Enigma: Finding the Hidden Key," Sherwood Sugden & Co: Peru IL.<br><b><a name=""></a>Smith, W.</b>, 1988, "Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin,"Tan: Rockford IL.<br><b><a name=""></a>Smoot, G. & Davidson, K.</b>, 1993, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Wrinkles-Time-George-Smoot/dp/0380720442">Wrinkles in Time: The Imprint of Creation</a>," Little, Brown & Co: London.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sneath, P.H.A.</b>, 1970, "Planets and Life," The World of Science Library, Thames & Hudson: London.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sober, E.</b>, 1994, "Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology," [1993], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, Second edition.<br><b><a name=""></a>Solomon, E.P.</b>, <i>et al.</i>, 1993, "Biology," [1985], Harcourt Brace: Orlando FL, Third edition.<br><b><a name=""></a>Southwood, R.</b>, 2003, "The Story of Life," Oxford University Press: New York NY.<br><b><a name="Spangenburg&Moser1993"></a>Spangenburg, R. & Moser, D.K.</b>, 1993, "On the Shoulders of Giants: The History of Science from the Ancient Greeks to the Scientific Revolution," Facts On File: New York NY.<br><b><a name="SpannerDC1987"></a>Spanner, D.C.</b>, 1987, "Biblical Creation and the Theory of Evolution," Paternoster: Exeter UK.<br><b><a name="SpencerH1910"></a>Spencer, H.</b>, 1910, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Biology-Herbert-Spencer/dp/0898757940">The Principles of Biology</a>," [1864], D. Appleton and Co: New York NY, 2 Vols, Revised.<br><b><a name="SpencerH1945"></a>Spencer, H.</b>, 1945, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/First-Principles-Herbert-Spencer/dp/0898757959">First Principles</a>," [1862], Watts & Co: London, Sixth edition, Revised.<br><b><a name="SpetnerLM1997"></a>Spetner, L.M.</b>, 1997, "Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution," [1996], Judaica Press: New York NY, Revised.<br><b><a name="SproulRC1994"></a>Sproul, R.C.</b>, 1994, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance-Modern-Science-Cosmology/dp/080105852X">Not a Chance</a>: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology," Baker: Grand Rapids MI.<br><b><a name="SpudisPD1996"></a>Spudis, P.D.</b>, 1996, "The Once and Future Moon," Melbourne University Press: Carlton South Vic, Australia, Reprinted, 1998.<br><b><a name="SrbAMetal1970"></a>Srb, A.M.</b>, <i>et al.</i>, eds, 1970, "Facets of Genetics: Readings from Scientific American," W.H. Freeman: San Francisco CA, W. H. Freeman.<br><b><a name="StahlBJ1985"></a>Stahl, B.J.</b>, 1985, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Vertebrate-History-Barbara-Stahl/dp/0486648508/">Vertebrate history: Problems in Evolution</a>," [1974], Dover: New York NY, Revised edition.<br><b><a name=""></a>Standen, A.</b>, 1950, "Science is a Sacred Cow," E.P. Dutton & Co: New York NY, Reprinted, 1958.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stanley, S.M.</b>, 1981, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/New-Evolutionary-Timetable-Steven-Stanley/dp/0465050131">The New Evolutionary Timetable</a>: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species," Basic Books: New York NY.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stanley, S.M.</b>, 1989, "Earth and Life Through Time," [1986], W.H. Freeman & Co: New York NY, Second edition.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stanley, S.M.</b>, 1987, "Extinction," Scientific American Books: New York NY.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stanley, S.M.</b>, 1998, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Macroevolution-Pattern-Steven-M-Stanley/dp/080185735X">Macroevolution: Pattern and Process</a>," [1979], The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore MD, Revised.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stannard, R.</b>, 1982, "Science and the Renewal of Belief," SCM Press: London.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stannard, R.</b>, 1999a, "The God Experiment," Faber & Faber: London.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stannard, R.</b>, 1999b, "Science and Wonders: Conversations About Science and Belief," Faber & Faber: London.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stansfield, W.D.</b>, 1977, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Science-Evolution-William-D-Stansfield/dp/0024157503">The Science of Evolution</a>," Macmillan: New York NY, Eighth printing, 1983.<br><b><a name=""></a>Starr, C. & Taggart, R.</b>, 1998, "Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life," Wadsworth Publishing Co: Belmont CA, Eighth edition.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stebbins, G.L.</b>, 1982, "Darwin to DNA: Molecules to Humanity," W.H. Freeman & Co: San Francisco CA.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stebbins, G.L.</b>, 1966, "Processes of Organic Evolution," Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ, Second printing.<br><b><a name=""></a>Steele, E. J.</b>, 1981, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Somatic-Selection-Adaptive-Evolution-Inheritance/dp/0226771636">Somatic Selection and Adaptive Evolution</a>: On the Inheritance of Acquired Characters," [1979], University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Second Edition.<br><b><a name=""></a>Steer, R.</b>, "Letter to an Influential Atheist," Authentic Lifestyle: Carlisle UK, 2003.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sterelny, K.</b>, 2001, "Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest," Icon Books: Cambridge UK.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stevens, S.S. & Warshofsky, F.</b>, 1980, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sound-And-Hearing/dp/B000JF9GSI/">Sound and Hearing</a>," Life Science Library, Time-Life Books: Alexandria VA, Revised edition, First printing.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stewart, I. & Golubitsky, M.</b>, 1992, "Fearful Symmetry: Is God A Geometer?," Blackwell: Oxford UK.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stewart, I.</b>, 2001, "Flatterland: Like Flatland, Only More So," Macmillan: London.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stewart, I.</b>, 1995, "Nature's Numbers: Discovering Order and Pattern in the Universe," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stilley, F.</b>, 1977, "The Search: Our Quest for Intelligent Life in Outer Space," G.P. Putnam's Sons: New York NY, Second impression.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stivens, D.</b>, 1974, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Incredible-Egg-Journey-Subtitle-Illustrated/dp/B0016L2YFQ/">The Incredible Egg</a>: A Billion Year Journey," Weybright & Talley: New York NY.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stoner, D.W.</b>, "A New Look at an Old Earth," [1985], Harvest House Publishers: Eugene OR, Reprinted, 1997.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stove, D.C.</b>, 1995, "Darwinian Fairytales," Encounter Books: New York NY.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stove, D.C.</b>, 1999, "Against the Idols of the Age," Kimball, R., ed., Transaction Publishers: New Brunswick NJ, Second printing, 2000.<br><b><a name=""></a>Strahler, A.N.</b>, 1992, "Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues," Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY.<br><b><a name=""></a>Strahler, A.N.</b>, 1999, "Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy," [1987], Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, Second edition.<br><b><a name=""></a>Strickberger, M.W.</b>, 2000, "Evolution," [1990], Jones & Bartlett Publishers: Sudbury MA, Third edition.<br><b><a name=""></a>Stringer, C. & McKie, R.</b>, 1996, "African Exodus: The Origins of Modern Humanity," Pimlico: London, Reprinted, 1997.<br><b><a name=""></a>Strobel, L.P.</b>, 2004, "The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God." Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sullivan, J.W.N.</b>, 1938, "The Bases of Modern Science," Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, Reprinted, 1939.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sullivan, J.W.N.</b>, 1933, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/limitations-science-J-W-Sullivan/dp/B00085MEF6/">Limitations of Science</a>," Pelican: Harmondsworth UK, Reprinted, 1938.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sullivan, W.</b>, 1993, "We Are Not Alone: The Continuing Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence," [1964], Dutton: New York NY, Revised edition.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sunderland, L.D.</b>, 1988, "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth edition.<br><b><a name=""></a>Swain, H., ed.</b>, 2002, "Big Questions in Science?," Jonathan Cape: London.<br><b><a name=""></a>Swift, D.W.</b>, 2002, "Evolution Under the Microscope: A Scientific Critique of the Theory of Evolution," Leighton Academic Press: Stirling UK.<br><b><a name=""></a>Swinburne, R.G.</b>, 1991, "<a href="http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09.html">The Justification of Theism</a>," <i>Truth Journal</i>, Vol. 3<br><b><a name=""></a>Swinnerton, H.H.</b>, 1947, "Outlines of Palaeontology," [1923], Edward Arnold & Co: London , Third edition, Reprinted, 1949.<br><b><a name=""></a>Sykes, B.</b>, 2001, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Daughters-Eve-Bryan-Sykes/dp/0393323145">The Seven Daughters of Eve</a>," Bantam: London.</p> <p><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology). <br>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">TheShroudofTurin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a></p> <hr> <p>"For the study of these problems <b>it is the great defect of paleontology that it cannot directly determine any of the cryptogenetic factors that must, after all, be instrumental in the evolution of populations</b>. <b>Fossil animals cannot be brought into the laboratory for the experimental determination of their genetic constitutions. The experiments have been done by nature without controls and under conditions too complex and variable for sure and simple analysis</b>. ... <b>On the other hand, experimental biology in general and genetics in particular have the grave defect that they cannot reproduce the vast and complex horizontal extent of the natural environment</b> and, particularly, the immense span of time in which population changes really occur. <b>They may reveal what happens to a hundred rats in the course of ten years under fixed and simple conditions, but not what happened to a billion rats in the course of ten million years</b> under the fluctuating conditions of earth history. Obviously, the latter problem is much more important. The work of geneticists on phenogenetics and still more on population genetics is almost meaningless unless it does have a bearing in this broader scene. Some students, not particularly paleontologists, conclude that it does not, <b>that the phenomena revealed by experimental studies are relatively insignificant in evolution as a whole, that major problems cannot now be studied at all in the laboratory, and that macro-evolution differs qualitatively as well as quantitatively from the micro-evolution of the experimentalist</b>." (Simpson, G.G., 1944, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/TEMPO-EVOLUTION-George-Gaylord-Simpson/dp/B000UHLBRE/">Tempo and Mode in Evolution</a>," Columbia University Press: New York NY, Third printing, 1949, pp.xvi-xvii).</p> <p>"As a matter of personal philosophy, <b>I do not here mean to endorse an entirely mechanistic or materialistic view of the life processes. I suspect that there is a great deal in the universe that never will be explained in such</b> <b>terms and much that may be inexplicable on a purely physical plane</b>. But scientific history conclusively demonstrates that the progress of knowledge rigidly requires that no nonphysical postulate ever be admitted in connection with the study of physical phenomena. <b>We do not know what is and what is not explicable in physical terms</b>, and the researcher who is seeking explanations must seek physical explanations only, or the two kinds can never be disentangled. Personal opinion is free in the field where this search has so far failed, but this is no proper guide in the search and no part of science." (Simpson, 1944, pp.76-77).</p> <p>"<b>Micro-evolution involves mainly changes within potentially continuous populations</b>, and there is little doubt that its materials are those revealed by genetic experimentation. <b>Macro-evolution involves the rise and divergence of discontinuous groups</b>, and it is still debatable whether it differs in kind or only in degree from microevolution. <b>If the two proved to be basically different, the innumerable studies of micro-evolution would become relatively unimportant and would have minor value in the study of evolution as a whole</b>." (Simpson, 1944, p.97).</p> <p>"If the term `macro-evolution' is applied to the rise of taxonomic groups that are at or near the minimum level of genetic discontinuity (species and genera), <b>the large-scale evolution studied by the paleontologist might be called `mega-evolution'</b> (a hybrid word, but so is `macro-evolution'). The assumption, as in Goldschmidt's work, that mega-evolution and macroevolution are the same in all respects is no more justified than the assumption, so violently attacked by Goldschmidt and others, that microevolution and macro-evolution differ only in degree. As will be shown, <b>the paleontologist has more reason to believe in a qualitative distinction between macro-evolution and mega-evolution than in one between microevolution and macro-evolution</b>." (Simpson, 1944, p.98).</p> <p>"The facts are that <b>many species and genera, indeed the majority, do appear suddenly in the record</b>, differing sharply and in many ways from any earlier group, and that <b>this appearance of discontinuity becomes more common the higher the level</b>, until it is virtually universal as regards orders and all higher steps in the taxonomic hierarchy. <b>The face of the record thus does really suggest normal discontinuity at all levels, most particularly at high levels</b>, and some paleontologists (e.g., Spath and Schindewolf) insist on taking the record at this face value." (Simpson, 1944, p.99).</p> <p>"The levels to which these conclusions apply without modification are approximately those discussed as <b>macro-evolution</b> (under that or an equivalent term) by neozoologists and biologists. <b>On still higher levels, those of what is here called `mega-evolution,'</b> the inferences might still apply, but caution is enjoined, because here essentially <b>continuous transitional sequences are not merely rare, but are virtually a</b>bsent. These large discontinuities are less numerous, so that paleontological examples of their origin should also be less numerous; but <b>their absence is so nearly universal that it cannot, offhand, be imputed entirely to chance and does require some attempt at special explanation</b>, as has been felt by most paleontologists." (Simpson, 1944, pp.105-106).</p> <p>"<b>This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals</b>, and in most cases the break in the record is still more striking than in the case of the perissodactyls, for which a known earlier group does at least provide a good structural ancestry. <b>The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed</b>. Of course the orders all converge backward in time, to different degrees. The earliest known members are much more alike than the latest known members, and there is little doubt, for instance, but that all the highly diverse ungulates did have a common ancestry; <b>but the line making actual connection with such an ancestry is not known in even one instance</b>." (Simpson, 1944, p.106).</p><p>"<b>This regular absence of transitional forms</b> is not confined to mammals, but <b>is an almost universal phenomenon</b>, as has long been noted by paleontologists. <b>It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate</b>. <i>A fortiori</i>, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and <b>it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants</b>. Among genera and species some apparent regularity of absence of transitional types is clearly a taxonomic artifact: artificial divisions between taxonomic units are for practical reasons established where random gaps exist. This does not adequately explain <b>the systematic occurrence of the gaps between larger units</b>. In the cases of the gaps that are artifacts, the effect of discovery has been to reveal their random nature and has tended to fill in now one, now another-now from the ancestral, and now from the descendent side. In most cases discoveries relating to the major breaks have produced a more or less tenuous extension backward of the descendent groups, leaving the probable contact with the ancestry a sharp boundary. <b>None of these large breaks has actually been filled by real, continuous sequences of fossils</b>, although many of them can be exactly located and the transitions described by inference from the improved record on both sides. In addition to the fact that they exist, there are other more or less systematic features of these discontinuities of record that call for attention and require explanation." (Simpson, 1944, pp.107-109).</p> <p>"<b>In the early days of evolutionary paleontology it was assumed that the major gaps would be filled in by further discoveries</b>, and even, falsely, that some discoveries had already filled them. <b>As it became more and more evident that the great gaps remained</b>, despite wonderful progress in finding the members of lesser transitional groups and progressive lines, <b>it was no longer satisfactory to impute this absence of objective data entirely to chance</b>. The failure of paleontology to produce such evidence was so keenly felt that a few disillusioned naturalists even decided that the theory of organic evolution, or of general organic continuity of descent, was wrong, after all." (Simpson, 1944, p.115).</p> <p>"J. Arthur Thomson ... felt constrained to devote a considerable part of his work to <b>presentation of proofs of the truth of evolution. This would be a waste of time now. Ample proof has been repeatedly presented and is available to anyone who really wants to know the truth</b>. It is a human peculiarity, occasionally endearing but more often maddening, that no amount of proof suffices to convince those who simply do not want to know or to accept the truth. Reiteration for the sake of these wishful thinkers would be futile, and reiteration for those who do want to know the truth is quite unnecessary because they already know it or can easily find it in earlier works. <b>In the present study the factual truth of organic evolution is taken as established and the enquiry goes on from there</b>." (Simpson, G.G., 1949, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Meaning-Evolution-George-Gaylord-Simpson/dp/B000QH4AN0/">The Meaning of Evolution</a>: A Study of the History of Life and of its Significance for Man," Yale University Press: New Haven CT, Reprinted, 1960, pp.4-5).</p> <p><b>THE ORIGIN of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems</b>. Yet its discussion here will be brief, almost parenthetical. Our concern here is with the record of evolution, and there is no known record bearing closely on the origin of life. <b>The first living things were almost certainly microscopic in size and not apt for any of the usual processes of fossilization. It is unlikely that any preserved trace of them will ever be found, or recognized</b>." (Simpson, 1949, p.14).</p> <p>"Above the level of the virus, if that be granted status as an organism, <b>the simplest living unit is almost incredibly complex</b>. It has become commonplace to speak of evolution from ameba to man, <b>as if the ameba were a natural and simple beginning of the process</b>. <b>On the contrary</b>, if, as must almost necessarily be true short of miracles, life arose as a living molecule or protogene, <b>the progression from this stage to that of the ameba is at least as great as from ameba to man</b>." (Simpson, 1949, pp.15-16).</p> <p>"<b>Natural selection as it was understood in Darwinian days</b> emphasized `the struggle for existence' and `the survival of the fittest.' <b>These concepts had ethical, ideological, and political repercussions</b> which were and continue to be, in some cases, unfortunate, to say the least. Even modern students of evolution have not always fully corrected the misconceptions arising from these slogans. <b>It should now be clear that the process does not depend on `existence' or `surviving'</b> certainly not as this applies to individuals and not even in any intensive or explanatory way as it applies to populations or species. <b>It depends on differential reproduction, which is a different matter altogether.</b> <b>It does not favor `the fittest,'</b> flatly and just so, <b>unless you care to circle around and define `fittest' as those that do have most offspring</b>. It does favor those that have more offspring. This usually means those best adapted to the conditions in which they find themselves or those best able to meet opportunity or necessity for adaptation to other existing conditions, which may or may not mean that they are `fittest,' according to understanding of that word. Moreover <b>the correlation between those having more offspring, and therefore really favored by natural selection, and those best adapted or best adapting to change is neither perfect nor invariable; it is only approximate</b> and usual." (Simpson, 1949, p.221).</p> <p>"<b>It is, however, the word `struggle' that has led to most serious misunderstanding of the process of natural selection</b>, along with a host of related phrases and ideas, `nature red in fang and claw,' `class struggle' as a natural and desirable element in societal evolution, and all the rest. `Struggle' inevitably carries the connotation of direct and conscious combat. Such combat does occur in nature, to be sure, and it may have some connection with differential reproduction. A puma and a deer may struggle, one to kill and the other to avoid being killed. If the puma wins, it eats and presumably may thereby be helped to produce offspring, while the deer dies and will never reproduce again. Two stags may struggle in rivalry for does and the successful combatant may then reproduce while the loser does not. <b>Even such actual struggles may have only slight effects on reproduction</b>, although they will, on an average, tend to exercise some selective influence. <b>The deer most likely to be killed by the puma is too old to reproduce; if the puma does not get the deer, it will eat something else; the losing stag finds other females, or a third enjoys the does while the combat rages between these two</b>." (Simpson, 1949, pp.221-222).</p> <p>"To generalize from such incidents <b>that natural selection is over-all and even in a figurative sense the outcome of struggle is quite unjustified</b> under the modern understanding of the process. <b>Struggle is sometimes involved, but it usually is not</b>, and when it is, it may even work against rather than toward natural selection. <b>Advantage in differential reproduction is usually a peaceful process in which the concept of struggle is really irrelevant</b>. It more often involves such things as better integration into the ecological situation, maintenance of a balance of nature, more efficient utilization of available food, better care of the young, elimination of intragroup discords (struggles) that might hamper reproduction, exploitation of environmental possibilities that are not the objects of competition or are less effectively exploited by others." (Simpson, 1949, p.222).</p> <p>"<b>The word `competition,' used in discussion here and previously, may also carry anthropomorphic undertones</b> and then be subject to some of these same objections. It may, however, and in this connection <b>it must, be understood without necessary implication of active competitive behavior</b>. Competition in evolution often or usually is entirely passive; <b>It could conceivably occur without the competing forms ever coming into sight or contact</b>." (Simpson, 1949, p.222).</p> <p>"It is thus likely, to say the least, that major as well as minor changes in evolution have occurred gradually and that the same forces are at work in each case. Nevertheless there is a difference and <b>many of the major changes cannot be considered as simply caused by longer continuation of the more usual sorts of minor changes</b>. For one thing, <b>there is excellent evidence that evolution involving major changes often occurs with unusual rapidity</b>, although, as we have seen, there is no good evidence that it ever occurs instantaneously. <b>The rate of evolution of the insectivore forelimb into the bat wing, to give just one striking example, must have been many times more rapid than any evolution of the bat wing after it had</b> <b>arisen. The whole record attests that the origin of a distinctly new adaptive type normally occurs at a much higher rate</b> than subsequent progressive adaptation and diversification within that type. <b>The rapidity of such shifts from one adaptive level or equilibrium to another has suggested the name `quantum evolution,'</b> under which I have elsewhere discussed this phenomenon at greater length." (Simpson, 1949, pp.234-235).</p> <p>"<b>Scientists often display a human failing: whenever they get hold of some new bit of truth they are inclined to decide that it is the whole truth. Thus the neo-Darwinians insisted their natural selection, was the whole truth of evolution</b>; the neo-Lamarckians held that interaction of structure-function-environment was the whole truth; the vitalists saw the whole truth in the creative aspect of life processes; and the finalists found all basic truth in the directional nature of evolution. Similarly, many of the early geneticists, although they soon learned far more about the mechanism involved, accepted de Vries' thesis and concluded that mutation was the whole truth of evolution. <b>Mutations are random, so it was decided that evolution is random</b>. The problem of adaptation was, in their opinion, solved by abolishing it: they proclaimed that there is no adaptation, only chance preadaptation. Other theories had often stumbled over the fact that there is quite plainly a random element in evolution, the nature of which had been unknown. Now the mutationists had identified the source of this random element, but their theory stumbled over the fact that evolution is not wholly random. The vitalists and finalists were right in continuing to insist on this point, although they were wrong in their own overgeneralization of insisting that the directional element is universal and in maintaining that this element is inherent in life or in its goal. The mutationist discoveries were bewildering to many field naturalists and paleontologists, because they in particular were well aware that evolution cannot be a purely random process and that progressive adaptation certainly does occur. For a time the discoveries of the geneticists seemed only to make confusion worse confounded. Defeatism and escapism spread among many students of evolution. <b>One very eminent vertebrate paleontologist ended a lifetime of study of evolution with the conclusion that he did not, after all, know anything about its causes</b>; another decided in the declining years of his prolonged and exceptionally fertile studies of the subject that good and bad angels must be directing evolution! In fact, as the geneticists' studies progressed they were providing the last major piece of the truth so long sought regarding the causes of evolution." (Simpson, 1949, pp.276-277).