Saturday, February 24, 2007

Signs of Jesus' coming? "There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars ..." (Lk 21:25-26) #1

This is the start of an ongoing series of posts on what I consider to be possible "signs of the times" (Mt 16:3), i.e. signs of Jesus' second coming.

[Above: ASTEROID science fiction movie advertisement, NASA]

As stated in my post, "What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Design" under the heading, "Jesus Christ's return", "I ... assume that Jesus will return ... before 2037":

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 work-in-progress, "The Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ."

At the risk of being consigned to "the lunatic fringe ... army of date-fixers" (although as an amillennialist I don't agree with "the premillennialists, the postmillennialists, Hal Lindsey and the British Israelites" and nor am I fixing a "date") by no doubt well-meaning, but in my opinion over-cautious, theologians:

"But Dr. Travis shows how the great unfinished aspect of Christ's return dominates the hope of the New Testament, and indicates general pointers to its fulfilment. It is at this point that the lunatic fringe normally enters the arena. The army of date-fixers, the premillennialists, the postmillennialists, Hal Lindsey and the British Israelites-Dr. Travis handles them all with courtesy but shows clearly and compellingly why and where he believes them to be in error." (Green, M., "Editor's Preface," in Travis, S.H., "I Believe in the Second Coming of Jesus," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1982, pp.7-8)

this first sign that I am interpreting a possible fulfillment (or part-fulfillment) of is Luke 21:25-26:

"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. Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken."

One of my commentaries on Luke interprets this passage as predicting that, "before the end of the age ... the whole of the human world will be plunged into dreadful commotions-in the sun, the moon and the stars there will appear miraculous and alarming signs, the whole life of the nations on earth will be disrupted through the anxiety and terror that will overwhelm the people and render them desperate":

"[Luke 21:25-33] After referring in verse 24 to the period when the times of the nations will be fulfilled, i.e. to the end of the present age ... there is in verse 25 an immediate transition to the predictions concerning the Last Things before and at Jesus' second advent. 25, 26 While before the fall of Jerusalem there were only a few miraculous signs (cf. verse 11 " in divers places "), before the end of the age all creation and the whole of the human world will be plunged into dreadful commotions-in the sun, the moon and the stars there will appear miraculous and alarming signs, the whole life of the nations on earth will be disrupted through the anxiety and terror that will overwhelm the people and render them desperate. 27 In the midst of these circumstances of utmost distress the Son of Man, the exalted Christ, will come in His divine power and majesty, and in such a manner that every eye will see Him." (Geldenhuys, J.N., "Commentary on the Gospel of Luke," [1950], Marshall Morgan & Scott: London, Reprinted, 1961, pp.537-538)

Another commentary cautions that this is "vivid apocalyptic imagery" and "It is not easy to see how literally the words are meant to be taken" but "the main part of the meaning here" is that "Men will be perplexed and fearful" and "will know that strange things are happening, but will not understand what is about to befall them":

"LUKE 21:25-33 ... 25,26. In vivid apocalyptic imagery Jesus speaks of heavenly portents. It is not easy to see how literally the words are meant to be taken. Such language is often used in apocalyptic to denote sudden and violent change and the emergence of a new order. In any case this will be the main part of the meaning here. Men will be perplexed and fearful. They will know that strange things are happening, but will not understand what is about to befall them." (Morris, L., "The Gospel According to Luke: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, [1974], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Reprinted, 1986, p.300. Emphasis original)

I have since late 2004 (see posts on my now terminated Yahoo group 25-Dec-04; 31-Dec-04 & 22-Apr-05 and this blog 08-Sep-05) regarded as a possible fulfillment or part-fulfillment of this particular sign of Jesus' coming, this asteroid Apophis (previously named 2004 MN4), which is "250-metre[s]-wide" and weighs "20-million-tonne[s]":

