Re: Where does Cyrenius fit into your harmonization of the Matthew & Luke nativity stories? #3

AN

[Graphic: `Mary and Joseph' entering Bethlehem]

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 7:25 PM
Subject: Cyrenius

>Dear Mr Jones,
>
>Where does he [Cyrenius] fit into your harmonization of the Matthew & Luke nativity stories?
>
>AN

[Continued from part #2]

As previously mentioned, here are further quotes (which include points already made in my previous two posts and new points) that resolve the apparent discrepancy between: 1) Jesus being born in the reign of King Herod the Great (Mat 2:1,15; Luke 1:5-45) who died in 4 BC; yet 2) Jesus was born at the time of a census when Quirinius was "governor of Syria" (Luke 2:1-5), which was in 6-7 AD. The short answer (as already posted in part #1 and #2) is that there were two censuses which Luke in fact indicates:

Luke 2:2: "(This was the first [or "former"] census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)"

Acts 5:37: "After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt."

the first in 7-4 BC (following Finegan J., "Handbook of Biblical Chronology," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1964, p.468) and the second in 6-7 AD, and Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (Greek Kyrenios, or in the KJV Cyrenius) apparently oversaw both.

I repeat what I said in part #2 that if Luke was a fraud or myth-maker, he would not give such intricate historical details of names, titles, dates and places as he does in his Luke-Acts two-volume history of earliest Christianity. And that if critics could suspend their anti-Christian prejudices, they might consider how unlikely it is that Luke would write such details about important people which his contemporaries would know are false, if they were false, including the "most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1), presumably a high-ranking Roman official, who Luke addressed Luke-Acts to.

The late Christian apologist, Gleason L. Archer, sets out the apparent problem, namely "Was Luke mistaken about Quirinius and the census?" because "If Luke dates the census in 8 or 7 B.C., and if Josephus dates it in A.D. 6 or 7, there appears to be a discrepancy of about fourteen years":

"Was Luke mistaken about Quirinius and the census? Luke 2:1 tells of a decree from Caesar Augustus to have the whole -world' (oikoumene actually means all the world under the authority of Rome) enrolled in a census report for taxation purposes. Verse 2 specifies which census taking was involved at the time Joseph and Mary went down to Bethlehem, to fill out the census forms as descendants of the Bethlehemite family of King David. This was the first census undertaken by Quirinius (or `Cyrenius') as governor (or at least as acting governor) of Syria. Josephus mentions no census in the reign of Herod the Great (who died in 4 B.C) but he does mention one taken by `Cyrenius' (Antiquities 17.13.5) soon after Herod Archelaus , was deposed in A.D. 6: `Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus.' (Apparently the palace of the deposed king was to be sold and the proceeds turned over to the Roman government.) If Luke dates the census in 8 or 7 B.C., and if Josephus dates it in A.D. 6 or 7, there appears to be a discrepancy of about fourteen years. Also, since Saturninus (according to Tertullian in Contra Marcion 4.19) was legate of Syria from 9 B.C., to 6 B.C., and Quintilius Varus was legate from 7 B.C. to A.D. 4 (note the one-year overlap in these two terms!), there is doubt as to whether Quirinius was ever governor of Syria at all." (Archer, G.L., "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1982, p.365. Emphasis original)

Archer points out that: 1) Luke indicates that there were two censuses, because "a `first' enrollment that took place under Quirinius ... implies a second one" and "Luke was therefore well aware of that second census" because he "quotes Gamaliel as alluding to the insurrection of Judas of Galilee `in the days of the census taking' (Acts 5:37)"; 2) Quirinius may not have been "actually governor of Syria" (my emphasis) because in the Greek text of Luke (which is what Luke wrote, not what our English translations render it as), "He is not actually called legatus (the official Roman title for the governor of an entire region), but the participle hegemoneuontos is used here" and "it may well have been that Augustus put Quirinius in charge of the census-enrollment in the region of Syria ... in 7 B.C." and "because of his competent handling of the 7 B.C. census that Augustus later put him in charge of the A.D. 7 census":

"By way of solution, let it be noted first of all that Luke says this was a `first' enrollment that took place under Quirinius (haute apographe prote egeneto). A `first' surely implies a second one sometime later. Luke was therefore well aware of that second census, taken by Quirinius again in A.D. 7, which Josephus alludes to in the passage cited above. We know this because Luke (who lived much closer to the time than Josephus did) also quotes Gamaliel as alluding to the insurrection of Judas of Galilee `in the days of the census taking' (Acts 5:37). The Romans tended to conduct a census every fourteen years, and so this comes out right for a first census in 7 B.C. and a second in A.D. 7. But was Quirinius (who was called Kyrenius by the Greeks because of the absence of a Q in the Attic alphabet, or else because this proconsul was actually a successful governor of Crete and Cyrene in Egypt around 15 B.C.) actually governor of Syria? The Lucan text here says hegemoneuontos tes Syrias Kyreniou ('while Cyrenius was leading-in charge of-Syria'). He is not actually called legatus (the official Roman title for the governor of an entire region), but the participle hegemoneuontos is used here, which would be appropriate to a hegemon like Pontius Pilate (who rated as a procurator but not as a legatus). Too much should not be made of the precise official status. But we do know that between 12 B.C. and 2 B.C., Quirinius was engaged in a systematic reduction of rebellious mountaineers in the highlands of Pisidia (Tenney, Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia, 5:6), and that he was therefore a highly placed military figure in the Near East in the closing years of the reign of Herod the Great. In order to secure efficiency and dispatch, it may well have been that Augustus put Quirinius in charge of the census-enrollment in the region of Syria just at the transition period between the close of Saturninus's administration and the beginning of Varus's term of service in 7 B.C. It was doubtless because of his competent handling of the 7 B.C. census that Augustus later put him in charge of the A.D. 7 census. As for the lack of secular reference to a general census for the entire Roman Empire at this time, this presents no serious difficulty. Kingsley Davis (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th ed., 5:168) states: `Every five years the Romans enumerated citizens and their property to determine their liabilities. This practice was extended to include the entire Roman Empire in 5 B.C.'" (Archer, 1982, pp.365-366) .

