CreationEvolutionDesign

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

2009-05-10T21:55:00.009+08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great! Although this is only one student,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-03-12T05:16:00.007+09:00

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

[Above: Edith Cowan University, Joondalup: Wikipedia]

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

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

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

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

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

2009-02-02T23:42:00.011+09:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The word weeks was translated from the Hebrew word Shabuwa meaning a period of Seven and also Feast of Weeks, one of the seven Feasts of the Lord:
SHABUWA (shaw-boo'-ah); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 7620: seven, period of seven (days or years), heptad, week; Feast of Weeks (Shavuot)
In the original Hebrew, Shabuwa is in plural form; meaning FeastS of Weeks rather than only one Feast of Weeks. This verse reads: "Seventy Shabuwas or Shavuots are determined." (Daniel's Timeline Report, 19 November 2007).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>Thank you very much
>
>AN

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Christianity has no future and is in decline

2008-12-08T19:05:00.008+09:00

AN

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

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

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

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

are bold to distinguish them from mine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WE WIN!!!:

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,
AN (agnostic-deist)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Anthony Flew leaving Atheism ... more accurate to state "Victory of Deism"

2008-12-04T12:21:00.005+09:00

Continuing from my Re: what would happen if I lived to 2037 and Jesus has not come? with your next question:

[Left: Former atheist philosopher Antony Flew's book, "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind" (2007).]

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.

I never claimed that Flew did 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 Antony Flew's conversion from atheism to deism was a "victory of theism."

Although since atheism, "the belief that God does not exist," is the negation of theism:"

atheism ... noun the belief that God does not exist. - DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective. - ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos `god'." ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 2008),

then "leaving Atheism" by Flew, who was one of the world's leading atheists, was in that sense a "victory of theism."

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:

"theism Belief in the existence of God." (Blackburn, 1994, "The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy," p.375).

"theism ... is the view that there is such a thing as GOD." (Vesey & Foulkes, 1990, "Collins Dictionary of Philosophy," p.283).

"theism ... the belief that there is one God, a personal being with every perfection ... existing entirely separately from the world ... the view 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 ..." (Mautner, 2000, "The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy," p.561).

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:

"deism Historically, a term referring to the doctrine of `natural religion' ... according to which while reason ... assures us that there is a God, additional revelation, dogma, or supernatural commerce with the deity are all excluded. ... God may only be thought of as an 'absentee landlord'." (Blackburn, 1994, Ibid., p.110).

"deism ... belief in God as a perfect personal being; differs from THEISM by not accepting doctrines that require belief in revelation. ... there is one supreme God; .... True religion is identified with Christianity-but a reinterpreted `rational' Christianity which has no place for any special revelation." (Mautner, 2000, Ibid., pp.126-127).

"deism ... a line of rationalistic religious thought that affirms that there is a GOD 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 unconcerned with human affairs." (Vesey & Foulkes, Ibid., 1990, p.76).

But even if theism is defined in a narrower sense of "belief in the existence of ... a creator who intervenes in the universe":

"theism ... noun belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. Compare with DEISM. - DERIVATIVES theist noun theistic ... adjective. - ORIGIN from Greek theos `god'." ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," 2008).

and deism is then defined in the sense of "belief in the existence of ... a creator who does not intervene in the universe":

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

then Flew's position is not deism but theism, because he believes that there is a God who intervened in the Universe to create the first living organism (see below).

Flew had claimed his version of deism affirmed that "God was not actively involved in people's lives":

"A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century ... now believes in God ... Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives." (Ostling, 2004, "Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God," Livescience).

and he later defined his God as "not the God of revelation":

"... Deists believe in the existence of a God but not the God of revelation." (Flew, 2008, "The Atheist Delusion Of Richard Dawkins," pp.48-49).

But Flew also affirms that God intervened supernaturally in the already existing Universe to create the first life:

"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 ... 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." (Ostling, 2004, Ibid.)

"... when asked if recent work on the origin of life pointed to the activity of a creative Intelligence, I said: `Yes ... because ... the DNA material 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. It's the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.'" (Flew, 2007, "There Is a God," pp.74-75).

Therefore, according to the Oxford Dictionary above, Flew's position is actually "theism ... belief in the existence of ... a creator who intervenes in the universe".

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:

"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..." (Pennock, R.T. , 1999, "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism," MIT Press: Cambridge MA, Fourth printing, pp.26-27).

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 millions of people - including me - have claimed down through the ages and still claim today).

And in fact Flew's position is that the God he believes in is "a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being":

"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, omnipotent, and omniscient Being." (Flew, Ibid., 2007, p.155).

who he admits is God:

"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 now accepted the existence of a God." (Flew, 2007, "There Is a God," pp.74-75).

But "self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient" are attributes of the Christian God who "intervenes in the universe" and is "the God of revelation." And Flew admits that "You cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence ... Everything else is open to omnipotence":

"... the question of whether the Divine has revealed itself in human history remains a valid topic of discussion. You cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence." (Flew, 2007, Ibid, p.157).

Is it possible that there has been or can be divine revelation? As I said, you cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence." (Flew, 2007, Ibid., p.213).

which means that the "omnipotent, and omniscient" God that Flew believes in, could have supernaturally intervened in His Universe, in progressive creation, special revelation and "in people's lives."

In fact, while Flew has in the past has "taken issue with many of the claims of divine revelation or intervention" his "current position ... is more open to at least certain of these claims."

"In both my antitheological books and various debates, I have taken issue with many of the claims of divine revelation or intervention. My current position, however, is more open to at least certain of these claims." (Flew, 2007, Ibid, p.185).

Moreover, Flew regards Christianity, among all "other religions" as "the one to beat":

"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. If you're wanting omnipotence to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to beat!" (Flew, 2007, Ibid, p.157)

"... I think that the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. ... If you're wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat." (Flew, 2007, Ibid., pp.185-186)

In particular, Flew admits that, "the claim concerning the resurrection [of Christ] is more impressive than any by the religious competition":

"... I addressed the claims of Christianity to some extent. ... Today, I would say the claim concerning the resurrection is more impressive than any by the religious competition." (Flew, 2007, Ibid, p.187).

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. he has not "made contact with this Mind. ...yet" but "Someday I might hear a Voice that says, `Can you hear me now?'":

"The discovery of phenomena like the [fine-tuned] laws of nature ... has led scientists, philosophers, and others to accept the existence of an infinitely intelligent Mind. Some claim to have made contact with this Mind. I have not-yet. But who knows what could happen next? Someday I might hear a Voice that says, `Can you hear me now?'" (Flew, 2007, Ibid, pp.157-158).

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:

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. ("Roman Catholic Church's `wedge'", July 15, 2005).

So although Flew claims he is a "deist" his position actually is already 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 Christian theism!

Continued in "Re: Christianity has no future and is in decline."

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

"deism 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 there is a God, additional revelation, dogma, or supernatural commerce with the deity are all excluded. Supplication and prayer in particular are fruitless: God may only be thought of as an 'absentee landlord'. Leading deists included Herbert, John Toland (1670-1722), whose Christianity not Mysterious (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, "The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Reprinted, 1996, p.110).

"theism Belief in the existence of God. 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).

"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 The Science of God, and the Scottish philosopher John Haldane, whose Theism and Atheism was a debate on God's existence with my friend Jack Smart. To the surprise of all concerned, I announced at the start that I now accepted the existence of a God. 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 of all the great discoveries of modern science, the greatest was God. In this symposium, when asked if recent work on the origin of life pointed to the activity of a creative Intelligence, I said: `Yes, I now think it does ... almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think 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. It's the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.' 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, "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," HarperCollins: New York NY, pp.74-75).

"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 meto accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being." (Flew, 2007, p.155).

"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, the question of whether the Divine has revealed itself in human history remains a valid topic of discussion. You cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence .... 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. If you're wanting omnipotence to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to beat!" (Flew, 2007, p.157).

"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. Some claim to have made contact with this Mind. I have not-yet. But who knows what could happen next? Someday I might hear a Voice that says, `Can you hear me now?'" (Flew, 2007, p.158).

"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, I have taken issue with many of the claims of divine revelation or intervention. My current position, however, is more open to at least certain of these claims. In point of fact, I think that the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected 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. If you're wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat." (Flew, 2007, pp.185-186).

"Today, I would say the claim concerning the resurrection is more impressive than any by the religious competition. 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).

"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. Is it possible that there has been or can be divine revelation? As I said, you cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence." (Flew, 2007, p.213).

"A less important point which needs to be made in this piece is that although the index of The God Delusion notes six references to Deism it provides no definition of the word deism. 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 Deists believe in the existence of a God but not the God of revelation. 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, "The Atheist Delusion Of Richard Dawkins," Quadrant, October, pp.48-49).

"deism... (Lat. deus god) n. belief in God as a perfect personal being; differs from THEISM by not accepting doctrines that require belief in revelation. 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 five basic tenets or common notions of natural religion: (1) there is one supreme God; (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) 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 1696, and Mathew Tindal's (c. 1657-1733) Christianity as old as the creation: or, the Gospel the republication of the religion of nature 1730. True religion is identified with Christianity-but a reinterpreted `rational' Christianity which has no place for any special revelation. A classical formulation of a deistic view is Rousseau's `The profession of faith of the Savoyard vicar' in Book 4 of his Emile 1762." (Mautner, T., ed., 2000, "The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy," [1996], Penguin: London, Revised, p.126-127).

"theism ... (Gr. theos god) n. the belief that there is one God, a personal being with every perfection (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 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; (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).

"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. ... 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." (Ostling, R.N., "Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God," Livescience/Associated Press, 10 December 2004).

"deism, n. (from Latin deus god) a line of rationalistic religious thought that affirms that there is a GOD but denies that he should be understood in any mystical way. The antecedents of deism go back to ARISTOTLE'S First Mover, who moved `the first heaven' at the circumference of the universe but is otherwise unconcerned with human affairs. 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, "Collins Dictionary of Philosophy," HarperCollins: Glasgow, Reprinted, 1999, p.76).

"theism, n. (from Greek theos god) is the view that there is such a thing as GOD. 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 Euthyphro. 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).

Re: what would happen if I lived to 2037 and Jesus has not come?

2008-11-30T23:09:00.008+09:00

AN

Thanks for your message. As per my stated policy, I will respond

[Above (click to enlarge): "The Great Day of His Wrath," John Martin, 1851-1853, Tate Gallery, London: Wikipedia.

"For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" (Rev 6:17 KJV)]

to your questions about topics posted on my CED blog to that blog, minus your personally identifying information. Because of its length, I have split my response into three parts. Your words are bold to distinguish them from mine.

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:48 AM
Subject: From AN - remarks

>Hello Stephen,
1.Wow, your predictions about Jesus coming back before 2037 are bold one...

As I said in that post, it is not my "prediction" but my interpretation:

Although I have used your word "prediction" in the title of this post, I do not claim or agree that it is my prediction that Jesus will return before 2037, but rather it is my "interpretation" of Jesus' prediction in Lk 21:24b-31 ...

And I don't regard it as "bold," but a logical deduction from the Biblical data. Specifically, if the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 is a type of the Second Coming of Jesus:

"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. 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." (Hoekema, 1978, "The Bible and the Future," pp.148-149).

"`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 events of A.D. 70 as shadows of a universal and final cataclysm at the end of the age... We must allow for a double reference, for a mingling of historical and eschatological.' .... In fact, the historical fulfillments may be types of future fulfillment." (Riddlebarger, 2003, "A Case for Amillennialism," pp.159-160).

"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 the destruction of Jerusalem regarded as the type of the end of the world.'" (Robertson, 1930, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume II: The Gospel According to Luke,"pp.261-262).

"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." (Shreiner, 1989, "Luke," in Elwell, "Evangelical Commentary on the Bible," pp.834-835).

then Jesus' warning that "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (Mt 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk 21:32); 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"):

"... the catastrophe in Jerusalem (A.D. 70) in a microcosmic view... a harbinger of the crisis which Jesus ... coming ... will bring to 'all who dwell upon the entire face of the earth' ... the first is the inevitable forerunner and prefiguration of the second. The destruction of Jerusalem marks the end of the old covenant ... 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 ..." (Bloesch, 2004, "The Last Things," pp.81-82).

And one sign, found only in Luke 21:24:

"They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

was fulfilled in 1967 when Jerusalem came under Jewish control, for the first time since AD 70. This is the only sign pointing to "the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk 21:27) that now has a date.

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 Re: about your prediction of Jesus' return by 2037), then I expect Jesus will return before 2037.

>Well, if Bertrand Russell ,"bleak atheist" managed to live up to the age of 98, so surely can you,"cheerful christian".

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:

"Here are some interesting data from a study by Hummer et al. (Demography, 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., "Do Christians live longer?," Bradley Wright's Weblog, September 28, 2007).

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":

1Th 4:15-17 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, 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, we who are still alive and are left 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.

>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? 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...

Thanks for your concern. But I would be infinitely less disappointed if Jesus did not return by 2037, than you, an "agnostic-deist" (see part #3) would be if Jesus did return by 2037!

And since I am firmly convinced that Jesus will return before 2037, i.e. within the next 29 years, I see no reason to consider what will my response will be if He does not. Except to say, it is just my interpretation 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.

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 most of that generation but the entire generation, as I pointed out in my post:

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 generation will certainly not pass away," strictly literally it would mean that the entire generation that was alive in 1967 could almost pass away before Jesus returned:

Continued in Re: Anthony Flew leaving Atheism ... more accurate to state "Victory of Deism".