</p><p>"<b>The resulting synthetic theory ... has often been called neo-Darwinian</b>, even by those who have helped to develop it, because its first glimmerings arose from confrontation of the Darwinian idea of natural selection with the facts of genetics. <b>The term is, however, a misnomer</b> and doubly confusing in this application. <b>The full-blown theory is quite different from Darwin's</b> and has drawn its materials from a variety of sources largely non-Darwinian and partly anti-Darwinian. <b>Even natural selection in this theory has a sense distinctly different</b>, although largely developed <b>from, the Darwinian concept of natural selection</b>." (Simpson, 1949, p.277).</p> <p>"<b>This is not to say that the whole mystery has been plumbed to its core or even that it ever will be</b>.<b> The ultimate mystery is beyond the reach of scientific investigation, and probably of the human mind</b>. There is neither need nor excuse for postulation of nonmaterial intervention in the origin of life, the rise of man, or any other part of the long history of the material cosmos. <b>Yet the origin of that cosmos and the causal principles of its history remain unexplained and inaccessible to science. Here is hidden the First Cause sought by theology and philosophy</b>. The First Cause is not known and I suspect that it never will be known to living man. We may, if we are so inclined, worship it in our own ways, but we certainly do not comprehend it." (Simpson, 1949, p.278).</p> <p>"<b>Although many details remain to be worked out</b>, it is already evident that <b>all the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely materialistic factors</b>. They are readily explicable on the basis of <b>differential reproduction in populations</b> (the main factor in the modern conception of natural selection) and of the mainly <b>random interplay of the known processes of heredity</b>." (Simpson, 1949, p.343).</p> <p>"<b>Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned</b>. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material. It is, however, a gross misrepresentation to say that he is just an accident or nothing but an animal. <b>Among all the myriad forms of matter and of life on the earth, or as far as we know in the universe, man is unique. He happens to represent the highest form of organization of matter and energy that has ever appeared</b>. Recognition of this kinship with the rest of the universe is necessary for understanding him, but <b>his essential nature is defined by qualities found nowhere else</b>, not by those he has in common with apes, fishes, trees, fire, or anything other than himself." (Simpson, 1949, p.344).</p> <p>"<b>There really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question has been decisively answered in the affirmative. There are still those who deny this, of course - there are still some who deny that the earth is round</b>. It is no use gathering more evidence to persuade these doubters, because the evidence already in hand has convinced everyone who ever really studied it. Anyone who cannot or will not accept or attempt to understand this evidence is not likely to have the will or the ability to evaluate new facts of the same sort." (Simpson, G.G., 1951, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Horses-family-Through-Million-History/dp/B000LCIWY8/">Horses</a>: The Story of the Horse Family in the Modern World and through Sixty Million Years of History," The Natural History Library, Doubleday & Co: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1961, pp.224-225).</p> <p>"Nevertheless, <b>Darwin's theory still had some serious imperfections</b> that prevented its being accepted by many students of evolution. <b>The theory explained why unfit or inadaptive types of organisms tend to be eliminated</b>, but <b>it did not seem adequately to explain the much more important origin of more fit</b>, better adapted organisms. <b>It also failed to explain why evolution is not completely adaptive-why different types of organisms may evolve even though their relationships with the environment seem to be exactly the same</b>, why adaptation is seldom or never perfect, and why non-adaptive characters (those not involved in adaptation) and inadaptive characters (those opposed to harmonious adaptation) do often arise in evolution. These features of evolution were not well explained by the older forms of Darwinian theory and their reality was abundantly demonstrated by critics of Darwin." (Simpson, 1951, p.293).</p> <p>"Moreover, <b>it is a fact that discontinuities are almost always and systematically present at the origin of really high categories</b>, and, <b>like any other systematic feature of the record, this requires explanation</b>. ... There remains, however, <b>the point that for still higher categories discontinuity of appearance in the record is not only frequent but if also</b> <b>systematic. Some</b> <b>break in continuity always occurs in categories from orders upwards</b>, at least, although the break may not be large or appear significant to most students." (Simpson, G.G., 1953, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/THE-MAJOR-FEATURES-OF-EVOLUTION/dp/B001AGRA0Q/">The Major Features of Evolution</a>," Columbia University Press: New York NY, Second printing, 1955, pp.361,366).</p> <p>"Darwin also considers the argument that the subject of evolution `was in the air,' `that men's minds were prepared for it.' We may note that even if this was so, it would not explain why Darwin was the individual who plucked evolution out of the air or how he accomplished the feat. <b>Darwin</b> himself rejected the argument out of hand because, as he <b>wrote, he `never happened to come across a single naturalist who seemed to doubt about the permanence of species,'</b> and he acknowledged no debt to his predecessors. These are extraordinary statements. <b>They cannot be literally true, yet Darwin cannot be consciously lying, and he may therefore be judged unconsciously misleading, naive, forgetful, or all three</b>. His own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, whose work Charles knew very well, was a pioneer evolutionist. Darwin was also familiar with the work of Lamarck, and <b>had certainly met at least a few naturalists who had flirted with the idea of evolution</b>. <b>He actually specifies one elsewhere in the autobiography: a Robert Edmund Grant, professor at the University of London</b>. Of all this Darwin says that none of these forerunners had any effect on him. Then, in almost the next breath, he admits that hearing evolutionary views supported and praised rather early in life may have favored his upholding them later." (Simpson, G.G., 1958, "Charles Darwin in search of himself." Review of "The Autobiography of Charles Darwin," by Nora Barlow, ed., Collins: London, 1958. <i>Scientific American</i>, Vol. 199, No. 2, August, pp.117-122, p.119).</p> <p>"<b>It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly</b>. <b>They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed</b> should be usual in evolution. A great many sequences of two or a few temporally intergrading species are known, but even at this level <b>most species appear without known immediate ancestors</b>, and really long, perfectly complete sequences of numerous species are exceedingly rare. Sequences of genera, immediately successive or nearly so at that level (not necessarily represented by the exact populations involved in the transition from one genus to the next), are more common and may be longer than known sequences of species. But <b>the appearance of a new genus in the record is usually more abrupt than the appearance of a new species</b>: the gaps involved are generally larger, that is, when a new genus appears in the record it is usually well separated morphologically from the most nearly similar other known genera. <b>This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended</b>. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. <b>Gaps among known orders, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large</b>." (Simpson, G.G., 1960, "The History of Life," in Tax, S., ed., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-After-Darwin-Origin-History/dp/B000VQDJJ2/">Evolution After Darwin</a>: The Evolution of Life: Its Origin, History and Future," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Vol. I, p.117).</p> <p>"<b>The fact-not theory-that evolution has occurred and the Darwinian theory as to how it has occurred</b> have become so confused in popular opinion that the distinction must be stressed. The distinction is also particularly important for the present subject, because the effects on the world in which we live have been distinct. The greatest impact no doubt has come from the fact of evolution. It must color the whole of our attitude toward life and toward our selves, and hence our whole perceptual world. That is, however, a single step, essentially taken a hundred years ago and now a matter of simple rational acceptance or superstitious rejection. <b>How evolution occurs is much more intricate, still incompletely known</b>, debated in detail, and the subject of most active investigation at present." (Simpson, G.G., 1964, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/This-view-life-world-evolutionist/dp/B0006BLZ3Y">This View of Life</a>: The World into Which Darwin Led Us," in "This View of Life: The World of an Evolutionist," Harcourt, Brace & World: New York NY, p.10).</p> <p>"The import of <b>the fact of evolution depends on how far evolution extends</b>, and here there are two crucial points: <b>does it extend from the inorganic into the organic</b>, and <b>does it extend from the lower animals to man? In <i>The Origin of Species</i> Darwin implies that life did not arise naturally from nonliving matter</b>, for in the very last sentence he wrote, `...<b>life...having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into </b>one...... (The words <i>by the Creator</i> were inserted in the second edition and are one of many gradual concessions made to critics of that book.) <b>Later, however, Darwin conjectured</b> (he did not consider this scientific) <b>that life will be found to be a `consequence of some general law'-that is, to be a result of natural processes rather than divine intervention</b>. He referred to this at least three times in letters unpublished until after his death, the one from which I have quoted being the last letter he ever wrote (28 March 1882 to G. C. Wallich; Darwin died three weeks later)." (Simpson, 1964, pp.10-11).</p><p>"Until comparatively recently, many-probably most-biologists agreed with Darwin that the problem of the origin of life was not yet amenable to scientific study. Now, however, almost all biologists agree that the problem can be attacked scientifically. <b>The consensus is that life did arise naturally from the nonliving and that even the first living things were not specially created</b>. The conclusion has, indeed, really become inescapable, for the first steps in that process have already been repeated in several laboratories. There is concerted study from geochemical, biochemical, and microbiological approaches. <b>At a meeting in Chicago in 1959, a highly distinguished international panel of experts was polled. All considered the experimental production of life in the laboratory imminent</b>, and one maintained that this had already been done-his opinion was not based on a disagreement about the facts, but depended on the definition of just where, in a continuous sequence, life can be said to begin." (Simpson, 1964, p.11).</p> <p>"At the other end of the story, <b>it was evident to evolutionists from the start that man cannot be an exception. In <i>The Origin of Species</i> Darwin deliberately avoided the issue</b>, saying only in closing, `Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history.' Yet his adherents made no secret of the matter and at once embroiled Darwin, with themselves, in arguments about man's origin from monkeys. Twelve years later (in 1871) <b>Darwin published <i>The Descent of Man</i>, which makes it clear that he was indeed of that opinion</b>. No evolutionist has since seriously questioned that man did originate by evolution.<b> Some, notably the Wallace who shared with Darwin the discovery of natural selection, have maintained that special principles, not elsewhere operative, were involved in human origins</b>, but that is decidedly a minority opinion ...." (Simpson, 1964, pp.11-12).</p> <p>"<b>We feel, almost instinctively, that there is a pattern</b>. The diversity of living creatures is neither complete nor random. All living things share many characteristics, and above this basic level we observe groups with every degree of resemblance, from near identity to great dissimilarity. <b>There is, or seems to be, an essential order or plan among the forms of life in spite of their great multiplicity. There seems, moreover, to be purpose in this plan</b>. The resemblances and differences among a fish, a bird, and a man are meaningful. The resemblances adapt them to those conditions and functions that all have in common and the differences to peculiarities in their ways of life not shared with the others. It is a habit of speech and thought to say that <b>fishes have gills in order to breathe water, that birds have wings in order to fly, and that men have brains in order to think</b>." (Simpson, 1964, pp.190-191).</p> <p> <p>"A telescope, a telephone, or a typewriter is a complex mechanism serving a particular function. Obviously, its manufacturer had a purpose in mind, and the machine was designed and built in order to serve that purpose. <b>An eye, an ear, or a hand is also a complex mechanism serving a particular function. It, too, looks as if it had been made for a purpose. This appearance of purposefulness is pervading in nature</b>, in the general structure of animals and plants, in the mechanisms of their various organs, and in the give and take of their relationships with each other. <b>Accounting for this apparent purposefulness is a basic problem for any system of philosophy or of science</b>." (Simpson, 1964, p.190).</p> <p>"Adaptation by natural selection as a creative process and pre-adaptation in the special senses just explained are the answers of the synthetic theory of evolution to the problem of plan and purpose in nature. Of course <b>much work remains to be done, many details to be filled in, and many parts of the process to be more clearly understood</b>, but it seems to me and to many others that here, at last, is the basis for a complete and sound solution of this old and troublesome problem. Adaptation is real, and it is achieved by a progressive and directed process. The process is wholly natural in its operation. This natural process achieves the aspect of purpose without the intervention of a purposer, and it has produced a vast plan without the concurrent action of a planner. <b>It may be that the initiation of the process and the physical laws under which it functions had a Purposer and that this mechanistic way of achieving a plan is the instrument of a Planner</b>-of this still deeper problem the scientist, as scientist, cannot speak." (Simpson, 1964, p.212).</p> <p>"Our major space agency, <b>NASA, has a `space bioscience' program</b>. Biologists meeting under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences have agreed that their `<b>first and ... foremost [task in space science] is the search for extraterrestrial life</b>' (Hess <i>et al.</i>, 1962). The existence of this movement is as familiar to the reader of the newspapers as to those of technical publications. <b>There is even increasing recognition of a new science of extraterrestrial life, some times called <i>exobiology</i></b>-a curious development in view of the fact that <b>this `science' has yet to demonstrate that its subject matter exists!</b>" (Simpson, 1964, pp.253-254).</p> <p>"<b>In the face of the universal tendency for order to be lost</b>, the complex organization of the living organism can be maintained only if work- involving the expenditure of energy- is performed to conserve the order. The organism is constantly adjusting, repairing, replacing, and this requires energy. <b>But the preservation of the complex, improbable organization of the living creature needs more than energy for the work. It calls for information or instructions on how the energy should be expended to maintain the improbable organization</b>. The idea of information necessary for the maintenance and, as we shall see, creation of living systems is of great utility in approaching the biological problems of reproduction." (Simpson, G.G. & Beck, W.S., 1965, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Life-William-S-Beck/dp/0060406038/">Life: An Introduction to Biology</a>," [1957], Routledge & Kegan Paul: London, Second Edition, p.145).</p> <p>"We have repeatedly emphasized <b>the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of life's complex organization</b>. We have seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work. But <b>the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order</b>. <b>A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization</b>. <b>The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed</b>." (Simpson & Beck, 1965, p.466). </p> <p>"As posture is focal for consideration of man's anatomical nature and tools are for consideration of his material culture, so is language focal for his mental nature and his non-material culture .... <b>Language is also the most diagnostic single trait of man</b> - all normal men have language; <b>no other nonliving organisms do</b>. That real, incomparably important, and absolute distinction has been blurred by imprecise use of the word `language' not only in popular speech but also by some scientists who should know better, speaking, for example, of the `language of the bees' ... In any animal societies, and indeed in still simpler forms of aggregation among animals, there must be some kind of communication in the very broadest sense. One animal must receive some kind of information about another animal. That information may be conveyed by specific signals, which may be of extremely diverse kinds both as to form and as to modality, that is, the sensory mode by which it is received. The odor of an ant, the movements of a bee, the color pattern of a bird, the howl of a wolf, and many thousands of others are all signals that convey information to other animals and that, in these and many other examples, are essential adaptations for behavioral integration in the species involved. Human language is also a system of interpersonal communication and a behavioral adaptation essential for the human form of socialization. <b>Yet human language is absolutely distinct from any system of communication in other animals</b>. That is made most clear by comparison with other animal utterances, which most nearly resemble human speech and are most often called `speech.' Nonhuman vocables are, in effect, interjections. They reflect the individual's physical or, more frequently, emotional state. <b>They do not, as true language does, name, discuss, abstract, or symbolize</b>. They are what the psychologists call affective; such purely affective so-called languages are systems of emotional signals and not discourse. The difference between animal interjection and human language is the difference between saying `Ouch!' and saying `Fire is hot.' That example shows that <b>the non-language of animal interjection is still present in man</b>. In us <b>it is in effect not a part of language, but the negative of language</b>, something we use in place of speech. ... . Still we do retain that older system <b>along with our wholly new and wholly distinct system of true language</b>" (Simpson, G.G. , 1966, "The Biological Nature of Man," <i>Science</i>, Vol. 152, 22 April, pp.472-478, p.476).</p> <p>"Many other <b>attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language, and all have failed</b>. ... Moreover at the present time <b>no languages are primitive in the sense of being significantly close to the origin of language</b>. Even the <b>peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages</b>, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers. ... <b>The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern</b>, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view." (Simpson, 1966, p.477).</p> <p>"<i>D-Days at Dayton</i> is intended to provide judgement on the effects of the trial after 40 years. It contains the contemporaneous accounts of an iconoclastic reporter E.L. Mencken. and the contemporaneous affidavits of the three teachers of science, W.C. Curtis, K.F. Mather and F.-C. Cole. The main offering, however, is a series of eight newly written essays by two ministers, a theologian, three scientists, a scientific journalist, and a former director of the American Civil Liberties Union. Some of these were present at the trial, but none had an active part in it and for some the only connection is that they remember hearing about the trial when they were children. There is also an essay by Scopes himself, and this is extraordinary. <b>Scopes apparently had little interest in the trial at the time, has virtually none now, and is most nearly moved by his belief that Bryan, his rabble rousing, anti-intellectual prosecutor, was `the greatest man produced in the United States since the days of Thomas Jefferson'.</b> The not very clearly expressed thesis of the editor and some contributors seems to be that the Scopes trial has current relevance because it marked the opening of a largely successful attack on anti-evolutionism in the United States. As one contributor (Carlyle Marney, a Southern Baptist minister and evidently a unique one) does point out, the thesis is flatly wrong on both counts: the battle against anti-evolutionary fundamentalism began long before 1925 and was far from won in 1965. The strongest argument is that Tennessee was so ridiculed that no other States dared be so foolish. <b>But all the evidence suggests that Tennesseeans were delighted by the publicity and unconscious of the ridicule</b>. And in fact today the teaching of evolution is prevented in an enormous number of school districts (locally almost autonomous in the United States) by devices much more effective than unenforced State laws. This somewhat interesting but unconvincing and patchwork volume does nothing to alter the feeling that <b>the Scopes trial was a farce and that its only present importance is that it inspired a more successful and more frank farce, the play <i>Inherit the Wind</i>.</b>" (Simpson, G.G. , 1966, "Good Enough for Moses?" Review of "D-Days at Dayton: Reflections on the Scopes Trial," edited by Jerry R. Tompkins, Louisiana State University Press: Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1965. In <i>Nature</i>, Vol 210, June 18, pp.1194-1195).</p> <p>"Many other <b>attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language, and all have failed</b>. ... Moreover at the present time <b>no languages are primitive</b> in the sense of being significantly close to the origin of language. <b>Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies</b>, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers. ... <b>The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view</b>." (Simpson, 1966, p.477). </p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-2314079736954049492008-07-12T23:38:00.020+08:002011-02-07T09:03:22.236+08:00Re: about your prediction of Jesus' return by 2037<p>AN</p> <p>Thanks for your message. As per my policy <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/img/jerusalem_before1967.gif"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 250px;" src="http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/img/jerusalem_before1967.gif" border="0" alt="" /></a>stated on my <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/">CED</a> blog's front page, "Private messages I receive on creation (including Christianity), </p> <p>[<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/img/jerusalem_before1967.gif">Left</a> (click to enlarge): <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/1967_and_now.stm">Jerusalem: Before 1967</a>, BBC]</p> <p>evolution or design topics, I reserve the right to respond publicly via this blog, minus the senders' personal identifying information," I am responding to you via that blog, after removing your personal identifying information. For clarity, your words are <b>bold</b>.</p> <p>----- Original Message ----- <br>From: AN<br>To: Stephen E. Jones<br>Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:02 AM<br><b>Subject: about your prediction of Jesus' return</b></p> <p><b>>Hello. I probably agree with you the most out of anyone with your position on creation, Adam, the flood, etc..</b> </p> <p>Thanks for your feedback. I presume you are referring to my post, <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-i-believe-about-creation.html">What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Design</a>, and in particular to:<blockquote><a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-i-believe-about-creation.html#JesusChristsreturn">Jesus Christ's return (second coming)</a>. Jesus will return (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mat.%2016:27;%2024:30;%2026:64;%20Acts%201:11;%201%20Cor.%2011:26;%201%20Thess.%204:16;%20Heb.%209:28;%20Rev.%201:7;&version=31;">Mat. 16:27; 24:30; 26:64; Acts 1:11; 1 Cor. 11:26; 1 Thess. 