Another Christian apologist, Gary Habermas, notes a point made in part #2 that according to eminent Christian historian, the late F.F. Bruce, "the Greek in Luke 2:2 is equally translatable as `This enrollment (census) was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria'" which "would mean that Luke was dating the taxation-census before Quirinius took over the governorship of Syria" (and a s previously indicated, I consider this to be the most likely explanation):

"In Luke 2:1-5 we read that Caesar Augustus decreed that the Roman Empire should be taxed and that everyone had to return to his own city to pay taxes. So Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem and there Jesus was born. Several questions have been raised in the context of this taxation. Is there any evidence that such a massive census ever took place? Even if such a taxation actually did occur, would every person have to return to his home? Was Quirinius really the governor of Syria at this time (as in v. 2)? [Bruce, F.F., "Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1974, p.192] Archaeology has had a bearing on the answers to these questions. It has been established that the taking of a census was quite common at about the time of Christ. An ancient Latin inscription called the Titulus Venetus indicates that a census took place in Syria and Judea about 5-6 A.D. and that this was typical of those held throughout the Roman Empire from the time of Augustus (23 B.C.-14 A.D.) until at least the third century A.D. Indications are that this census took place every fourteen years. Other such evidence indicates that these procedures were widespread. [Bruce, 1974, pp.193-194] Concerning persons returning to their home city for the taxation-census, an Egyptian papyrus dating from 104 A.D. reports just such a practice. This rule was enforced, as well. [Bruce, 1974, p.194] The question concerning Quirinius also involves the date of the census described in Luke 2. It is known that Quirinius was made governor of Syria by Augustus in 6 A.D. Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay discovered several inscriptions which indicated that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two occasions, the first time several years previous to this date. [Boyd, R., "Tells, Tombs, and Treasure," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1969, p.175] Within the cycle of taxation-censuses mentioned above, an earlier taxation would be dated from 10-5 B.C. [Bruce, 1974, p.192] Another possibility is Bruce's point that the Greek in Luke 2:2 is equally translatable as `This enrollment (census) was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria' [Bruce, 1974, p.192] This would mean that Luke was dating the taxation-census before Quirinius took over the governorship of Syria. Either possibility answers the question raised above. Therefore, while some questions have been raised concerning the events recorded in Luke 2:1-5, archaeology has provided some unexpected and supportive answers. Additionally, while supplying the background behind these events, archaeology also assists us in establishing several facts. (1) A taxation-census was a fairly common procedure in the Roman Empire and it did occur in Judea, in particular. (2) Persons were required to return to their home city in order to fulfill the requirements of the process. (3) These procedures were apparently employed during the reign of Augustus (37 B.C.-14 A.D.), placing it well within the general time frame of Jesus' birth. (4) The date of the specific taxation recounted by Luke could very possibly have been 6-5 B.C., which would also be of service in attempting to find a more exact date for Jesus' birth." (Habermas, G.R., "Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, 1984, pp.152-153)

Another leading Christian apologist, Norman L. Geisler, notes that there are "inscriptions that indicated that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two occasions, the first time several years prior to A.D. 6" and "Because of the strained relations between Herod and Augustus in the later years of Herod's reign ... it is understandable that Augustus would ... impose such a census in order to maintain control of Herod and the people," the first "10 and 5 B.C." and a second in "A.D. 6" according to the Roman system of "Periodic registrations ... every fourteen years":

"Luke, Alleged Errors in. Luke has been charged by the critics with containing significant historical inaccuracies in the nativity narrative of chapter 2. The Worldwide Census. Luke 2:1-3 refers to a worldwide census under Caesar Augustus when Quirinius was governor of Syria. However, according to the annals of ancient history, no such census took place. In fact, Quirinius did not become governor in Syria until A.D. 6. It was commonly held by critics that Luke erred in his assertion about a registration under Caesar Augustus, and that the census actually took place in A.D. 6 or 7 (which is mentioned by Luke in Gamaliel's speech recorded in Acts 5:37). A Possible Retranslation. F F. Bruce offers another possibility. The Greek of Luke 2:2 can be translated: `This enrollment (census) was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.' In this case, the Greek word translated `first' (protos) is translated as a comparative, `before.' Because of the construction of the sentence, this is not an unlikely reading. In this case there is no problem, since that census of A.D. 6 is well known to historians. Recent Archaeological Support. The lack of any extrabiblical support led some to claim this an error. However, with recent scholarship, it is now widely admitted that there was in fact an earlier registration, as Luke records. William Ramsay discovered several inscriptions that indicated that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two occasions, the first time several years prior to A.D. 6. According to the very papers that recorded the censuses ... there was in fact a census between 10 and 5 B.C. Periodic registrations took place every fourteen years. Because of this regular pattern of census taking, any such action was regarded as the general policy of Augustus, even though a local census may have been instigated by a local governor. Therefore, Luke recognizes the census as stemming from the decree of Augustus. Since the people of a subjugated land were compelled to take an oath of allegiance to the Emperor, it was not unusual for the Emperor to require an imperial census as an expression of this allegiance and a means of enlisting men for military service, or, as was probably true in this case, in preparation to levy taxes. Because of the strained relations between Herod and Augustus in the later years of Herod's reign, as the Jewish historian Josephus reports, it is understandable that Augustus would begin to treat Herod's domain as a subject land, and consequently would impose such a census in order to maintain control of Herod and the people. Third, a census was a massive project which probably took several years to complete. Such a census for the purpose of taxation begun in Gaul between 10-9 B.C. took 40 years to complete. Likely the decree to begin the census, in 8 or 7 B.C., may not have begun in Palestine until sometime later. Problems of organization and preparation may have delayed the actual census until 5 B.C. or even later. Fourth, it was not an unusual requirement that people return to the place of their origin, or to the place where they owned property. A decree of C. Vibius Mazimus in A.D. 104 required all those absent from their home towns to return for a census. Jews were quite used to travel, making annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem. There is simply no reason to suspect Luke's statement regarding the census. Luke's account fits the regular pattern of census taking, and its date would not be unreasonable. This may have been simply a local census taken as a result of the general policy of Augustus. Luke simply provides a reliable historical record of an event not otherwise recorded. Luke has proven himself an amazingly reliable historian ... There is no reason to doubt him here." (Geisler, N.L., "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," Baker Books: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, pp.430-431. Emphasis original)

Geisler also adds some further details which clarify Quirinius' role as "a noted military leader" who "Augustus entrusted ... with the delicate problem in the volatile area of Palestine, effectively superseding Varus by appointing Quirinius to a place of special authority in this matter":

"Quirinius' Terms as Governor. Given Luke's statement that the census decreed by Augustus was the first one taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria, the fact that Quirinius became governor of Syria long after the death of Herod, in about 6 A.D., sounds like an error in the Gospel. As noted, there is an alternate way to translate this verse which resolves the problem. Further, there is now evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria on an earlier occasion that would fit with the time of Christ's birth. Quintilius Varus was governor of Syria from about 7 to about 4 B.C. Varus was not a trustworthy leader, a fact demonstrated in A.D. 9 when he lost three legions of soldiers in the Teutoburger forest in Germany. Quirinius, on the other hand, was a noted military leader who squelched the rebellion of the Homonadensians in Asia Minor. When it came time to begin the census, in about 8 or 7 B.C., Augustus entrusted Quirinius with the delicate problem in the volatile area of Palestine, effectively superseding Varus by appointing Quirinius to a place of special authority in this matter. Quirinius was probably governor of Syria on two separate occasions, once while prosecuting the military action against the Homonadensians between 12 and 2 B.C., and later, beginning about A.D. 6. A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 has been interpreted to the effect that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two occasions. ... " (Geisler, 1999, p.431. Emphasis original)

[Concluded in part #4]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book

Re: How does Barnett deal with the possibility that Quirinius was governor of Galatia in 5-3BC?