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

"Commenting on Luke's rendition of Jesus' eschatological discourse ... Joseph Fitzmyer contends that the `Lucan discourse looks back at the catastrophe in Jerusalem (A.D. 70) in a microcosmic view; 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' ([Lk] 21:35).' [Fitzmyer, J.A., "The Gospel According to Luke, X-XXIV," Anchor Bible, Doubleday: New York, 1985, p.1329] The notes on Matthew in The New Jerusalem Bible 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 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," Doubleday: New York, 1985, p.1649]" (Bloesch, D.G., 2004, "The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, pp.81-82).

"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 Matthew 24:3-51, Mark 13:3-37, and Luke 21:5-36. 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' (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 this be? (literally, these things; Greek, tauta)-an obvious reference to the destruction of the temple Jesus had just predicted; and (2) what will be the sign of your coming (Greek, parousia) and of the close of the age?-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'. The destruction of Jerusalem which lies in the near future is a type of the end of the world; hence the intermingling. 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, "The Bible and the Future," Paternoster Press: Exeter, Devon UK, Reprinted, 1979, pp.148-149).

"It is this immanent-future tension within the text itself which forces us to deal with the critical questions: `How much of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled by the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (the preterist view)? How many of these events will be fulfilled in the future (the futurist 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. 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. Even 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. This is why C. E. B. Cranfield cautions that `neither an exclusively historical nor an exclusively eschatological interpretation is satisfactory ...We must allow for a double reference, 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. In fact, the historical fulfillments may be types of future fulfillment. The difficulty in interpreting this text is to know which is which." (Riddlebarger, K., 2003, "A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, pp.159-160).

"[Lk 21:]32 This generation (he genea haute). Naturally people then living. Shall not pass away (ou me parelthei). Second aorist active subjunctive of parerchomai. Strongest possible negative with ou me. Till all things be accomplished (heos an panta genetai). Second aorist middle subjunctive of ginomai with heos, 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: `The reference, therefore, is to the destruction of Jerusalem regarded as the type of the end of the world.'" (Robertson, A.T., 1930, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume II: The Gospel According to Luke," Broadman Press, Nashville TN, pp.261-262).

"Apocalyptic discourse ([Lk ]21:5-38). The temple that elicited the admiration of his disciples was beautiful indeed. ... Jesus, however, predicts that the temple will be completely demolished (21:5-6). The Romans fulfilled this prophecy in A.D. 70. ... Jesus now warns his disciples against eschatological enthusiasm and braces them for future persecution (21:7-19). 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. .... Jesus specifically answers the question about the destruction of Jerusalem (21:20-24). 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 Jewish War 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 (21:25-28). 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., "Evangelical Commentary on the Bible," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second printing, 1990, pp.834-835).

Re: I am requesting your help involving Daniel 9:24-27

2008-10-23T22:20:00.008+08:00

Thanks for your message. As per my policy when I receive a

Above: An 18th century Russian icon of the prophet Daniel, Kizhi monastery, Russia: Wikipedia]

private message on one of my blog posts, in this case, Daniel's 70 `weeks': Proof that Naturalism is false and Christianity is true!, I will respond in due course via that blog, CED, minus your personal identifying information. Your words are bold to distinguish them from mine.

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:11 PM
Subject: For Mr. Jones

> ... I am requesting your help here if that's ok involving the famous Daniel 9:24-27 passage, Mr. Jones. ...
>
>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.

As explained in footnote 19 of my Daniel's 70 `weeks': Proof that Naturalism is false and Christianity is true!, "The Heb. shebu`im here" in Dn 9:24-26 translated "weeks" (KJV) or more accurately "sevens" (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":

[19] The Heb. shebu`im 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).

Here are quotes to support that:

"Daniel 9:24 reads: `Seventy weeks have been determined for your people and your holy city ....' The word for `week' is sabuac, which is derived from seba` the word for `seven.' Its normal plural is feminine in form: sebu`ot. Only in this chapter of Daniel does it appear in the masculine plural sabu`im. (The only other occurrence is in the combination sebu`e sebu`ot ['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, "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties," p.289).

"The `seventy `sevens' are usually understood to be `weeks' of years ... the usual feminine form for `week,' ... is not used here. ... what Daniel means by these seventy `heptads' is seventy units of seven years, or `seventy' times `seven' years (i.e., 490 years)." (Kaiser, 1995, "The Messiah in the Old Testament," p.202).

"[Dn 9:24]. ... Seventy sevens ... The word sevens here occurs in the m.pl. [masculine plural], whereas it generally has a f.pl. [feminine plural] ... What led Dan. to employ the m. [masculine] instead of the f. [feminine] however, is not clear unless it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word sevens is employed in an unusual sense. .... It seems obvious that ordinary weeks of 7 days are not intended." (Young, 1972, "A Commentary on Daniel," pp.195-196).

>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."

It is not the "seventy" that is the key word but the "sevens". It is the latter "sevens" or "weeks" which are the time units. "Seventy" is just the normal 70 times whatever the "sevens" time units are, i.e. 70 x 7 years = 490 years.

>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."

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance numbers are only to the roots of Heb. and Gk. words, not to every variant grammatical form of those words:

"Not every distinct word is assigned a number, but only the root words. For example, agapeseis is assigned the same number as agapate - both are listed as Greek word #25 in Strong's `agapao'." ("Strong's Concordance," Wikipedia. My transliteration)

Also, you are looking up the Strong's number for the wrong word, "seventy." The Strong's number for "sevens" is 7620, i.e.:

"Strong's Number: 07620 ... 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).

>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?

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 years":

"shabua`. A period of seven ... in Dan 9:24,25,26,27 it denotes a period of seven years in each of its appearances in these four verses. This is proven by the context wherein Daniel recognizes that the seventy-year 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 another seventy periods-of-seven, shabua' (Dan 9:24ff)!" (Harris, et al., eds, 1980, "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," p.2:899).

>.... 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.

See above. The city of Jerusalem was in fact to be rebuilt in the

[Above (click to enlarge): "The Traditional View" of Daniel 9:24-27 (Smith, 1993, "What the Bible Teaches About the Promised Messiah," p.390).]

first "seven `sevens'" (Dn 9:25). If (as I maintain), the terminus a quo (starting point) is 457 BC, when Ezra returned to Jerusalem in the seventh regnal year of Artaxerxes I (Ezra 7:12-26) 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":

"Verse 25 ...`From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One [massiah], the ruler, comes, there will be seven sevens,' and sixty-two `sevens.' ` It should be observed that only sixty-nine heptads are listed here, broken into two segments. The first segment of seven amounts to forty-nine years, during which the city of Jerusalem is to be `rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.' ... If, then, the terminus a quo for the decree in v.25 be reckoned as 457 B.C. (the date of Ezra's return to Jerusalem), then we may compute the first seven heptads as running from 457 to 408, within which time the rebuilding of the walls, streets, and moats was completed." (Archer, 1985, "Daniel," pp.7:113-114).

>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.

I don't know why you think that if "the city's reconstruction was not 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:

"we may compute the first seven heptads as running from 457 to 408, within which time the rebuilding of the walls, streets, and moats was completed." (Archer, 1985, "Daniel," pp.7:113-114).

which in fact is what happened:

"... 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. ... Nehemiah's successor, who was a Persian ... was in office in 411 B.C., before the close of the seventh week." (Davis, 1924, "A Dictionary of the Bible," p.163).

"Finally, in 445 BC, 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 stabilizing the settlement ... Nehemiah ... rebuilt with commendable speed the walls of Jerusalem ... The rebuilt city was smaller than Solomon's. ... The years 400-200 BC are the lost centuries of Jewish history. There were no great events or calamities they chose to record." (Johnson, 1987, "A History of the Jews," pp.86-87).

"... 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, the street shall be restored and be builded; and that, in troublous times. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah give the explanation. Ezra came to Jerusalem, B.C. 457 ... Nehemiah was sent by Artaxerxes, B.C. 444. ... 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 ...." (Pusey, 1885, "Daniel the Prophet, pp.189-191).

Note that in the first "seven `sevens'" during which "Jerusalem ... will be rebuilt with streets and a trench" would be "times of trouble" (Dn 9:25). 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 was complete by 400 BC.

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 26/27 AD. Which `just happens' to be the very year of Jesus' baptism and the beginning His public ministry! :

"If, then, the decree of 457 granted to Ezra himself is taken as the terminus a quo 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, "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties," pp.290-291).

"Then from 408 we count off the sixty-two heptads also mentioned in v.25 and 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)." (Archer, 1985, "Daniel," pp.7:113-114).

"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, "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus," pp.102, 220).

"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. A most remarkable fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, even to the year." (Halley, 1965, "Halley's Bible Handbook," p.349).

"The terminus a quo 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) the order of Artaxerxes to Ezra in 457 B.C. .... 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." (Lindsell, 1964, "Harper Study Bible," pp.1312-1313).

"The term also corresponds. Unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks [v.25 ... But 483 years from the beginning of B.C. 457 were completed at the beginning of 27 A.D. which ... would coincide with His Baptism, `being about 30 years of age,' when the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Him manifested Him to be the Anointed with the Holy Ghost, the Christ." (Pusey, 1885, "Daniel the Prophet, p.189).

"... 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, "What the Bible Teaches About the Promised Messiah," p.386).

Therefore Christianity is true and Naturalism is false!

>... if you can help me, here again I would appreciate that ever so much. ... thank you ....
>
AN

I hope this has helped, albeit belatedly.

The quotes below (emphasis italics original, emphasis bold mine) are hyperlinked to the inline references above.

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

"How can we make any sense out of Daniel's prophecy of Seventy Weeks? 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].' The word for `week' is sabuac, which is derived from seba` the word for `seven.' Its normal plural is feminine in form: sebu`ot. Only in this chapter of Daniel does it appear in the masculine plural sabu`im. (The only other occurrence is in the combination sebu`e sebu`ot ['heptads of weeks'] in Ezek. 21:28 [21:23 English text]). 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. This leads to a total of 490 years." (Archer, G.L., 1982, "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.289).

"If, then, the decree of 457 granted to Ezra himself is taken as the terminus a quo for the commencement of the 69 heptads, or 483 years, we come out to the precise year of the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah (or Christ): 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 (there being no such year as zero), it actually comes out to A.D. 27. 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. Only God could have predicted the coming of His Son with such amazing precision; it defies all rationalistic explanation." (Archer, 1982, pp.290-291).

"[Dn 9:25-26] Verse 25 is crucial: `From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One [massiah], the ruler, comes, there will be seven sevens,' and sixty-two `sevens.' ` It should be observed that only sixty-nine heptads are listed here, broken into two segments. The first segment of seven amounts to forty-nine years, 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 terminus a quo. ...If, then, the terminus a quo for the decree in v.25 be reckoned as 457 B.C. (the date of Ezra's return to Jerusalem), then we may compute the first seven heptads as running from 457 to 408, within which time the rebuilding of the walls, streets, and moats was completed. 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 (nasi'). 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., "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Daniel and the Minor Prophets," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Vol. 7, pp.113-114).

"The KJV, however, rendered this verse [Dn 9:25], `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.' Using the date of 457 B.C.E. as our starting point, as suggested by some scholars, 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.[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.] What an incredibly accurate prophecy this would be!" (Brown, M.L., 2003, "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Messianic Prophecy Objections," Vol. 3, Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Third printing, 2006, p.102, 220).

"The one combination which coincides with known history throughout starts with the decree of Artaxerxes in his seventh year, 457 B.C. 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. When this reform ceased to be the dominating feature of God's kingdom is unknown, but 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." (Davis, J.D., 1924, "A Dictionary of the Bible," [1898], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth Edition, Fifteenth Printing, 1966, p.163).

"The Seventy Weeks 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). 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. 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, "Halley's Bible Handbook: An Abbreviated Bible Commentary," [1927], Oliphants: London, Twenty-fourth edition, p.349).

"shabua`. A period of seven, a week, the Feast of Weeks. This term occurs twenty times in the or, always indicating a period of seven. Indeed, the word obviously comes to us from sheba' (q.v.) and could literally be translated always as `seven-period.' In Deut 16:9, shabu'a represents a period of seven days (literally `seven seven-periods you-shall-number-to-you'). The context in verses 9, 10, and 16 demands the time to be in terms of `days.' No serious expositor has ever argued for `years' here. It might be noted that in Deut 16:9 in the spelling of the plural, the central vowel letter-the waw-is omitted (shabu`ot), as it is also at times in the singular (e.g. Gen 29:27, shebua`) where in an unpointed text it would then be spelled identically to seven, sheba', in the feminine. While in Deut 16:9, discussed above, shabu'a represents a period of seven days, in Dan 9:24,25,26,27 it denotes a period of seven years in each of its appearances in these four verses. This is proven by the context wherein Daniel recognizes that the seventy-year period of captivity is almost over. 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 (Dan 9:2; Jer 25:12; cf. II Chr 36:21!). Just as Daniel is in prayer concerning this matter, the angel Gabriel appears and informs him that Israel's restoration will not be complete until she goes through another seventy periods-of-seven, shabua' (Dan 9:24ff)! Note also the apparent reference in Dan 12:11 to half of Daniel's last seventy (9:27); it is 1290 days, approximately three and a half years. Thus here it means years. shabua` is also used as a technical term in Deut 16:10,16 where it denotes the Feast of Weeks (hag shabu`ot), i.e. the Feast of Seven-Periods." (Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. & Waltke, B.K., eds, "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," Moody Press: Chicago IL, 1980, Twelfth Printing, 1992, Vol. II, p.899. Emphasis original).