4:16; Heb. 9:28; Rev. 1:7</a>)! My<FONT color=#ff0000> interpretation</FONT> is that we are in the period <FONT color=#ff0000>predicted by Jesus</FONT> in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2021:24-28;&version=31;">Lk. 21:24-28</a>, between Jerusalem being no longer under Gentile rule ("Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" - v24b) <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/1967_and_now.stm">which happened in 1967</a>, and Jesus' return "with power and great glory" (v.27). That period will be characterised by "nations ... in anguish and perplexity" (v.25) and "Men ... faint[ing] from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world" (v.26). "When these things begin to take place" Jesus encouragement to His followers is to "stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near" (v.28). <FONT color=#ff0000>I assume</FONT> (along with leading Christian theologians such as the late <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Future-Anthony-Hoekema/dp/0802808514">Anthony A. Hoekema</a> and <a href="http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=40663&event=CFN">William Hendriksen</a>) that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Jerusalem#Destruction_of_Jerusalem">the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70</a>, predicted by Jesus in the Olivet discourse (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2023:37-24:51,%20Mk%2013:1-37;%20Lk%2021:5-36;&version=31;">Mt 23:37-24:51, Mk 13:1-37; Lk 21:5-36</a>), was a `type' of the second coming of Jesus. And therefore <FONT color=#ff0000>Jesus' prediction</FONT> that "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:34;%20Mk%2013:30;%20Lk%2021:32;&version=31;">Mt 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk 21:32</a>) applies also to the generation that will live to see Jesus' return. And since Jerusalem no longer being under Gentile rule in 1967 is one of the "all these things" that that generation living at the time of Jesus' return will experience, <FONT color=#ff0000>I therefore assume</FONT> that Jesus will return before the bulk of that generation that lived in 1967 passes away, i.e. before 2037. See also my, "<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/scndcmng.html">The Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ</a>." </p></blockquote> <p>So others can know what we are talking about, here is <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:24-31%20;&version=31;">Lk 21:24b-31 </a>(NIV), with the key words highlighted:<blockquote>24 ... <FONT color=#ff0000>Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled</FONT>. 25"There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28<FONT color=#ff0000>When these things begin to take place</FONT>, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." 29He told them this parable: "Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30When they sprout leaves, <FONT color=#ff0000>you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near</FONT>. 31Even so, <FONT color=#ff0000>when you see these things happening</FONT>, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32"I tell you the truth, <FONT color=#ff0000>this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened</FONT>. 29He told them this parable: "Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30When they sprout leaves, <FONT color=#ff0000>you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near</FONT>. 31Even so, <FONT color=#ff0000>when you see these things happening</FONT>, you know that the kingdom of God is near.</p></blockquote> <p> Although I have used your word "prediction" in the title of this post, <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/img/jerusalem_now.gif"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 250px;" src="http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/img/jerusalem_now.gif" border="0" alt="" /></a> I do not claim or agree that it is my <i>prediction</i> that Jesus will return before 2037, but rather it is my "<i>interpretation</i>" of <i>Jesus' prediction</i> in Lk 21:24b-31 (as my blog states above). </p> <p>[<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/img/jerusalem_now.gif">Right</a> (click to enlarge): <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/1967_and_now.stm">Jerusalem: After 1967</a>, BBC]</p><p>Moreover, my interpretation is not a strained one, but is based on a sound exegesis of the text in the light of historical fact, and expressed in the form of a logical IF-THEN deductive argument, as follows:</p> <p> <i>IF:</i> 1) "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles <i>until</i> the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (v24b) is: a) one of "these things [that will] begin to take place" (v28) before Jesus' second coming, and b) was fulfilled in 1967 when Jerusalem came under Jewish rule for the first time since the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70:<blockquote> "The state of Israel was established in 1948. Even more recently, <i>in 1967, the Jewish people gained full possession of Jerusalem</i> in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War">Six-Day War</a>. <i>One prophecy of Jesus, unrealized for 1897 years, seems to have been fulfilled</i>: `Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled' (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:24;&version=31;">Luke 21:24</a>) ... Does the reconquest of Jerusalem by the new state of Israel have immediate bearing on the end of the present age? <i>Is it a sign of the imminent return of Christ?</i>" (<a href="#BHH1984p448">Brown, 1984, pp.448-449</a>).<br><br>"In St. Luke's account of the Olivet discourse there is a short but profound statement regarding the future of Jerusalem, <i>which is taking on tremendous meaning</i>: ... (21:24) ... Jerusalem would be in the hands of Gentile nations, as it has been for centuries, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. That Jerusalem, of which our Lord spoke, <i>is now, since 1967, for the first time in all these centuries, no longer under the rule of Gentile nations</i> but in the absolute control of the Jews, in fact, in the control of the new nation, Israel! To me, <i>this is one of the great prophetic factors of our generation</i>." (<a href="#SWPM1971p207">Smith, 1971, pp.207-208</a>).</p></blockquote> <p>2) The destruction of Jerusalem in AD66-70, being the end of the Old Covenant age, was a "type" or "microcosm" of the end of this present New Covenant age, in the personal, visible, second "coming" of the Lord Jesus Christ "with power and great glory" (v27):<blockquote>"By the process of prophetic foreshortening ... two momentous events are here intertwined, namely, a. the judgment upon Jerusalem (its fall in the year A.D. 70), and b. the final judgment at the close of the world's history. Our Lord predicts <i>the city's approaching catastrophe as a type of the tribulation at the end of the dispensation</i>." (<a href="#HWGM1973p846">Hendriksen, 1973, pp.846-847</a>).<br> <br>"In the Olivet Discourse, therefore, Jesus is proclaiming events in the distant future in close connection with events in the near future'. <i>The destruction of Jerusalem which lies in the near future is a type of the end of the world</i>; hence the intermingling." (<a href="#HABATF1978p148">Hoekema, 1978, pp.148-149</a>); <br> <br>"The question of the disciples in verse 7 [Lk 21:7] clearly refers to the date of the fall of Jerusalem, but it also seems to involve the date of the end of this age. <i>The fall of Jerusalem becomes a type of the end times</i>." (<a href="#STL1989p834">Shreiner, 1989, p.834</a>);<br> <br>"I contend that <i>biblical prophecy can have a double or even multiple fulfillment</i>. A passage like the one we are exploring may have a <i>preliminary fulfillment</i> (such as <i>the destruction of Jerusalem</i>) and an <i>ultimate fulfillment</i> (the <i>destruction and renewal of the world</i>)." (<a href="#BDLT2004p81">Bloesch, 2004, p.81</a>);<br> <br>"the `Lucan discourse looks back at <i>the catastrophe in Jerusalem (A.D. 70) in a microcosmic view</i>; it sees the crisis that the earthly coming of Jesus brought into the lives of his own generation, but sees it now as <i>a harbinger</i> of the crisis which Jesus and his message, and <i>above all his coming as the Son of Man</i>, will bring to 'all who dwell upon the entire face of the earth' (21:35).' " (<a href="#BDLT2004p82">Bloesch, 2004, pp.81-82</a>);</p></blockquote> <p>3) The "this <i>generation</i>" that "will certainly not pass away until <i>all</i> these things have happened" (v32), is: a) in the ordinary sense of the word, of people living at the time, "When these things begin to take place" (v32), i.e. from when "Jerusalem" was no longer "trampled on by the Gentiles" (v24b) in 1967:<blockquote>"... <i>genea</i> ... generation ... of all <i>the people of a given period</i>" (<a href="#ASGMGLNT1937p89">Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, p.89</a>);<br> <br> "if <i>the term [generation] is understood as a normal life span</i>, it may refer either to <i>the generation in which Jesus lived</i> while on earth or to <i>the generation living when these signs begin to occur</i>." (<a href="#BDLT2004p80">Bloesch, 2004, pp.80-81</a>);<br> <br> "<a name="RATWPNT1930p261"></a>[Lk 21:32]. <i>This generation</i> ... Naturally <i>people then living</i>" (<a href="#RATWPNT1930p261">Robertson, 1930, pp.261-262</a>); <br> <br> "<a name="ZSTCWSD1962p362"></a>...<i>genea</i> ... the people of any generation or age,<i> those living in any one period</i> ...`this generation' means <i>the present generation</i> (... Luke ... 21:32...) ... the generation <i>present immediately preceding His return</i>, who <i>witness the events signaling His coming</i>" (<a href="#ZSTCWSD1962p362">Zodhiates, 1992, pp.362-363</a>);</p></blockquote> <p> and b) is "as determined by the normal span of life," i.e. 70 years:<blockquote> "<i>Gen-er-a'tion ...</i> The age or period of a body of contemporaries ... as determined by the <i>normal span of life</i> ..." (<a href="#DJADB1924p253">Davis, 1924, p.253</a>);</p></blockquote> <p> <i>THEN</i>: Jesus will return "with power and great glory" by 1967 + 70 = 2037.</p> <p> However, note that 70 is just the traditional "normal span of life" ballpark figure. It may be that the actual normal average lifespan of those born in 1967 is more like 80. And since the text says, "this <i>generation</i> will certainly not pass away," strictly literally it would mean that the <i>entire</i> generation that was alive in 1967 could almost pass away before Jesus returned:<blockquote> "<i>Gen-er-a'tion</i> ... The generation <i>lasts as long as any of the members survive</i> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ex%201:6;%20Num%2032:13;%20Judg%202:10;%20Ecc%201:4;&version=31;">Ex. i. 6; Num. xxxii. 13; Judg. ii. 10; Ecc. i. 4</a>)" (Davis, 1924, p.253).</p></blockquote> <p>But since the first of the assumed double fulfillment of this prophecy of Jesus, namely the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70, was only ~40 years after Jesus prediction that <i>that</i> generation then would not pass away before Jerusalem's temple (and therefore Jerusalem itself) was destroyed (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:2,34;%20%20Mk%2013:1,30;%20%20Lk%2021:6,32;&version=31;">Mt 24:2,34; Mk 13:1,30; Lk 21:6,32</a>), I personally <i>expect</i> (not predict) that Jesus will return <i>before</i> 2037. </p> <p> <b>>And even though I strongly disagree with your view of Jesus' words that "This generation will not pass away" is applying to this generation and that Jesus will come back before 2037, I respect it. </b></p> <p>Thanks for respecting my view. See above on references that, "This generation will not pass away" <i>is</i> "applying to this generation" and the steps in my argument "that Jesus will come back before 2037".</p> <p><b>>But I'm suggesting that you take it down from your site about what you believe about the second coming.</b> </p> <p>Thanks for your suggestion, but I would only take it down from my site if it was shown that my facts or reasoning was wrong, which it has not been.</p> <p><b>>First of all, Hoekema and Hendrickson believed strongly in Covenant Theology, and that the Church is now the Israel of God, and were amillenialists.</b> </p><p>I am an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillenialism">amillenialist</a> also, but I fail to see what that has to do with it. That "the Church is now the Israel of God" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal%206:16;%203:28-29;&version=31;">Gal 6:16; 3:28-29</a>), comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, does not preclude God still using Jerusalem being "trampled on by the Gentiles" as a sign (indeed since 1967 the only <i>dated</i> sign) of Jesus' second coming.</p> <p><b>>They would never endorse the view that Jesus will come before 2037 or anything of that nature. </b></p> <p>I did not claim they did . All I claimed of Hoekema and Hendricksen was that they regarded "the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70" as "a `type' of the second coming of Jesus" (see above).</p> <p><b>>2nd of all, even if you aren't alive in 2037 and Jesus DOESN'T return then, people will not remember you for your excellent work in the creation/evolution/design debate, they will remember you</b> <b>for your failed prediction.</b> </p> <p>If I "aren't alive in 2037" (which is likely because otherwise I would be 90) then I would "be with Christ, which is better by far" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Php%201:23;&version=31;">Php 1:23</a>), so I don't think I would be concerned what people "in the creation/evolution/design debate" `down below' remembered me for!</p> <p>And it is not a "prediction" of mine but rather an <i>interpretation</i> of <i>Jesus'</i> prediction (see above). So even if this interpretation of mine turned out to be wrong, I don't see why I should be thought badly of any more than any other Christian who has a wrong interpretation of a Bible passage.</p> <p><b>>Secondly, just because Jesus said "No one knows the day or the hour" doesn't mean we can't extent this to "No one knows the year" either. </b></p> <p> </p> <p>I am not saying that I know the "year." I said, "I therefore <i>assume</i> that Jesus will return before the bulk of that generation that lived in 1967 passes away, i.e. before 2037." That's a timespan of 2037-2006 = <i>31 years</i> - nearly a<i> third of a century</i>!</p> <p>And in the very passage,<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:29-32;&version=31;"> Lk 21:29-32</a>, Jesus tells us we can, and <i>should,</i> "<i>know</i>" the <i>season</i>, i.e. when "<i>summer</i>" "is near" by seeing "<i>these things happening</i>":<blockquote>29He told them this parable: "Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and <i>know that summer is near</i>. 31Even so, <i> when you see these things happening</i>, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32"I tell you the truth, <i>this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened</i>. </p></blockquote> <p><b>>And at the risk that this MIGHT HAVE BEEN what Jesus meant, you are risking disobeying Jesus. </b></p> <p>Even if it turns out to be a wrong <i>interpretation</i> of Jesus' prediction in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:24-31%20;&version=31;">Lk 21:24-31</a>, I don't see why that is "disobeying Jesus". If anything, I consider I would be at a <i>greater</i> risk of "disobeying Jesus" if I ignored what He said in that passage, that the "<i>generation</i>" that saw "Jerusalem" no longer "trampled on by the Gentiles" (in 1967), "will certainly <i>not pass away</i> until <i>all</i> these things" (including His "coming in a cloud with power and great glory") "have <i>happened</i>" , and that "When these things <i>begin</i> to take place" we Christians are to "<i>stand up</i> and lift up [our] heads, because [our] redemption is <i>drawing near</i>." </p> <p><b>>The easiest way to avoid this would be to take the prediction off. I do believe making predictions like this is unbiblical.</b> </p> <p> </p> <p>It is not a "prediction" but an <i>interpretation</i> of Jesus' "prediction" (see above).</p> <p> </p> <p><b>>And a guy like you that does some pretty good scholarship in the area of creation and evolution, doesn't ever want to be grouped with guys like Hal Lindsey, and John Haggee for making failed predictions do you? </b></p> <p>See above on "failed prediction". And there is a <i>huge</i> difference between the many <i>strained</i> predictions of the likes of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Lindsey">Hal Lindsey</a> and my comparatively modest <i>interpretation</i> of Lk 21:24-31. </p> <p><b>>The easiest way to avoid that then, is take it down. For the sake of the success of the gospel PLEASSEE take this prediction off your blog, even if you firmly believe it 100 percent. </b></p> <p>Sorry, but I fail to see what my <i>interpretation</i> above has to do with "the success of the gospel"! And while I do believe that my interpretation is true, I do not claim or believe that it is "100 percent" true.</p> <p><b>>Even if it comes true, you won't be vindicated for it, because we'll all be at the judgment, so there's no point in keeping it on your blog. </b></p> <p>So even if it <i>was</i> "<i>true</i>", according to your scale of values, I should remove it because "I won't be vindicated for it." Sorry, but I don't share your scale of values. For me, to suppress what I believe to be true, just because I "won't be vindicated for it," would be a form of lying.</p> <p><b>>It seems the risks and dangers far outweigh any benefits, although I'm not sure what any of the benefits might be.</b> </p> <p>Again, I fail to see what "risks and dangers" there are from my publishing my <i>interpretation </i>of Jesus' prediction in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:24-28;&version=31;">Lk 21:24b32</a>, that He would return "with power and great glory" before the "generation" of those who were alive in 1967, when Jerusalem was no longer "trampled on by the Gentiles." </p> <p>And since I regard my interpretation as <i>true</i>, that is sufficient "benefit" for me to publish it. But even if it was not true about the "generation" being of those alive in 1967, it would still serve to remind both Christians and non-Christians that Jesus <i>did</i> predict that He <i>will</i> return "with power and great glory" (v27) after "Jerusalem" was no longer "trampled on by the Gentiles" (v24b), which happened in 1967, and "<i>near</i>" (three times for emphasis) in time to it:<blockquote>"When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing <i>near</i>." (v28);<br> <br>"When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is <i>near</i>" (v30);<br> <br>"Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is <i>near</i>" (v31).</p></blockquote> <p><b>>I hope this didn't sound mean spirited, but the reason for this email in the first place was to offer advice so you can maintain a helpful site.</b></p> <p>I do not think your email was "mean spirited," but I do think it <i>impertinent</i>, virtually demanding of a complete stranger that he remove something from his blog that you don't approve of. It reminds me of the story about the immature Christian who deludes himself that he has "<a href="http://www.devotions.net/devotions/files/2003/04apr/2.htm">the gift of rebuking</a>"! </p> <p>I also think it was <i>wrong</i>, confusing my <i>interpretation</i> of a Bible prediction with the prediction itself. </p> <p><b>>-AN</b></p> <p>See quotes below (emphasis <i>italics</i> original, emphasis <b>bold </b>mine), hyperlinked from the above inline references.</p><p>PS: See also my <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/11/re-what-would-happen-if-you-lived-to.html">Re: what would happen if I lived to 2037 and Jesus has not come?</a></p> <p><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology). <br>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">TheShroudofTurin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a></p> <hr> <p>"<a name="ASGMGLNT1937p89"></a>... <i><b>genea</b></i>, <i>-as</i>, <i>e</i> (< <i>gignomai</i>),. [in LXX chiefly for <i>dowr</i>, <i>doe</i> (Cremer, 148);] 1. race, stock, family (in NT, <i>gennema</i>, q.v.). 2. <b>generation</b>; (a) of the contemporary members of a family: pl., Mt 1:17 (cf. Ge 31:3, metaph., of those alike in character, in bad sense, Mt 17:17; Mk 9:19; Lk 9:41, 16:8; Ac 2:40; (b) <b>of all the people of a given period</b>: <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:34,%20Mk%2013:30,%20Lk%2021:32,%20Php%202:15;&version=31;">Mt 24:34, Mk 13:30, <b>Lk 21:32</b>, Phl 2:15</a>; pl., Lk 1:48; esp. of the Jewish people, Mt 11:16; 12:39,41, 42, 45; 16:4; 23:36; Mk 8:12,38; Lk 7:31; 11:29,30-32,50,51; 17:25, Ac 13:36, He 3:10 (LXX); <i>ton g. autou tis diegesetai</i>, Ac 8:33 (LXX). (c) the period covered by the life-time of a generation, used loosely in pl. of successive ages: Ac 14:16; 15:21, Eph 3:5, Col 1:20; <i>eis geneas kai g.</i>[...]. Is 34:17, al.), Lk 1:50; <i>eis pasas tas g. tou aionos ton aionon</i>, Eph 3:21 (Ellic., in J.; DCG, l, 639 f.). [...] (Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Greek-Lexicon-New-Testament/dp/0567010015/">A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament</a>," [1921], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Third edition, Reprinted, 1956, p.89. My transliteration). </p> <p>"<a name="BDLT2004p80"></a>Again, we must give attention to the allegation that the Olivet discourse contains two or more different prophecies. The <i>NIV Study Bible</i> contains this commentary on Matthew 24: `It appears that the description of the end of the age is discussed in vv. 4-14, the destruction of Jerusalem in vv. 15-22 (see Lk 21:20) and Christ's coming in vv. 23-31.' ["NIV Study Bible," Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1985, p.1477] ... The possibility of a double reference is rejected, I think too quickly ... The <i>NIV Study Bible</i> suggests, `if <b>the term [generation]</b> is understood as a normal life span, it <b>may refer either to the generation in which Jesus lived while on earth or to the generation living when these signs begin to occur</b>.' ["NIV Study Bible," pp.1521, 1581]" (Bloesch, D.G., 2004, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Last-Things-Resurrection-Christian-Foundations/dp/0830814175">The Last Things</a>: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, pp.80-81).</p> <p>"<a name="BDLT2004p81"></a>I contend that <b>biblical prophecy can have a double or even multiple fulfillment. A passage like the one we are exploring may have a preliminary fulfillment (such as the destruction of Jerusalem) and an ultimate fulfillment (the destruction and renewal of the world).</b> ... the events of the immediate period leading up to <b>the destruction of Jerusalem portend a greater and more universal catastrophe when Christ returns in judgment at the end of time</b>.' [Mounce, R. H., "Matthew," 1991, p.228]" (Bloesch, 2004, pp.80-81).</p> <p>"<a name="BDLT2004p82"></a>Commenting on Luke's rendition of Jesus' eschatological discourse ... Joseph Fitzmyer contends that the `Lucan discourse looks back at <b>the catastrophe in Jerusalem (A.D. 70) in a microcosmic view</b>; it sees the crisis that the earthly coming of Jesus brought into the lives of his own generation, but sees it now as a harbinger of the crisis which Jesus and his message, and above all his coming as the Son of Man, will bring to 'all who dwell upon the entire face of the earth' (21:35).' [Fitzmyer, J.A., "The Gospel According to Luke, X-XXIV," 1985, p.1329] The notes on Matthew in <i>The New Jerusalem Bible</i> reflect a similar stance: `This eschatological discourse of Matthew <b>combines the announcement of the destruction of Jerusalem with that of the end of the world</b>.... Though separated in time, these two [events] are inseparable in the sense that the first is the inevitable forerunner and prefiguration of the second. The destruction of Jerusalem marks the end of the old covenant-Christ has thus manifestly returned to inaugurate his kingly rule. Such a decisive intervention in the history of salvation will not occur again until the end of time when God will judge the whole human race, now chosen in Christ, with the same judgment he pronounced (in A.D. 70) upon the first chosen people.' ["New Jerusalem Bible," 1985, p.1649]" (Bloesch, 2004, pp.81-82).</p> <p>"<a name="BHH1984p448"></a>Political events too have been urged as the fulfillment of some of the prerequisites laid down by Scripture for the return of Christ. There are many prophecies about the return of the Jews to their homeland. Frequently, it was expected that these events would be inaugurated by the Messiah him self, but it was also held that they would precede his return. At just about the time we have proposed for the end of the Chalcedonian era in theology, the fifteen-hundredth jubilee of 1951, the Jews finally did return to political power in the Holy Land. <b>The state of Israel was established in 1948. Even more recently, in 1967, the Jewish people gained full possession of Jerusalem in the Six-Day War. One prophecy of Jesus, unrealized for 1897 years, seems to have been fulfilled: `Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled' (Luke 21:24).</b> Between 1948, when Israel was established, and 1967, when Jerusalem was recaptured, the `times of the Gentiles' were brought to an end-at least for the present-in the Holy Land. ... Does the reconquest of Jerusalem by the new state of Israel have immediate bearing on the end of the present age? <b>Is it a sign of the imminent return of Christ?</b> Christians have been warned by Jesus himself to be cautious about trying to discover the time of his return, <b>yet he also advised them to `watch.'</b>" (Brown, H.O.J., 1984, "Epilogue: Signs of His Coming?" In "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Heresies-Heresy-Orthodoxy-History-Church/dp/1565633652/">Heresies</a>: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present," Doubleday & Co: New York NY, pp.448-450). <p>"<a name="DJADB1924p253"></a><i>Gen-er-a'tion.</i> 1. A begetting or producing, or the person or thing produced (Gen. ii. 4; v. 1) ; in Hebrew only plural <i>Toledoth</i>. 2. Each succession of persons from a common ancestor (Gen. i. 23; Ex. xx. 5 ; Deut. xxiii. 2) ; in Hebrew expressed by a modification of the proper numeral or by <i>Dor</i> with an ordinal number. 3. The age or period of a body of contemporaries, not in the modern sense of the average lifetime of all who survive infancy, but the average period of the activity of any body of contemporaries as determined by the normal span of life. The generation lasts as long as any of the members survive (Ex. i. 6; Num. xxxii. 