AN (copy to CED minus your personal info)

[Graphic: Blaise Pascal]

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Where does Cyrenius fit into your harmonization of the Matthew & Luke nativity stories?

>Stephen,
>
>Barnett is a very reasonable historian from what you quote, but how does he deal with the strong possibility that Publius Sulpicius (not L.) Quirinius was governor of Galatia in 5-3BC when he was putting down the Homonadensians near Pisidian Antioch ? The governor of Syria played no role in this area.
>
>AN

As my last post pointed out, the Greek text of Luke 2:2 does not say that Quirinius (i.e.Publius Sulpicius Quirinius) was the Governor of Syria (it says "governing" in the original, not "Governor"). A further post in the pipeline (which will be part #3) will make that clearer.

I should have included what I usually write in my responses to private messages that I respond to on my blog, e.g. "Re: Would Jesus stoop to quotemining? #1":

"Please don't interpret this as an invitation to debate this issue-it isn't. As I have explained many times before: 1) it is my long-standing policy not to get involved in private discussions on creation/evolution/design issues; and 2) after more than a decade (1994-2005) of publicly debating evolutionists on Internet discussion groups, I closed down my own Internet discussion group in order to post to my blog and write my book "Problems of Evolution" (and more recently to take a ~1-year detour classify my ~10,000 online quotes into an `Evolution Quotes Book'). So this is almost certainly my first and last response to you."

The reason is that after 10+ years of debating `sceptics' (so-called) like yourself, I got absolutely nowhere. In the end I concluded that nothing I could say would make any difference to them, since they suffered from "invincible ignorance":

"There does remain, nonetheless, a cast of mind which seems peculiarly closed to evidence. When confronted with such a mind, one feels helpless, for no amount of evidence seems to be clinching. Frequently the facts are simply ignored or brushed aside as somehow deceptive, and the principles are reaffirmed in unshakable conviction. One seems confronted with what has been called `invincible ignorance.'" (Fearnside W.W. & Holther W.B., "Fallacy the Counterfeit of Argument," Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1959, 25th printing, p.113)

and I ceased wasting my time trying to convince the unconvincible.

Maybe you are the rare exception, and there is some evidence that I could supply (i.e. I can't arrange personal appearances of God, which all the `sceptics' I have debated, responded to my question, "what evidence would you accept?"!) that would convince you that Christianity is true (which it is). But I no longer have the time to find out.

As Jesus wisely observed, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets [i.e. their personal materialistic-naturalistic philosophy rules out in advance that the Bible is God's supernatural revelation to man], they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead":

Luke 16:19-31 (NIV) " ¹⁹ There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. ²⁰At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores ²¹and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. ²²"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. ²³In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. ²⁴So he called to him, `Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' <sup>25</sup>"But Abraham replied, `Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. ²⁶And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' ²⁷"He answered, `Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, <sup>28</sup>for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' <sup>29</sup>"Abraham replied, `They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' ³⁰" `No, father Abraham,' he said, `but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' ³¹"He said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

In the end if you are an atheist, Pascal's Wager applies between us, i.e. if I am right that Christianity is true you will eventually find out that I was right, but if you are right that atheism is true, neither of us will find out that you were right:

"But assuming, as most atheists do, that in an atheistic world death is the end of any human's existence, there will at best be only a finite number of benefits, or moments of benefit, to be derived from the wager against God, and this is significant. For when we consider the benefits to be derived from the Christian wager if it turns out to be right, we find something very different. The promise of eternal life, everlasting blissful communion with God and with those other fellow creatures who love God, is at the heart of the Christian faith. If Christianity turns out to be true, then anyone who has sincerely lived in a Christian way, relating himself to God as the Christian faith instructs, will find that he has been issued into a qualitatively superior form of life, consonant with the deepest truths about ultimate reality, a form of life that will be enjoyed, literally, forever. If the Christian wager proves to be right, will the Christian enjoy the experience of satisfaction to be derived from finding out decisively that he is right? Even such staunch critics as Norwood Russell Hanson seem to acknowledge that the answer is `Yes.' A range of experiences can easily be imagined that would preclude any reasonable doubts about what the outcome is if the Christian God does exist. So the Christian can have the satisfaction of finding that he was right. Moreover, if he loses the bet over whether there is a God, he will not be forced to face his error. For if there is no God and no existence beyond the moment of death, he can never have an experience beyond death that will disappoint. And if we were right in what we said about the atheist's inability on either side of the grave to enjoy an experience of finding out decisively that he is right, the same points will apply to the religious wagerer's finding out that he himself has been wrong. The disappointment of a decisive disproof is not to be dreaded. For the religious wager, it cannot materialize. Here we have an interesting asymmetry, an interesting difference, between the two wagers. In fact we may even have a symmetrical asymmetry. The Christian wagerer can experience the profound satisfaction of discovering for sure that he was right, and he cannot experience the terrible disappointment of finding out for certain that he was wrong. The atheist, on the contrary, cannot experience any satisfaction from a discovery that he was right, and, moreover, can, according to the claims of the alternative, Christian theology, experience the terrible regret of discovering that he was wrong - that he lived his life in ignorance and disregard of the deepest truths of reality. Christian theology speaks of judgment, and it speaks of worse. Whatever is meant, it is plausible to suppose that it includes at least this sort of realization. So, in an important sense, we can say that for atheism there is a final no-satisfaction guarantee, whereas for theism, there is a final no-dissatisfaction guarantee. ... Even if we are unable to quantify more precisely the various factors to be considered in this wager, we can see what the outcome will be. Atheism brings with it, at best, only a finite expectation, whereas Christian theism carries with it an infinite Expected Value. No disparity could possibly be greater. Therefore, says Pascal, a rational gambler will bet on God." (Morris, T.V., "Making Sense of It All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1992, pp.121-122. Emphasis original).

So goodbye and please don't send me any more private messages. Thanks. If you persist (as I suspect you might, since just as I was about to send this, you peppered me with yet another post:

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: Where does Cyrenius fit into your harmonization of the Matthew & Luke nativity stories?

>Stephen,
>
>Cappadocia became a Roman province in AD17 under Tiberius !
>
>AN

without waiting to read my response to your last one), I will set my Mailwasher to bounce your posts back unread.

[...]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol)
`Evolution Quotes Book'

Re: Where does Cyrenius fit into your harmonization of the Matthew & Luke nativity stories? #2

AN

[Graphic: Mary & Joseph in Bethlehem, ChristianAnswers.net]

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 7:25 PM
Subject: Cyrenius

>Dear Mr Jones,
>
>Where does he [Cyrenius] fit into your harmonization of the Matthew & Luke nativity stories?
>
>AN

[Continued from part #1]

As mentioned, there is a plausible explanation to the apparent discrepancy between: 1) Jesus being born in the reign of King Herod the Great (Mt 2:1; Lk 1:5,24,26) who died in 4 BC; yet 2) Luke in Luke 2:1-7:

Luke 2:1-7 NIV: "¹In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. ²(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) ³And everyone went to his own town to register. ⁴So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. ⁵He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. ⁶While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, ⁷and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. "

seems to say that Jesus was born at the time of a census when Cyrenius (L. Quirinius) was governor of Syria, which was in 6/7 AD. Namely that there were two censuses, and this census that occurred at the time of the birth of Jesus took place before the second census (which is also mentioned by Luke in Acts 5:37) when Quirinius was both times "governor of Syria" (although see below).