"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 am ha-arez, 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. Finally, in 445 BC, 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 and the authority to build it into an independent political unit within the empire. This fourth wave at last succeeded in stabilizing the settlement, chiefly because Nehemiah, a man of action as well as a diplomat and statesman, rebuilt with commendable speed the walls of Jerusalem and so created a secure enclave from which the work of resettlement could be directed. .... The rebuilt city was smaller than Solomon's, it was poor and to begin with it was sparsely populated. ... The years 400-200 BC are the lost centuries of Jewish history. There were no great events 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 History of the Jews," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, pp.86-87).

"The `seventy `sevens' are usually understood to be `weeks' of years (the word `seven' can also mean `week'; cf. NIV note), but the usual feminine form for `week,' which occurs elsewhere in the OT, is not used here. Moreover, in accordance with the use found elsewhere in this book, what Daniel means by these seventy `heptads' is seventy units of seven years, or `seventy' times `seven' years (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 Israel and for their capital city, Jerusalem." (Kaiser, W.C., Jr., 1995, "The Messiah in the Old Testament," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.202).

"The terminus a quo 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 the divine decree, or one of three historical edicts: (1) decree of King Cyrus in 538 B.C. (Ezra -4); (2) the order of Artaxerxes to Ezra in 457 B.C. (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. 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. 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, "Harper Study Bible," Revised Standard Version, Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Nineteenth printing, 1983, pp.1312-1313).

"The term also corresponds. Unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks [v.25], i. e. the first 483 years of the period, the last 7 being parted off. 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 the Anointed with the Holy Ghost, the Christ. Further still, the whole period of 70 weeks is divided into three successive periods, 7, 62, 1 ... But, in the prophecy of the 70 weeks, the portions also can be traced. The words are; From the going forth of a commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince, shall be 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. [vv.25-26] Obviously, unless there had been a meaning in this division, it would have stood, ` shall be threescore and nine weeks,' `not, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.' For every word in this condensed prophecy has its place and meaning, and the division would be unmeaning, unless something were assigned to this first portion. The text does assign it. It says, the street shall be restored and be builded; and that, in troublous times. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah give the explanation. Ezra came to Jerusalem, B.C. 457; he labored in restoring the Jewish polity, within and without, for 13 years before Nehemiah was sent by Artaxerxes, B.C. 444. [Neh 2:1ff] ... 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, and it is probable that it was not closed until the end of it. In regard to the strait of times, 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, "Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford. With Copious Notes." Funk & Wagnalls: New York NY, pp.189-191).

"Most likely it was Ezra the Scribe who issued the word to restore and to build Jerusalem in the spring of 457 B.C. .... This is the terminus a quo 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. ... Subtracting 483 years from the starting point of 457 B.C. the year A.D. 27 is reached. 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. 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.[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, "What the Bible Teaches About the Promised Messiah: An In-depth Study of 73 Key Old Testament Prophesies About the Messiah," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.386).

"Traditional Interpretation. This view is represented by E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet, an excellent commentary which has been reprinted in the Barnes Notes series. Pusey 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 and immediately thereafter began his Messianic ministry. He was cut off by his death on the cross. The prince who is to come in judgment on Jerusalem is Christ or Titus who acts as an agent for Christ. The covenant to be made firm is Christ's new testament. The Old Testament sacrificial system ended in the midst of the seventieth week when Christ died on the cross (A.D. 30). The seventieth seven ends with the stoning of Stephen, Jewish rejection of the New Testament, and the call of Paul (A.D. 33)." (Smith, 1993, p.390).

"[Dn 9:24]. ... Seventy sevens]-lit., sevens seventy. the word sevens-usually translated weeks-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.' The word sevens here occurs in the m.pl. [masculine plural], whereas it generally has a f.pl. [feminine plural] ... What led Dan. to employ the m. [masculine] instead of the f. [feminine] however, is not clear unless it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word sevens is employed in an unusual sense. .... It seems obvious that ordinary weeks of 7 days are not intended." (Young, E.J., 1972, "A Commentary on Daniel," [1949], Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, British edition, Reprinted, 1978, pp.195-196).

Re: Fred Hoyle about the 747, the tornado and the junkyard

2008-10-17T22:30:00.005+08:00

Thanks for your message. As is my usual policy when I receive a private message on evolution, I will answer it via my blog,

[Above: Boeing 747 assembly at Everett, near Seattle: Boeing]

CreationEvolutionDesign, minus your personal identifying information. Your words are bold to distinguish them from my comments.

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 3:42 AM
Subject: RE: origin of life #2- a question

>... 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".

Here is the relevant part of that quote by Hoyle:

"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 Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. 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. No one has shown that the correct arrangements of amino acids, like the orderings in enzymes, can be produced by this method. .... 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." (Hoyle, F., "The Intelligent Universe," Michael Joseph: London, 1983, pp.18-19).

The first instance that I am aware of Hoyle's use of that metaphor was reported in the science journal Nature in 1981:

"Hoyle said last week that ... the origin of life ... the information content of the higher forms of life is represented by the number 10^{40 000} - representing the specificity with which some 2,000 genes, each of which might be chosen from 10²⁰ nucleotide sequences of the appropriate length .... 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'. " (Hoyle, F., in "Hoyle on evolution," Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p.105).

The above quote is a bit confusing because it conflates "the origin of life" with "the higher forms of life."

This conflation originates with Hoyle, because his 1 in "10^{40 000}" chance of "2,000 genes" of "10²⁰ nucleotide ... length" arising spontaneously refers to the "about two thousand" "enzymes ... across the whole of biology" and "the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial" in an "organic soup":

"... 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 must be in the correct position in the polypeptide structure. ... The chance of obtaining a suitable backbone can hardly be greater than one part in 10¹⁵, and the chance of obtaining the appropriate active site can hardly be greater than one part in 10⁵. .... The two small probabilities ...have to be multiplied, when they yield a chance of one part in 10²⁰ of obtaining the required enzyme in a functioning form. .... there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10²⁰)²⁰⁰⁰ = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability .... this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court." (Hoyle & Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space," 1981, pp.19-21).

But Hoyle is right in requiring an explanation of where all the enzymes or proteins that exist "across the whole of biology" came from, given that the probability of even one small enzyme/protein of 100 amino acids arranged in a necessarily specific sequence would be 20¹⁰⁰ = ~10¹³⁰, when there are ~10⁸⁰ protons in the entire universe:

"... for a relatively small protein of 100 amino acids, selection of this correct sequence had to be made by chance from 10¹³⁰ alternative choices. ... 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." (Brooks, "Origins of Life," 1985, pp.84-85).

".. why the random self-assembly of proteins seems a non-starter. .... Proteins ... are very specific amino acid sequences ... the number of alternative permutations ... of amino acids is super-astronomical. A small protein may typically contain 100 amino acids of 20 varieties. There are about 10¹³⁰ ... different arrangements of the amino acids in a molecule of this length. .... Getting a useful configuration of amino acids from the squillions of useless combinations ... [would be] like trying to track down a site on the internet without a search engine." (Davies, "The Fifth Miracle," 1998, p.61).

"... the entire mass of the universe, expressed as a multiple of the mass of the hydrogen atom, amounts to about 10⁸⁰ units. ... Even 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 10¹³⁰ sequence alternatives ... ... 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, "Information and the Origin of Life," 1986, p.60).

But minimal cell experiments have shown that the simplest (albeit parasitic) living organism requires "between 250 and 350 different proteins to carry out its most basic operations" but "this bare form of life cannot survive long without a source of sugars, nucleotides, amino acids, and fatty acids":

"Theoretical and experimental studies designed to discover the bare minimum number of gene products [proteins and RNAs] necessary for life all show significant agreement. Life seems to require between 250 and 350 different proteins to carry out its most basic operations. That this bare form of life cannot survive long without a source of sugars, nucleotides, amino acids, and fatty acids is worth noting." (Rana, F.R. & Ross, H.N., "Origins of Life: Biblical And Evolutionary Models Face Off," Navpress: Colorado Springs CO, 2004, pp.162-163).

Between "250 and 350 different proteins" is bad enough for a spontaneous naturalistic origin of life, but the "microbial database" shows that the "smallest known genomes and capable of living independently in the environment ... requires a minimum genome size of about 1,500 to 1,900 gene products":

"Genome Size ... The data indicate that the microbes possessing the smallest known genomes ... seems to suggest that, to exist independently, life requires a minimum genome size of about 1,500 to 1,900 gene products. ... all microbial genomes that fall below 1,500 belong to parasites." (Rana & Ross, Ibid, 2004, pp.161-162).

The late Prof. Colin Patterson acknowledged that:

"the ... free-living bacterium, Methanococcus, which has 1.7 million base-pairs and about 1700 genes, [is] perhaps close to the minimum necessary for independent life." (Patterson, "Evolution,"1999, p.23).

>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.

Here is the relevant part of that quote by Richard Dawkins:

"Fred Hoyle was a brilliant physicist and cosmologist, but his Boeing 747 misunderstanding, and other mistakes in biology ... suggest that he needed to have his consciousness raised by some good exposure to the world of natural selection. At an intellectual level, I suppose he understood natural selection. But perhaps you need to be steeped in natural selection, immersed in it, swim about in it, before you can truly appreciate its power." (Dawkins, R., "The God Delusion," Bantam Press: London, 2006, p.117).

This is Dawkins at his deceptive best (or worst). Dawkins had not shown that it was Hoyle's "Boeing 747 misunderstanding," nor that it had anything to do with "natural selection" (see below). And Dawkins admits of Hoyle that "At an intellectual level ... he understood natural selection" but one "need[s] to be steeped in natural selection" 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 lack of "power"!

In fact Hoyle, being a mathematician, completely re-worked out from scratch 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":

"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 de novo ... 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., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.5-6, 10).

>It seemed clear to me that Hoyle was referring to origin of the first living organism,

Yes. Earlier in his book Dawkins cites "Hoyle's ... image of the Boeing 747 and the scrapyard" as referring to "the probability of life originating on Earth":

"The name comes from Fred Hoyle's amusing image of the Boeing 747 and the scrapyard. ... 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. ... 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, Ibid, p.113).

Note Dawkins' self-contradiction, that Hoyle, "doesn't understand the first thing about natural selection," yet four pages later Hoyle, "At an intellectual level ... understood natural selection"!

>and Dawkins is clearly misleading his readers to blunt what he knows is a devastating attack on a "naturalistic" origin of life.

Agreed. But Dawkins forgets that as he once admitted, that in:

"... the problem of how life originated on Earth. .... we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself ... 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!." (Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, pp.139-141)

Dawkins then answered his own question:

"... how much luck are we allowed to assume in a theory of the origin of life on Earth? ... when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves ...such an extravagant theory ... provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one." (Dawkins, Ibid, 1986, pp.143,146).

But unfortunately for Dawkins, "1 in 100 billion billion" is only 1 in 10²⁰ (i.e. 10²*10⁹*10⁹ = 10²⁺⁹⁺⁹). That is not enough for the chance assembly of a specific chain of 15 (20¹⁵ = ~10^19.5) amino acids, i.e. not even enough for one protein!

>Dawkins by his own admission understands that all origin of life theories are nothing more than speculation. Do you think I understood it correctly?

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:

"The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition, nobody was around to see what happened." (Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene," 1989, pp.14-15).

"So, can we come up with any speculations about relatively probable ways in which cumulative selection might have got its start? .... We can hope for nothing more than speculation 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, Ibid, 1986, p.147).

"But how did the whole process start? .... Most, though not all, of the informed speculation begins in what has been called the primeval soup .... Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow ... a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying...." (Dawkins, "Climbing Mount Improbable," 1996, p.259).

"Life may be common in the universe, but we are also at liberty to speculate that it is exceedingly rare. It therefore follows that the kind of event we are seeking, when we speculate about the origin of life, could be a very very improbable event ... my intuition is still that the arising of life on a planet is not all that unexpected an event" (Dawkins, Ibid, 1996, p.261).

>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 ["The Beginnings of Life on Earth"] Nobel Prize winner Dr. Christian DeDuve writes "how this momentous event [origin of life] happened is still highly conjectural, though no longer purely speculative.."
>
>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)
>
>I guess what he really meant was that it's highly speculative, though no longer purely conjectural.

Thanks for the link. My take is that Christian de Duve, like Dawkins, is another dogmatic materialist extremist. So what is not "speculative" to him is that the origin of life must have been materialistic and naturalistic. What is "conjectural" to De Duve is which particular "spontaneously by natural processes" way it happened. This is evident in de Duve's dogmatic requirement that "life arose spontaneously by natural processes" is "a necessary assumption "and "Any hint of teleology must be avoided":

"... life arose spontaneously by natural processes-a necessary assumption if we wish to remain within the realm of science .... 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. .... Each must stand on its own and cannot be viewed as a preparation for things to come. Any hint of teleology must be avoided." (de Duve, "The Beginnings of Life on Earth," 1995, p.428)

In other words, de Duve and his materialistic-naturalistic ilk would rather believe a false explanation of the origin of life that avoided "teleology," than a true explanation that "proceeded with the benefit of foresight" by God!

[...]

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

"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 for a relatively small protein of 100 amino acids, selection of this correct sequence had to be made by chance from 10¹³⁰ alternative choices. 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 10¹³⁰ trial assemblies to hit on the correct sequence. 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." (Brooks, J., "Origins of Life," Lion: Tring, Hertfordshire UK, 1985, pp.84-85).

"There is a more fundamental reason why the random self-assembly of proteins seems a non-starter. 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. Proteins do not consist of any old peptide chains; they are very specific amino acid sequences that have specialized chemical properties needed for life. However, the number of alternative permutations available to a mixture of amino acids is super-astronomical. A small protein may typically contain 100 amino acids of 20 varieties. There are about 10¹³⁰ (which is I followed by a 130 zeros) different arrangements of the amino acids in a molecule of this length. Hitting the right one by accident would be no mean feat. Getting a useful configuration of amino acids from the squillions of useless combinations on offer can be thought of as a mammoth information retrieval problem, like trying to track down a site on the internet without a search engine." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin of Life," Penguin: Ringwood Vic, Australia, 1998, p.61).