13; Judg. ii. 10; Ecc. i. 4) ; in Hebrew <i>Dor</i>." (Davis, J.D., 1924, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/dictionary-Bible-John-D-Davis/dp/B0008700W8">A Dictionary of the Bible</a>," [1898], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth edition, Fifteenth printing, 1966, p.253). <p>"<a name="HWGM1973p846"></a><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:1-25:46;&version=31;">[Matthew] 24:1-25:46</a> The Last Things ... A few points are worthy of special notice ... The prophetic material found in this sixth discourse has reference not only to events near at hand (see, for example, verse 16) but also to those stretching far into the future, as is clear from 24:14, 29-31; 25:6, 31-46. Cf. Luke 21:24. ... <b>By the process of prophetic foreshortening</b>, by means of which before one's eyes the widely separated mountain peaks of historic events merge and are seen as one, as has been explained in connection with 10:23 and 16:28, <b>two momentous events are here intertwined, namely, a. the judgment upon Jerusalem (its fall in the year A.D. 70), and b. the final judgment at the close of the world's history </b>. Our Lord predicts the city's approaching catastrophe <i>as a type</i> of the tribulation at the end of the dispensation. Or, putting it differently, in describing the brief period of great tribulation at the close of history, ending with the final judgment, Jesus is painting in colors borrowed from the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. ... It is not claimed, of course, that any exegete is able completely to untangle what is here intertwined, so as to indicate accurately for each individual passage just how much refers to Jerusalem's fall, and how much to the great tribulation and second coming. ... The main emphasis in both chapters is on the necessity of always being on the alert, active for the Master, faithful to him." (Hendriksen, W., 1973, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Matthew-New-Testament-Commentary/dp/0801040663">The Gospel of Matthew</a>: New Testament Commentary," Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, Reprinted, 1982, pp.846-848).</p> <p>"<a name="HABATF1978p148"></a>When we ask what the New Testament teaches about the sign of tribulation, we must, look first of all at the so-called `Olivet Discourse - 'Jesus' eschatological discourse found in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2024:3-51,%20Mk%2013:3-37;%20Lk%2021:5-36;&version=31;">Matthew 24:3-51, Mark 13:3-37, and Luke 21:5-36</a>. This is, however, a very difficult passage to interpret. What makes it so difficult is that <b>some parts of the discourse obviously refer to the destruction of Jerusalem which lies in the near future, whereas other parts of it refer to the events which will accompany the Parousia at the end of the age</b>. The setting for the discourse is as follows: when the disciples pointed out to Jesus the buildings of the temple, Jesus replied, `I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down' (Matt. 24:2). When Jesus had seated himself on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him and said, `Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?' (v. 3). Note that ... the question of the disciples concerns two topics: (1) when will <i>this</i> be? (literally, <i>these things</i>; Greek, <i>tauta</i>)-an obvious reference to the destruction of the temple Jesus had just predicted; and (2) what will be the sign of your <i>coming</i> (Greek, <i>parousia</i>) and of the <i>close of the age</i>?-a reference to Christ's Second Coming. We may properly conclude, therefore, that the discourse will deal with both of these topics. As we read the discourse, however, we find that aspects of these two topics are intermingled; matters concerning the destruction of Jerusalem (epitomized by the destruction of the temple) are mingled together with matters which concern the end of the world-so much so that it is sometimes hard to determine whether Jesus is referring to the one or the other or perhaps to both. Obviously <b>the method of teaching used here by Jesus is that of prophetic foreshortening</b>, in which events far removed in time and events in the near future are spoken of as if they were very close together. The phenomenon has been compared to what happens when one looks at distant mountains; peaks which are many miles apart may be seen as if they are close together. ... <b>In the Olivet Discourse, therefore, Jesus is proclaiming events in the distant future in close connection with events in the near future'. The destruction of Jerusalem which lies in the near future is a type of the end of the world; hence the intermingling</b>. The passage, therefore, deals neither exclusively with the destruction of Jerusalem nor exclusively with the end of the world; it deals with both-sometimes with the latter in terms of the former. ... Though the, tribulation, persecution, suffering, and trials here predicted are described in terms which concern Palestine and the Jews, they must not be interpreted as having to do only with the Jews. Jesus was describing future events in terms which would be understandable to his hearers, in terms which had local ethnic and geographic color. We are not warranted, however, in applying these predictions only to the Jews, or in restricting their occurrence only to Palestine." (Hoekema, A.A, 1978, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Future-Anthony-Hoekema/dp/0802808514/">The Bible and the Future</a>," Paternoster Press: Exeter UK, 1978, British Edition, 1979, pp.148-149). <p>"<a name="RATWPNT1930p261"></a>[Lk 21:]32. <i><b>This generation</b></i> (<i>he genea haute</i>). <b>Naturally people then living</b>. <i>Shall not pass away</i> (<i>ou me parelthei</i>). Second aorist active subjunctive of <i>parerchomai</i>. Strongest possible negative with <i>ou me</i>. <i>Till all things be accomplished</i> (<i>heos an panta genetai</i>). Second aorist middle subjunctive of <i>ginomai</i> with <i>heos</i>, common idiom. The words give a great deal of trouble to critics. Some apply them to the whole discourse including the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, the second coming and the end of the world. Some of these argue that Jesus was simply mistaken in his eschatology, some that he has not been properly reported in the Gospels. Others apply them only to the destruction of Jerusalem which did take place in A.D. 70 before that generation passed away. It must be said for this view that it is not easy in this great eschatological discourse to tell clearly when Jesus is discussing the destruction of Jerusalem and when the second coming. Plummer offers this solution: `<b>The reference, therefore, is to the destruction of Jerusalem regarded as the type of the end of the world</b>.'" (Robertson, A.T., 1930, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Word-Pictures-New-Testament-vol/dp/0825436419">Word Pictures in the New Testament</a>: Volume II: The Gospel According to Luke," Broadman Press, Nashville TN, pp.261-262). <p>"<a name="STL1989p834"></a><i>Apocalyptic discourse ( <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:5-38;&version=31;">[Lk ]21:5-38</a>).</i> The temple that elicited the admiration of his disciples was beautiful indeed. ... Jesus, however, predicts that the temple will be completely demolished (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:5-6;&version=31;">21:5-6</a>). The Romans fulfilled this prophecy in A.D. 70. ... Jesus now warns his disciples against eschatological enthusiasm and braces them for future persecution (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:7-19;&version=31;">21:7-19</a>). <b>The question of the disciples in verse 7 clearly refers to the date of the fall of Jerusalem, but it also seems to involve the date of the end of this age. The fall of Jerusalem becomes a type of the end times</b>. .... Jesus specifically answers the question about the destruction of Jerusalem (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:20-24;&version=31;">21:20-24</a>). One will know that Jerusalem's time of destruction has arrived when foreign armies surround it. This encirclement is a signal, not of the need for heroism, but the need to flee. God's avenging wrath will be poured out on the city, bringing distress to the entire populace. `The times of the Gentiles' (v. 24) refers not to the Gentile mission but to Gentile authority over Jerusalem. Josephus's <i>Jewish War</i> contains a graphic commentary on the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. From the destruction of Jerusalem Luke moves to the coming of the Son of man (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%2021:25-28;&version=31;">21:25-28</a>). Luke does not specify the temporal relationship between these events, but the former clearly functions as a correspondence of the latter. ... The signs picture in dramatic terms the breakup of the natural world order, and the resulting terror and fear which seize the human race. The Son of man will return during these troubled times. The message for believers is: When the world begins to convulse, take hope! Your redemption is imminent." (Shreiner, T.R., "Luke," in Elwell, W.A., ed., 1989, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evangelical-Commentary-Bible-reference-library/dp/0801032024/">Evangelical Commentary on the Bible</a>," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second printing, 1990, pp.834-835).</p><p>"<a name="SWPM1971p207"></a>In St. Luke's account of the Olivet discourse there is a short but profound statement regarding the future of Jerusalem, <b>which is taking on tremendous meaning</b>: `And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all the nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled' (21:24). ... Jerusalem would be in the hands of Gentile nations, as it has been for centuries, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. That Jerusalem, of which our Lord spoke, <b>is now, since 1967, for the first time in all these centuries, no longer under the rule of Gentile nations</b> but in the absolute control of the Jews, in fact, in the control of the new nation, Israel! To me, <b>this is one of the great prophetic factors of our generation</b>. If the Jews can hold this city and maintain their sovereignty here, I cannot help but think that we are at the end of the age of the times of the Gentiles." (Smith, W.M., "Signs of the Second Advent of Christ," in Henry, C.F.H., ed., 1971, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Prophecy-Making-Jerusalem-Conference-Biblical/dp/B000QA7KM0/">Prophecy in the Making</a>: The Jerusalem Conference on Biblical Prophecy," Creation House: Carol Stream IL, pp.207-208).</p><p>"<a name="ZSTCWSD1962p362"></a>...<i>genea</i>; gen. <i>geneas</i>, fem. coll. noun from <i>ginomai</i> (1096), to become.<b> Originally meaning generation, i.e., a multitude of contemporaries</b>. In NT Gr. <i>genea</i> literally means space of time, circle of time, which only in a derived sense signifies the meaning of a time, a race; then generally in the sense of affinity of communion based upon the sameness of stock. ... Metaphorically spoken of <b>the people of any generation or age, those living in any one period</b>, a race or class, e.g., <b>`this generation' means the present generation</b> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2011:16;%2012:39,%2041,%2042,%2045;%2016:4;%2017:17;%2023:36;%2024:34;%20Mk%208:12,%2038;%209:19;%2013:30;%20Lk%207:31;%209:41;%2011:29-32,%2050,%2051;%2017:25;%2021:32;%20Ac%202:40;%20Php%202:15;&version=31;">Matt. 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:34; Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30; <b>Luke</b> 7:31; 9:41; 11:29-32, 50, 51; 17:25; <b>21:32</b>; Acts 2:40; Phil. 2:15</a>). ... The word <i>genea</i> in Matt. 24:34 may have had reference to the kind of Jew with whom Jesus was conversing during that particular time (Matt. 21:23; 23:29). He was telling them that this generation or type, such as the Sadducees and Pharisees of that day, would not pass away until all these things occurred ... which has proven to be true. He was prophesying the destruction of their nation (Matt. 24:15-28). Others have understood Jesus to be saying that <b>the generation present immediately preceding His return, who witness the events signaling His coming, will not pass away</b>. Christ's return will not be thwarted." (Zodhiates, S., 1992, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Wordstudy-Dictionary-Testament-Study/dp/089957663X">The Complete Word Study Dictionary</a>: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Reprinted, 1994, pp.362-363).</p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-87293136445166452212008-07-06T20:10:00.007+08:002008-07-06T21:35:42.432+08:00PoE: Bibliography "N"<p>This is the <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/08/problems-of-evolution-bibliography.html">Bibliography</a> "N" page for author's surnames beginning <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Thomas_Nagel_teaching_Ethics.JPG"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 280px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Thomas_Nagel_teaching_Ethics.JPG" border="0" alt="" /></a> with "N" of books <p>[<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Thomas_Nagel_teaching_Ethics.JPG">Left</a>: Atheist philosopher <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Nagel">Thomas Nagel</a>, Wikipedia. See my comments below (emphasis mine) about his book, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Last-Word-Thomas-Nagel/dp/0195108345">The Last Word</a>" (1997).] </p>and journals which I may refer to in my book outline, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/07/problems-of-evolution-book-outline.html">Problems of Evolution</a>." </p><p>Nagel, one of the world's leading atheist philosophers, admits in his "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Last-Word-Thomas-Nagel/dp/0195108345">The Last Word</a>," that: "<i>many</i> people in this day and age" have "a <i>fear</i> of religion" (<a href="#NTTLW1997p130">p.130</a>), which he defines as including the fear of "the existence of a <i>personal</i> god" (<a href="#NTTLW1997p133">p.133</a>), and to which he confessed to "being <i>strongly subject</i> to this fear myself" (<a href="#NTTLW1997p130">p.130</a>). Nagel felt "uneasy by the fact that <i>some of the most intelligent and well-informed people</i> I know <i>are religious believers</i>" (<a href="#NTTLW1997p130">p.130</a>). </p> <p>Nagel, whose specialty is philosophy of mind asks, "How is it possible for <i>finite beings</i> like us to <i>think infinite thoughts</i>" (<a href="#NTTLW1997p74">p.74</a>). Although an atheist, he regards an answer based on "evolutionary naturalism" as "<i>laughably inadequate</i>" (<a href="#NTTLW1997p74">p.75</a>). He also notes that, "a possible <i>naturalistic</i> explanation of the existence of reason," namely "the idea that our rational capacity was the product of natural selection <i>would render reasoning far less trustworthy</i>" (<a href="#NTTLW1997p130">p.135</a>). However, as an atheist Nagel cannot accept "The <i>other</i> well-known answer is the religious one: The universe is intelligible to us <i>because it and our minds were made for each other</i>" (<a href="#NTTLW1997p74">p.75</a>). But of the only other alternative, that "rationality could be a fundamental feature of the natural order" Nagel agrees that, "it is very difficult to imagine any answer ... that is <i>not teleological</i>" (<a href="#NTTLW1997p138">p.138</a>), since "the theory of evolution ... provides <i>absolutely no support</i> for this" (<a href="#NTTLW1997p138">p.138</a>). </p> <p>It is this "thought that <i>the relation between mind and the world</i> is something fundamental" that "<i>makes many</i> people in this day and age <i>nervous</i>" (<a href="#NTTLW1997p130">p.130</a>), including Nagel. Why? Because it just another line of evidence that points to there being a personal God to whom they intuitively know they are accountable to (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%201:18-20;&version=31;">Rom 1:18-20</a>). That is why the Nagel gives as his bottom-line reason for why he is an atheist, "I <i>don't want</i> there to be a God" (<a href="#NTTLW1997p130">p.130</a>)! </p> <p> <hr> </p> <center><b>PROBLEMS OF EVOLUTION<br>© Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology)</b></center></p> <p><a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/07/problems-of-evolution-book-outline.html"><b>CONTENTS</b></a></p> <p><b><a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/08/problems-of-evolution-bibliography.html"><b>BIBLIOGRAPHY</b></a> "N"</b></p> <p><a name=""></a><b>Nagel, T.</b>, 1987, "What Does It All Mean?: A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy," Oxford University Press: New York NY.<br><a name="NagelT1997"></a><b>Nagel, T.</b>, 1997, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Last-Word-Thomas-Nagel/dp/0195108345">The Last Word</a>," Oxford University Press: New York NY.<br><a name=""></a><b>Napier, J.R.</b> & Napier, P.H., 1985, "The Natural History of the Primates," British Museum (Natural History): London.<br><a name=""></a><b>Nash, J.M.</b>, 1995, "<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983240-3,00.html">Where Do Toes Come From?</a>," <i>Time</i>, Vol. 146, No. 5, July 31. <br><a name=""></a><b>Nash, R.H.</b>, 1988, "Searching for a Rational Faith," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI.<br><a name=""></a><b>Nash, R.H.</b>, 1999, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Worldviews-Conflict-Ronald-H-Nash/dp/0310577713">Worldviews in Conflict</a>: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas," [1992], Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted.<br><a name=""></a><b>National Academy of Sciences</b>, 1999, "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences," [1984], National Academy Press: Washington DC, Second edition.<br><a name=""></a><b>Nelson, B.C.</b>, 1967, "After Its Kind," [1927], Bethany Fellowship: Minneapolis MN, Revised edition, Nineteenth printing, 1970.<br><a name=""></a><b>Nelson, H.</b> & Jurmain, R., 1991, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Physical-Anthropology-Jurmain-Robert/dp/B000NXWNAY/">Introduction to Physical Anthropology</a>," [1979], West Publishing Company: St. Paul MN, Fifth edition.<br><a name=""></a><b>Nesse, R.M.</b> & Williams, G.C., 1995, "Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine," Vintage: New York NY, Reprinted, 1996.<br><a name=""></a><b>Newell, N.D.</b>, 1982, "Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality?," Columbia University Press: New York NY.<br><a name=""></a><b>Newman, J.R.</b>, ed., 1955, "What Is Science?," Washington Square: New York NY, Reprinted, 1961.<br><a name=""></a><b>Newman, R.C.</b>, 1997, "Fulfilled Prophecy as Miracle," in Geivett, R.D. & Habermas, G.R., eds., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Miracles-Comprehensive-Actions-History/dp/0830815287">In Defense of Miracles</a>: A Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History," Apollos: Leicester UK<br><a name=""></a><b>Newman, R.C.</b>, 1999, "Progressive Creationism (Old Earth Creationism)," in Moreland, J.P. & Reynolds, J.M., eds., 1999, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Three-Creation-Evolution-Porter-Moreland/dp/0310220173">Three Views on Creation and Evolution</a>," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI<br><a name=""></a><b>Newman, R.C.</b>, ed., 1988, "The Evidence of Prophecy: Fulfilled Prediction as a Testimony to the Truth of Christianity," Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute: Hatfield PA, Fourth printing, 1998.<br><a name=""></a><b>Newman, R.C.</b> & Eckelmann, H.J., Jr., 1977, "<a href="http://www.splinteredlightbooks.com/cgi-bin/slb/6720">Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth</a>, "Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute: Hatfields PA, Fourth printing, 1991.<br><a name=""></a><b>Newman, R.C.</b>, Wiester, J.L., Moneymaker, J. & Moneymaker, J., 2000, "What's Darwin Got to Do With It?: A Friendly Conversation About Evolution," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL.<br><a name=""></a><b>Newton, T.J.</b> & Joyce, A.P., 1995a, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Human-Perspectives-Book-T-J-Newton/dp/0074527959/">Human Perspectives, Book 1</a>," [1979], McGraw-Hill Book Co: Sydney NSW, Australia, Third edition, Reprinted, 1996.<br><a name=""></a><b>Newton, T.J.</b> & Joyce, A.P., 1995b, "Human Perspectives, Book 2," [1979], McGraw-Hill Book Co: Sydney NSW, Australia, Third edition, Reprinted, 1997.<br><a name=""></a><b>Nichols, H.L.</b>, 2000., "Science Blundering: An Outsider's View," [1984], Bellemore Books: Lyme CT, Second edition.<br><a name=""></a><b>Nichols, P.</b> , 2003, "Evolution's Captain: The Dark Fate of the Man Who Sailed Charles Darwin Around the World," Harper Collins: New York NY<br><a name=""></a><b>Nichols, T.L.</b>, 2003, "The Sacred Cosmos: Christian Faith and the Challenge of Naturalism," Brazos Press: Grand Rapids MI.<br><a name=""></a><b>Niditch, S.</b>, 1985, "Chaos to Cosmos: Studies in Biblical Patterns of Creation," Scholars Press: Chico CA.<br><a name=""></a><b>Ninio, J.</b>, 1983, "Molecular Approaches to Evolution," [1979], Lang, R., transl., Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, Revised.<br><a name=""></a><b>Noda, H.</b>, ed., 1978, "Origin of Life: Proceedings of the Second ISSOL Meeting, the Fifth ICOL Meeting," Center for Academic Publications: Japan.<br><a name=""></a><b>Noll, M.A.</b>, 1994, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1995.<br><a name=""></a><b>Noll M.A.</b> & Livingstone D.N., eds, 2000, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Science-Scripture-Selected-Writings/dp/0801022177">B.B. Warfield: Evolution, Science and Scripture</a>: Selected Writings," Baker: Grand Rapids MI<br><a name="NordenskioldE1928"></a><b>Nordenskiold, E.</b>, 1928, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/History-Biology-Erik-Nordenskiold/dp/B000PY9YQ2/">The History of Biology</a>: A Survey," [1920-24], Eyre, L.B., transl., Tudor Publishing Co: New York NY.<br><a name=""></a><b>Norman, D.</b>, 1994, "Dinosaur!" [1991], Boxtree: London, Revised.<br><a name=""></a><b>Norman, D.</b> & Milner, A., 1989, "Dinosaur," Collins Eyewitness Guides, Dorling Kindersley: London, Reprinted, 1992.<br><a name=""></a><b>Noske, B.</b>, 1989, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Humans-Animals-Beyond-Boundaries-Anthropology/dp/B001657C5O/">Humans and Other Animals</a>: Beyond the Boundaries of Anthropology," Pluto Press: London.<br><a name=""></a><b>Nourse, A.E.</b>, 1971, "The Body," [1964], Time-Life International: Netherlands.<br><a name=""></a><b>Noyes, R.</b>, ed., 1990, "The Crop Circle Enigma: Grounding The Phenomenon in Science, Culture, and Metaphysics," Gateway Books: Bath UK.<br><a name=""></a><b>Numbers, R.L.</b>, 1992, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Creationists-Evolution-Scientific-Creationism/dp/0520083938">The Creationists</a>: the Evolution of Scientific Creationism," University of California Press: Berkeley CA, Reprinted, 1993.<br><a name=""></a><b>Numbers, R.L.</b>, 1998, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Darwinism-Comes-America-Ronald-Numbers/dp/0674193121">Darwinism Comes to America</a>," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA.</p> <p>See `tagline' quotes below (original emphasis <i>italics, </i>my emphasis <b>bold</b>), from the above book by Nagel and other works listed above, on a variety of interesting creation, evolution and design topics. </p> <p><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology). <br>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">TheShroudofTurin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a> </p> <hr> <p>"<a name="NTTLW1997p74"></a>We seem to be left with a question that has no imaginable answer: <b>How is it possible for finite beings like us to think infinite thoughts</b> and even if they take priority over any possible outside view of them, what outside view can we take that is at least consistent with their content? The constant temptation toward reductionism-the explanation of reason in terms of something less fundamental-comes from treating our capacity to engage in it as the primary clue to what it is. ... <b>The problem then will be not how, if we engage in it, reason can be valid, but how, if it is universally valid, we can engage in it</b>. There are not many candidates for an answer to this question. <b>Probably the most popular nonsubjectivist answer nowadays is an evolutionary naturalism</b>: we can reason in these ways because it is the consequence of a more primitive capacity of belief formation that had survival value during the period when the human brain was evolving. <b>This explanation has always seemed to me laughably inadequate</b>. ... <b>The other well-known answer is the religious one: The universe is intelligible to us because it and our minds were made for each other</b>." (Nagel, T., 1997, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Last-Word-Thomas-Nagel/dp/0195108345">The Last Word</a>," Oxford University Press: New York NY, pp.74-75).</p><p>"<a name="NTTLW1997p130"></a>The thought that the relation between mind and the world is something fundamental <b>makes many people in this day and age nervous</b>. I believe this is one manifestation of <b>a fear of religion</b> which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life. In speaking of the fear of religion, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. <b>I am talking about something much deeper-namely, the fear of religion itself</b>. I speak from experience, <b>being strongly subject to this fear myself</b>: <b>I want atheism to be true and am </b>It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. <b>It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God</b>; I don't want the universe to be like that." (Nagel, 1997, p.130).</p> <p>"<a name="NTTLW1997p133"></a>I admit that this idea-that <b>the capacity of the universe to generate organisms with minds capable of understanding the universe</b> is itself somehow a fundamental feature of then universe - <b>has a quasi-religious `ring' to it</b> ... Here, as elsewhere, the idea of God serves as a placeholder for an explanation where something seems to demand explanation and none is available; <b>that is why so many people welcome Darwinist imperialism</b>. But there is really no reason to assume that the only alternative to an evolutionary explanation of everything is a religious one. However, this may not be comforting enough, because the feeling that I have called <b>the fear of religion may extend far beyond the existence of a personal god</b>, to include any cosmic order of which mind is an irreducible and nonaccidental part. I suspect that there is a deep-seated aversion in the modern `disenchanted' <i>Weltanschauung</i> to any ultimate principles that are not dead-that is, devoid of any reference to the possibility of life or consciousness." (Nagel, 1997, pp.132-133).