Asteroid threat demands response, experts warn, New Scientist, 17 February 2007 ... Kamchatkans and Venezuelans beware. A 20-million-tonne asteroid could be heading your way. Californians have even more reason to worry - the asteroid is more likely to hit the Pacific Ocean, triggering a tsunami that could devastate the west coast of North America. These are among the scenarios projected for asteroid Apophis, which researchers now say has a 1 in 45,000 chance of hitting Earth on 13 April 2036. Calculations show it would strike somewhere along a narrow track that stretches eastward from Siberia to the west coast of Africa. Compared to earlier estimates, the new figure represents a further reduction in the threat posed by Apophis ... But the threat is real enough, experts argue, to merit a United Nations protocol for dealing with the problem. "Someone will have to make a decision," says Russell Schweickart, a former Apollo astronaut and founder of the Association of Space Explorers. Because any plan for deflecting the asteroid away from Earth will need to be implemented well before an impact site is precisely known, he says, "this is inherently going to be an international decision". ... Beginning in the next few months, Schweickart's group will host a series of meetings to provide the UN with a 'decision process' for assessing and acting on the hazard posed by Apophis and other near-Earth asteroids (NEAs). A draft document ready for consideration by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space is expected by 2009. During the past 10 years, a concerted search effort by astronomers has led to the detection of an estimated 90% of the asteroids that could threaten Earth with devastation on a global scale. In the coming decade, a next-generation search is likely to uncover most of the remaining global hazards, as well as many more smaller asteroids, like the 250-metre-wide Apophis, that could threaten millions of lives and cause significant damage on a regional scale. Currently, NASA's Near Earth Object programme lists 127 objects as potential impact risks. By 2020, Schweickart predicts, the list could number in the thousands. Because of the uncertainties involved in calculating asteroid trajectories, many will initially appear to have a small but real chance of hitting Earth in the next few decades. Too late In most cases, those threats will vanish with additional observations that will narrow the range of possible trajectories. However, in some cases the threat of an impact could persist long enough to require action. "If you wait to be certain, it could be too late," says Schweickart. Schweickart and others discussed options for dealing with Apophis and other asteroid risks at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco, California, US. "Apophis forces us to think about what we might do if [an impact threat] reaches our threshold of pain," say Ed Lu of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, US. Lu, who led the discussion on asteroid deflection, warned that "simple methods are not so simple" when it comes to moving the mountain-sized chunks of rock that hurtle through our local region of the solar system. Among the least desirable options is the use of a nuclear warhead to blow up an approaching asteroid. "You could make life a lot worse," says Lu, by turning one potential impactor into many. 'Reshaping the solar system' Lu's favoured option is called a gravitational tractor. It involves placing a relatively massive spacecraft near enough to an approaching asteroid to shift its trajectory using only the minuscule force of gravity between the two objects. Although the method requires significant lead time and will not work in all cases, it has the advantage of controlling a hazardous object "in one piece", say Lu. According to Lu, Apophis is particularly amenable to this form of manoeuvring. Prior to its threatening approach in 2036, the asteroid will sweep past Earth in the spring of 2029. ...

and "will pass within 10,000 miles of Earth around 2029 and even closer in 2036":

Can Earth Dodge Asteroid Heading This Way? This One is Uncomfortably Close, Scientists Warn, and Some Wonder if It Needs to Be Deflected, ABC News, Greg Croft, Feb. 19, 2007 ... Circle your calendar. April 13th, 2036 could be a really, really bad day on planet Earth. A group of astronauts and engineers warns that an asteroid may pass uncomfortably close to Earth that day. The chances it will actually hit are just one in 45,000, but even at those odds, the scientists warn, the United Nations should consider a response. ... The scientists met this past weekend in San Francisco to discuss the potential threats asteroids pose to the Earth and what can be done to prevent a possible collision. Most feared is Apophis, a large asteroid that will pass within 10,000 miles of Earth around 2029 and even closer in 2036. Dr. Dan Barry, a retired astronaut, told ABC News, "Even if the probability is low of an asteroid hitting Earth, if it has the potential to have a significant impact, then it has to be looked at. It is the absolutely responsible thing to do. In fact, it would be irresponsible not to do so." Barry said more research is needed so that when a potentially dangerous asteroid is found, there is a plan in place. He said it is therefore important to start the search for asteroids now, to allow enough time to effectively deal with them. Scientists believe that if advance warnings of dangerous asteroids like Apophis can be made decades in advance, there will be enough time to try and knock them off course. Suddenly, Bruce Willis on a mission to stop a devastating asteroid from destroying Earth, as he did in the movie "Armageddon," does not seem as far-fetched. What Are The Solutions? Nobody knows for sure what it would take to push a massive asteroid off its course, but the theoretical possibilities include detonating weapons on an asteroid's surface or using gravitational pull to alter a possible collision course. But it could also break an asteroid into many pieces, all still headed toward Earth. Some scientists say a better option could be to launch a large satellite to rendezvous with an asteroid. The mass of the satellite alone could produce enough gravitational pull to change the asteroid's course. Another suggestion is to crash a spacecraft into an asteroid in the hopes of changing its direction. "Done far enough away, only a small deflection would be needed and it is kept in one piece," said Barry. In 1996, NEAR became the first spacecraft launched by NASA to orbit and land on an asteroid. The purpose of the mission was to determine the asteroid's mass, structure, gravity and magnetic field. Scientists hoped this important information would help them understand asteroids. So, while astronauts blowing up an asteroid may be movie fiction for now, scientists are already thinking about how to save Earth from a massive asteroid possibly on its way. ...