"The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; 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 Replicator. It ... had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself." (Dawkins, R., "The Selfish Gene," [1976], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, New edition, 1989, pp.14-15. Emphasis original).

"This example is the problem of how life originated on Earth. .... Cumulative selection is the key to all our modern explanations of life. ... but it had to get started, and we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself. ... And that vital first step was a difficult one because, at its heart, there lies what seems to be a paradox. The replication processes that we know seem to need complicated machinery to work. ... . The theory of the blind watchmaker is extremely powerful given that we are allowed to assume replication and hence cumulative selection. But if replication needs complex machinery, since the only way we know for complex machinery ultimately to come into existence is cumulative selection, we have a problem. ... 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!." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, pp.139-141).

"Our question was, how much luck are we allowed to assume in a theory of the origin of life on Earth? ... . Therefore we have at our disposal, if we want to use it, odds of 1 in 100 billion billion as an upper limit (or 1 in however many available planets we think there are) to spend in our theory of the origin of life. This is the maximum amount of luck we are allowed to postulate in our theory. Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.143,146) .

"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, can we come up with any speculations about relatively probable ways in which cumulative selection might have got its start? The word 'speculate' has pejorative overtones, but these are quite uncalled for here. We can hope for nothing more than speculation when the events we are talking about took place four billion years ago and took place, moreover, in a world that must have been radically different from that which we know today." (Dawkins, 1986, p.147).

"But how did the whole process start? 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 the informed speculation begins in what has been called the primeval soup, a weak broth of simple organic chemicals in the sea. Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying - a replicator." (Dawkins, R., "Climbing Mount Improbable," Penguin: London, 1996, p.259).

"Life may be common in the universe, but we are also at liberty to speculate that it is exceedingly rare. It therefore follows that the kind of event we are seeking, when we speculate about the origin of life, 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 my intuition is still that the arising of life on a planet is not all that unexpected an event." (Dawkins, 1996, p.261).

"The name comes from Fred Hoyle's amusing image of the Boeing 747 and the scrapyard. 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. 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. 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. 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: somebody who thinks natural selection is a theory of chance whereas - in the relevant sense of chance - it is the opposite." (Dawkins, R., "The God Delusion," Bantam Press: London, 2006, p.113).

"It is surprising how necessary such consciousness-raising is, even in the minds of excellent scientists in fields other than biology. Fred Hoyle was a brilliant physicist and cosmologist, but his Boeing 747 misunderstanding, and other mistakes in biology such as his attempt to dismiss the fossil Archaeopteryx as a hoax, suggest that he needed to have his consciousness raised by some good exposure to the world of natural selection. At an intellectual level, I suppose he understood natural selection. But perhaps you need to be steeped in natural selection, immersed in it, swim about in it, before you can truly appreciate its power." (Dawkins, 2006, p.117).

"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-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. How this momentous event happened is still highly conjectural, though no longer purely speculative. 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. 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. Every step must be accounted for in terms of antecedent and concomitant events. Each must stand on its own and cannot be viewed as a preparation for things to come. Any hint of teleology must be avoided." (de Duve, C., "The Beginnings of Life on Earth," American Scientist, Vol. 83, September-October 1995, pp.428-437).

"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 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, 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 the information content of the higher forms of life is represented by the number 10^{40 000} - representing the specificity with which some 2,000 genes, each of which might be chosen from 10²⁰ 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'. 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. 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'. (Hoyle, F., in "Hoyle on evolution," Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p.105).

"The popular idea that life could have arisen spontaneously on Earth 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. 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. 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. 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." (Hoyle, F., "The Intelligent Universe," Michael Joseph: London, 1983, pp.18-19).

"In particular, the 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. There are about two thousand of them. 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. The surface shapes of enzymes are critical to their function. ... Surface shape is determined by the particular sequence of amino acids in the polypeptide structure. One can think of getting the surface shape right in two stages of approximation. There are some ten to twenty distinct amino acids which determine the basic backbone of the enzyme and these simply must be in the correct position in the polypeptide structure. 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 these too must be correct in their atomic forms and locations. Consider now the chance that in a random ordering of the twenty different amino acids which make up the polypeptides it just happens that the different kinds fall into the order appropriate to a particular enzyme. The chance of obtaining a suitable backbone can hardly be greater than one part in 10¹⁵, and the chance of obtaining the appropriate active site can hardly be greater than one part in 10⁵. 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. They have to be multiplied, when they yield a chance of one part in 10²⁰ of obtaining the required enzyme in a functioning form. 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 there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10²⁰)²⁰⁰⁰ = 10^40,000, 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 life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court." (Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinghe, N.C., "Evolution from Space," Paladin: London, 1981, Reprinted, 1983, pp.19-21).

"In this way, amino acids can become linked together into long chains, named polypeptides or proteins. A chain of 100 links would be considered rather short in biology. Yet with 20 possible choices for R at each link, the total number of chains with 100 links is 20¹⁰⁰, or 10¹³⁰, to the nearest order of magnitude. The longest protein chains run to about 2000 links, for which the number of possibilities is 20²⁰⁰⁰, or about l0²⁶⁰⁰, truly a big number. Journalists like to use the phrase `astronomical numbers' for what they considered to be immensely large, but these numbers are 'super-astronomical' 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., "Our Place in the Cosmos: The Unfinished Revolution," Phoenix: London, 1993, Reprinted, 1996, pp.151-152).

"Even in the simple case of a bacterium, the genome consists of some 4 x 10⁶ nucleotides, and the number of combinatorially possible sequences is 4⁴ million = 10^2.4 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, the entire mass of the universe, expressed as a multiple of the mass of the hydrogen atom, amounts to about 10⁸⁰ units. 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 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 10¹³⁰ sequence alternatives ... These striking numerical examples allow us to conclude with Monod that the design of 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." (Kuppers, B-O., "Information and the Origin of Life," MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1986, Reprinted, 1990, p.60).

"In July 1995 the entire DNA sequence of the bacterium Haemophilus influenzae, 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 a free-living bacterium, Methanococcus, which has 1.7 million base-pairs and about 1700 genes, perhaps close to the minimum necessary for independent life." (Patterson, C., "Evolution," [1978], Cornell University Press: Ithaca NY, Second edition, 1999, p.23).

"Genome Size 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 independently 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, to exist independently, life requires a minimum genome size of about 1,500 to 1,900 gene products. (A gene product refers to proteins and functional RNAs, such as ribosomal and transfer RNA.) ... ... So far, as scientists have continued their sequencing efforts, all microbial genomes that fall below 1,500 belong to parasites. Organisms capable of permanent independent existence require more gene products. A minimum genome size (for independent life) of 1,500 to 1,900 gene products comports with what the geochemical and fossil evidence ... reveals about the complexity of Earth's first life. Earliest life forms displayed metabolic complexity that included:

photosynthetic and chemoautotrophic processes
protein synthesis
the capacity to produce amino acids, nucleotides, fatty acids, and sugars
the machinery to reproduce

Some 1,500 different gene products would seem the bare minimum to sustain this level of metabolic activity. For instance, the Methanococcus jannaschii genome (the first to be sequenced for the archaea domain) possesses about 1,738 gene products. This organism contains the enzymatic machinery for energy metabolism and for the biosynthesis and processing of sugars, nucleotides, amino acids, and fatty acids. In addition, the M. jannaschii genome can encode for repair systems, DNA replication, and the cell division apparatus. The genes for protein synthesis and secretion and the genes that specify the construction and activity of the cell membrane and envelope also belong as part of this organism's genome." (Rana, F.R. & Ross, H.N., "Origins of Life: Biblical And Evolutionary Models Face Off," Navpress: Colorado Springs CO, 2004, pp.161-162).

Theory goes to water as fish finger found

2008-10-04T14:25:00.003+08:00

The following article appeared the other day in Australia's national newspaper. My comments are bold.

Theory goes to water as fish finger found, The Australian, September 23, 2008. PARIS: Scientists have traced the origin of

[Above (click to enlarge): Reconstruction of Panderichthys: Wikipedia]

fingers and toes to fish-like creatures that roamed the seas 380 million years ago, a new study has found. Panderichthys was not "fish-like." It was a fish!

The findings, published yesterday in the science journal Nature, 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. So fingers arose under water, 10-20 million years (or more) before they were needed on land.

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. This is based on the original Darwinian `just-so' story:

"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 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. Once this process had begun, it is easy to see how a land fauna might eventually have been built up." (Romer, A.S., 1945, "Vertebrate Paleontology," pp.140-141. My emphasis).

Which shows that this major transition had little, if anything to do with the Darwinian natural selection of random micromutations.

But the study reveals rudimentary fingers were already present inside the fins

[Right (click to enlarge): Computerized 3D reconstruction of the fin bones of Panderichthys, showing precursors of fingers: FOX News]

of the shallow-water metre-long Panderichthys, a transitional species that was more fish than tetrapod. Note that these "rudimentary fingers," complete with precursors of all the fore- and hind-leg bones:

"Panderichthys ... 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, "Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution," pp.230-232. My emphasis).

were "present inside the fins" of this "species that was more fish than tetrapod" and therefore "they could not have functioned in the manner of these joints in terrestrial vertebrates":

"... 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. The entire endochondral skeleton is within a functionally continuous fin structure" (Carroll, 1997, Ibid, pp.230-232. My emphasis).

That is, they could not be `seen' by the environment and so were `invisible' to natural selection. So natural selection cannot, even in principle, explain these major features of the fish-tetrapod transition.

"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 Per Ahlberg, a researcher at Uppsala University in Sweden. Again, note that "the hand and foot" of all subsequent land vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds) "were already present inside the fins of" a "fish"!

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." Clearly, these "tiny, fragile" finger and toe "bones at the outer end of the fin skeleton," conferred no selective advantage to:

"Panderichthys ... quite a large fish, with ... a total body length of over a meter" (Clack, 2002, "Gaining Ground," p.64. My emphasis).

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. 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 Panderichthys 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 annihilate" Darwin's "theory" (Darwin, 1872, "Origin of Species," p.162)!

Primitive Fingers Found in Prehistoric Fish, 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. Since I accept Universal Common Ancestry (but not Evolution), I agree that these fish "fingers ... were the precursors to our own digits." And also that:

"... all tetrapods [and therefore all land vertebrates-amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals] had a single common ancestor" (Clack, 2002, Ibid, p.66. My emphasis).

And therefore if that one fish "single common ancestor" (out of uncountable trillions of fish) had not by one, or a series of, `lucky' mutations which created precursors of: 1) both 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 any land vertebrate, would be here. But according to my Progressive Mediate Creation general theory, God supernaturally intervened in the genome of that "single common ancestor" to create the:

"blueprint of terrestrial limb structure [in] the genome... of the ["single common ancestor"] osteolepiform fish" (Wilcox, 1990, "Created in Eternity, Unfolded in Time," pp.6:23-24).

"It's really the last piece of evidence to say fingers are not new. They were really present in fish," said lead researcher Catherine Boisvert, an evolutionary biologist at Uppsala University in Sweden. The fossilized skeleton belonged to Panderichthys, 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. The problem for Darwinian `blind watchmaker' evolution by the natural selection of random mutations is to explain:

"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?" (Wilcox, Ibid, pp.6:23-24. My emphasis)

by inching "along the muddy bottom" of "shallow waters".

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. Neither would natural selection "have noticed its `fingers'" being that tiny in proportion to Panderichthys' "4 feet (130 cm)" body.

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. This sounds like yet another Darwinian `just-so' story. But it is gross overkill for "a predatory fish that ... dwelled in shallow waters where it inched along the muddy bottom" to develop "inside" two pairs of fish fins all the fore- and hind-limb bones of "terrestrial vertebrates".

"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 LiveScience. "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." That the proto- fore- and hind-limb bones of future terrestrial vertebrates, after they had appeared, may have had some use for Panderichthys (and originally "the single common ancestor") does not thereby explain why they appeared. To just assume that would commit the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Basically, Panderichthys would have dragged its body along land. "It wouldn't have been pretty," she added. The way that Boisvert puts this indicates she has no evidence that Panderichthys (or "the single common ancestor") ever "dragged its body along land." The fossil finding, detailed in the Sept. 21 issue of the journal Nature, fills in a gap in the evolution of tetrapods, or four-legged animals. About 380 million years ago, our fishy ancestors crept onto land. And here we have a time problem, the time-frame of the fish-tetrapod transition was only 5-15 million years (my emphasis below):

"Panderichthys and Elpistostege flourished in the early Frasnian and are some of the nearest relatives of tetrapods. But tetrapods appear only about 5 to 10 million years later in the late Frasnian, by which time they were widely distributed and had evolved into several groups ... This suggests that the transition from fish to tetrapod occurred rapidly within this restricted time span." (Clack, Ibid, 2002, p.96).

"The transition from fish to crawling four-legged tetrapod occurred ... about 360 million years ago during a relatively short geological interval-no more than probably 15 or 20 million years ..." (Strickberger, 2000, "Evolution," p.410).

"At least 377 million years ago a lineage of lobefins arose that was more tetrapodlike than Eusthenopteron. One of these was an animal called Panderichthys... In 10 or 15 million years, however, relatives of Panderichthys reworked their bodies into tetrapod form." (Zimmer, 1998, "At the Waters Edge," pp.104-105).