</p> <p>"An evolutionary explanation of human reason is endorsed in Robert Nozick's recent book <i>The Nature of Rationality</i> [Princeton University Press, 1993] ... The proposal is supposed to be an explanation of reason but not a justification of it. Although <b>it `grounds' reason in certain evolutionary facts</b>, this is a causal grounding only: Those facts are not supposed to provide us with <i>grounds for accepting</i> the validity or reliability of reason. So the explanation is not circular. But what is it intended to provide? It seems to be a proposal of <b>a possible naturalistic explanation of the existence of reason</b> that would, if it were true, make our reliance on reason `objectively' reasonable-that is, a reliable way of getting at the truth ... . <b>But is the hypothesis really compatible with continued confidence in reason</b> as a source of knowledge about the nonapparent character of the world? In itself, <b>I believe an evolutionary story tells against such confidence</b>. Without something more, <b>the idea that our rational capacity was the product of natural selection would render reasoning far less trustworthy</b> than Nozick suggests, beyond its original `coping' functions. <b>There would be no reason to trust its results in mathematics and science</b>, for example. (And insofar <b>as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining</b>.)" (Nagel, 1997, pp.133-135).</p> <p> "<a name="NTTLW1997p138"></a>I suppose it is possible that rationality-the capacity to recognize objectively valid reasons and arguments- is a distinctively accessible member of the set of biological possibilities, one that becomes likely at sufficiently high levels of biological complexity-much more likely than would be predictable on the basis of random mutation and natural selection alone. Like the possibility of molecules or the possibility of consciousness, the possibility of rationality could be a fundamental feature of the natural order. ... But as Mark Johnston has said to me, if one asks, `<b>Why is the natural order such as to make the appearance of rational beings likely?' it is very difficult to imagine any answer to the question that is not teleological</b>." (Nagel, 1997, p.138). </p> <p>"So it is not <i>inconsistent</i> to regard ourselves as rational in this sense and also as creatures who have been produced through Darwinian evolution. On the other hand, as I have said, <b>the theory of evolution as usually understood provides absolutely no support for this</b>. " (Nagel, 1997, p.138).</p></p> <p>"<b>It is one of those fixed images of evolution</b>: adventurous fish managing to hoist themselves onto their stubby fins and crawling clumsily out of the swamps to forage for food. Once these primeval creatures were on <i>terra firma</i>, their offspring began to adapt to their new environment, natural selection (over tens of millions of years) favoring those that developed features well suited to life on land: paws, hooves, knees, joints, fingers and thumbs. Thus, as generations of schoolchildren have learned, did these marine creatures give rise to frogs, birds, dinosaurs and all the rest. <b>There's only one problem with this familiar version of how our distant ancestors emerged from the sea: it's probably wrong</b>. For one thing, the first creatures to waddle ashore were arthropods with well-developed legs and pincers. For another, newly assembled fossils-in particular, a 360 million-year-old salamander-like aquatic animal called <i>Acanthostega</i>-strongly suggest that <b>toes and feet were developed before the first relatives of fish climbed onto land, not after</b>. Moreover, <b>in shape and function, <i>Acanthostega</i>'s fully jointed toes bear no resemblance to the spiky, fanlike fins of a fish</b>. Scientists believe they understand how a fish's gills evolved into an amphibian's lungs. <b>But how did fins turn into feet like these?</b>" (Nash, J.M., 1995, "<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983240-1,00.html">Where Do Toes Come From?</a>," <i>Time</i>, Vol. 146, No. 5, July 31, p.68).</p> <p>"The drawback for scientists is that nature's shrewd economy conceals enormous complexity. Researchers are finding evidence that the <b>Hox genes</b> and the non-Hox <b>homeobox genes</b> are not independent agents but <b>members of vast genetic networks that connect hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other genes</b>. <b>Change one component, and myriad others will change as well--and not necessarily for the better</b>. Thus dreams of tinkering with nature's toolbox to bring to life what scientists call a `hopeful monster'- such as a fish with feet--are likely to remain elusive." (Nash, 1995).</p> <p>"A careful analysis of <b>naturalism reveals a problem so serious that it fails one of the major tests</b> that rational men and women will expect any worldview to pass. .... Naturalism claims that <i>everything</i> can be explained in terms of something else within the natural order. .... All that is required for naturalism to be false is the discovery of one thing that cannot be explained in the naturalistic way. C.S. Lewis set up this line of argument: `If necessities of thought force us to allow to any one thing any degree of independence from the Total System-if any one thing makes good a claim to be on its own, to be something more than an expression of the character of Nature as a whole-then we have abandoned Naturalism. For by Naturalism we mean the doctrine that only Nature-the whole interlocked system-exists. And if that were true, every thing and event would, if we knew enough, be explicable without remainder ... as a necessary product of the system.' [Lewis, C.S., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060653019">Miracles</a>," Fontana: London, Second edition, 1960, p.16] .... Lewis explains: `All possible knowledge ... depends on the validity of reasoning. ...The human mind ... has the power to grasp <i>necessary connections</i>, that is, what <i>must</i> be the case. This latter power, the ability to grasp <i>necessary</i> connections, is the essential feature of human <i>reasoning</i>. .... Naturalists must appeal to this kind of necessary connection in their arguments for naturalism; indeed, in their reasoning about everything. But can naturalists account for this essential element of the reasoning process that they utilize in their arguments for their own position? .... As Lewis sees it, <b>naturalism `discredits our processes of reasoning or at least reduces their credit to such a humble level that it can no longer support Naturalism itself</b>.' [p.19] ... <b>the only way a person can provide rational grounds for believing in naturalism is first to cease being a naturalist</b>. ": (Nash, R.H., 1992, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Worldviews-Conflict-Ronald-H-Nash/dp/0310577713">Worldviews in Conflict</a>: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1999, pp.122-126) .</p> <p>"From the biological view, the differences between humans and other animals are quantitative. The difficulty is not that we possess physical characteristics lacking in, or radically different from, other animals, but that we possess the same attributes to a greater or lesser degree. To mention only a few: we are larger than most animals, but have less hair; our brain is not the largest in relative or absolute size, but it is very large according to the standards of both these categories. We are not the only animal that is bipedal (birds are, too), but we are the only primates who are so structured-<b>we have a skeleton adapted for standing upright and walking, which leaves the hands free for purposes other than locomotion</b>. All these traits, elaborated and coordinated <b>under the control of a brain capable of abstract thought</b>, give us <b>our remarkable physical uniqueness</b>." (Nelson, H. & Jurmain, R., 1991, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Physical-Anthropology-Jurmain-Robert/dp/B000NXWNAY/">Introduction to Physical Anthropology</a>," West Publishing Co: St. Paul MN, Fifth Edition, p.11).</p> <p>"... there is a general tendency in all primates for erect body posture and some bipedalism. However, of all living primates, efficient bipedalism as the primary form of locomotion is seen only in hominids. Functionally, <b>the human mode of locomotion is most clearly shown in our striding gait</b>, where weight is alternately placed on a single fully extended hindlimb. This specialized form of locomotion has developed to a point where energy levels are used to near peak efficiency. <b>Such is not the case in nonhuman primates</b>, who move bipedally with hips and knees bent and maintain balance in a clumsy and inefficient manner." (Nelson & Jurmain, 1991, p.428).</p> <p>"<b>As an old earth creationist I believe that unguided evolution is not capable of producing the features we see in our universe</b>-not the universe itself, life, its actual variety, not humankind. Nor do I think that God-guided evolution is the way God chose to create, at least not to produce the large-scale differences between the various plants and animals, nor to make humans. Presumably God is capable of creating everything we see either by means of miracles in just a few days (even no time at all!) or by guiding purely natural processes over a long period of time. But I don't think the biblical or scientific evidence we have suggests that he used either of these means exclusively. Instead, it seems to me that <b>God used some combination of supernatural intervention and providential guidance to construct the universe</b>. ... <b>This old earth position is also sometimes called `progressive creationism.'</b>" (Newman, R.C., 1999, "Progressive Creationism (Old Earth Creationism)," in Moreland, J.P. & Reynolds, J.M., eds., 1999, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Three-Creation-Evolution-Porter-Moreland/dp/0310220173">Three Views on Creation and Evolution</a>," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, pp.105-106).</p> <p>"The authors of this work consider the Bible to be the authoritative, inerrant revelation of God. It does not follow from this, however, that (1) the scientific models regarding the age of the earth and the universe must be overthrown in order to maintain the scientific authority of Scripture, or that (2) the scientific authority of Scripture must be reduced to a few propositions like "God is behind it all." Although neither theistic evolution nor recent creationism is necessarily as extreme as the ends of the spectrum above indicate, our position is to be identified with neither of these. <b>We advocate a third, intermediate view usually labeled `progressive creationism'.</b>" (Newman, R.C. & Eckelmann, H.J., Jr., 1977, "<a href="http://www.splinteredlightbooks.com/cgi-bin/slb/6720">Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth</a>," Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute: Hatfields PA, 4th printing, 1991, p.11).</p> <p>"<i>The time of the Messiah</i> As a final example, let us consider <b>a passage that appears to predict the time of the coming of the Messiah</b>. That some such prophecy was thought to have expired in the first century A.D. is suggested by remarks to this effect by the Jewish historian Josephus and by the Roman historians Tacitus. For the sake of brevity, we quote only the first of these: But what more than all else incited them [the Jews] to the war [revolt against Rome, A.D. 66-73] was an ambiguous oracle, <i>likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time</i> one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their own cause men went astray in their interpretation of it. ... If we search the Old Testament for a passage that gives some timed prophecy of this sort) the only good candidate is found in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dn%209:24-26;&version=31;">Daniel 9:24-26</a> ... There has been considerable argument about the interpretation of this passage. A very reasonable interpretation, however, notes the significance of a decree issued by the Persian king Artaxerxes I during his twentieth year (445 B.C.). This edict officially approved Nehemiah's return to Jerusalem to rebuild its walls (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Neh%202:1-9;&version=31;">Neh 2:1-9</a>) The `sevens' of Daniel 9 (often translated `weeks') most likely refer to the recurring seven-year sabbatical cycle for land use, since sixty-nine weeks of days would have run out before Daniel's prophecy could even have been circulated, and these weeks of years were an established institution in Israel. Using these cycles as units of measurement, <b>the sixty-ninth such cycle (7 + 62), measured from the starting point of 445 B.C., spans the years A.D. 28-35</b>. One cannot help but note with interest that <b>on this analysis the `Anointed One' is `cut off' precisely when Jesus is crucified</b>! So <b>the only Jew claiming to be Messiah who has inaugurated a world religion of predominantly Gentile adherents was cut off precisely when Daniel predicted</b>! And the significance Christians ascribe to Jesus' death is given by Daniel-`to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness.' As it happens, Jesus Christ is also one of the most significant figures in world history, as even secular historians acknowledge." (Newman, R.C., 1997, "Fulfilled Prophecy as Miracle," in Geivett, R.D. & Habermas, G.R., eds., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Miracles-Comprehensive-Actions-History/dp/0830815287">In Defense of Miracles</a>: A Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History," Apollos: Leicester UK, pp.223-224).</p> <p>"<i>Humans: unique animals</i> Like the apes, humans are hominoids, so they have the same basic characteristics as the apes ... In humans there is a continued extension of those trends in characteristics described for the apes, and humans differ from them in certain obvious features of appearance and functional anatomy. Every animal species has some features that make it unique, because it develops adaptations that help it to survive and reproduce in its particular environment. <b>Humans, however, have some very special adaptations, and it is these that make the human a unique animal</b>." (Newton, T.J. & Joyce, A.P., 1995, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Human-Perspectives-Book-T-J-Newton/dp/0074527959/">Human Perspectives, Book 1</a>," [1979], McGraw-Hill Book Co: Sydney NSW, Australia, Third Edition, Reprinted, 1996, p.347).</p> <p>"<i>The human hand</i> <b>The human hand differs structurally and functionally from that of the other hominoids</b>. It is short and broad, with short, straight fingers and <b>a long, strong thumb when compared to that of an ape</b>. This arrangement <b>gives the thumb a great degree of freedom, and it can readily oppose each of the other digits</b>, thumb-tip to fingertip, <b>allowing humans to grasp objects with precision</b>. The precision grip, such as that used for holding a pencil when writing or a needle when sewing, is highly developed in humans. When grasping an object between the undersides of the fingers and the palm of the hand, a power grip can be used. The power grip, which exerts considerable strength, is found in other primates, such as the gorilla and chimpanzee ... ." (Newton & Joyce, 1996, p.348).</p><p>"<i>The human brain</i> <b>Humans have relatively large brains</b>: they range in size from 900 to 2200 cm<sup>3</sup>, but <b>average around 1350 cm<sup>3</sup></b>. This contrasts markedly with those of the <b>other hominoids, which average between 400 and 500 cm<sup>3</sup></b>. Most of the increase in brain size is associated with the cerebrum, which is divided by a longitudinal fissure into two halves, the left and the right hemi spheres. The outer portion of these hemispheres is the cortex, and it is this portion of the human brain that shows the greatest degree of development. The surface area of the cerebral cortex is greatly increased by foldings, called convolutions, which give a resulting surface area 50 per cent greater than a brain with no convolutions. <b>The front part of the cerebrum, known as the frontal lobe</b>, has the greatest relative enlargement in surface area. <b>In humans it makes up 47 per cent of the total cortical surface</b>, whereas in <b>pongids it com prises only 33 per cent</b>. It is in the frontal lobe that the higher functions of thinking, reasoning, planning and processing take place." (Newton & Joyce, 1996, pp.348-349).</p> <p>"<i>Speech</i> Humans have a prominent chin, which, when coupled with the shortened jaw, has provided some of the tongue's muscles with a more forward attachment. This has resulted in <b>a greater degree of freedom for their tongue</b> in the front of the mouth, an important factor for the formation of certain distinctive sounds during speech. Also important in this respect is <b>the position of the voice box, or larynx</b>: it lies directly below the tongue and soft palate, another consequence of human's erect stance. <b>Together, these structural features make speech possible</b>. When air passes over the vocal cords in the larynx they produce sounds that can be modulated by a highly mobile tongue, acting in conjunction with the hard and soft palate, the teeth and the lips .... <b>However, these structural features alone are not responsible for speech</b>. <b>Speech is very much a product of the human brain</b>, and the portion of the cerebrum devoted to the muscles of speech is very large, second only to the portion devoted to the muscles of the hand." (Newton & Joyce, 1996, pp.349-350).</p> <p>"Writing on 'Creation, Evolution, and Mediate Creation' for <i>The Bible Student</i> in 1901 (pp. 197-210), for example, Warfield reviewed the `scientific theology' of Otto Pfleiderer which, on inspection, revealed a wholesale importation of evolutionism into theological reflection. What Pfleiderer's project amounted to was-ultimately-a denial of God's creative intervention by an overemphasis on providential superintendence. Pfleiderer's conclusions prompted Warfield to insist that <b>`when we say "evolution," we definitely deny creation. and when we say "creation," we definitely deny evolution</b>. Whatever comes by the one process by that very fact does not come by the other. <b>Whatever comes by evolution is not created; whatever is created is not evolved.'</b> <b>Evolution and creation were mutually exclusive categories</b>. ... 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 <i>ex nihilo</i>, or out of nothing. <b>Warfield's third category</b> was the most complicated and the one that least resembles schemes developed since his time. This was the category of <b>mediate creation</b>-in effect, a via media between evolution and creation <i>ex nihilo</i> that he developed from hints in earlier Reformed theologians. By mediate creation Warfield meant that <b>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</b>. Like creation <i>ex nihilo</i>, mediate creation required a direct act of God. <b>Like evolution, mediate creation featured already existing material</b>." (Noll, M.A. & Livingstone, D.N., "Introduction," in Noll M.A. & Livingstone D.N., eds, 2000, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Science-Scripture-Selected-Writings/dp/0801022177">B.B. Warfield: Evolution, Science and Scripture</a>: Selected Writings," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, pp.34-35).</p> <p>"As one of the earliest of the natural philosophers in Greece is mentioned <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales">THALES of Miletus</a>. ... between 650 and 580 B.C. ... He was probably of Phoenician origin ... he had educated himself by travailing and studying in the East. He was very rich and of high standing and collected around him a number of disciples. Of his philosophy it is mentioned that he regarded water as the cause of all things. <b>The earth floated like a disk on a vast sea</b> which surrounded it on all sides. The details of his philosophy are unknown, but the assumption mentioned above is to a certain extent <b>reminiscent of the story of the creation in Genesis</b>, with its definite assertion of 'waters which were under the firmament' and `waters which were above the firmament' <b>That we are here dealing with a theory of oriental origin seems beyond all doubt</b>." (Nordenskiold, E., 1928, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/History-Biology-Erik-Nordenskiold/dp/B000PY9YQ2/">The History of Biology</a>: A Survey," [1920-24], transl. Eyre L.B., Tudor Publishing Co: New York NY, pp.10-11).</p> <p>"<b>Living beings he</b> [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximander">Anaximander (c. 610?546 BC)</a>] conceives as <b>having evolved</b> through a kind of primordial procreation in the mud which formerly covered the earth. Thus, first there arose animals and plants, and then human beings, who, originally formed like fishes, lived in the water, but afterwards cast off their fish-skin, went up on dry land and thenceforth lived there. We see, then, that <b>Anaximander produced a complete theory of evolution</b>, childishly clumsy, it is true, but interesting for the audacity with which he deduced his conclusions from his premisses." (Nordenskiold, 1928, p.12).</p> <p>"MODERN CRITICS have often asked themselves <b>how it is that a hypothesis like Darwin's, based on such weak foundations, could all at once win over to its side the greater part of contemporary scientific opinion</b>. If the defenders of the theory refer with this end in view to its intrinsic value, it may be answered that <b>the theory has long ago been rejected in its most vital points by subsequent research</b>." (Nordenskiold, 1928, p.477).</p> <p>"Bypassing the recent wave of Creationism in the US and its criticism of Darwin's theory, <b>a number of objections can be made against the notion of natural selection</b>, some of which I will mention here. <b>Such intricate changes have arisen in nature, involving such immensely complex series of mutations that mathematicians find it almost impossible to attribute these to blind c</b>hance. Rattray Taylor mentions several instances of <b>features which evolved long before they were of any advantage so that they hardly can have been caused by natural selection</b>. Even Darwin himself was occasionally seized by doubt while contemplating organs of extreme perfection. `<b>The eye gives me a cold shudder</b>,' he wrote." (Noske, B., 1989, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Humans-Animals-Beyond-Boundaries-Anthropology/dp/B001657C5O/">Humans and Other Animals</a>: Beyond the Boundaries of Anthropology," Pluto Press: London, p.65).</p> <p>"Within a couple of decades of the publication of Charles Darwin's landmark book <i>Origin of Species</i> (1859), the idea of organic evolution had captivated most British and American scientists and was beginning to draw favorable comment from religious leaders on both sides of the Atlantic. By the late nineteenth century, evolutionary notions were infiltrating even the ranks of evangelical Christians, and, <b>in the opinion of many observers, belief in special creation seemed destined to go the way of the dinosaur</b>. But contrary to the hopes of liberals and the fears of conservatives, <b>creationism did not become extinct</b>. Many English-speaking Christians, particularly in North America, remained true to a traditional reading of Genesis and from time to time, most notably in the 1920s and since the 1960s, mounted campaigns to contain the spread of evolutionary theory. An overwhelming majority of Americans saw no reason to oppose the teaching of creationism in public schools, and <b>according to a 1991 Gallup poll 47 percent</b>, including a fourth of the college graduates, <b>continued to believe that `God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.'</b> ["Poll Finds Americans Split on Creation Idea," <i>New York Times</i>, August 29, 1982]" (Numbers, R.L., 1992, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Creationists-Evolution-Scientific-Creationism/dp/0520083938">The Creationists: the Evolution of Scientific Creationism</a>," University of California Press: Berkeley CA, Reprinted, 1993, p.ix).</p> <p>"... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis">C.S. Lewis</a> (1898-1963), perhaps the best-known Christian apologist of his day and a personal friend of Captain Acworth's [Chairman, Evolution Protest Movement, London]. ... In 1951 he confessed that his belief in the unimportance of evolution had been shaken while reading one of his friend's manuscripts. `I wish I were younger,' he confided to Acworth. `What inclines me now to think that <b>you may be right in regarding it [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives</b> is not so much your arguments against it as <b>the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders</b>' [Lewis, C.S., to Acworth, B., September 13, 1951]" (Numbers, 1992, p.153).</p> <p>"Meanwhile, during the same years, biologists, after decades of disagreeing over the mechanism of evolution to the point of fostering reports of Darwinism lying on its `death-bed,' began to forge a common explanation of evolution, which came to be known, perhaps misleadingly, as the modern or neo-Darwinian synthesis. Geneticists, taxonomists, and paleontologists, who had long worked virtually isolated from one another, finally began interacting-and agreeing on the centrality of natural selection in the evolutionary process. In doing so, <b>they repudiated other evolutionary explanations, particularly ones that gave evolution the appearance of having a purpose</b>. This created, in the words of the historian-biologist William B. Provine, <b>an `evolutionary constriction' that squeezed any talk of supernatural design out of biological discourse</b>. `The evolutionary constriction,' he asserts, `<b>ended all rational hope of purpose in evolution</b>,' thus <b>making belief in Darwinism the functional equivalent of atheism</b>. Many evolutionists remained devout Christians and Jews, but it became increasingly difficult to do so on the basis of the scientific evidence for evolution." (Numbers, R.L, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Darwinism-Comes-America-Ronald-Numbers/dp/0674193121">Darwinism Comes to America</a>," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1998, p.4).