Continuing with Christian historian Paul Barnett's explanation:

"Despite the serious historical problems raised regarding the integrity of Luke 2:1-3, for several reasons the possibility of Luke's historical accuracy should be kept open. First, the Romans employed the census formerly under the Republic, among other reasons, to assess property for taxation. Augustus revived the practice in Rome, where it had fallen into disuse. He was also the first to introduce the census to the provinces, which he did progressively and piecemeal, as he did with a census in Egypt in 10/9 B.C., which was to be repeated at fourteen-year intervals. Thus the census in Judea as described in Luke 2:1-3 fits with Augustus's known practice, even though there is no evidence of a precise decree (dogma) issued by the emperor calling for a universal registration. Second, Luke also refers (in Acts 5:37) to Quirinius's registration in A.D. 6: "Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census." By these words Luke recognizes the significance of the notorious census undertaken by Quirinius that provoked Judas' uprising. Yet Luke 2:2 introduces the word prote, "first," which suggests that Quirinius's registration was not the only census in Judea. Luke wants us to understand that there was another census or censuses, whether before or after Quirinius's census. It should be noted that, although the word prote means "first," in certain contexts it carries the comparative nuance "former." Luke himself provides an example of this in the opening words of his second volume, the book of Acts: "in the first [protos = "former"] book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach" (Acts 1:1)." (Barnett, P.W., "Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999, p.98)

There are actually two possibilities that resolve the apparent discrepancy, based on Luke 2:2, "This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria," that "first" [Gk. prote] can be be translated as: 1) "This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria"; or 2) "This was the former census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria":

In Luke 2:2 prote might qualify either the noun ("this first registration occurred") or the verb ("this registration occurred first"). If Luke intended the former, that this census was the first of others that would follow in Judea, it would mean that he located the nativity of Jesus at the time of the infamous census by Quirinius in A.D. 6, a significant error. If, however, prote qualified the verb, it would carry the comparative inference, "former," and point to a less well-known census in Judea conducted by Quirinius or someone else "prior to" [See John 1:15, 30; 15:18, where protos means "before" = "prior to."] the census of A.D. 6 that stirred up a local rebellion.

Personally I consider 2) to be the more likely, although both require Quirinius to have been "governor [Gk. egemoneuontos = "governing"] of Syria" (i.e. the Roman province of Syria which then directly controlled Gallilee and indirectly Judea).

Barnett also (almost as an afterthought in a footnote), mentions what seems to me a likely additional (or even main) reason for this census [Gk. apographe = "enrollment," "registration"] namely, "in 7 B.C. Herod imposed on all Jews an oath of loyalty to Augustus and himself" and "Such oath taking may have depended upon a registration of his subjects in their ancestral cities":

"Can we envisage such a Roman census earlier, during Herod's reign (37-4 B.C.)? There is no other evidence (beyond Lk 2:2; cf. Lk 1:5) of such a census. Herod was, after all, a client king, levying his own taxes. Surely a client king instituting a Roman census is unimaginable. In point of fact, however, a client ruler introducing a Roman-style census independently of Rome is known. Archelaus the Younger of Cappadocia did this in A.D. 36. [Tacitus, Annals 6.41] Significantly, there had been extensive connections between Archelaus's father, also named Archelaus, and Herod. Herod arranged an interdynastic marriage between his son Alexander and Archelaus the Elder's daughter Glaphyra. [Josephus Ant. 16.11] Archelaus the Elder also visited Judea in the latter years of Herod. [Ibid., 16.261-69.] If Herod had conducted a census, Archelaus the Elder, and therefore also his son, would have known of it. Archelaus's known use of a census in a client kingdom, which had close ties with Herod, leaves open the possibility that Herod conducted a Roman-style census for his own tax-gathering purposes. [It is noted that Herod's relations with Augustus were seriously strained in his latter years. Evidence of Herod's desperate attempts to regain Augustus's confidence can be seen at several points. For example, in 7 B.C. Herod imposed on all Jews an oath of loyalty to Augustus and himself, despite strong opposition from the Pharisees (Josephus, Ant. 17.42). Such oath taking may have depended upon a registration of his subjects in their ancestral cities. For the suggestion that Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem to be registered for this oath taking, see Paul W. Barnett, "Apographe and Apographesthai in Luke 2:1-5," ExpTim 85 (1974): 377-80]" (Barnett, 1999, pp.98-99, 107 n30).

Barnett points out that "Luke proves to be well informed about Herod at other points where we can evaluate his accuracy":

"Luke proves to be well informed about Herod at other points where we can evaluate his accuracy. As noted above he locates the birth of John the Baptist "in the days of Herod, king of Judea" (Lk 1:5). Despite the complexity of the division of Herod's kingdom at his death, Luke understands exactly how this worked at the time John the Baptist began to prophesy in c. 28 (Lk 3:1-2). Moreover, throughout his writings Luke refers to "Herod the tetrarch," ruler of Galilee (Lk 3:19; 9:7; Acts 13:1). Since Luke knows about Herod "king of Judaea" and the intricacies of the division of his former realm, we may ask if he is likely to have made his supposed mistake in locating the nativity in A.D. 6/7, especially since he knows well the significance of Judas's uprising at that time. Having located Jesus' birth in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, in one place (Lk 1), would he also locate it at the time of the controversial census (Lk 2) a decade later? There are grounds for seeking another explanation for the apparent discrepancy in Luke 2:1-3, in particular that an otherwise unknown census occurred in the latter days of Herod, providing an occasion for Joseph and Mary to journey to Bethlehem." (Barnett, 1999, pp.98-99).

I might add that a fraud or myth-maker would not give such intricate historical details of names, titles, dates and places as Luke (in particular) does. If critics could suspend their anti-Christian prejudices they might consider how unlikely it is that Luke would write such details about important people which his contemporaries would know are false, if they were false. As Barnett says above, Luke-Acts are in fact addressed to a "most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) who is most likely the pseudonym of a high-ranking Roman official, in which case he would certainly know if Luke got his Roman facts wrong!