Which is a chronospecies problem, i.e. each change had to be "locked up":

"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, "Punctuated Equilibrium Comes of Age," pp.226-227)

in a sequence of separate species, "align[ed], end-to-end" i.e. a "chronospecies":

"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 ..... This is clearly preposterous. Chronospecies, by definition, grade into each other, and each one encompasses very little change. A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one ... form to a slightly different one..." (Stanley, 1981, "The New Evolutionary Timetable," pp.93-94. My emphasis).

But as with mammals, "A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one ... form to a slightly different one."

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 Tiktaalik roseae 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. Therefore these "distinct finger precursors seen on Panderichthys" cannot be explained by natural selection for locomotion on land, including land underwater.

I agree with former atheist Antony Flew that:

"The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of ... life ... is an infinitely intelligent Mind" (Flew, 2007, "There Is a God," p.123ff).

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.

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

"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 Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys and the stem tetrapods Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. ... 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 articulated with the pectoral and pelvic girdles, 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. 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, 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. The entire endochondral skeleton is within a functionally continuous fin structure, 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 de novo in the Upper Devonian tetrapods. How can this be explained?" (Carroll, R.L., 1997, "Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, pp.230-232).

"Panderichthys was quite a large fish, with a skull about 300 mm long, and a total body length of over a meter ... . 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). Elpistostege is still relatively poorly known, and for understanding the story of the origin of tetrapods, Panderichthys will provide a satisfactory guide. By comparing its skull with that of a very early tetrapod such as Acanthostega, those tetrapodlike features that were present already in Panderichthys 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, "Gaining Ground: The Origin and Evolution of Tetrapods," Indiana University Press: Bloomington IN, p.64).

"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 tetrapods are a natural group, tied together by numerous unique characters that show that the group had a single common ancestor. Among the unique features that tetrapods share is the possession of limbs with digits ..." (Clack, 2002, p.66).

"Some things are clear, however. Both Elginerpeton and Obruchevichthys appear more closely related to tetrapods than was Panderichthys. 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. Panderichthys and Elpistostege flourished in the early Frasnian and are some of the nearest relatives of tetrapods. But tetrapods appear only about 5 to 10 million years later in the late Frasnian, 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).

"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 any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." (Darwin, C.R., 1872, "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," [1859], John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, Reprinted, 1882, p.162).

"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," American Naturalist, Vol. 130, 1987, pp.465-473)] He holds that morphological change may accumulate anywhere along the geological trajectory of a species. 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 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 speciation does not accelerate evolution within populations, it provides morphological changes with enough permanence to be registered in the fossil record. 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, "Punctuated Equilibrium Comes of Age," Nature, 18 November, Vol 366, pp.223-227, pp.226-227. Ellipses original).

"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, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved. I had previously written that there was room for a new argument to design in explaining the first emergence of living from nonliving matter-especially where this first living matter already possessed the capacity to reproduce itself genetically. I maintained that there was no satisfactory naturalistic explanation for such a phenomenon. ... The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and `coded chemistry'? ... The origin of self-reproduction is a second key problem. ... A third philosophical dimension to the origin of life relates to the origin of the coding and information processing 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 ... 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." (Flew, A.G.N., 2007, "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," HarperCollins: New York NY, pp.123-125, 131-132).

"Origin of tetrapods.-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. The Devonian, during which land adaptations originated, was seemingly a time of seasonal droughts when life in fresh waters must have been difficult. 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. 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. 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, "Vertebrate Paleontology," [1933], University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Second edition, Fifth Impression, 1953, pp.140-141. Emphasis original).

"Darwin was spared a confrontation with the extraordinarily rapid origins of modern groups of mammals. 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. 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, to form a continuous lineage connecting our primitive little mammal with a bat or a whale. This is clearly preposterous. Chronospecies, by definition, grade into each other, and each one encompasses very little change. A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one small rodentlike form to a slightly different one, perhaps representing a new genus, but not to a bat or a whale!" (Stanley, S.M., 1981, "The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species," Basic Books: New York NY, pp.93-94).

"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 transition from fish to crawling four-legged tetrapod occurred by the end of the Devonian period, about 360 million years ago during a relatively short geological interval-no more than probably 15 or 20 million years-and encompassed perhaps three or more separate lineages (Carroll 1995)." (Strickberger, M.W., 2000, "Evolution," Jones & Bartlett: Sudbury MA, 1990, Third edition, p.410).

"All in all, Ichthyostega 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 Ichthyostega. 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? The theory that the blueprint already existed in some form in the genomes of the osteolepiform fish sounds more reasonable, 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).

"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. Still, it would be impossible to mistake Panderichthys for a tetrapod. Its toeless limbs were buried inside a ring of fin rays, its braincase was still hinged, and instead of a stapes Panderichthys had a hyomandibular bone that was linked to its jaws and gills. In 10 or 15 million years, however, relatives of Panderichthys reworked their bodies into tetrapod form. Elginerpeton, 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 Elginerpeton shows many signs of being an intermediate between lobe-fins like Panderichthys 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 Elginerpeton 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 Elginerpeton was gone, but new kinds of tetrapods were evolving all around the world." (Zimmer, C., 1998, "At the Waters Edge: 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).

PoE: 1.1.3. Herbert Spencer's meaning of "evolution"

2008-08-12T21:31:00.006+08:00

Continuing my book outline, "Problems of Evolution,"

[Right: Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), Wikipedia]

with subsection, 1.1.3. Herbert Spencer's meaning of "evolution."

References cited are supported by the `tagline' quotes below (emphasis italics original, emphasis bold mine).

CONTENTS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. What is "evolution"?

1.1.2. The original meaning of "evolution"

1.1.3. Herbert Spencer's meaning of "evolution."

The word "evolution" was first used by the English philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) in the sense of the progress of life from lower to higher forms (Gould, 1978, pp.36-37). It was also Spencer who most popularized the term "evolution" in that sense (Bowler, 1989, p.8; Gould, 2002, p.245).

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" (Spencer, 1945, p.358; Gould, 1978, pp.36-37; Mayr, 1982, pp.385-386). But Spencer's "evolution" was "a metaphysical principle" that "has nothing to do with real biology" (Mayr, 1982, pp.385-386). 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." (Nordenskiold, 1928, p.493).

It was Spencer's a priori belief in universal natural causation that led him to accept evolution, in the absence of scientific proof (Burrow, 1966, pp.205-206). But once Spencer had accepted this metaphysical naturalism, his only alternative was some form of evolution (Pearcey,1998, pp.79-80).

To Spencer there were only "two hypotheses" to choose between, either "the hypothesis of Special Creation" or "the hypothesis of Evolution" (Spencer, 1910, p.415). The "only alternative to the hypothesis of Evolution is the hypothesis of Special Creation" (Spencer, 1910, pp.453-454). That is, either the many different "kinds of organisms ... have been from time to time separately made; or they have arisen by insensible steps, through actions such as we see habitually going" (Spencer, 1910, p.416). But then Spencer dismissed special creation as "not even a thinkable hypothesis" (Spencer, 1910, p.554) and "illegitimate" (Spencer, 1910, pp.420; 435).

Therefore, by "evolution" Spencer meant the very antithesis of supernatural creation. Spencer regarded "the hypothesis of evolution" and "the hypothesis of special creation" as "antagonist hypotheses" (Spencer, 1910, pp.416; 439-440).

Spencer defined "special creation" as "the belief that each species of organism was specially created" (Spencer, 1910, p.419), by a supernatural act" (Spencer, 1910, pp.431-432), such that"a new organism, when specially created, is created out of nothing" (Spencer, 1910, p.420 ). 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" (Spencer, 1910, p.415).

Therefore Spencer had set up a Fallacy of False Dilemma, which "presumes that only two alternatives exist when in actuality there are more than two" (Schick & Vaughn, 1995, pp.285-286). According to Spencer, it was "as if there were nothing in heaven and earth except an omnipotent deity acting as his own agent or natural selection of chance variations." (Fix, 1984, p.195). But there is a third alternative, that God did not separately create whole "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 straw man caricature of the creationist position, "set up only to be knocked down" (Gale, 1982, p.139); "misrepresenting an opponent's position ... then ... arguing against the imputed position as though it were really that of your opponent" (Honderic, 1995, p.854), "in order to improve the appearance of his own case" (Gillespie, 1979, pp.19-20), Creation to Spencer was "absolutely without evidence to give it external support" (Spencer, 1910, p.420, 430).

So Spencer coined the word "evolution" to mean fully naturalistic evolution, the opposite of supernatural creation.

The quotes below are hyperlinked from inline references above. Emphasis in italics are original and in bold are mine.

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

"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" (Bowler, P.J., 1989, "Evolution: The History of an Idea," [1983], University of California Press: Berkeley CA, Revised edition, p.8).

"Spencer's belief in the universality of natural causation was, together with his laissez-faire political creed, the bedrock of his thinking. It was this belief, more than anything else, that led him to reject Christianity, long before the great conflict of the eighteen-sixties. Moreover, it was his belief in natural causation that led him to embrace the theory of evolution, not vice versa. ... His faith was so strong that it did not wait on scientific proof. Spencer became an ardent evolutionist at a time when a cautious scientist would have been justified at least in suspending judgement. ... for him the belief in natural causation was primary, the theory of evolution derivative." (Burrow, J.W., 1966, "Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory," Cambridge University Press: London, Reprinted, 1968, pp.205-206).

"It is easy enough to set up a straw man, to point to the whale's vestigial pelvic bones, for example, and to say that if God had created the whale, directly and from nothing, 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-as if there were nothing in heaven and earth except an omnipotent deity acting as his own agent or natural selection of chance variations." (Fix, W.R. , 1984, "The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution," Macmillan: New York NY, p.195).

"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 Origin. ... Yet even here, where Darwin's arguments are strongest, nagging questions remain. For example, a reader of the Origin 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. Often the Creationist position seems merely a straw man-set up only to be knocked down. The constraints on space in the Origin, 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 Origin." (Gale, B.G., 1982, "Evolution Without Evidence: Charles Darwin and The Origin of Species," University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque NM, p.139).

"Charles Darwin's hostile preoccupation with the belief that God had separately and individually created each of the animal and plant species in the world is one of the most intriguing but neglected features of the Origin of Species. Historians have disagreed about what to make of it. ... Some have accused Darwin of setting up a straw man in order to improve the appearance of his own case. 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 Origin 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 Origin 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, "Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, pp.19-20,39).

"Evolution entered the English language as a synonym for `descent with modification' through the propaganda of Herbert Spencer, 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 First Principles of 1862: `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.' Two other aspects of Spencer's work contributed to the establishment of evolution in its present meaning: First, in writing his very popular Principles of Biology (1864-67), Spencer constantly used `evolution' as a description of organic change. 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 evolution was available when many scientists felt a need for a term more succinct than Darwin's descent with modification." (Gould, S.J., 1978, "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1991, pp.36-37).

"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!) 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 The Descent of Man, published in 1871. (Still, Darwin never cited `evolution' in the title of any book-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, "I Have Landed: Splashes and Reflections in Natural History," Vintage: London, Reprinted, 2003, p.245).

"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, "The Oxford Companion to Philosophy," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, p.854).

"Herbert Spencer is often cited as having anticipated Darwin in propounding a theory of evolution, but there is little validity in this assertion. Evolution, for Spencer, was a metaphysical principle. The vacuousness of Spencer's theory is evident from his definition: `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 has nothing to do with real biology." (Mayr, E.W., 1982, "The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, pp.385-386).

"Spencer's idea of evolution HERBERT SPENCER was not a specialist in biology, and his speculations on biological problems have not advanced that science to any very great extent. 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 A System of Synthetic Philosophy, 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 he became one of the most influential promoters of the new doctrine of evolution. 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, "The History of Biology: A Survey," [1920-24], Eyre, L.B., transl., Tudor Publishing Co: New York NY, p.493. Emphasis original).

"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, `a breach in the course of [physical] causation had come to be, if not an impossible thought, yet a thought never entertained' (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 once he had embraced philosophical naturalism, he had no alternative but to accept some form of naturalistic evolution. As he puts it, having discarded orthodox Christianity, he developed an `intellectual leaning towards belief in natural causation everywhere operating.' And in that naturalistic leaning, `doubtless ... a belief in evolution at large was then latent.' Why latent? Because `anyone who, abandoning the supernaturalism of theology, accepts in full the naturalism of science, tacitly asserts that all things as they now exist have been evolved.' Spencer accepted naturalism first and then accepted evolution as a logical consequence. He goes on: `The doctrine of the universality of natural causation, has for its inevitable corollary the doctrine that the Universe and all things in it have reached their present forms through successive stages physically necessitated' (Spencer 1904, 2:7). Just so: Once one accepts the philosophy of naturalism, some form of naturalistic evolution is an `inevitable corollary.' 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 The Principles of Psychology, that the hypothesis of evolution is beset by `serious difficulties' scientifically. Yet, `save for those who still adhere to the Hebrew myth, or to the doctrine of special creations derived from it, there is no alternative but this hypothesis 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 the belief in organic evolution had taken deep root'-not for scientific reasons but because of `the necessity of accepting the hypothesis of Evolution when the hypothesis of Special Creation has been rejected.' He concludes with these telling words: `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' (Duncan 1908, 2:319). Here is a candid admission that Spencer was driven by a sense of philosophical necessity-naturalistic evolution was `the only conceivable alternative' to creation- more than by a dispassionate assessment of the scientific evidence." (Pearcey, N.R., "You Guys Lost: Is Design a Closed Issue?," in Dembski, W.A., ed., "Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1998, pp.79-80).