</p> <p>"Support for creationism ran deep in North American society. Despite the nearly unanimous endorsement of naturalistic evolution by leading biologists, <b>a Gallup poll in 1993 showed that 47 percent of Americans continued to believe that `God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years,'</b> and <b>an additional 35 percent thought that the process of evolution had been divinely guided</b>. <b>Only 11 percent subscribed to purely naturalistic evolution</b>. (Seven percent expressed no opinion.) <b>Fifty-eight percent of the public favored teaching creationism in the schools</b>. In Canada, which had experienced comparatively little controversy over origins, 53 percent of adults rejected evolution. In 1986, during a visit to New Zealand, the American paleontologist and anticreationist Stephen Jay Gould assured his hosts that scientific creationism was so `peculiarly American' that it stood little chance of `catching on overseas.' His colleague Richard C. Lewontin seemed to agree. `Creationism is an American institution,' he declared, `and it is not only American but specifically southern and southwestern.' So it may have seemed at the time, but <b>scientific creationism was already traveling far beyond the borders of the United States, enjoying growing popularity in Europe, Asia, and the South Pacific</b>." (Numbers, R.L., 1998, "Darwinism Comes to America," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, pp.9,11).</p> <p>"If Dawkins played the role of point man for late-twentieth-century naturalistic evolutionists, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett">Daniel C. Dennett</a> gladly served as their hatchet man. In a book called <i>Darwin's Dangerous Idea</i> (1995), which Dawkins warmly endorsed, <b>Dennett portrayed Darwinism as `a universal solvent</b>, capable of cutting right to the heart of everything in sight'-and <b>particularly effective in dissolving religious beliefs</b>. The most ardent creationist could not have said it with more conviction, but Dennett's agreement with them ended there. He despised creationists, arguing that `there are no forces on this planet more dangerous to us all than the fanaticisms of fundamentalism.' <b>Displaying a degree of intolerance more characteristic of a fanatic Fundamentalist than an academic philosopher, he called for `caging' those who would deliberately misinform children about the natural world</b>, just as one would cage a threatening wild animal. `The message is clear,' he wrote: `those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest and wildest strain of their heritage alive, we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes [traditions] they fight for.' <b>With the bravado of a man unmindful that only 11 percent of the public shared his enthusiasm for naturalistic evolution, he warned parents that if they insisted on teaching their children</b> `falsehoods-that, the Earth is flat, <b>that 'Man' is not a product of evolution by natural selection</b>-then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity.' <b>Those who resisted conversion to Dennett's scientific fundamentalism would be subject to `quarantine.'</b>" (Numbers, R.L., 1998, p.13).</p> <p>"It is clear from this testimony that <b>Bryan not only rejected the notion of a 6,000-year-old Earth but freely interpreted the days of Genesis as vast periods of time</b>. Such beliefs may have struck Darrow (and a host of historians) as being inconsistent with hard-core Fundamentalism, but <b>there is little evidence that Fundamentalists themselves expressed either shock or surprise</b>. During the 1920s Fundamentalists divided over the correct interpretation of the Mosaic account of creation, but <b>few insisted on a young Earth</b>. ... An influential minority, including Bryan, chose to accommodate the fossil evidence by reading the `days' of Genesis as vast geological ages. Only a relatively tiny group, mostly Seventh-day Adventists, insisted on the recent appearance of life on Earth in six days of twenty-four-hours each. Despite their differences, the Fundamentalists in all three hermeneutical camps regarded themselves as strict biblical literalists. ... <b>In advocating the day-age interpretation of Genesis, Bryan found himself in impeccable Fundamentalist company</b>. George Frederick Wright, author of an essay on evolution in <i>The Fundamentals</i>, subscribed to the same view, as did William Bell Riley, head of the World's Christian Fundamentals Association, the organization that had sent Bryan to Dayton." (Numbers, 1998, pp.80-81).</p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-84666961853370084232008-04-30T07:43:00.003+08:002008-04-30T10:34:32.398+08:00Re: ID vs Darwinism on random mutation & natural selection<p>AN</p> <p>Thank you for your question and my apologies <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8bOyDjJq4h3tR3XWJEwJiJ7fviZ2iiznZyx1sJ4d9swh2dVs3t0wXuPTB6cxhw1aKfH5yh9ynzaW3sObV-E1eu2_4kcFs9tl0Xj37BY9c4ip-k-urFTpWAeaKHbp2kQDt3RiV/s1600-h/DawkinsBlindW.JPG"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8bOyDjJq4h3tR3XWJEwJiJ7fviZ2iiznZyx1sJ4d9swh2dVs3t0wXuPTB6cxhw1aKfH5yh9ynzaW3sObV-E1eu2_4kcFs9tl0Xj37BY9c4ip-k-urFTpWAeaKHbp2kQDt3RiV/s320/DawkinsBlindW.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5194827641072872274" /></a>for the delay in finally replying. </p> <p>[Left: "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393304485">The Blind Watchmaker</a>," by atheist Darwinist, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins">Richard Dawkins</a>. Note the <i>incongruity</i> between the cover with an <i>designed</i> watch underlying nature, and the sub-title of the book, why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe <i>without design</i>!]</p><p>As explained to you in my interim reply, my long-standing policy when I receive a private message on a creation, evolution or design topic, is to answer via my blog, CreationEvolutionDesign, minus the sender's personal identifying information.</p> <p>Inline references are hyperlinked to the `tagline' quotes below. I have made your words <b>bold</b> to distinguish them from my comments.</p> <p><b>>Hi Mr. Jones,<br>><br>>I was wondering if you can help me with a question I have about Intelligent Design.</b> </p> <p>I am happy to answer your question, but you should be aware that I have no official standing in the ID movement, so the views here expressed are my own, although I expect they would be endorsed by most, if not all, ID proponents.<br><br><b>According to <a href="http://www.caseyluskin.com/">Casey Luskin</a> over at the <a href="http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&isFellow=true&id=188">Discovery Institute</a>, ID proponents agree with Darwinian evolutionists about random mutations and natural selection, stating:<br>><br>>"Every ID proponent I know acknowledges that random mutation and blind natural selection are real phenomena that can cause at least some changes within species." <br></b></p> <p>See `tagline' quote below (<a href="#LC2007">Luskin,2007</a>) for the context. Specifically, his important qualification was (my emphasis):<blockquote>"ID proponents simply don't think such random and blind processes <i>can account for the origin of many complex biological features, like irreducible complex molecular machines, or the explosion of new body plans</i> that appear in a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion." (<a href="#LC2007">Luskin,2007</a>)</blockquote></p> <p>which I agree with. That is, ID proponents acknowledge that the natural selection of random mutations is a real phenomena, that can cause at least some biological change. But ID proponents do not acknowledge, on the basis of the evidence, that the natural selection of random mutations can plausibly account for "many complex biological features," including "irreducible complex molecular machines," "new body plans," and what Dawkins calls: <blockquote> "... the 'Paley's watch', or 'Organs of extreme Perfection and complication', kind of adaptation that seems to demand a shaping agent at least as powerful as a deity." (<a href="#DREP1983p108">Dawkins, 1983, p.108</a>).</blockquote></p> <p>I should immediately clarify that what Darwinists mean by "random mutation" is that they are "random" in the sense of <i>unguided</i> or <i>undirected</i>:<blockquote>"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 .... It is selection, and only selection, that directs evolution in directions that are nonrandom with respect to advantage." (<a href="#DRBW1986p312">Dawkins, 1986, p.312</a>).</p></blockquote> <p>and therefore it <i>can only be</i> natural selection that directs evolution in directions that are nonrandom.</p><p>That there is no evidence that the natural selection of random mutations did, or even <i>could</i>, direct evolution to produce "complex biological features, like irreducible complex molecular machines" does not matter to Darwinists who assume that natural selection <i>must</i> have been able to create life's complex designs, because it is the <i>only</i> naturalistic mechanism that <i>could</i> have, <i>irrespective of the evidence</i> (my emphasis below):<blockquote>"I suspect that it may be possible to show that, <i>regardless of evidence</i>, Darwinian natural selection is the only force we know that could, <i>in principle</i>, do the job of explaining the existence of organised and adaptive complexity." (<a href="#DRND1982p130">Dawkins, 1982 p.130</a>).<br><br>"I want to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true, but thatit is the only known theory that could, <i>in principle</i>, solve the mystery of our existence.." (<a href="#DRBW1986pxiv">Dawkins, 1986, p.xiv</a>).<br> <br>"Darwinism is the only known theory that is <i>in principle</i> capable of explaining certain aspects of life. ... <i>even if there were no actual evidence in favour</i> of the Darwinian theory ..." (<a href="#DRBW1986p287">Dawkins, 1986, pp.287-288</a>).<br><br>"The Darwinian theory is <i>in principle</i> capable of explaining life. No other theory that has ever been suggested is <i>in principle</i> capable of explaining life." (<a href="#DRBW1986p288">Dawkins, 1986, p.288</a>).<br><br>"The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is <i>in principle</i> capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. <i>Even if the evidence did not favour it</i>, it would <i>still</i> be the best theory available!." (<a href="#DRBW1986p317">Dawkins, 1986, p.317</a>).</blockquote></p> <p><b>>At what point(s) do ID proponents agree or disagree with Darwinian evolutionists when it comes to random mutations and natural selection?</b></p> <p>ID proponents can agree that many, or even most, mutations are unguided, at least in a <i>proximate</i> sense (a Christian IDist like me could argue on the basis of <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mat%2010:29-30;&version=31;">Mat 10:29-30 </a>that even what <i>appears</i> undirected, is in fact <i>ultimately</i> directed). But few, if any, ID proponents would agree that <i>all mutations</i> in the ~4 billion-year history of life, have been unguided or undirected.</p> <p>Yet that is what the Darwinist position is. Note what Dawkins wrote above: "no mechanism is known ... that <i>could</i> guide mutation in directions that are non-random" (my emphasis). That is, <i>all</i> mutations in the history of life, <i>must</i> have been unguided because there is nothing that <i>could</i> have guided them. But as ID theorist Michael Denton pointed out, there is no <i>scientific</i> way of knowing that <i>all</i> mutations in the <i>entire</i> ~4 billion-year history of life on earth have been unguided:<blockquote>"But the fact that some mutations in bacteria are spontaneous does not necessarily mean that <i>all</i> mutations in <i>all</i> organisms throughout the entire course of 4 billion years of evolution <i>have all been entirely spontaneous</i>. ... ... There is simply no experimental means of demonstrating that they were all spontaneous." (<a href="#DMJND1998p285">Denton, 1998, pp.285-286</a>. Emphasis original). </blockquote></p> <p>So the reason why Darwinists like Dawkins assume that mutations are unguided, is <i>theological</i>, not scientific. They <i>assume</i> that mutations have been <i>unguided</i> because they <i>assume</i> that "no mechanism ... <i>could</i> guide mutation in directions that are non-random." But clearly an Intelligent Designer/God <i>could</i> "guide mutation in directions that are non-random," either by: 1) "front-loading" design into the laws and constants of the Universe, such that life with its complex designs would inevitably emerge (I personally don't think this would be sufficient-see <a href="#NP1995">Nelson, 1995</a>); and/or 2) supernaturally intervening at strategic points in life's history to insert new information so as to bring about new designs (my position- see <a href="#PNWNKA2000p42">Pearcey, 2000, p.42</a>).</p> <p>In fact both Darwin and Dawkins admit that God <i>could</i> have supernaturally intervened in natural history, in which case it "<i>would not be evolution at all</i>" (my emphasis):<blockquote>"Darwin ... wrote ... .I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires <i>miraculous additions at any one stage of descent</i>.' ... For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God <i>was not evolution at all</i>." (<a href="#DRBW1986p248">Dawkins, 1986, pp.248-249</a>).</blockquote></p> <p>but a form of "<i>divine creation</i>" (my emphasis):<blockquote>"... 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, <i>divine creation</i>, whether instantaneous or in the form of <i>guided evolution</i>, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (<a href="#DRBW1986p316">Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317</a>).</blockquote></p> <p>I might add that it is not only ID proponents who disagree with Darwinian evolutionists that the natural selection of random mutations can account for the origin of many complex biological features. I was reading the other day in a secondhand bookshop a book, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/essential-Samuel-Butler-Selected-introd/dp/B0007KAE0Y/">The Essential Samuel Butler</a>" (1950) containing an essay, "<a href="http://www.authorama.com/essays-on-life-art-and-science-10.html">The Deadlock in Darwinism</a>," by Darwin's contemporary <a href="http://www.victorianweb.org/science/butler.html">Samuel Butler</a> (1835-1902) , an early convert to Darwinism and an atheist, but who upon reflection realised that Darwin's mechanism of the natural selection of random mutations, simply would not work, because "Variations ... that are ascribed to mere chance cannot be supposed as likely to be accumulated":<blockquote>"[Natural selection] must depend on the supply of the variations [but] ... Variations ... that are ascribed to mere chance cannot be supposed as likely to be accumulated, for chance is notoriously inconstant, and would not purvey the variations in sufficiently unbroken succession, or in a sufficient number of individuals, modified similarly in all the necessary correlations at the same time and place to admit of their being accumulated" (<a href="#BSDD1890">Butler, 1890</a>).</blockquote></p> <p>There are many other evolutionary theorists who have made the same criticism (too many to include in this post), but the problem is that although the actual overall pattern of the fossil evidence is "hauntingly reminiscent of creation":<blockquote>"Palaeobiologists ... instead of finding the slow, smooth and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected ... saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere ... patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation." (<a href="#PMHA1999p665">Pagel, 1999, p.665</a>).</p></blockquote><p>science for over 150 years has been dominated by scientists whose <i>personal religious philosophy</i> is atheism/agnosticism, and therefore they reject in advance creation/intelligent design, <i>irrespective of the evidence</i>.</p> <p><b>>Hoping to hear from you,<br><br>AN</b></p> <p>See `tagline' quotes below (emphasis <i>italics</i> original, emphasis <b>bold </b>mine).</p> <p><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology). <br>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">TheShroudofTurin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah!</a> </p> <hr> <p>"<a name="BSDD1890"></a>For it is plain that <b>what Nature can be supposed able to do by way of choice must depend on the supply of the variations from which she is supposed to choose</b>. She cannot take what is not offered to her; and so again she cannot be supposed able to accumulate unless what is gained in one direction in one generation, or series of generations, is little likely to be lost in those that presently succeed. Now variations ascribed mainly to use and disuse can be supposed capable of being accumulated, for use and disuse are fairly constant for long periods among the individuals of the same species, and often over large areas; moreover, conditions of existence involving changes of habit, and thus of organisation, come for the most part gradually; so that time is given during which the organism can endeavour to adapt itself in the requisite respects, instead of being shocked out of existence by too sudden change. <b>Variations, on the other hand, that are ascribed to mere chance cannot be supposed as likely to be accumulated</b>, for chance is notoriously inconstant, and <b>would not purvey the variations in sufficiently unbroken succession, or in a sufficient number of individuals, modified similarly in all the necessary correlations at the same time and place to admit of their being accumulated</b>. It is vital therefore to the theory of evolution, as was early pointed out by the late Professor <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeming_Jenkin">Fleeming Jenkin</a> and by Mr. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer">Herbert Spencer</a>, that <b>variations should be supposed to have a definite and persistent principle underlying them</b>, which shall tend to engender similar and simultaneous modification, however small, in the vast majority of individuals composing any species. The existence of <b>such a principle and its permanence is the only thing that can be supposed capable of acting as rudder and compass to the accumulation of variations</b>, and of <b>making it hold steadily on one course</b> for each species, till eventually many havens, far remote from one another, are safely reached." (Butler, S., "<a href="http://www.authorama.com/essays-on-life-art-and-science-10.html">The Deadlock in Darwinism: Part I</a>," in "Essays on Life, Art and Science," [1890], Chelsea House Publishing: New York NY, 1983) .</p> <p>"<a name="DRND1982p130"></a>Darwin's theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist. But, important as evidence is, in this article I want to explore the possibility of developing a different kind of argument. I suspect that it may be possible to show that, <b>regardless of evidence, Darwinian natural selection is the only force we know that could, in principle, do the job of explaining the existence of organised and adaptive complexity</b>." (Dawkins, R., 1982, "The Necessity of Darwinism," <i>New Scientist</i>, Vol. 94, 15 April, p.130).</p> <p>"<a name="DREP1983p108"></a>The theory of species selection, growing out of that of punctuated equilibria, is a stimulating idea which may well explain some single dimensions of quantitative change in macroevolution. I would be very surprised if it could be used to explain the sort of complex multidimensional adaptation that I find interesting, <b>the 'Paley's watch', or 'Organs of extreme Perfection and complication', kind of adaptation that seems to demand a shaping agent at least as powerful as a deity</b>." (Dawkins, R., 1983, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Extended-Phenotype-Reach-Popular-Science/dp/0192880519">The Extended Phenotype</a>: The Long Reach of the Gene," [1982], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, p.108).</p> <p>"<a name="DRBW1986pxiv"></a>More, I want to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true, but that<b> it is the only known theory that could, in principle</b>, solve the mystery of our existence. This makes it a doubly satisfying theory. A good case can be made that Darwinism is true, not just on this planet but all over the universe wherever life may be found." (Dawkins, R, 1986, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393304485">The Blind Watchmaker</a>: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, p.xiv)</p> <p>"<a name="DRBW1986p248"></a><b>Darwin ... wrote</b> 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, <b>if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent</b>.' [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 <i>point</i> of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a <i>non-</i> miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. <b>For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all</b>." (Dawkins., 1986, p.248-249).</p><p>"<a name="DRBW1986p287"></a>My argument will be that <b>Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life</b>. If I am right means that, <b>even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be preferring it over all rival theories</b>. One way in which to dramatize this point is to make a prediction. I predict that, if a form of life is ever discovered in another part of the universe, however outlandish and weirdly alien that form of life may be in detail, it will be found to resemble life on Earth in one key respect: it will have evolved by some kind of Darwinian natural selection." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.287-288).</p> <p>"<a name="DRBW1986p288"></a>The <b>Darwinian theory is in principle capable of explaining life</b>. No other theory that has ever been suggestedis <b>in principle capable of explaining life</b>. I shall demonstrate this by discussing all known rival theories, not the evidence for or against them, but their adequacy, in principle, as explanations for life." (Dawkins, 1986, p.288).</p> <p>"<a name="DRBW1986p312"></a>There is a fifth respect in which mutation <i>might</i> 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. <b>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</b> in this fifth sense. Mutation is random with respect to adaptive advantage, although it is non-random in all sorts of other respects. <b>It is selection, and only selection, that directs evolution in directions that are nonrandom with respect to advantage</b>." (Dawkins, 1986, p.312).</p> <p><a name="DRBW1986p316"></a>At first sight there is an important distinction to be made between what might be called 'instantaneous creation' and <b>'guided evolution'</b>. 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 <b>influencing key moments in evolutionary history</b> (especially, of course, <i>human</i> evolutionary history), or even meddling more comprehensively in the day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary change. ...<b> In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution</b>, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317).</p> <p>"<a name="DRBW1986p317"></a>The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the <b>only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity</b>. <b>Even if the evidence did not favour it</b>, it would <i>still</i> be the best theory available! In fact the evidence does favour it. But that is another story." (Dawkins, 1986, p.317).</p> <p>"<a name="DMJND1998p285"></a>The idea of the spontaneity of mutation is taken as a proven fact by a great many biologists today. And this is the fundamental assumption upon which the whole Darwinian model of nature is based. If it could be shown that some mutations, even a small proportion, are occurring by direction or are adaptive in some sense, then quite literally the whole contingent biology collapses at once. What is very remarkable about this whole issue is that, as is typical of any `unquestioned article of faith,' evidence for the doctrine of the spontaneity of mutation is hardly ever presented. Its truth is nearly always assumed. In nearly all the texts on genetics and evolution published over the past four decades, whenever the author attempts to justify the doctrine of the spontaneity of mutation, he refers back to a series of crucial experiments carried out in the late forties and early fifties on the bacterium <i>E. coli</i> that were associated with the names of Salvador Luria, Max Delbruck, and Joshua Lederberg. <b>But the fact that some mutations in bacteria are spontaneous does not necessarily mean that <i>all</i> mutations in <i>all</i> organisms throughout the entire course of 4 billion years of evolution <i>have all been entirely spontaneous</i></b>. ... During the course of the past 4 billion years of evolution, countless trillions of changes have occurred in the DNA sequences of living organisms. <b>There is simply no experimental means of demonstrating that they were all spontaneous</b>." (Denton, M.J., 1998, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Natures-Destiny-Biology-Purpose-Universe/dp/0684845091">Nature's Destiny</a>: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe," Free Press: New York NY, pp.285-286. Emphasis original).</p> <p>"<a name="GSJDF1997312"></a>Since the ultras [ultra-Darwinists] are fundamentalists at heart, and since fundamentalists generally try to stigmatize their opponents by depicting them as apostates from the one true way, may I state for the record that I (along with all other Darwinian pluralists) do not deny either the existence and central importance of adaptation, or the production of adaptation by natural selection. Yes, eyes are for seeing and feet are for moving. And, yes again, <b>I know of no scientific mechanism other than natural selection with the proven power to build structures of such eminently workable design</b>." (Gould, S.J., 1997, "<a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1151">Darwinian Fundamentalism</a>," <i>The New York Review of Books</i>, June 12. Parenthesis mine).