Here are further supporting details, including that "between 10 and 7 BC Quirinius performed military functions in the Roman province of Syria" and "If the interval between censuses was fourteen years, this brings him into the area in an official capacity at the right time":

"LUKE 2:2 ... There is a further difficulty about the part Quirinius played. As governor of Syria he carried out a census in AD 6 (Josephus, Antiquities xviii. 26; this is mentioned in Acts 5:37). This aroused violent opposition and Judas of Gamala led a rebellion (Antiquities xviii. 3ff). But that census is too late for the present passage. However, certain inscriptions indicate that between 10 and 7 BC Quirinius performed military functions in the Roman province of Syria. If the interval between censuses was fourteen years, this brings him into the area in an official capacity at the right time. There is no record outside Luke for a census at this time, but there is nothing improbable about it. Josephus tells us that at about this time `the whole Jewish people' swore an oath of loyalty to Caesar (Antiquities xvii. 42), which possibly reflects a census. It is also worth noting that Tertullian says that the census was carried out under Saturninus, who was governor of Syria 9-6 BC (Adversus Marcionem iv. 19). This is not in the Bible, so, if the statement can be relied on (which some scholars doubt), Tertullian must be relying on other evidence. Justin, in the middle of the second century, assures the Romans that they can see the registers of Quirinius's census (I Apology 34). Some hold that the census of AD 6 must have been the first, for people rebel at the unfamiliar, whereas once a census had been held a second would be accepted. But it is fairly contended that at the time of which Luke writes Herod would have arranged the details and `it would be quite like Herod's skill in governing Jews to disguise the foreign nature of the command by an appeal to tribal patriotism' (Easton, cited in Manson). This is supported by the fact that in Luke's census people returned to their family homes, whereas a Roman registration would have been at the place of residence." (Morris, L., "The Gospel According to Luke: An Introduction and Commentary," [1974], Inter-Varsity Press Leicester UK, reprint, 1986, p.82)

I could stop here, but I have some further quotes that throw light on this apparent discrepancy, and it might help other Christians in responding to questions/attacks about it. I also need to answer specifically the original question, "Where does he [Cyrenius] fit into your harmonization of the Matthew & Luke nativity stories?" However, this part #2 is getting too long, so ...

[Continued in part #3].

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book

Re: Where does Cyrenius fit into your harmonization of the Matthew & Luke nativity stories? #1

AN

[Graphic: Retracing biblical steps, BBC]

Thank you for your message. As is my normal practice, I am copying my response to my blog, CED, after removing your personal identifying information. Because of its length, I am breaking this post into two parts. Therefore, as per my previously announced policy that when my response to a private message copied to my blog blows out into multiple parts, I am going to post only a brief acknowledgment to the sender (i.e. this paragraph), informing him/her that my full response will be posted only to my blog.

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 7:25 PM
Subject: Cyrenius

>Dear Mr Jones,
>
>Where does he [Cyrenius] fit into your harmonization of the Matthew & Luke nativity stories?
>
>AN

I Googled your name and I gather that your standpoint is non- or even anti-Christian. That is, you presumably assume that Cyrenius (i.e. Quirinius) in Luke 2:2 does not fit into my harmonization of the Matthew & Luke nativity accounts (not "stories"). If so, I am sorry to disappoint you, because he fits in just fine!

According to the nativity account in Luke 2, Quirinius was governor of Syria at the time Jesus was born:

Luke 2:1-7 NIV: "¹In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. ²(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) ³And everyone went to his own town to register. ⁴So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. ⁵He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. ⁶While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, ⁷and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. "

However, there is an apparent discrepancy with this as Christian historian Paul Barnett explains, namely that Jesus was born in the reign of King Herod the Great who died in 4 BC, yet Jesus was born at the time of a census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, which was in 6/7 AD:

"Jesus' birth (5 B.C.). Matthew and Luke make it clear that Jesus was born during Herod's reign (Mt 2:1; Lk 1:5,24,26). Thus Jesus' birthdate must predate Herod's death, which is almost universally accepted as having occurred in 4 B.C. However, Luke's account has an awkward internal conflict. Having implied that Jesus was born during Herod's reign sometime before 4 B.C., Luke then states that the nativity occurred at the time of Quirinius's census, which Josephus places in A.D. 6/7 [Antiquities, 18:1-3], more than ten years after the death of the king. Since there can be no doubt that Jesus was born during the days of Herod, we must conclude either that Luke has made an error or that there is something missing in our understanding of his reference to Quirinius." (Barnett, P.W., "Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999, p.19)

At this point a non-Christian, like you, who already (by definition) assumes that Christianity is false, will likely "conclude ... that Luke has made an error" and therefore take it as further confirmation of his existing position that Christianity is false. But a Christian, like me, who assumes (indeed knows) that Christianity is true, will "conclude ... that there is something missing in our understanding of" Luke's "reference to Quirinius."

And as Barnett further explains later in the same book, there is indeed a plausible explanation, namely that there were two censuses, and this census took place before the second census (which is also mentioned by Luke in Acts 5:37) when Quirinius was governor of Syria:

"Two problems have been noted with Luke's stated reason for Joseph and Mary's journey to Bethlehem, where Mary's child was born. One is an absence of corroborative evidence of any decree from Augustus for a universal census. The other more serious difficulty is that Josephus gives very clear evidence that Quirinius came to Judea in A.D. 6/7 to conduct a census among the Jews in preparation for Judea becoming a Roman province. [Josephus, Antiquities, 18:1-2, 26] However, the evidence from Luke locates the birth of Jesus more than a decade earlier, in c. 5 B.C. [Lk 1:26, 39-41, 57; 2:1-5] According to Luke both John the Baptist and Jesus were conceived `in the days of Herod, king of Judea' (Lk 1:5), who died in 4 B.C. On the face of it Luke has made a serious chronological error. Various attempts have been made to resolve the second problem. One proposal is that Quirinius had also been appointed to Syria around the time of the nativity of Jesus, whether as outright governor or as some kind of military governor working alongside a civil governor. True, Quirinius campaigned against the wild Homanadenses tribe in Galatia from c. 12 B.C. to A.D. 2. [Tacitus, Annals 3:48] But there is no clear evidence that he governed the province of Syria at that time. The governors were known to be Titius (before 10 B.C.), Saturninus (10-6 B.C.) and Varus (6-4 B.C.). As a frontier province, Syria had a governor who was a legatus pro praetore, a military commander, rather than a civil proconsul. It is difficult to see how Quirinius would have fit into this existing military structure where one province was led by one governor. Quirinius's visit to Judea in A.D. 6 to register people and property for purposes of direct taxation was a major historical landmark. Augustus, having dismissed the ethnarch Archelaus, made Judea a Roman province under a military governor (praefectus). Because the people now had to pay their taxes to Rome rather than to Archelaus, it was necessary to conduct an apographe, `registration,' of the people in order to make an apotimesis, `assessment,' of their property for taxation. Josephus describes in some detail this registration as well as the uprising against it led by Judas the Galilean. In Judas's mind, it was not merely a matter of the money involved; God's rule over his people was now being handed over to the despised Gentile. ... [Josephus, Jewish Wars, 2:4333] Submission to Quirinius's assessment was, in effect, recognition of Augustus rather than God as master. 24 [Ibid., 2.118, 433; 7.253; Ant. 18.23]." (Barnett, 1999, pp.97-98)

[Continued in part #2]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'