"An argument proposes a false dilemma when it presumes that only two alternatives exist when in actuality there are more than two. 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. Since there are other options, the argument is fallacious." (Schick, T. & Vaughn, L., 1995, "How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age," Mayfield: Mountain View CA, California, Second edition, pp.285-286).

"We have to choose between two hypotheses-the hypothesis of Special Creation and the hypothesis of Evolution. Either the multitudinous kinds of organisms which now exist, and the far more multitudinous kinds which have existed during past geologic eras, have been from time to time separately made; or they have arisen by insensible steps, through actions such as we see habitually going on. 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 which of these antagonist hypotheses is most congruous with established facts." (Spencer, H., 1910, "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, pp.415-416).

"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 each species of organism was specially created. 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).

"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 a belief not countenanced by a single fact. 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 new species to be miraculously originated, 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).

"Besides being absolutely without evidence to give it external support, this hypothesis of special creations cannot support itself internally-cannot be framed into a coherent thought. It is one of those illegitimate symbolic conceptions 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 a new organism, when specially created, is created out of nothing? 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).

"The belief in special creations 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. This mere verbal hypothesis, which men idly accept as a real or thinkable hypothesis, 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 the hypothesis of special creations turns out to be worthless by its derivation; worthless in its intrinsic incoherence; worthless as absolutely without evidence; 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).

"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, the hypothesis that each species resulted from a supernatural act, 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).

"The hypothesis of evolution is contrasted with the hypothesis of special creations, in a further respect. It is not simply legitimate instead of illegitimate, 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 direct 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).

"In all respects, then, the hypothesis of evolution contrasts favourably with the hypothesis of special creation. 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 the doctrine of evolution; since this doctrine raises no contradictory implications respecting the Unknown Cause, such as are raised by the antagonist doctrine." (Spencer, 1910, pp.439-440).

"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. The only alternative to the hypothesis of Evolution is the hypothesis of Special Creation; 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).

"On considering the `General Aspects of the Special-creation hypothesis,' we discovered it to be worthless. Discredited by its origin, and wholly without any basis of observed fact, we found that it was not even a thinkable hypothesis; 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).

"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:-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., 1945, "First Principles," [1862], Watts & Co: London, Sixth edition, Revised, 1945, p.358).

PoE: Bibliography "S"

2008-08-02T15:09:00.007+08:00

This is the Bibliography "S" page for author's surnames beginning

[Right: George Gaylord Simpson, Paleontologist & Evolutionist, 1902-1984: Léo F. Laporte. See `tagline' quotes below (emphasis italics original, emphasis bold mine), all by Simpson.]

with "S" of books and journals which I may refer to in my book outline, "Problems of Evolution."

Simpson was an a co-founder of the Neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis, but he had the honesty to admit that the fossil record was not Darwinian!:

"PALEONTOLOGY, once more, furnishes both the most direct evidence for the fact of evolution, and the most imposing evidence against the conception of evolution as a continuous, gradual progression 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 Archaeopteryx, with its reptilian features-they still persist. Moreover, they persist systematically: over and over, with suddenness termed `explosive,' a bewildering variety of new types appear: this is true, notably, for example, of the origin of the major mammalian types. 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! " (Grene, M.G., 1959, "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, Vol. 74, November, p.54).

"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the `official' position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne [body plans] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). Even so convinced a gradualist as G. G. Simpson (1944) invoked quantum evolution and inadaptive phases to explain these transitions." (Gould, S.J. & Eldredge, N., 1977, "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered," Paleobiology, Vol. 3, April, pp.115-147, p.147).

"In example after example, Simpson saw that new groups seemed to appear suddenly in the fossil record. New higher taxa such as whales (mammalian order Cetacea), bats (order Chiroptera), or even the lineage of grass-grazing horses that evolved from leaf-browsing ancestors 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 that such large-scale evolution would seem to call for. Moreover, Simpson saw that these new groups first appear pretty much in recognizable form. ... 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. 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! And here is the kicker. The earliest whales Simpson knew about are some 55 million years old. 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. 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! And that is a patent absurdity, as 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." (Eldredge, N., 1998, "The Pattern of Evolution," W.H. Freeman & Co: New York NY, Reprinted, 2000, pp.134-135).

CONTENTS

BIBLIOGRAPHY "S"
Sagan, C.E., 1973, "The Cosmic Connection: An Extraterrestrial Perspective," Coronet Books: London, Reprinted, 1975.
Sagan, C.E., 1974, "Broca's Brain: The Romance of Science," Coronet Books: London, Reprinted, 1980.
Sagan, C.E., 1977, "The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence," Ballantine Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1978.
Sagan, C.E., 1980, "Cosmos," Macdonald: London, Reprinted, 1981.
Sagan, C.E., 1985, "Contact," Pocket Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1986.
Sagan, C.E., 1994, "Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space," Random House: New York NY
Sagan, C.E., 1996, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," Headline: London, Reprinted, 1997.
Sagan, C.E., 1997, "Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium," Headline: London.
Sagan, C.E. & Druyan, A., 1985, "Comet," Guild Publishing: London.
Sagan, C.E. & Druyan, A., 1992, "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors: A Search for Who We Are," Arrow: London, Reprinted, 1993.
Sagan, D., 1990, "Biospheres: Metamorphosis of Planet Earth," Arkana: London, Reprinted, 1991.
Sahlins, M., 1976, "The Use and Abuse of Biology: An Anthropological Critique of Sociobiology," University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor MI, 1979, Fifth printing.
Savage, J.M., 1963, "Evolution," Modern Biology Series: Holt, Rinehart & Winston: New York NY.
Schick, T. & Vaughn, L., 1995, "How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age," Mayfield: Mountain View CA, California, Second edition.
Schmidt-Nielsen, K., 1997, "Animal Physiology: Adaptation and Environment," [1975], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, Fifth edition, Reprinted, 1998.
Schopf, J.W., 1999, "Cradle of Life: The Discovery of Earth's Earliest Fossils," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ.
Schrödinger, E., 1943, "What is Life?: The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell," Folio Society: London, Reprinted, 2000.
Schroeder, G.L., 1990, "Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible," Bantam: New York NY.
Schroeder, G.L., 2001, "The Hidden Face of God: How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth," The Free Press: New York NY.
Schroeder, G.L., 1998, "The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom," Broadway Books: New York NY.
Schumacher, E.F., 1977, "A Guide for the Perplexed," Harper & Row: New York NY, Reprinted, 1978.
Schutzenberger, M-P., 1996, in "The Miracles of Darwinism: Interview with Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger," Origins & Design, Vol. 17, No. 2, Spring, pp.10-15.
Schwartz, J.H., 1999, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY.
Scott, A., 1986, "The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK.
Scott, A., 1988, "Vital Principles: The Molecular Mechanisms of Life," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK.
Searle, J.R., 1984, "Minds, Brains and Science," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1997, Eleventh printing.
Searle, J.R., 1992, "The Rediscovery of the Mind," MIT Press: Cambridge MA.
Searle, J.R., 1997, "The Mystery of Consciousness: and Exchanges with Daniel C. Dennett and David J. Chalmers," Granta Publications: London, 1998.
Selkirk, D.R. & Burrows, F.J., eds, 1988, "Confronting Creationism: Defending Darwin," New South Wales University Press: Kensington NSW, Australia.
Sermonti, G., 2005, "Why is a Fly Not a Horse?," Discovery Institute: Seattle WA.
Shapiro, R., 1986, "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth," Summit Books: New York NY.
Shapiro, R., 1999, "Planetary Dreams: The Quest to Discover Life beyond Earth," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY.
Sheldrake, R., 1981, "A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance," Park Street Press: Rochester VT, Reprinted, 1995.
Sheldrake, R., 1994, "Seven Experiments that Could Change the World: A Do-It-Yourself Guide to Revolutionary Science," Fourth Estate: London, Reprinted, 1995.
Sheldrake, R., 2003, "The Sense of Being Stared At: And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind," Crown Publishers New York NY.
Shermer, M.B., 1995, "Teach Your Child Science: Making Science Fun for the Both of You," Lowell House: Los Angeles CA.
Shermer, M.B., 1997, "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time," W.H. Freeman & Co: New York NY.
Shipman, P. , "Taking Wing: Archaeopteryx and the Evolution of Bird Flight," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998.
Shklovskii, I.S. & Sagan, C., 1977, "Intelligent Life in the Universe," [1966], Picador: London.
Shostak, G.S., 1998, "Sharing the Universe: The Quest for Extraterrestrial Life," Lansdowne: Sydney NSW, Australia.
Shrock, R.R. & Twenhofel, W.H., 1953, "Principles of Invertebrate Paleontology," [1935], McGraw-Hill: New York NY, Second edition.
Shute, E., 1962, "Flaws in the Theory of Evolution," Baker: Grand Rapids MI , Eighth printing, 1980.
Silver, B.L., 1998, "The Ascent of Science," Oxford University Press: New York NY.
Simmons, G., 2004, "What Darwin Didn't Know: A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution," Harvest House: Eugene OR.
Simpson, G.G., 1944, "Tempo and Mode in Evolution," Columbia University Press: New York NY, Third printing, 1949.
Simpson, G.G., 1949, "The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of its Significance for Man," Yale University Press: New Haven CT, Reprinted, 1960.
Simpson, G.G., 1951, "Horses: The Story of the Horse Family in the Modern World and through Sixty Million Years of History," Doubleday & Co: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1961.
Simpson, G.G., 1953a, "Life of the Past: An Introduction to Paleontology," Yale University Press: New Haven CT.
Simpson, G.G., 1953b, "The Major Features of Evolution," Columbia University Press: New York NY, Second printing, 1955.
Simpson, G.G. 1960, "The History of Life," in Tax, S., ed., "Evolution After Darwin: The Evolution of Life: Its Origin, History and Future," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Vol. I.
Simpson, G.G., 1964, "This View of Life: The World of an Evolutionist," Harcourt, Brace & World: New York NY.
Simpson, G.G., 1966, "The Biological Nature of Man," Science, Vol. 152, 22 April, pp.472-478.
Simpson, G.G. , ed., 1982, "The Book of Darwin," Washington Square: New York NY, Reprinted, 1983.
Simpson, G.G. & Beck, W.S., 1965, "Life: An Introduction to Biology," [1957], Routledge & Kegan Paul: London, Second edition.
Singer, P., ed., "Ethics," Oxford Readers, Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1994.
Sire, J.W., 1988, "The Universe Next Door: A Basic World View Catalog," [1976], InterVarsity Press Downers Grove IL, Second edition.
Sire, J.W., 1994, "Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?," Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL.
Slack, A., 1979, "Carnivorous Plants," Doubleday: Sydney NSW, Australia, Second edition, 1981.
Smart, W.M., 1951, "The Origin of the Earth," Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, Reprinted, 1955.
Smith, W., 1984, "Cosmos & Transcendence: Breaking Through the Barrier of Scientistic Belief," Sherwood Sugden & Co: La Salle IL.
Smith, W., 1995, "The Quantum Enigma: Finding the Hidden Key," Sherwood Sugden & Co: Peru IL.
Smith, W., 1988, "Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin,"Tan: Rockford IL.
Smoot, G. & Davidson, K., 1993, "Wrinkles in Time: The Imprint of Creation," Little, Brown & Co: London.
Sneath, P.H.A., 1970, "Planets and Life," The World of Science Library, Thames & Hudson: London.
Sober, E., 1994, "Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology," [1993], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, Second edition.
Solomon, E.P., et al., 1993, "Biology," [1985], Harcourt Brace: Orlando FL, Third edition.
Southwood, R., 2003, "The Story of Life," Oxford University Press: New York NY.
Spangenburg, R. & Moser, D.K., 1993, "On the Shoulders of Giants: The History of Science from the Ancient Greeks to the Scientific Revolution," Facts On File: New York NY.
Spanner, D.C., 1987, "Biblical Creation and the Theory of Evolution," Paternoster: Exeter UK.
Spencer, H., 1910, "The Principles of Biology," [1864], D. Appleton and Co: New York NY, 2 Vols, Revised.
Spencer, H., 1945, "First Principles," [1862], Watts & Co: London, Sixth edition, Revised.
Spetner, L.M., 1997, "Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution," [1996], Judaica Press: New York NY, Revised.
Sproul, R.C., 1994, "Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology," Baker: Grand Rapids MI.
Spudis, P.D., 1996, "The Once and Future Moon," Melbourne University Press: Carlton South Vic, Australia, Reprinted, 1998.
Srb, A.M., et al., eds, 1970, "Facets of Genetics: Readings from Scientific American," W.H. Freeman: San Francisco CA, W. H. Freeman.
Stahl, B.J., 1985, "Vertebrate history: Problems in Evolution," [1974], Dover: New York NY, Revised edition.
Standen, A., 1950, "Science is a Sacred Cow," E.P. Dutton & Co: New York NY, Reprinted, 1958.
Stanley, S.M., 1981, "The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species," Basic Books: New York NY.
Stanley, S.M., 1989, "Earth and Life Through Time," [1986], W.H. Freeman & Co: New York NY, Second edition.
Stanley, S.M., 1987, "Extinction," Scientific American Books: New York NY.
Stanley, S.M., 1998, "Macroevolution: Pattern and Process," [1979], The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore MD, Revised.
Stannard, R., 1982, "Science and the Renewal of Belief," SCM Press: London.
Stannard, R., 1999a, "The God Experiment," Faber & Faber: London.
Stannard, R., 1999b, "Science and Wonders: Conversations About Science and Belief," Faber & Faber: London.
Stansfield, W.D., 1977, "The Science of Evolution," Macmillan: New York NY, Eighth printing, 1983.
Starr, C. & Taggart, R., 1998, "Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life," Wadsworth Publishing Co: Belmont CA, Eighth edition.
Stebbins, G.L., 1982, "Darwin to DNA: Molecules to Humanity," W.H. Freeman & Co: San Francisco CA.
Stebbins, G.L., 1966, "Processes of Organic Evolution," Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ, Second printing.
Steele, E. J., 1981, "Somatic Selection and Adaptive Evolution: On the Inheritance of Acquired Characters," [1979], University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Second Edition.
Steer, R., "Letter to an Influential Atheist," Authentic Lifestyle: Carlisle UK, 2003.
Sterelny, K., 2001, "Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest," Icon Books: Cambridge UK.
Stevens, S.S. & Warshofsky, F., 1980, "Sound and Hearing," Life Science Library, Time-Life Books: Alexandria VA, Revised edition, First printing.
Stewart, I. & Golubitsky, M., 1992, "Fearful Symmetry: Is God A Geometer?," Blackwell: Oxford UK.
Stewart, I., 2001, "Flatterland: Like Flatland, Only More So," Macmillan: London.
Stewart, I., 1995, "Nature's Numbers: Discovering Order and Pattern in the Universe," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London.
Stilley, F., 1977, "The Search: Our Quest for Intelligent Life in Outer Space," G.P. Putnam's Sons: New York NY, Second impression.
Stivens, D., 1974, "The Incredible Egg: A Billion Year Journey," Weybright & Talley: New York NY.
Stoner, D.W., "A New Look at an Old Earth," [1985], Harvest House Publishers: Eugene OR, Reprinted, 1997.
Stove, D.C., 1995, "Darwinian Fairytales," Encounter Books: New York NY.
Stove, D.C., 1999, "Against the Idols of the Age," Kimball, R., ed., Transaction Publishers: New Brunswick NJ, Second printing, 2000.
Strahler, A.N., 1992, "Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues," Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY.
Strahler, A.N., 1999, "Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy," [1987], Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, Second edition.
Strickberger, M.W., 2000, "Evolution," [1990], Jones & Bartlett Publishers: Sudbury MA, Third edition.
Stringer, C. & McKie, R., 1996, "African Exodus: The Origins of Modern Humanity," Pimlico: London, Reprinted, 1997.
Strobel, L.P., 2004, "The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God." Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI.
Sullivan, J.W.N., 1938, "The Bases of Modern Science," Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, Reprinted, 1939.
Sullivan, J.W.N., 1933, "Limitations of Science," Pelican: Harmondsworth UK, Reprinted, 1938.
Sullivan, W., 1993, "We Are Not Alone: The Continuing Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence," [1964], Dutton: New York NY, Revised edition.
Sunderland, L.D., 1988, "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth edition.
Swain, H., ed., 2002, "Big Questions in Science?," Jonathan Cape: London.
Swift, D.W., 2002, "Evolution Under the Microscope: A Scientific Critique of the Theory of Evolution," Leighton Academic Press: Stirling UK.
Swinburne, R.G., 1991, "The Justification of Theism," Truth Journal, Vol. 3
Swinnerton, H.H., 1947, "Outlines of Palaeontology," [1923], Edward Arnold & Co: London , Third edition, Reprinted, 1949.
Sykes, B., 2001, "The Seven Daughters of Eve," Bantam: London.