</p> <p>"<a name="LC2007"></a>You asked: "Do you think evolution exists at all?" I reply: Yes. <b>Every ID proponent I know acknowledges that random mutation and blind natural selection are real phenomena that can cause at least some changes within species</b>. Moreover, they also acknowledge that species have undergone at least some degree of change in the past. <b>ID proponents simply don't think such random and blind processes can account for the origin of many complex biological features, like irreducible complex molecular machines, or the explosion of new body plans that appear in a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion</b>. Also, you asked about whether I accept anti-biotic resistance (i.e. antibacterial soap) as an example of evolution. Again, every ID-proponent I know agrees that anti-biotic resistance is a real evolutionary phenomenon. But we generally observe that anti-biotic resistance typically involves trivial biochemical changes that do not explain the origin of complex biological systems." (Luskin, C. "<a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/">Answers to Student's Questions about Evolution and Intelligent Design</a>," <i>Evolution News & Views</i>, December 31, 2007). </p> <p>"<a name="NP1995"></a>This may be the place to mention Ken [Miller]'s answer to a question from the audience about Ken's own views on God and evolution, because it applies to the question of mechanism. Ken is a Roman Catholic ... In response to the question, `how do you think God acted?' Ken told the following story. `I knew a nun while I was a graduate student in Colorado,' he said, `who was also a biologist. She gave a lecture on evolution, which she fully accepted, and was asked during the question period how she could believe in a God who created through evolution. How did that fit with her theology?' `Well, she replied,' Ken continued, `that it sounded to her like the questioner believed in a God who wasn't a really superlative pool player. Imagine a pool player who says, 'I'm going to sink all the balls on the table,' and he does so - but only one at a time.<b> 'My God,' said the nun, 'is like the pool player who lifts the triangular rack on the 15 balls, lines up the cue ball, and sinks all the balls with one shot.''</b> `And that's my God, too,' said Ken. Now, one's first intuition, on hearing this story, is to say, hmm, that would be quite a feat: sink all the balls with one shot. Wouldn't that be the greatest design, to build the whole universe so all its design unfolded right from the start - with one shot, so to speak? But there's a very interesting problem buried in the nun's metaphor. <b>No pool player could possibly sink all the balls with one shot. It's impossible. The pool player can't put enough physical information into the head of the cue stick</b> (so to speak), transfer that information to the cue ball, and have the cue ball transfer the information (e.g., vectors) into the fifteen balls in the rack formation to have those balls roll into the pockets of the pool table. Sure, nothing in principle prevents all the balls from rolling into the pockets. After all, after the impact of the cue ball, they have to go somewhere, so why not into the pockets simultaneously? But the pool player can't do it, because he can't foresee (calculate) all the interactions, and even if he could, <b>he couldn't `get the information' (the interactions) into the head of the cue stick</b>, using only his muscles (which are subject to dynamics of their own), eyes, nervous system, etc. Furthermore, as the cue ball interacts with the cue stick and the cloth of the table , even before it contacts the rack formation, some information will be lost. That's why no one will ever lose $ betting against the player who claims to be able to sink all the balls in one shot. Now, could God sink all the balls with one shot? Of course. It's only a problem of mechanics. Presumably there are indefinitely many single shots, which, if only one could make them, would sink all the balls in any pattern one chooses. But scientifically speaking, humans can't `get at' those shots analytically - because we're limited by our finite knowledge and the probabilities we face. Therefore we can safely declare the event impossible (meaning excluded probabilistically). Now, here's why I think this story becomes a problem for the theistic evolutionist who wants to use it to show how great a designer God becomes (when one accepts evolution). <b>As our scientific descriptions of the universe run back to the Big Bang, we lose information</b>: by that, I mean <b>the `specifications' required, for instance, to provide function in even the simplest organisms, will disappear</b> - they can't be expressed by, or reduced to, physical equations. Thus, <b>if the theistic evolutionist starts with God creating `the laws of nature,' he lacks the explanatory resources to generate organisms later</b>. <b>The physical laws and regularities are too information-poor</b>. That is, they won't generate specified functional (or informational) structures. Well, how about giving those laws some help, by rigging the starting conditions? (Trick shots in billiards displays often begin with the shooter arranging the balls in some carefully specified pattern.) Again, I don't think that helps. The information required won't go away: one simply has to encode it at another, lower level. (Mike Behe and I once argued about whether a cosmic ray burst might generate all the mutations necessary for a cilium to arise <i>de novo</i>; I said, sure, it could, but then one has to explain the vastly unlikely event of simultaneous cosmic ray bursts all striking one cell, etc. The information won't go away.) <b>So, when the nun says, `I believe in a God who sinks all the balls with one shot,' she's really describing a created universe that wouldn't work</b>. At least, we can't say how it would work, i.e., bring forth organisms from physical regularities in the fullness of time. What does it mean to say, `we can't say how that universe would work'? Exactly what it means, I think, in the billiards example. Suppose someone said, `it's possible to sink all the balls with one shot.' `Yes, in principle,' we respond. `In reality? Never.' That's equivalent to rejecting naturalistic evolution probabilistically. Then the nun says, `OK, but God could have done it.' Sure, he could have. But, scientifically speaking, we face all the same problems. God's knowledge is not `our' knowledge, and our science is always relativized to our limitations. Thus, to say, `God could have done it' does absolutely nothing to solve the problem of getting enough information out of the Big Bang to build organisms, and so on. <b>That's why most theories of theistic evolution, when one looks at them closely, really involve God acting all along the way</b>." (Nelson, P., 1995, "<a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/asa795rpt.htm">A Report on the ASA Conference Debate on <i>Pandas and People</i> Textbook</a>," Access Research Network. September 1) </p> <p>"<a name="PMHA1999p665"></a>Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, <b>they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere</b> and then remaining unchanged for millions of years- <b>patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation</b>." (Pagel, M., "Happy accidents?" Review of "The Pattern of Evolution," by Niles Eldredge, W.H. Freeman, 1999. <i>Nature</i>, Vol. 25 February 1999, pp.664-665, p.665). </p> <p>"<a name="PNWNKA2000p42"></a><i>What Is Intelligent Design?</i> The dominant view in science today is naturalistic evolution, which claims that the universe is the result of an unguided, undirected process, explainable strictly in terms of chance and natural law. Design theory proposes a third cause--intelligent design--and claims that evidence for design in the universe can be detected empirically. Here's a summary of the major positions that fall under this category: THEISTIC EVOLUTION: Many versions of theistic evolution reject design, and are identical scientifically to naturalistic evolution. But some versions propose that design was `frontloaded' into the initial conditions of the universe and its laws, so that creation would unfold over time in the way God intended. OLD-AGE or PROGRESSIVE CREATION: God guided the process of development, <b>injecting information at key stages in the development of the universe and life to design new forms of organization</b>. YOUNG-AGE CREATION: God created the universe and the major life forms within a short period of time (some say six literal days), about 10,000 (rather than billions of) years ago." (Pearcey, N.R., 2000, "<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/may22/1.42.html?start=10">We're Not in Kansas Anymore</a>," <i>Christianity Today</i>, May 22, Vol. 44, No. 6, p.42). </p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-87402873797916018682008-04-05T18:58:00.007+08:002008-08-12T23:36:56.758+08:00PoE: 1.1.2. The original meaning of "evolution"<p>This is subsection 1.1.2. The original meaning of "evolution," <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Albrecht_von_Haller.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 260px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Albrecht_von_Haller.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>of my online book outline, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/07/problems-of-evolution-book-outline.html">Problems of Evolution</a>."</p> <p>[<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Albrecht_von_Haller.jpg">Left</a>: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albrecht_von_Haller">Albrecht von Haller</a> (1708-1777), coiner of the word "evolution" in biology, Wikipedia] </p> <p>References are supported by the <a href="#taglinequotes">`tagline' quotes</a> below (emphasis <i>italics</i> original, emphasis <b>bold</b> mine).</p><br> <p> <hr> </p><br> <p> <center><b>PROBLEMS OF EVOLUTION<br>© Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).</b></center></p><br> <p><b><a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/07/problems-of-evolution-book-outline.html">CONTENTS</a></b></p> <p><b>1. <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/08/problems-of-evolution-1-introduction.html">INTRODUCTION</a><br> </b></p> <p><b>1.1. <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/10/poe-11-what-is-evolution.html">What <i>is</i> evolution?</a></b></p><p> </p> <p><b>1.1.2. The original meaning of "evolution"</b></p> <p>The word "evolution" is based on the Latin verb <i>evolvere</i> from the noun <i>evolutio</i> , "to unroll." (<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/11/poe-bibliography-b.html#BowlerPJ1989">Bowler, 1989</a>, p.9; <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/01/poe-bibliography-g.html#GouldSJ1978">Gould, 1978</a>, p.34; <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/01/poe-bibliography-g.html#GouldSJ2002a">2002a</a>, p.243; <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/02/poe-bibliography-j.html#JakiSL1988">Jaki, 1988</a>, pp.188-189; <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/11/poe-bibliography-w.html#WeinerJ1994">Weiner, 1994</a>, pp.8-9). It was coined in 1744 as a biological term by the Swiss biologist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albrecht_von_Haller">Albrecht von Haller</a> (1708-1777), to describe the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preformationism">preformationist</a> theory that embryos grew from homunculi enclosed in the egg or sperm (<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/01/poe-bibliography-g.html#GouldSJ1977">Gould, 1977</a>, pp.28-29, <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/01/poe-bibliography-g.html#GouldSJ1978">1978</a>, p.34). "Evolution" in this sense meant the progressive unfolding of structures that were already present in a prepackaged form (<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/11/poe-bibliography-b.html#BowlerPJ1989">Bowler, 1989</a>, p.9; <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/02/poe-bibliography-j.html#JakiSL1988">Jaki, 1988</a>, p.189).</p> <p>Early evolutionists saw the growth of the embryo as a model of the how living organisms ascend via a fixed program of progressive development towards a predetermined goal (<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/11/poe-bibliography-b.html#BowlerPJ1989">Bowler, 1989</a>, p.9). However, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin">Charles Darwin</a> (1809-1882) rejected the teleological implication of a process that was directed toward a goal, such as man (<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/11/poe-bibliography-b.html#BowlerPJ1989">Bowler, 1989</a>, p.9). Therefore Darwin did not use the word "evolution" in his <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species">Origin of Species</a></i> (1859-1872) , only using "evolved" as its very last word (<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/01/poe-bibliography-g.html#GouldSJ1978">Gould, 1978</a>, pp.34-36; <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2008/01/poe-bibliography-g.html#GouldSJ2002a">2002a</a>, p.243). Despite this, some Darwinist popularisers promote "evolution" in this original sense, so as to be able to claim that "evolution" is occurring "daily and hourly, all around us, and we can watch." (<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/11/poe-bibliography-w.html#WeinerJ1994">Weiner, 1994</a>, pp.8-9)!</p><p> </p><p><b><a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/08/problems-of-evolution-bibliography.html">BIBLIOGRAPHY</a></b></p><p><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology).<br>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">TheShroudofTurin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus is Jehovah!</a> </p><p> <hr> </p> <p><a name="taglinequotes"></a>"Bonnet is often credited with <b>the first use of `evolution' as a biological term</b> (Osborn, 1929; Carneiro, 1972). Yet Haller coined it in 1744 as a name for preformationism: `But the theory of evolution proposed by Swammerdam and Malpighi prevails almost everywhere [<i>Sed evolutionem theoria fere ubique obtinet a Szuammerdamio et Malphighio proposita</i>] ... Most of these men teach that there is in fact included in the egg a germ or perfect little human machine ... And not a few of them say that all human bodies were created fully formed and folded up in the ovary of Eve and that these bodies are gradually distended by alimentary humor until they grow to the form and size of animals. (Cole, 1930, p. 86; Adelmann, 1966, pp. 893-894)' Haller had made a sound etymological decision, for <b>the Latin `evolutio' denotes an unrolling of parts already existing in compact form</b>, as in a scroll or the fiddlehead of a fern (Bowler, 1975)." (Gould, S.J. , 1977, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ontogeny-Phylogeny-Stephen-Jay-Gould/dp/0674639413">Ontogeny and Phylogeny</a>," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, pp.28-29).</p> <p>"Even the word `evolution' is of little use to us here because it has been given many different meanings (Bowler, 1974). <b>The Latin <i>evolutio</i> means `to unroll'</b> and <b>implies no more than unpacking a structure already present in a more compact form</b>. <b>The first biological use of the term `evolution' was to describe the growth of the embryo in the womb</b>, which many people today still imagine to be a kind of small-scale model of the more general process of life's development on earth. Many early embryologists, however, believed that the growth of the embryo was no more than the expansion of a preformed miniature of the complete organism, already present in the fertilized ovum. This would be a process of a character quite unlike the popular image of progressive evolution, although it could quite aptly be described by the original Latin meaning. By 1800, this `preformation theory' had been discredited, and the evolution of the embryo was thought to be a goal-directed process by which a complex structure was built up out of unformed matter. This comes closer to the modern idea of evolution, but it is important to note that by<b> using the growth of the embryo as a model</b>, one is given the impression that living structures ascend <b>a fixed pattern of development toward a predetermined goal</b>. The earliest applications of the word `evolution' to the history of life on earth carry a similar implication because many nineteenth-century naturalists thought that the embryo recapitulates the ascent of life toward the pinnacle of creation: man." (Bowler, P.J., 1989, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-History-Completely-Revised-Expanded/dp/0520236939">Evolution: The History of an Idea</a>," [1983], University of California Press: Berkeley CA, Revised edition, p.9).</p> <p>"The progressionist implication was retained in a rather different form by the philosopher Herbert Spencer, the person who did most to popularize the term `evolution' in its modern context. Spencer advocated a system of cosmic progress, which included a theory of the inevitable evolution of life toward higher forms. Darwin's theory came to be tagged `evolution,' even though he seldom used the term himself; and most people still imagine that evolution is an essentially progressive process. Both <b>Darwin and Spencer</b> made an important step beyond the embryological concept because they <b>believed the process was open-ended, rather than directed toward a single goal such as man</b>. Spencer still insisted that evolution involved a necessary advance toward higher levels of organization, thus introducing a more sophisticated concept of progress. <b>But Darwin was suspicious even of this</b>, because he felt that the concept of biological progress was very difficult to define. The popular idea of evolution as progress is now seen to be inadequate on two counts. It is ambiguous, because we can define progress either as a movement toward a predetermined goal or in terms of ascending levels of general complexity. It is also misleading, because <b>some interpretations of evolution involve only change, without implying any form of progress</b>." (Bowler, 1989, p.9).</p> <p>"I shall trace how organic change came to be called <i>evolution</i>. ... To begin with a paradox: Darwin, Lamarck, and Haeckel-the greatest nineteenth-century evolutionists of England, France, and Germany, respectively-did not use the word evolution in the original editions of their great works. Darwin spoke of `descent with modification,' Lamarck of `transformisme.' Haeckel preferred `Transmutations-Theorie' or `Descendenz-Theorie.' Why did they not use `evolution' and how did their story of organic change acquire its present name? Darwin shunned evolution as a description of his theory for two reasons. In his day, first of all, evolution already had a technical meaning in biology. In fact, it described a theory of embryology that could not be reconciled with Darwin's views of organic development. <b>In 1744, the German biologist Albrecht von Haller had coined the term <i>evolution</i> to describe the theory that embryos grew from preformed homunculi enclosed in the egg or sperm</b> (and that, fantastic as it may seem today, all future generations had been created in the ovaries of Eve or testes of Adam, enclosed like Russian dolls, one within the next-a homunculus in each of Eve's ova, a tinier homunculus in each ovum of the homunculus, and so on). ... Haller chose his term carefully, for <b>the Latin <i>evolvere</i> means `to unroll'</b>; indeed, the tiny homunculus unfolded from its originally cramped quarters and simply increased in size during its embryonic development. ." (Gould, S.J., 1978, "Darwin's Dilemma," in "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ever-Since-Darwin-Reflections-Natural/dp/0393308189">Ever Since Darwin</a>: Reflections in Natural History," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1991, p.34).</p><p>"`Evolution' as a description of Darwin's `descent with modification' was not borrowed from a previous technical meaning; it was, rather, expropriated from the vernacular. Evolution, in Darwin's day, had become a common English word with a meaning quite different from Haller's technical sense. The <i>Oxford English Dictionary</i> traces it to a 1647 poem of H. More: `Evolution of outward forms spread in the world's vast spright [spirit].' But this was `unrolling' in a sense very different from Haller's. It implied `the appearance in orderly succession of a long train of events,' and more important, it embodied a <i>concept of progressive development</i> -an orderly unfolding from simple to complex. The O.E.D. continues, `The process of developing from a rudimentary to a mature or complete state.' Thus evolution, in the vernacular, was firmly tied to a concept of progress. <b>Darwin did use evolve in this vernacular sense-in fact it is the very last word of his book</b>. <blockquote>There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being <b>evolved</b>. [Darwin, C.R., "On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1975, pp.489-490]</p></blockquote> <p>Darwin chose it for this passage because he wanted to contrast the flux of organic development with the fixity of such physical laws as gravitation. But it was a word he used very rarely indeed, for <b>Darwin explicitly rejected the common equation of what we now call evolution with any notion of progress</b>. In a famous epigram, Darwin reminded himself never to say `higher' or `lower' in describing the structure of organisms-for if an amoeba is as well adapted to its environment as we are to ours, who is to say that we are higher creatures? Thus Darwin shunned evolution as a description for his descent with modification, both because its technical meaning contrasted with his beliefs and because he was uncomfortable with the notion of inevitable progress inherent in its vernacular meaning.." (Gould, 1978, pp.35-36). <p><b>"`Evolution,' from the Latin <i>evolvere</i>, literally means `to unroll'</b>-and clearly implies an <b>unfolding in time of a predictable or prepackaged sequence in an inherently progressive, or at least directional, manner</b>. (The `fiddlehead' of a fern unrolls arid expands to bring forth the adult plant-a true `evolution' of preformed parts.) The <i>Oxford English Dictionary</i> traces the word to seventeenth-century English poetry, where the key meaning of sequential exposure of prepackaged potential inspired the first recorded usages in our language. For example, Henry More (1614-1687), the British poet and philosopher responsible for most seventeenth-century citations in the OED, stated in 1664: `I have not yet evolved all the intangling superstitions that may be wrapt up.' The few pre-Darwinian English citations of genealogical change as `evolution' all employ the word as a synonym for predictable progress. For example, in describing Lamarck's theory for British readers (in the second volume of his <i>Principles of Geology</i> in 1832), Charles Lyell generally uses the neutral term `transmutation'-except in one passage, when he wishes to highlight a claim for progress: `The testacea [shelled invertebrates] of the ocean existed first, until <b>some of them by gradual evolution</b> were improved into those inhabiting the land.' <b>Although the word <i>evolution</i> does not appear in the first edition of the <i>Origin of Species</i>, Darwin does use the verbal form `evolved'</b>-clearly in the vernacular sense and in an especially prominent spot: <b>as the very last word of the book</b>! " (Gould, S.J., 2002, "What Does the Dreaded `E' Word Mean Anyway?," in "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Have-Landed-Beginning-Natural-History/dp/0609601431">I Have Landed</a>: Splashes and Reflections in Natural History," Vintage: London, Reprinted, 2003, p.243). </p> <p>"It often happens that when a Greek or Latin word is given a new lease on life in one of the major modern languages, and especially in English, the original meaning of the word may be replaced by a rather different one. This is particularly the case when a word, which was a strongly transitive verb in the classical context, is resuscitated as a generic noun in the modern diction.<b> The word <i>evolution</i></b> is a case in point. <b>The root of that all-important modern noun is the Latin verb <i>evolvere</i></b>. Whether used by historians like Tacitus and Livy or by poets like Ovid and Catullus or by philosophers like Lucretius, Seneca, and Cicero, <b>the verb <i>evolvere</i></b> either meant to eject some<i>thing</i> with a <b>rolling or coiling motion</b>, or to cause some<i>thing</i> <b>to flow out or roll out</b> from somewhere, or to unwind some<i>thing</i>, or <b>to unwrap or uncover</b> some<i>thing</i>. In all these cases it was clearly assumed that the thing or the object of the action had already been there. Only one and uncertain case is found in classical Latin literature for <b>the noun form <i>evolutio</i> of the verb <i>evolvere</i></b> according to the testimony of the two-volume Oxford Latin-English dictionary." (Jaki, S.L. , 1988, "Monkeys and Machine-Guns: Evolution, Darwinism, and Christianity", in "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Beneath-Relative-Other-Essays/dp/B000UMLK2U">The Absolute beneath the Relative and Other Essays</a>", University Press of America: Lanham MD, pp.188-189).</p> <p>"Today more and more evolutionists are doing what Darwin thought impossible. They are studying the evolutionary process not through fossils but directly, in real time, in the wild: evolution in the flesh. <b>`Evolution' comes from the Latin <i>evolutio</i>, an unrolling, unfolding, opening</b>. Biologists are observing year by year and sometimes even day by day or hour by hour details of life's unrolling and opening, right now. ... Taken together, these new studies suggest that Darwin did not know the strength of his own theory. He vastly underestimated the power of natural selection. Its action is neither rare nor slow. It leads to evolution daily and hourly, all around us, and we can watch." (Weiner, J., 1994, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Beak-Finch-Story-Evolution-Time/dp/067973337X">The Beak of the Finch</a>: A Story of Evolution in Our Time," Alfred A. Knopf: New York NY, pp.8-9). </p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-40048675297064017092008-03-23T19:47:00.009+09:002008-03-24T05:14:22.289+09:00I have been having complications with this evolutionist and I am not quite sure how to answer him<p>Anonymous</p><p>I have decided to respond in a separate post to your comment under my July 27, 2005 post, "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/07/lucy-walked-upright-just-like-us_27.html">'Lucy' walked upright just like us</a>" </p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/published/1872_Origin_F391/1872_Origin_F391_figdiagram.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px;" src="http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/published/1872_Origin_F391/1872_Origin_F391_figdiagram.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><p>[<a href="http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/published/1872_Origin_F391/1872_Origin_F391_figdiagram.jpg">Above</a> (click to enlarge): "The diagram used by Darwin [<a href="http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=112">in his <i>Origin of Species</i></a>] to illustrate evolution ... over the vast expanse of geological time," but which is "The most graphic demonstration of <i>the inadequacy of Darwin's hypothesis</i>" (<a href="#Carroll1997p2">Carroll, 1997, p.2</a>. My emphasis)]</p><p>because it may be of benefit not only to you, but also to others like you who are debating with evolutionists. </p><p>>Dr. Jones? is it. </p><p>It is plain Mr Jones. I only have a BSc in Biology.