Study Says Spider Web Developed Just Once

Study Says Spider Web Developed Just Once, ABC News, Randolph E. Schmid AP ... [Graphic: BBC] Washington Jun 22, 2006 (AP) - Will you walk into my parlor, said a Cretaceous spider to an ancient fly. The classic spider's web, like Charlotte would have woven, was invented just once, way back in the Cretaceous period some 136 million years ago, scientists report. Called an orb web, it's the generally circular style spun by two major types of spiders, which had raised the possibility of the two groups evolving this form separately. But a paper in Friday's issue of the journal Science says a comparison of the spider genes related to web making shows that the orb web developed just once. Researchers led by Jessica Garb of the University of California, Riverside, compared orb-web building spiders in the genuses Deinopoidea and Araneoidea. Both build orb webs to catch prey and the deinopoids also include net-casting spiders that throw a modified orb web over their prey. Araneoids include the orb weavers such as golden silk spiders with their traditional spiraling web as well as those that weave sheet webs. Garb said in a statement that the finding "does not support a double origin for the orb web," but indicates that the unique design evolved only once. While the two groups probably developed orb-web spinning from a common ancestor, they came up with different ways of making the web catch prey. Araneoid webs have glue droplets that make prey stick to the web, while deinopoids wrap their threads with a different type of silk fiber that "the spiders comb, until it almost has the appearance of Velcro under a microscope, and they snag insects that way," Garb reported. Not all spiders make orb webs. The black widow, for example, weaves a web that is a tangle of silk without the circular pattern. ... [I accept the Darwinist reasoning that if something arose many times independently, then that is evidence for it being the result of the Darwinian mechanism of the natural selection of random micromutations (I do not rule out such Darwinian mechanisms-after all Darwin just discovered them, he did not invent them).

For example, when Darwinists used to claim that "eyes have evolved independently more than forty times in the animal kingdom":

"All that is needed as the starting point for the development of eyes is the existence of light-sensitive cells. Natural selection will then favor the acquisition of any needed auxiliary mechanism. This is why photo-receptors or eyes have evolved independently more than forty times in the animal kingdom (Plawen and Mayr, 1977)." (Mayr, E.W., "The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1982, p.611)

then they could, with justification, claim that it was by natural selection from "light-sensitive cells."

But equally, when it was discovered that there was a pax-6 master gene that coded for all "forty and maybe up to sixty-five" different types of eyes, and therefore "there has been just one origin and one evolutionary [sic] line of progression" of eyes":

"The Pax-6 story tells us that there has been just one origin and one evolutionary line of progression, from the earliest patches of light-sensitive cells to the variety of advanced eye-forms around us. This unavoidable conclusion, Charles, goes against a hundred years of insistence that the widely different structures and operations of eyes (eye cup, pinhole, camera-type with single lens, mirror and compound) arose independently, at least forty and maybe up to sixty-five times. Our old friend Richard Dawkins devoted a chapter in one of his books to 'the forty-fold path to enlightenment', emphasizing the repetitive ease with which natural selection could produce an eye, and so relieving you of the 'cold shudder' you experienced whenever you grappled with this problem." (Dover G.A., "Dear Mr Darwin: Letters on the Evolution of Life and Human Nature," [1999], University of California Press: Berkeley CA, 2000, reprint, p.172)

then that is good evidence against "the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration" having "been formed by natural selection":

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," 1872, Sixth Edition, Senate: London, 1994, pp.143-144)

Similarly, if there has been one just one origin and one line of progression of anything (especially if it seems to be irreducibly complex), then I provisionally propose that it has not arisen by unintelligent `blind watchmaker' processes but by intelligent design (and as a Christian I assume, but cannot prove, that the Designer was God).

A case in point is this orb spider web that seems to be a "unique design" which "evolved [sic] only once." Since it presumably would be very advantageous for other lines of spiders to develop this type of web, that they didn't (given the uncountable trillions of spiders that have ever lived) is evidence that this "unique design" arose fully-formed by an inheritable macromutation (which would be indistinguishable from a miracle-which I assume it was, i.e. what Geisler calls a "second-class miracle"):

"It may be that some things are so highly unusual and coincidental that, when viewed in connection with the moral or theological context in which they occurred, the label `miracle' is the most appropriate one for the happening. Let us call this kind of supernaturally guided event a second class miracle, that is, one whose natural process can be described scientifically (and perhaps even reduplicated by humanly controlled natural means) but whose end product in the total picture is best explained by invoking the supernatural. Providing that the theist can offer some good reasons (by virtue of the moral or theological context of the event) for not accepting a purely natural explanation, then there is no reason to rule out the evidential value of such unusual natural events." (Geisler, N.L., "Christian Apologetics," [1976], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Ninth Printing, 1995, p.277)

This is supported by the fact that the web-building instinctual program of orb web spiders is to build a whole web from scratch. That is, if its web gets damaged the spider cannot repair it but "the spider has to make a new web from scratch, instead of recycling the old web" (despite the enormous selective advantage if they could repair their web by rebuilding only part of it, which is evidence that they never could build part orb webs).

And here is some idea of the complexity of an orb web (and therefore of the instinctual program `hard-wired' into the tiny brain of each orb-web spider):

Spiders Spin Out, ABC, February 5, 2004 ... To build a wheel web from scratch, the spider begins on top of a bush or tree and spins out a length of silk. She waits for a breeze to lift the gossamer thread and eventually snag it in a nearby tree. Having assured herself it is secure, she climbs along this thread, spinning a stronger line as she goes. Then she returns, paying out a much looser line behind her which sags down. She attaches another line to the middle of the slack line, and runs this line down to the ground. With the end attached below, the whole makes a Y-shape - three 'spokes' which form the hub or centre of the web. Then she adds more spokes - up to 60 depending on the species. Now she lays down a continuous spiral to join up the spokes, working from the centre outwards. All the web spun so far has been dry silk, but now the spider, working from the outside back in towards the hub spins the most important feature: a spiral of sticky insect-ensnaring silk. Her work done, she takes up residence in the centre or in a curled leaf. ...]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book

Re: Wade's book is an excellent read regarding how natural selection is an unguided process #2

Chris Turney (cc. CED)

[Continued from part #1]

Nowhere is it more evident that unguided natural processes are inadequate to explain the entire history of life, than in the origin of life, and this is exemplified by former atheist philosopher Antony Flew, author of a book "Darwinian Evolution," coming to accept, on the basis of the scientific evidence, that God must have supernaturally intervened in natural history to create the " first reproducing organism":

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

But as Dawkins (citing Darwin) correctly points out,"if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent"then it "was not evolution at all" (my emphasis):

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

However, in my experience of debating evolutionists on the Internet for over a decade (1994-2005), I will be very surprised if you can even understand what I am saying, let alone accept it.

Robert Pennock, who was lurking on the Calvin Reflector when I was debating there (1995-2001), kindly summarised my Old-Earth/Progressive Creation position" as "God intervened supernaturally at strategic points" in life's history, and therefore "Creation was not a single six-day event but occurred in stages over millions of years":

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

The mechanism of those supernatural interventions at strategic points in life's history that I propose (and will propose in my future book, "Progressive Creation") include supernatural modifications by God to existing genetic code.

>Hope you enjoy it.