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

"For the study of these problems 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. 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. ... 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 and, particularly, the immense span of time in which population changes really occur. 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 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, 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." (Simpson, G.G., 1944, "Tempo and Mode in Evolution," Columbia University Press: New York NY, Third printing, 1949, pp.xvi-xvii).

"As a matter of personal philosophy, 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 terms and much that may be inexplicable on a purely physical plane. 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. We do not know what is and what is not explicable in physical terms, 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).

"Micro-evolution involves mainly changes within potentially continuous populations, and there is little doubt that its materials are those revealed by genetic experimentation. Macro-evolution involves the rise and divergence of discontinuous groups, and it is still debatable whether it differs in kind or only in degree from microevolution. 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." (Simpson, 1944, p.97).

"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), the large-scale evolution studied by the paleontologist might be called `mega-evolution' (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, 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." (Simpson, 1944, p.98).

"The facts are that many species and genera, indeed the majority, do appear suddenly in the record, differing sharply and in many ways from any earlier group, and that this appearance of discontinuity becomes more common the higher the level, until it is virtually universal as regards orders and all higher steps in the taxonomic hierarchy. The face of the record thus does really suggest normal discontinuity at all levels, most particularly at high levels, and some paleontologists (e.g., Spath and Schindewolf) insist on taking the record at this face value." (Simpson, 1944, p.99).

"The levels to which these conclusions apply without modification are approximately those discussed as macro-evolution (under that or an equivalent term) by neozoologists and biologists. On still higher levels, those of what is here called `mega-evolution,' the inferences might still apply, but caution is enjoined, because here essentially continuous transitional sequences are not merely rare, but are virtually absent. These large discontinuities are less numerous, so that paleontological examples of their origin should also be less numerous; but their absence is so nearly universal that it cannot, offhand, be imputed entirely to chance and does require some attempt at special explanation, as has been felt by most paleontologists." (Simpson, 1944, pp.105-106).

"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals, 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. 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. 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; but the line making actual connection with such an ancestry is not known in even one instance." (Simpson, 1944, p.106).

"This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants. 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 the systematic occurrence of the gaps between larger units. 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. None of these large breaks has actually been filled by real, continuous sequences of fossils, 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).

"In the early days of evolutionary paleontology it was assumed that the major gaps would be filled in by further discoveries, and even, falsely, that some discoveries had already filled them. As it became more and more evident that the great gaps remained, despite wonderful progress in finding the members of lesser transitional groups and progressive lines, it was no longer satisfactory to impute this absence of objective data entirely to chance. 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).

"J. Arthur Thomson ... felt constrained to devote a considerable part of his work to 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. 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. In the present study the factual truth of organic evolution is taken as established and the enquiry goes on from there." (Simpson, G.G., 1949, "The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of its Significance for Man," Yale University Press: New Haven CT, Reprinted, 1960, pp.4-5).

THE ORIGIN of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems. 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. 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." (Simpson, 1949, p.14).

"Above the level of the virus, if that be granted status as an organism, the simplest living unit is almost incredibly complex. It has become commonplace to speak of evolution from ameba to man, as if the ameba were a natural and simple beginning of the process. On the contrary, if, as must almost necessarily be true short of miracles, life arose as a living molecule or protogene, the progression from this stage to that of the ameba is at least as great as from ameba to man." (Simpson, 1949, pp.15-16).

"Natural selection as it was understood in Darwinian days emphasized `the struggle for existence' and `the survival of the fittest.' These concepts had ethical, ideological, and political repercussions 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. It should now be clear that the process does not depend on `existence' or `surviving' certainly not as this applies to individuals and not even in any intensive or explanatory way as it applies to populations or species. It depends on differential reproduction, which is a different matter altogether. It does not favor `the fittest,' flatly and just so, unless you care to circle around and define `fittest' as those that do have most offspring. 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 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 and usual." (Simpson, 1949, p.221).

"It is, however, the word `struggle' that has led to most serious misunderstanding of the process of natural selection, 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. Even such actual struggles may have only slight effects on reproduction, although they will, on an average, tend to exercise some selective influence. 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." (Simpson, 1949, pp.221-222).

"To generalize from such incidents that natural selection is over-all and even in a figurative sense the outcome of struggle is quite unjustified under the modern understanding of the process. Struggle is sometimes involved, but it usually is not, and when it is, it may even work against rather than toward natural selection. Advantage in differential reproduction is usually a peaceful process in which the concept of struggle is really irrelevant. 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).

"The word `competition,' used in discussion here and previously, may also carry anthropomorphic undertones and then be subject to some of these same objections. It may, however, and in this connection it must, be understood without necessary implication of active competitive behavior. Competition in evolution often or usually is entirely passive; It could conceivably occur without the competing forms ever coming into sight or contact." (Simpson, 1949, p.222).

"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 many of the major changes cannot be considered as simply caused by longer continuation of the more usual sorts of minor changes. For one thing, there is excellent evidence that evolution involving major changes often occurs with unusual rapidity, although, as we have seen, there is no good evidence that it ever occurs instantaneously. 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 arisen. The whole record attests that the origin of a distinctly new adaptive type normally occurs at a much higher rate than subsequent progressive adaptation and diversification within that type. The rapidity of such shifts from one adaptive level or equilibrium to another has suggested the name `quantum evolution,' under which I have elsewhere discussed this phenomenon at greater length." (Simpson, 1949, pp.234-235).

"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; 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. Mutations are random, so it was decided that evolution is random. 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. 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; 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).

"The resulting synthetic theory ... has often been called neo-Darwinian, 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. The term is, however, a misnomer and doubly confusing in this application. The full-blown theory is quite different from Darwin's and has drawn its materials from a variety of sources largely non-Darwinian and partly anti-Darwinian. Even natural selection in this theory has a sense distinctly different, although largely developed from, the Darwinian concept of natural selection." (Simpson, 1949, p.277).

"This is not to say that the whole mystery has been plumbed to its core or even that it ever will be. The ultimate mystery is beyond the reach of scientific investigation, and probably of the human mind. 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. 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. 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).

"Although many details remain to be worked out, it is already evident that all the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely materialistic factors. They are readily explicable on the basis of differential reproduction in populations (the main factor in the modern conception of natural selection) and of the mainly random interplay of the known processes of heredity." (Simpson, 1949, p.343).

"Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. 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. 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. Recognition of this kinship with the rest of the universe is necessary for understanding him, but his essential nature is defined by qualities found nowhere else, not by those he has in common with apes, fishes, trees, fire, or anything other than himself." (Simpson, 1949, p.344).

"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. 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, "Horses: 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).

"Nevertheless, Darwin's theory still had some serious imperfections that prevented its being accepted by many students of evolution. The theory explained why unfit or inadaptive types of organisms tend to be eliminated, but it did not seem adequately to explain the much more important origin of more fit, better adapted organisms. 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, 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).

"Moreover, it is a fact that discontinuities are almost always and systematically present at the origin of really high categories, and, like any other systematic feature of the record, this requires explanation. ... There remains, however, the point that for still higher categories discontinuity of appearance in the record is not only frequent but if also systematic. Some break in continuity always occurs in categories from orders upwards, at least, although the break may not be large or appear significant to most students." (Simpson, G.G., 1953, "The Major Features of Evolution," Columbia University Press: New York NY, Second printing, 1955, pp.361,366).

"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. Darwin himself rejected the argument out of hand because, as he wrote, he `never happened to come across a single naturalist who seemed to doubt about the permanence of species,' and he acknowledged no debt to his predecessors. These are extraordinary statements. They cannot be literally true, yet Darwin cannot be consciously lying, and he may therefore be judged unconsciously misleading, naive, forgetful, or all three. 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 had certainly met at least a few naturalists who had flirted with the idea of evolution. He actually specifies one elsewhere in the autobiography: a Robert Edmund Grant, professor at the University of London. 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. Scientific American, Vol. 199, No. 2, August, pp.117-122, p.119).

"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution. A great many sequences of two or a few temporally intergrading species are known, but even at this level most species appear without known immediate ancestors, 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 the appearance of a new genus in the record is usually more abrupt than the appearance of a new species: 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. This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large." (Simpson, G.G., 1960, "The History of Life," in Tax, S., ed., "Evolution After Darwin: The Evolution of Life: Its Origin, History and Future," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Vol. I, p.117).

"The fact-not theory-that evolution has occurred and the Darwinian theory as to how it has occurred 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. How evolution occurs is much more intricate, still incompletely known, debated in detail, and the subject of most active investigation at present." (Simpson, G.G., 1964, "This View of Life: 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).

"The import of the fact of evolution depends on how far evolution extends, and here there are two crucial points: does it extend from the inorganic into the organic, and does it extend from the lower animals to man? In The Origin of Species Darwin implies that life did not arise naturally from nonliving matter, for in the very last sentence he wrote, `...life...having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one...... (The words by the Creator were inserted in the second edition and are one of many gradual concessions made to critics of that book.) Later, however, Darwin conjectured (he did not consider this scientific) 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. 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).

"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. The consensus is that life did arise naturally from the nonliving and that even the first living things were not specially created. 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. 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, 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).

"At the other end of the story, it was evident to evolutionists from the start that man cannot be an exception. In The Origin of Species Darwin deliberately avoided the issue, 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) Darwin published The Descent of Man, which makes it clear that he was indeed of that opinion. No evolutionist has since seriously questioned that man did originate by evolution. 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, but that is decidedly a minority opinion ...." (Simpson, 1964, pp.11-12).

"We feel, almost instinctively, that there is a pattern. 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. 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. 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 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." (Simpson, 1964, pp.190-191).

"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. 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, 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. Accounting for this apparent purposefulness is a basic problem for any system of philosophy or of science." (Simpson, 1964, p.190).

"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 much work remains to be done, many details to be filled in, and many parts of the process to be more clearly understood, 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. 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-of this still deeper problem the scientist, as scientist, cannot speak." (Simpson, 1964, p.212).

"Our major space agency, NASA, has a `space bioscience' program. Biologists meeting under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences have agreed that their `first and ... foremost [task in space science] is the search for extraterrestrial life' (Hess et al., 1962). The existence of this movement is as familiar to the reader of the newspapers as to those of technical publications. There is even increasing recognition of a new science of extraterrestrial life, some times called exobiology-a curious development in view of the fact that this `science' has yet to demonstrate that its subject matter exists!" (Simpson, 1964, pp.253-254).

"In the face of the universal tendency for order to be lost, 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. 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. 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, "Life: An Introduction to Biology," [1957], Routledge & Kegan Paul: London, Second Edition, p.145).