</p><p>>I have been having complications with this evolutionist and I am not quite sure how to answer him. </p><p>The first thing is to define what this "evolutionist" claims, i.e. what <i>exactly</i> he means by "evolution". If by "evolution" he means:<blockquote>"... the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, <i>but God had no part in this process</i>.'" (Shermer, M.B., "<a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=000447A8-10B7-1CC6-B4A8809EC588EEDF">The Gradual Illumination of the Mind</a>," <i>Scientific American</i>, February 2002. My emphasis) </blockquote></p><p>then all you have to show is that, on the basis of the evidence, God had (or may have had) <i>some</i> part in this process, and "evolution," as he and "the standard scientific theory" of "evolution" define it, is wrong (or at least unproved).</p><p>And even the former world's leading atheist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew">Antony Flew</a>, has admitted that, based on the scientific evidence, God must have created the first living organism: <blockquote>"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. ... Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God .... 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 .... `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, A., "<a href="http://www.philosophynow.org/issue47/47flew.htm">Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology</a>," <i>Philosophy Now</i>, August-September, 2004] ... 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., "<a href="http://www.livescience.com/othernews/atheist_philosopher_041210.html">Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God</a>," <i>Livescience</i>, 10 December 2004).</blockquote></p><p> >His following statements are whats getting me confused.<br>> <br>>"200 years of Geology has proven that the Earth is extremely old and that modern fauna have evolved from primitive orders."</p><p>This "evolved from primitive orders" is a typical example of how evolutionists commit the fallacy of "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question">begging the question</a>," i.e. assuming in their premises what needs to be proved. </p><p>That "the Earth is extremely old" and "modern fauna have" d<i>escended</i> from primitive orders" is accepted by some creationists (including me). What evolutionists like him need to show is that "God had <i>no</i> part in this process."</p><p>>"Phylogentic relationships, homologous and vestigial structures, as well as DNA and embryonic similarity also points to the fact of evolution.In fact, these phylogentic relationships can also be observed in the fossil record itself, in the form of transitional fossils. For example, the transition from theropod dinosaurs to modern birds...Or the transition from lobe-finned fish to early amphibians." </p><p>Again, he is begging the question by tacitly <i>defining</i> "evolution" as <i>common ancestry</i>. But common ancestry is not necessarily "evolution" because God could have supernaturally intervened in chains of common descent, as Christian philosopher <a href="http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/ratzsch/">Del Ratzsch</a> pointed out:<blockquote>"Suppose contemporary evolutionary theory had blind chance built into it so firmly that there was simply no way of reconciling it with any sort of divine guidance. 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., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Beginnings-Neither-Winning-Creation-Evolution/dp/0830815295">The Battle of Beginnings</a>: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1996, pp.187-188).</blockquote></p><p>See my "<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cmnctsry.html">Why I (a creationist) Accept Common Ancestry (Not <i>Evolution</i>)</a>".</p><p>>"Ok fine, if you'll concede the point that evolution does not mean "upgrade" and hence, symbyotic relationships aren't a problem, onto my next favorite.</p><p>This tacitly makes the point that <i>it all depends</i> on what "evolution does ... mean". Stick to the point that the only definition of "evolution" that really matters is "the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, <i>but God had no part in this process</i>.'" (my emphasis).</p><p>>"If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution."</p><p>There is an important truth in this criticism, in that <i>Darwinian</i> evolution (which at bottom is still the theory of evolution taught in schools and universities) predicts that "the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great":<blockquote>"By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the natural and domestic varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient forms; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth." (Darwin, C.R., "<a href="http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=289">The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection</a>," John Murray: London, Sixth edition, 1872, pp.266-267).</blockquote></p><p> and therefore "Geology" should "reveal" a "finely graduated organic chain": <blockquote>"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." (<a href="http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=287">Darwin, 1872</a>, pp.264-265)</blockquote></p><p> including from "before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited" (i.e. before the Cambrian explosion): <blockquote>"Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures. ... To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer." (<a href="http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=309">Darwin, 1872</a>, p.286).</blockquote></p><p> but it <i>does not</i>!</p><p>>There are countless transitional fossils. What evolution-deniers do is give you a straw man version of what's actually been found, and try and mislead you with semantic games. Archaepteryx is an early bird with many reptilian traits for example. And it's found before modern birds, but well after we first start finding reptiles."</p><p>This is just a play on the words "countless" and "transitional form." Leading paleontologists like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Raup">David M. Raup</a> have admitted that there are not <i>enough</i> transitional forms for <i>Darwinian</i> evolution to be true, i.e. " Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but <i>one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection</i>" (my emphasis): <blockquote>"Darwin's general solution to the incompatibility of fossil evidence and his theory was to say that the fossil record is a very incomplete one that it is full of gaps, and that we have much to learn. In effect, he was saying that if the record were complete and if we had better knowledge of it wee would see the finely graduated chain that he predicted. And this was his main argument for downgrading the evidence from the fossil record. Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. Also the major extinctions such as the dinosaurs and trilobites are still very puzzling." (Raup, D.M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," <i>Field</i> <i>Museum of</i> <i>Natural History Bulletin</i>, Field Museum of Natural History: Chicago IL, January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.22-29, pp.24-25). </p></blockquote> <p>See also the <a href="#Carroll1997p2">`tagline' quote</a> by another leading paleontologist, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Carroll">Robert L. Carroll</a> about "the <i>inadequacy of Darwin's hypothesis</i> of the constancy of evolutionary patterns over all time scales" compared to "The patterns established from the fossil record of the <i>major groups of vascular plants, vertebrates, and nonvertebrate metazoans</i>" which "are <i>conspicuously different</i>" in that "Instead of showing gradual and continuous change through time, <i>the major lineages appear suddenly in the fossil record</i>, already exhibiting many of the features by which their modern representatives are recognized" and "<i>Very few intermediates between groups</i> are known from the fossil record." </p> <p>Evolutionary biologist <a href="http://www.evolution.reading.ac.uk/">Mark Pagel</a>, in reviewing in <i>Nature</i> a book on "The Pattern of Evolution" by another leading paleontologist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_Eldredge">Niles Eldredge</a>, admitted that "instead of" being "the slow, smooth and progressive changes ... Darwin had expected" what "the fossil records" revealed was "<i>patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation</i>"!:<blockquote>"Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation." (Pagel, M., "Happy accidents?" Review of "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Pattern-Evolution-Niles-Eldredge/dp/0716730464">The Pattern of Evolution</a>," by Niles Eldredge, W.H. Freeman, 1999. <i>Nature</i>, Vol. 25 February 1999, pp.664-665, p.665). </blockquote></p><p>>I am kind of overwhelmed. I am not to sure what he is saying in other words. Could you translate this for me and answer? Please email your response to ...</p><p>I hope this has helped. Sorry but my long-standing policy is that I don't respond privately to emails about creation, evolution or design issues, but respond publicly via my blog, after removing any of the sender's personally identifying information (not an issue here). But feel free to copy this post in your debates with evolutionists, provided you include a link back to this post.</p><p>It is not uusual to be "overwhelmed" in the early stages of debating with evolutionists. I was overwhelmed when I started back in 1994 debating evolutionists, some of whom were biologists and science teachers. But I found that I could hold my own while I was learning the scientific terms by focusing on, as Law Professor <a href="http://phillipejohnson.net/">Phillip E. Johnson</a> did, "analyzing the logic of arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those arguments": <blockquote>"Before undertaking this task I should say something about my qualifications and purpose. I am not a scientist but an academic lawyer by profession, with a specialty in analyzing the logic of arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those arguments. This background is more appropriate than one might think, because what people believe about evolution and Darwinism depends very heavily on the kind of logic they employ and the kind of assumptions they make. Being a scientist is not necessarily an advantage when dealing with a very broad topic like evolution, which cuts across many scientific disciplines and also involves issues of philosophy. Practicing scientists are of necessity highly specialized, and a scientist outside his field of expertise is just another layman." (Johnson, P.E., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Trial-Phillip-E-Johnson/dp/0830813241">Darwin on Trial</a>," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, p.13).</blockquote></p><p>Probably the most important advice I can offer you is that you (and your evolutionist opponents) clearly <i>define your terms</i> upfront, e.g. what exactly do you mean by "evolution"? And then stick to debating each point before you move on to the next one, e.g. "transitional forms," etc. Otherwise evolutionists who are more experienced in debate (including in "Manipulation of the terminology"): <blockquote>"Manipulation of the terminology also allows natural selection to appear and disappear on command. When unfriendly critics are absent, Darwinists can just assume the creative power of natural selection and employ it to explain whatever change or lack of change has been observed. When critics appear and demand empirical confirmation, Darwinists can avoid the test by responding that scientists are discovering alternative mechanisms, particularly at the molecular level, which relegate selection to a less important role. The fact of evolution therefore remains unquestioned, even if there is a certain amount of healthy debate about the theory. Once the critics have been distracted, the Blind Watchmaker can reenter by the back door. Darwinists will explain that no biologist doubts the importance of Darwinian selection, because nothing else was available to shape the adaptive features of the phenotypes." (Johnson, Ibid., pp.153-154).</blockquote></p><p>will continue to make you feel "overwhelmed". </p><p>A good primer on the fallacious arguments evolutionists use is Prof. Johnson's "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Defeating-Darwinism-Opening-Phillip-Johnson/dp/0830813608">Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds</a>" (1997). See <a href="#Johnson1997">`tagline' quotes</a> (emphasis <i>italics</i> original, emphasis <b>bold</b> mine) from this book that I have used when I debated evolutionists. There is also on the Internet Chapter 3 of that book: Johnson, P.E., "<a href="http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss112/baloney.htm">Tuning Up Your Baloney Detector</a>: How to Get a Good Grasp on Logical Reasoning and Investigative Procedure," <i>Cornerstone</i>, Vol. 26, Issue 112, 1997, p. 12-16, 18).</p><p><a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html">Stephen E. Jones</a>, BSc. (Biology). <br>My other blogs: <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/">TheShroudofTurin</a> & <a href="http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/">Jesus <i>is</i> Jehovah! </a></p> <hr><p>"<a name=Carroll1997p2></a>The most graphic demonstration of <b>the inadequacy of Darwin's hypothesis of the constancy of evolutionary patterns over all time scales</b> can be seen by comparing his hypothetical representation of the patterns of evolution for both very short and very long periods of time with the patterns of evolution that have since been reconstructed on the basis of the fossil record of multicellular plants and animals over the past 500 million years (Figs. 1.2-1.4). <b>The </b><a href="http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/published/1872_Origin_F391/1872_Origin_F391_figdiagram.jpg"><b>diagram used by Darwin</b></a><b> to illustrate evolution both at the level of populations and species and over the vast expanse of geological time is characterized by gradual and continuous change</b>. Most populations within species, or families with in orders, diverge progressively. Some lineages continue with little change, but most eventually become extinct. The entire adaptive space is occupied by the groups diagramed, and the rate of change, indicated by the slope of the lines, remains fairly constant. <b>The patterns established from the fossil record of the major groups of vascular plants, vertebrates, and nonvertebrate metazoans are conspicuously different</b>. There are relatively few major lineages, all of which are very distinct from one an other. Gaps between the lineages indicate that adaptive space is not fully occupied. Instead of showing gradual and continuous change through time, the major lineages appear suddenly in the fossil record, already exhibiting many of the features by which their modern representatives are recognized. It must be assumed that evolution occurs much more rapidly <i>between</i> groups than <i>within</i> groups. For most of their evolutionary history, fundamental aspects of the anatomy and way of life of these lineages do not change significantly. <b>Very few intermediates between groups are known from the fossil record</b>." (Carroll, R.L., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Processes-Vertebrate-Evolution-Cambridge-Paleobiology/dp/052147809X/">Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution</a>," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1997, pp.2,4).</p><p>"<a name="#Johnson1997"></a>First, Emilio has trivialized the conflict between evolution and creation portraying it as merely a dispute over whether the word <i>day</i> in the book of Genesis can be interpreted figuratively rather than literally. His logic is that if the `days' of Genesis are really a poetic way of describing long geological ages, then `evolution' is merely God's chosen method of creating, and one can without difficulty be both an evolutionist and a creationist. ... Unfortunately, <b>this much-too-easy solution to the problem rests on a misunderstanding of what contemporary scientists mean by that word <i>evolution</i></b>. If they meant only a gradual process of God-guided creation, then Emilio might be on the right track. <b>A God-guided process is <i>not</i> what modern science educators mean by `evolution,'</b> however. <b>They are absolutely insistent that evolution is an <i>unguided</i> and mindless process</b>, and that our existence is therefore a fluke rather than a planned outcome. For example, the 1995 official Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers (hereafter NABT) accurately states the general understanding of major science organizations and educators: `The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.' Or, in the words of the famous evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson, `<b>Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind</b>' [Simpson, G.G., "The Meaning of Evolution," [1949], Yale University Press: New Haven CT, Reprinted, 1960, p.344]" (Johnson, P.E., "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Defeating-Darwinism-Opening-Phillip-Johnson/dp/0830813608">Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds</a>," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1997, pp.14-15. Emphasis in original).</p><p>"I will explain in subsequent chapters why the <b>biologists insist that evolution must be unsupervised</b> and why <b>God's purposes are not listed among the things that might have affected evolution</b>. For now I will just say that this claim is not one they can afford to abandon, because <b>their whole approach is founded on <i>naturalism</i>, which is the doctrine that `nature is all there is.'</b> If nature is all there is, then nature had to have the ability to do its own creating. <b>Darwinian evolution is a theory about how nature might have done this, without assistance from a supernatural Creator</b>. That is why <b>`evolution' in the Darwinian sense is by definition mindless and godless</b>. Pretending otherwise is an evasion of the conflict, not a resolution of it. Yet many Christian theologians and educators take this evasive approach because they are hoping to find an easy way to avoid coming to grips with a very difficult problem." (Johnson, 1997, pp.15-16).</p><p>"<b>Naturalism and materialism mean essentially the same thing</b> for present purposes, and so I use the terms interchangeably. <b>Naturalism means that nature is all there is; materialism means that matter (i.e., the fundamental particles that make up both matter and energy) is all there is</b>. Because evolutionary naturalists insist that nature is made up of those particles, there is no difference between naturalism and materialism. In other contexts, however, the terms may have different meanings. Materialism sometimes used to mean greedy for material possessions, as in `he who dies with the most toys wins.' Naturalism also has quite different meanings in other contexts, such art and literary criticism. These other meanings are irrelevant for our purposes." (Johnson, 1997, p.16).</p><p>"<b>Darwin's theory of evolution</b> was originally stated in risky form. It <b>predicted</b>, for example, <b>that fossil hunters would eventually find a great many transitional intermediates between the major groups (they didn't) and that animal breeders would succeed in creating distinct species (they didn't)</b>. Today the theory is usually stated in risk-free form. <b>Naturalistic evolution is identified with science itself, and any alternative is automatically disqualified as `religion.'</b> <b>This makes it impossible to hold a scientific debate over whether the theory is true (it's virtually true by definition)</b>, which explains why Darwinists tend to think that anyone who wants such a debate to occur must have a `hidden agenda.' In other words, critics couldn't seriously be questioning whether the theory is true, so they must have some dishonest purpose in raising the question." (Johnson, 1997, pp.43-44).</p><p>"<i>Vague Terms and Shifting Definitions</i> <b>Make sure people don't mislead you by using vague terms that can suddenly take on a new meaning</b>. In the creation-evolution debate, <b>the key terms that are subject to manipulation are <i>science</i> and <i>evolution</i></b>. Everybody is in favor of science, and everybody also believes in evolution - when that term is defined broadly enough! <b>But <i>science</i> has more than one definition, and so does <i>evolution</i></b>. <b>Watch out for `bait and switch' tactics, by which you are led to agree with a harmless definition and then the term is used in a very different sense</b>. Here's an example of how you can be deceived: `You believe in dog breeding, don't you? Well, did you know that dog breeding is an example of evolution? Now that you know that, and have seen all those breeds of dogs for yourself, you realize that you actually <i>do</i> believe in evolution, don't you? Good. That's enough for today. Later on we'll tell you more about what evolution means.' (It's going to mean that all living things are the accidental products of a purposeless universe.) This is not a `straw man' example, by the way. Selective breeding of animals is a process guided by intelligence, and it produces only variations within the species; yet Darwinists from Charles Darwin himself to the more recent Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick have cited it as a powerful example of `evolution.' <b>If somebody asks, `Do you believe in evolution?' the right reply is not `Yes' or `No.' It is: `Precisely what do you mean by <i>evolution</i>?'</b> My experience has been that the first definition I get will be so broad as to be indisputable - like `There has been change in the course of life's history.' Later on a much more precise and controversial definition- like the one by the National Association of Biology Teachers I quoted in chapter one - will be substituted without notice. <b>That one word <i>evolution</i> can mean something so tiny it hardly matters, or so big it explains the whole history of the universe</b>. Keep your baloney detector trained on that word. If it moves, zap it!" (Johnson, 1997, pp.44-45).</p><p>"<i>Learn to use terms precisely and consistently</i>. <b><i>Evolution</i> is a term of many meanings, and the meanings have a way of changing without notice</b> dog breeding and finch-beak variations are frequently cited as typical examples of evolution. So is the fact that all the differing races of humans descend from a single parent, or even that Americans today are larger on average than they were a century ago (due to better nutrition). If relatively minor variations like that were all evolution were about, there would be no controversy, and even the strictest biblical fundamentalists would be evolutionists. Of course evolution is about a lot more than in-species variation. The important issue is whether the dog breeding and finch-beak examples fairly illustrate the process that created animals in the first place. <b>Using the single term <i>evolution</i> to cover both the controversial and the uncontroversial aspects of evolution is a recipe for misunderstanding</b>." (Johnson, 1997, p.57).</p><p>"<b>There are two definitions of science at work in the scientific culture</b>, and a concealed contradiction between them is beginning to come out into public view. <b>On the one hand, science is dedicated to empirical evidence and to following that evidence wherever it leads</b>. That is why science had to be free of the Bible, because the Bible was seen to constrain the possibilities scientists were allowed to consider. <b>On the other hand, science also means `applied materialist philosophy.'</b> Scientists who are materialists always look for strictly materialist explanations or every phenomenon, and they want to believe that such explanations always exist. This raises the question: What will the scientists do if the evidence starts to point away from materialism and toward the possibility that a Creator is necessary after all? Will they follow the evidence wherever it leads, or will they ignore the evidence because their philosophy does not allow it to exist?" (Johnson, 1997, pp.80-81).</p><p>"The contradiction between materialism and reality arises frequently in biology, but it is most inescapable when we consider the human mind. <b>Are our thoughts `nothing but' the products of chemical reactions in the brain, and did our thinking abilities originate for no reason other than their utility in allowing our DNA to reproduce itself?</b> Even scientific materialists have a hard time believing that. For one thing, <b>materialism applied to the mind undermines the validity of all reasoning</b>, including one's own. <b>If our theories are the products of chemical reactions, how can we know whether our theories are true?</b> Perhaps Richard Dawkins believes in Darwinism only because he has a certain chemical in his brain, and his belief could be changed by somehow inserting a different chemical." (Johnson, 1997, pp.81-82).</p><p>"The essay by National Academy of Sciences President Bruce Alberts, `<b>Evolution Versus Creationism</b>: Don't Pit <b>Science Against Religion</b>,' was published in <i>The Denver Post</i>, September 10, 1996, p.B9. The essay is a compendium of <b>the usual spin-doctor arguments that official science organizations rely on to stop any serious questioning of evolution or materialism before it can get started</b>. I recommend that teachers look for essays of this kind and use them for critical-thinking exercises ... One thing to notice right away is the title: <b>the debate is set up as pitting creation<i>ism</i> (that is, an ideology) against evolution (no <i>ism</i>, therefore a fact).</b> No matter what the evidence may be, an ideology (especially a <i>religious</i> ideology) can never beat a `fact' in a debate conducted under scientific rules. Scientific materialists actually see the issue that way and so they naturally frame the debate in those terms. I always insist that an ism be put on both words or neither. <b>Let the debate</b> <b>be between the competing facts (creation and evolution) or the competing ideologies (creationism and evolutionism).</b> Better still, let it be between theism and materialism. What was present and active in the beginning, God or matter? That frames the question correctly and levels the playing field." (Johnson, 1997, pp.124-125).</p>Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com2