Thank you. I am sure I will when I eventually do buy it, since I usually enjoy evolutionists' writings. My disagreement is not with their actual scientific facts, but with their personal naturalistic philosophy that they impose on the facts. I particularly enjoy the intellectual exercise of disentangling the scientific facts from the naturalistic philosophy and then integrating those facts into my own Christian "Progressive Mediate Creation" paradigm.

>With best wishes,
>
>Chris

And the same to you.

You did not mention it in your message, but I trust that you will no longer peddle the common, but false, straw man (see part #1) that Intelligent Design is just an offshoot of Genesis literalism (it isn't), and therefore denies universal common ancestry (it doesn't). The majority of the leaders of the Intelligent Design (as well as mere footsoldiers like me) are not, and (at least in my case have never been), Young-Earth Creationists.

The ID position is that (irrespective of our particular religious views) there is empirical scientific evidence for intelligent design in nature. As Denton (an agnostic) put it, "the inference to design is a purely a posteriori induction ... The conclusion may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious presuppositions":

"Paley was not only right in asserting the existence of an analogy between life and machines, but was also remarkably prophetic in guessing that the technological ingenuity realized in living systems is vastly in excess of anything yet accomplished by man. ... The almost irresistible force of the analogy has completely undermined the complacent assumption, prevalent in biological circles over most of the past century, that the design hypothesis can be excluded on the grounds that the notion is fundamentally a metaphysical a priori concept and therefore scientifically unsound. On the contrary, the inference to design is a purely a posteriori induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy. The conclusion may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious presuppositions." (Denton, M.J., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," Burnett Books: London, 1985, p.341)

After all, if it is scientific to claim that there is no design in nature (as Darwinism does-see for example the sub-title of Dawkins' book above, "Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design"), then it equally scientific to claim that there is design in nature. It is just a fallacy of special pleading for Darwinists to claim that it is "science" for Darwinism to deny there is evidence of design in nature, but it is "not science" for ID to affirm that there is evidence of design in nature!

[...]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book

Re: Wade's book is an excellent read regarding how natural selection is an unguided process #1

Chris Turney (cc. CED)

----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Turney
To: Stephen E. Jones
Cc: Chris Turney
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: Another straw man attack on ID (in Australia's national newspaper)

>Dear Stephen,
>
>Thanks for your interesting email.

And thank you for your reply. As mentioned, as per my usual practice, I am copying my response to my blog CED. The comprehensiveness of this response, including the quotes and links are also for readers of my blog. I have bolded my comments to make it easier for readers to distinguish my words from yours on my blog. I will probably split this into two or three parts on my blog.

>I really would recommend Nicholas Wade's book 'Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors'.

As I tend to buy every evolutionist book I come across (see an incomplete listing of ~1,700 of my estimated ~2,000+ books, mostly on creation/evolution/design topics), I will probably buy Wade's book also in due course.

>It is an excellent read regarding how natural selection is an unguided process, even in relatively recent human history.

By definition "natural selection is an unguided process." If "selection" was a "guided process" then it would be intelligent selection!

But in my experience Darwinists tend to forget that their theory is actually the natural selection of random mutations, as Richard Dawkins points out:

"There is a fifth respect in which mutation might have been nonrandom. We can imagine (just) a form of mutation that was systematically biased in the direction of improving the animal's adaptedness to its life. But although we can imagine it, nobody has ever come close to suggesting any means by which this bias could come about. It is only in this fifth respect, the 'mutationist' respect, that the true, real-life Darwinian insists that mutation is random. Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement, and no mechanism is known (to put the point mildly) that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random in this fifth sense. Mutation is random with respect to adaptive advantage, although it is non-random in all sorts of other respects. It is selection, and only selection, that directs evolution in directions that are nonrandom with respect to advantage." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, p.312. Emphasis original)

And as Darwin's contemporary and critic Samuel Butler pointed out, it is "the `Origin of Variation,'" (or in Neo-Darwinian terms, the origin of mutations) "whatever it is, [that] is the only true 'Origin of Species'":

"The question is not concerning evolution, but as to the main cause which has led to evolution in such and such shapes. To me it seems that the `Origin of Variation,' whatever it is, is the only true 'Origin of Species,' and that this must, as Lamarck insisted, be looked for in the needs and experiences of the creatures varying. Unless we can explain the origin of variations, we are met by the unexplained at every step in the progress of a creature from its original homogeneous condition to its differentiation, we will say, as an elephant; so that to say that an elephant has become an elephant through the accumulation of a vast number of small, fortuitous, but unexplained, variations in some lower creatures, is really to say that it has become an elephant owing to a series of causes about which we know nothing, whatever, or, in other words, that one does not know how it came to be an elephant." (Butler, S., "Life and Habit," [1910], Wildwood House: London, 1981, pp.263-264. Emphasis original)

This is the Achilles heel of Darwinism, the unproven (and unprovable) claim that all mutations in the entire ~4 billion year history of life have been random (in the sense of unguided), as Dawkins' quote above implies.

But as molecular biologist Michael Denton points out, "this is the fundamental assumption upon which the whole Darwinian model of nature is based" (my emphasis) "that all mutations in all organisms throughout the entire course of 4 billion years of evolution have all been entirely spontaneous," which is just an "unquestioned article of faith" for which "evidence ... is hardly ever presented":

"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 E. coli that were associated with the names of Salvador Luria, Max Delbruck, and Joshua Lederberg. But the fact that some mutations in bacteria are spontaneous does not necessarily mean that all mutations in all organisms throughout the entire course of 4 billion years of evolution have all been entirely spontaneous. ... During the course of the past 4 billion years of evolution, countless trillions of changes have occurred in the DNA sequences of living organisms. There is simply no experimental means of demonstrating that they were all spontaneous." (Denton, M.J., "Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe," Free Press: New York NY, 1998, pp.285-286. Emphasis original)

Darwinists just assume that all mutations in the entire history of life must have been random (in the sense of unguided) because in their personal naturalistic worldview, there is nothing outside of nature that could guide mutations. As Richard Dawkins put it in his quote above, "no mechanism is known (to put the point mildly) that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random."

But of course if Christianity is true (which it is) then there is a `mechanism' that could guide mutations in directions that are non-random, namely God. As the founder of the ID movement, Phillip E. Johnson put it, "An essential step in the reasoning that establishes that Darwinian selection created the wonders of biology, therefore, is that nothing else was available" but "Theism is by definition the doctrine that something else was available" (my emphasis):

"If God exists He could certainly work through mutation and selection if that is what He wanted to do, but He could also create by some means totally outside the ken of our science. Once we put God into the picture, however, there is no good reason to attribute the creation of biological complexity to random mutation and natural selection. Direct evidence that these mechanisms have substantial creative power is not to be found in nature, the laboratory, or the fossil record. An essential step in the reasoning that establishes that Darwinian selection created the wonders of biology, therefore, is that nothing else was available. Theism is by definition the doctrine that something else was available." (Johnson P.E., "What is Darwinism?" Lecture at a symposium at Hillsdale College, November 1992. My emphasis)