"We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of life's complex organization. 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 the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed." (Simpson & Beck, 1965, p.466).

"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 .... Language is also the most diagnostic single trait of man - all normal men have language; no other nonliving organisms do. 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. Yet human language is absolutely distinct from any system of communication in other animals. 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. They do not, as true language does, name, discuss, abstract, or symbolize. 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 the non-language of animal interjection is still present in man. In us it is in effect not a part of language, but the negative of language, something we use in place of speech. ... . Still we do retain that older system along with our wholly new and wholly distinct system of true language" (Simpson, G.G. , 1966, "The Biological Nature of Man," Science, Vol. 152, 22 April, pp.472-478, p.476).

"Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language, and all have failed. ... Moreover at the present time no languages are primitive in the sense of being significantly close to the origin of language. Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers. ... The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view." (Simpson, 1966, p.477).

"D-Days at Dayton 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. 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'. 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. But all the evidence suggests that Tennesseeans were delighted by the publicity and unconscious of the ridicule. 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 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 Inherit the Wind." (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 Nature, Vol 210, June 18, pp.1194-1195).

"Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language, and all have failed. ... Moreover at the present time no languages are primitive in the sense of being significantly close to the origin of language. Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers. ... The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view." (Simpson, 1966, p.477).

Re: about your prediction of Jesus' return by 2037

2008-07-12T23:38:00.019+08:00

Thanks for your message. As per my policy stated on my CED blog's front page, "Private messages I receive on creation (including Christianity),

[Left (click to enlarge): Jerusalem: Before 1967, BBC]

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 bold.

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:02 AM
Subject: about your prediction of Jesus' return

>Hello. I probably agree with you the most out of anyone with your position on creation, Adam, the flood, etc..

Thanks for your feedback. I presume you are referring to my post, What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Design, and in particular to:

Jesus Christ's return (second coming). Jesus will return (Mat. 16:27; 24:30; 26:64; Acts 1:11; 1 Cor. 11:26; 1 Thess. 4:16; Heb. 9:28; Rev. 1:7)! My interpretation is that we are in the period predicted by Jesus in Lk. 21:24-28, 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) which happened in 1967, 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). I assume (along with leading Christian theologians such as the late Anthony A. Hoekema and William Hendriksen) that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70, predicted by Jesus in the Olivet discourse (Mt 23:37-24:51, Mk 13:1-37; Lk 21:5-36), 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" (Mt 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk 21:32) 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, "The Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ."

So others can know what we are talking about, here is Lk 21:24b-31 (NIV), with the key words highlighted:

24 ... Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 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. 28When these things begin to take place, 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, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. 31Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 29He told them this parable: "Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. 31Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.

Although I have used your word "prediction" in the title of this post, I do not claim or agree that it is my prediction that Jesus will return before 2037, but rather it is my "interpretation" of Jesus' prediction in Lk 21:24b-31 (as my blog states above).

[Right (click to enlarge): Jerusalem: After 1967, BBC]

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:

IF: 1) "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until 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:

"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) ... Does the reconquest of Jerusalem by the new state of Israel have immediate bearing on the end of the present age? Is it a sign of the imminent return of Christ?" (Brown, 1984, pp.448-449).

"In St. Luke's account of the Olivet discourse there is a short but profound statement regarding the future of Jerusalem, which is taking on tremendous meaning: ... (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, is now, since 1967, for the first time in all these centuries, no longer under the rule of Gentile nations but in the absolute control of the Jews, in fact, in the control of the new nation, Israel! To me, this is one of the great prophetic factors of our generation." (Smith, 1971, pp.207-208).

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):

"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 the city's approaching catastrophe as a type of the tribulation at the end of the dispensation." (Hendriksen, 1973, pp.846-847).

"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." (Hoekema, 1978, pp.148-149);

"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. The fall of Jerusalem becomes a type of the end times." (Shreiner, 1989, p.834);

"I contend that 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)." (Bloesch, 2004, p.81);

"the `Lucan discourse looks back at the catastrophe in Jerusalem (A.D. 70) in a microcosmic view; 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).' " (Bloesch, 2004, pp.81-82);

3) The "this generation" that "will certainly not pass away until all 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:

"... genea ... generation ... of all the people of a given period" (Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, p.89);

"if the term [generation] is understood as a normal life span, it may refer either to the generation in which Jesus lived while on earth or to the generation living when these signs begin to occur." (Bloesch, 2004, pp.80-81);

"[Lk 21:32]. This generation ... Naturally people then living" (Robertson, 1930, pp.261-262);

"...genea ... the people of any generation or age, those living in any one period ...`this generation' means the present generation (... Luke ... 21:32...) ... the generation present immediately preceding His return, who witness the events signaling His coming" (Zodhiates, 1992, pp.362-363);

and b) is "as determined by the normal span of life," i.e. 70 years:

"Gen-er-a'tion ... The age or period of a body of contemporaries ... as determined by the normal span of life ..." (Davis, 1924, p.253);

THEN: Jesus will return "with power and great glory" by 1967 + 70 = 2037.

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 generation will certainly not pass away," strictly literally it would mean that the entire generation that was alive in 1967 could almost pass away before Jesus returned:

"Gen-er-a'tion ... The generation lasts as long as any of the members survive (Ex. i. 6; Num. xxxii. 13; Judg. ii. 10; Ecc. i. 4)" (Davis, 1924, p.253).

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 that generation then would not pass away before Jerusalem's temple (and therefore Jerusalem itself) was destroyed (Mt 24:2,34; Mk 13:1,30; Lk 21:6,32), I personally expect (not predict) that Jesus will return before 2037.

>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.

Thanks for respecting my view. See above on references that, "This generation will not pass away" is "applying to this generation" and the steps in my argument "that Jesus will come back before 2037".

>But I'm suggesting that you take it down from your site about what you believe about the second coming.

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.

>First of all, Hoekema and Hendrickson believed strongly in Covenant Theology, and that the Church is now the Israel of God, and were amillenialists.

I am an amillenialist also, but I fail to see what that has to do with it. That "the Church is now the Israel of God" (Gal 6:16; 3:28-29), 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 dated sign) of Jesus' second coming.

>They would never endorse the view that Jesus will come before 2037 or anything of that nature.

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).

>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 for your failed prediction.

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" (Php 1:23), so I don't think I would be concerned what people "in the creation/evolution/design debate" `down below' remembered me for!

And it is not a "prediction" of mine but rather an interpretation of Jesus' 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.

>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.

I am not saying that I know the "year." I said, "I therefore assume 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 = 31 years - nearly a third of a century!

And in the very passage, Lk 21:29-32, Jesus tells us we can, and should, "know" the season, i.e. when "summer" "is near" by seeing "these things happening":

29He told them this parable: "Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. 31Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

>And at the risk that this MIGHT HAVE BEEN what Jesus meant, you are risking disobeying Jesus.

Even if it turns out to be a wrong interpretation of Jesus' prediction in Lk 21:24-31, I don't see why that is "disobeying Jesus". If anything, I consider I would be at a greater risk of "disobeying Jesus" if I ignored what He said in that passage, that the "generation" that saw "Jerusalem" no longer "trampled on by the Gentiles" (in 1967), "will certainly not pass away until all these things" (including His "coming in a cloud with power and great glory") "have happened" , and that "When these things begin to take place" we Christians are to "stand up and lift up [our] heads, because [our] redemption is drawing near."

>The easiest way to avoid this would be to take the prediction off. I do believe making predictions like this is unbiblical.

It is not a "prediction" but an interpretation of Jesus' "prediction" (see above).

>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?

See above on "failed prediction". And there is a huge difference between the many strained predictions of the likes of Hal Lindsey and my comparatively modest interpretation of Lk 21:24-31.

>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.

Sorry, but I fail to see what my interpretation 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.

>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.

So even if it was "true", 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.

>It seems the risks and dangers far outweigh any benefits, although I'm not sure what any of the benefits might be.

Again, I fail to see what "risks and dangers" there are from my publishing my interpretation of Jesus' prediction in Lk 21:24b32, 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."

And since I regard my interpretation as true, 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 did predict that He will return "with power and great glory" (v27) after "Jerusalem" was no longer "trampled on by the Gentiles" (v24b), which happened in 1967, and "near" (three times for emphasis) in time to it:

"When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." (v28);

"When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near" (v30);

"Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near" (v31).

>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.

I do not think your email was "mean spirited," but I do think it impertinent, 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 "the gift of rebuking"!

I also think it was wrong, confusing my interpretation of a Bible prediction with the prediction itself.

>-AN

See quotes below (emphasis italics original, emphasis bold mine), hyperlinked from the above inline references.

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

"... genea, -as, e (< gignomai),. [in LXX chiefly for dowr, doe (Cremer, 148);] 1. race, stock, family (in NT, gennema, q.v.). 2. generation; (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) of all the people of a given period: Mt 24:34, Mk 13:30, Lk 21:32, Phl 2:15; 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); ton g. autou tis diegesetai, 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; eis geneas kai g.[...]. Is 34:17, al.), Lk 1:50; eis pasas tas g. tou aionos ton aionon, Eph 3:21 (Ellic., in J.; DCG, l, 639 f.). [...] (Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, "A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament," [1921], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Third edition, Reprinted, 1956, p.89. My transliteration).

"Again, we must give attention to the allegation that the Olivet discourse contains two or more different prophecies. The NIV Study Bible 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 NIV Study Bible suggests, `if the term [generation] is understood as a normal life span, it may refer either to the generation in which Jesus lived while on earth or to the generation living when these signs begin to occur.' ["NIV Study Bible," pp.1521, 1581]" (Bloesch, D.G., 2004, "The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, pp.80-81).

"I contend that 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). ... the events of the immediate period leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem portend a greater and more universal catastrophe when Christ returns in judgment at the end of time.' [Mounce, R. H., "Matthew," 1991, p.228]" (Bloesch, 2004, pp.80-81).

"Commenting on Luke's rendition of Jesus' eschatological discourse ... Joseph Fitzmyer contends that the `Lucan discourse looks back at the catastrophe in Jerusalem (A.D. 70) in a microcosmic view; 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 The New Jerusalem Bible 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 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).

"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. 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). 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? Is it a sign of the imminent return of Christ? Christians have been warned by Jesus himself to be cautious about trying to discover the time of his return, yet he also advised them to `watch.'" (Brown, H.O.J., 1984, "Epilogue: Signs of His Coming?" In "Heresies: 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).

"Gen-er-a'tion. 1. A begetting or producing, or the person or thing produced (Gen. ii. 4; v. 1) ; in Hebrew only plural Toledoth. 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 Dor 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 Dor." (Davis, J.D., 1924, "A Dictionary of the Bible," [1898], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth edition, Fifteenth printing, 1966, p.253).

"[Matthew] 24:1-25:46 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. ... By the process of prophetic foreshortening, 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, 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 the city's approaching catastrophe as a type 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, "The Gospel of Matthew: New Testament Commentary," Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, Reprinted, 1982, pp.846-848).

"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 Matthew 24:3-51, Mark 13:3-37, and Luke 21:5-36. 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' (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 this be? (literally, these things; Greek, tauta)-an obvious reference to the destruction of the temple Jesus had just predicted; and (2) what will be the sign of your coming (Greek, parousia) and of the close of the age?-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'. The destruction of Jerusalem which lies in the near future is a type of the end of the world; hence the intermingling. 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, "The Bible and the Future," Paternoster Press: Exeter UK, 1978, British Edition, 1979, pp.148-149).

"[Lk 21:]32. This generation (he genea haute). Naturally people then living. Shall not pass away (ou me parelthei). Second aorist active subjunctive of parerchomai. Strongest possible negative with ou me. Till all things be accomplished (heos an panta genetai). Second aorist middle subjunctive of ginomai with heos, 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: `The reference, therefore, is to the destruction of Jerusalem regarded as the type of the end of the world.'" (Robertson, A.T., 1930, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume II: The Gospel According to Luke," Broadman Press, Nashville TN, pp.261-262).

"Apocalyptic discourse ( [Lk ]21:5-38). The temple that elicited the admiration of his disciples was beautiful indeed. ... Jesus, however, predicts that the temple will be completely demolished (21:5-6). The Romans fulfilled this prophecy in A.D. 70. ... Jesus now warns his disciples against eschatological enthusiasm and braces them for future persecution (21:7-19). 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. .... Jesus specifically answers the question about the destruction of Jerusalem (21:20-24). 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 Jewish War 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 (21:25-28). 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, "Evangelical Commentary on the Bible," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second printing, 1990, pp.834-835).

"In St. Luke's account of the Olivet discourse there is a short but profound statement regarding the future of Jerusalem, which is taking on tremendous meaning: `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, is now, since 1967, for the first time in all these centuries, no longer under the rule of Gentile nations but in the absolute control of the Jews, in fact, in the control of the new nation, Israel! To me, this is one of the great prophetic factors of our generation. 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, "Prophecy in the Making: The Jerusalem Conference on Biblical Prophecy," Creation House: Carol Stream IL, pp.207-208).

"...genea; gen. geneas, fem. coll. noun from ginomai (1096), to become. Originally meaning generation, i.e., a multitude of contemporaries. In NT Gr. genea 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 the people of any generation or age, those living in any one period, a race or class, e.g., `this generation' means the present generation (Matt. 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:34; Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30; Luke 7:31; 9:41; 11:29-32, 50, 51; 17:25; 21:32; Acts 2:40; Phil. 2:15). ... The word genea 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 the generation present immediately preceding His return, who witness the events signaling His coming, will not pass away. Christ's return will not be thwarted." (Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Reprinted, 1994, pp.362-363).