Darwinists simply rule out guidance by God as `unscientific' (deluding themselves, like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand, that if they refuse to see it, then it doesn't exist ), but it was not always so that guidance by God was deemed unscientific and even incompatible with Darwinism. It once was a respectable scientific argument, proposed by Harvard botanist and Christian Darwinist Asa Gray, and seconded by the `father of geology' Sir Charles Lyell (but rejected by Darwin on personal naturalistic philosophical grounds), "that variation" (i.e. mutation) "has been led along certain beneficial lines":

"In the argument for design in nature which he advanced [Asa] Gray finally came up to the problem of how to introduce design into the Darwinian system. Variation was the point he seized upon. At least `while the physical cause of variation is utterly unknown and mysterious, we should advise Mr. Darwin to assume, in the philosophy of his hypothesis, that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines.' [Gray A., "Darwiniana," (1861), Belknap: Cambridge MA, 1963, pp.120-121] ... If Gray's argument for the compatibility of the Darwinian hypothesis with theism failed to win over the Bishop of Oxford, it failed equally to win over an even more important leader, Darwin himself. ... In the fall of 1860 ... Darwin in effect announced his decision. `I grieve to say I cannot honestly go as far as you do about design.' [Darwin C.R., Letter to Asa Gray, November 26th, 1860, in Darwin F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," (1898), Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, pp.145-146] ... While an amiable discussion continued between the two friends, it held from this time on a fundamental disagreement. With Darwin's decision against the design argument, Gray lost his place as a shaper of strategy in the inner circle of friends. The assumption quickly grew up that Darwin had annihilated Paley's argument, and Huxley moved quickly forward to become the interpreter of Darwinism before the public. Gray's solution would obviously have been quite different. Later students have often puzzled over Lyell's hesitation and near estrangement from Hooker, Huxley, and Darwin without noting that Lyell alone of the inner circle in England adhered to Gray's position. Indeed, on the last pages of the Antiquity of Man, he specifically adopted Gray's view of design in nature. Other factors, of course, entered into Lyell's later opinions on the Origin, but he and Gray stepped out of the inner circle together on the same issue." (Dupree A.H., "Asa Gray: American Botanist, Friend of Darwin," [1959], The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore MD, 1988, reprint, pp.296, 300-301)

[Concluded in part #2]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book

Another straw man attack on ID (in Australia's national newspaper)

I was reading the book reviews section of yesterday's The Weekend Australian, Australia's only national newspaper, when I came to a review by a Chris Turney, "a British Geologist currently based at the University of Wollongong, Australia," of a book by science journalist Nicholas Wade on how the human genome data can help in understanding our origins.

[Graphic: The Australian]

I read the review with interest, especially when I reached this point, where Turney `informs' the reader that the book's "publication is particularly timely considering the noise being made by supporters of intelligent design," but "No doubt intelligent design proponents will ignore the information in this book" and "the sheer scope of evidence collected by Wade demonstrates yet again how fundamentally flawed their arguments are":

The story in us all: The human genome is helping us understand our origins, Chris Turney, The Australian ... Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors, By Nicholas Wade, Penguin ... Its publication is particularly timely considering the noise being made by supporters of intelligent design. Wade shows how we simply can't explain the rich cultural and biological world we see without invoking natural selection to drive evolution. No doubt intelligent design proponents will ignore the information in this book, but the sheer scope of evidence collected by Wade demonstrates yet again how fundamentally flawed their arguments are. Wade convincingly shows that understanding the human genome is critical if we are to fully understand where we have come from and where we are going. Overall, his book is an excellent introduction to a rapidly advancing field of science, presenting an easily accessible and enthusiastic account of what we know from the dawn of humankind. ...

As a long- standing member of the ID movement, who (like leading ID theorist Michael Behe) accepts universal common ancestry, I therefore regard this as yet another example of a straw man attack on ID, setting up a "misrepresentation of an opponent's position ... that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.":

"A straw man argument is a rhetorical technique based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To `set up a straw man' or `set up a straw-man argument' is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by the opponent has not been refuted." ("Straw man," Wikipedia, 2006)

As the above quote says, "A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by the opponent has not been refuted." However, I expect that such straw man attacks on ID will in the long run backfire on the critics as the public increasingly discover that they have been misled.

The straw man in question is when a critic claims that ID is opposed to something (e.g. universal common ancestry) and then criticises it for that alleged opposition. Apart from anything else, it is sloppy scholarship to make scientific claims about something without backing it up with references from the relevant primary source literature (in this case scholarly ID books and articles, not secondhand, hearsay criticisms of ID by its opponents).

The fact is that ID itself has no position, for or against, common ancestry, as these quotes from leading ID theorists Bill Dembski, who notes that "intelligent design is compatible with ... the most far-ranging evolution ... seamlessly melding all organisms together into one great tree of life":

"Where does intelligent design fit within the creation-evolution debate? Logically, intelligent design is compatible with everything from utterly discontinuous creation (e.g., God intervening at every conceivable point to create new species) to the most far-ranging evolution (e.g., God seamlessly melding all organisms together into one great tree of life). For intelligent design the primary question is not how organisms came to be (though, as we've just seen, this is a vital question for intelligent design) but whether organisms demonstrate clear, empirically detectable marks of being intelligently caused. In principle an evolutionary process can exhibit such `marks of intelligence' as much as any act of special creation." (Dembski, W.A., "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999, pp.109-110)

and Mike Behe, who stated that, "I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it":

"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., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.5-6)

and who moreover recently testified under oath in the Dover trial that "intelligent design does not take a position on common descent," i.e. "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":

"BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q Professor Behe ... If we could go to page 11 of your report and highlight the underscored text. You say, `Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose.' Correct? A That is correct, yes. Q That's consistent with your testimony today. A Yes, it is. Q Now, the claim that -- if we could go back to Ernst Mayr's list and highlight - - just focus on the common descent. You claim that intelligent design does not take a position on common descent, which is defined here as, `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.' Correct? ... A Yes, this is Ernst Mayr's definition of common descent, may I add. Q And you're saying intelligent design doesn't make a claim about that proposition. A That's correct." (Behe, M.J., "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District," Trial transcript: Day 11, October 18, PM Session, Part 2)

I am cc'ing this post to Turney to give him the opportunity to respond, supporting his claims (preferably from the ID primary source literature) that: (1) "Its [Wade's book] publication is particularly timely considering the noise being made by supporters of intelligent design" (i.e. "noise" that is relevant to the book); 2) "No doubt intelligent design proponents will ignore the information in this book" (they indeed might because it is not relevant to ID); and 3) "the sheer scope of evidence collected by Wade demonstrates yet again how fundamentally flawed their arguments are" (which arguments? what evidence? how exactly?).

Quite frankly, in view of another anti-ID article by Turney, which falsely claims another common anti-ID straw man, that "intelligent design" is an "offshoot" of "creationism, the literal reading of Genesis that God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago," I would be surprised if Turney responds (the usual anti-IDist tactic being to snipe away with straw men from a `scientific' coward's castle). But if he does, as is my usual practice, I reserve the right to post his response, with my comments, here to my blog CreationEvolutionDesign.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book