As an astronomer explains on a video: Collision course? (Video runs 5:08) in an article, Researchers seek UN action on asteroid threat, CBC, February 19, 2007, Apophis is actually "a couple of kilometers across" and it is going to pass so close to the Earth in 2029 that its orbit may be altered unpredictably such that it will collide with the Earth in 2036, as these older articles explain:

Astronomers Gear Up for Historic Asteroid Pass in 2029, SPACE.com, Ker Than, 22 August 2005 ... A large part of the uncertainty surrounding Apophis' movements is due something called the Yarkovsky Effect. When rotating bodies like asteroids pass through our solar system, they absorb solar radiation from the Sun that they then re-radiate. The miniscule but persistent pressure from this re-radiation can cause a rock to speed up or slow down and change its flight path. ... Astronomers know that in 2029, Apophis' path will be bent significantly by Earth's gravity. They don't know the exact outcome. In May, former Apollo astronaut Rusty Schweickart sent a letter to NASA administrator Mike Griffin urging the agency to investigate whether in 2029 Apophis might enter certain gravitational "keyholes" near Earth that would alter the asteroid's flight path in a manner that could put it on a more certain collision course with our planet in 2036. ...

Asteroid Apophis: Dealing with Earth's Future Troublemaker, SPACE.com, David Senior, 3 November 2005 ... Asteroid 99942 Apophis - first labeled as 2004 MN4 -- is estimated to be roughly 1,000 feet (320 meters) in diameter. Were it to strike Earth, it would not set off global havoc but would generate significant local or regional damage, experts say. Worrisome to asteroid watchers is the exceptionally close flyby of Earth by Apophis on April 13, 2029. So close in fact, the space rock will be naked-eye visible as it darts by. And what can't be ruled out at this time is that Apophis may pass through a gravitational 'keyhole' - a spot that alters the asteroid's trajectory as it zips by our planet and might put it on the bee-line lane for banging into Earth seven years later.

and "ground-based observatories" may not "be able to provide enough accurate information in time to mount a mission to divert the asteroid, if that becomes necessary":

An asteroid, headed our way, Christian Science Monitor, July 26, 2005, Peter N. Spotts ... Humans live in a vast solar system where 2,000 feet seems a razor-thin distance. Yet it's just wide enough to trigger concerns that an asteroid due to buzz Earth on April 13, 2029 may shift its orbit enough to return and strike the planet seven years later. The concern: Within the object's range of possible fly-by distances lie a handful of gravitational "sweet spots," areas some 2,000 feet across that are also known as keyholes. The physics may sound complex, but the potential ramifications are plain enough. If the asteroid passes through the most probable keyhole, its new orbit would send it slamming into Earth in 2036. It's unclear to some experts whether ground-based observatories alone will be able to provide enough accurate information in time to mount a mission to divert the asteroid, if that becomes necessary. ...

As the above first two articles (and these others: ABC/Discovery News, Boston Globe, CNN, National Geographic, SPACE.com & The Economist) indicate, there are ways of deflecting this asteroid if: 1) a consortium of nations can agree to pay the ~US$300M cost; 2) they do it in time; and 3) it works; then Apopophis may not hit the Earth. Indeed, even if nothing is done it may still miss the Earth. But even then, it will still be part of an increased level of "On the earth... anguish and perplexity" with "Men ... faint[ing] from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world."

Especially as Apophis will return "back to the near vicinity of Earth every seven years, beginning in 2036, posing a serious threat each time":

How to Save the Planet , TIME, Aug. 13, 2005, Leon Jaroff... No wonder then that MN4 has been named Apophis, the Greek name for the Egyptian god of evil, destruction and darkness. But days after the initial discovery of the asteroid's trajectory, when astronomers found earlier, overlooked photos of the intruder in their archives and used them to refine estimates of its orbit, they were able to issue an all-clear. Apophis, it turns out, will come within as little as 15,000 miles from of Earth and will be visible to the naked eye in Europe and Africa on the evening of that April date, but will zoom safely past. Good news indeed. But there are still some reasons for concern. As it passes so close the asteroid, tugged by Earth's gravity, will change its orbital path. That could be very bad news. If the altered orbit results in Apophis passing through any of several "keyholes," specific regions of space only about 2,000 feet across, the asteroid would then return periodically to dangerously close encounters with Earth. Passage through the keyhole that astronomers think most likely to be the asteroid's target in 2029, for example, would bring it back to the near vicinity of Earth every seven years, beginning in 2036, posing a serious threat each time. ...

an you imagine what that would be like, if right now (let alone in ~30 years time (when the world is likely to be even more characterised by "anguish and perplexity" with "Men ... faint[ing] from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world") if Apophis was threatening Earth unpredictablly "every seven years ... posing a serious threat each time"?

And of course Apophis was only discovred three years ago and there could be an asteroid among the "about 100,000 such objects hidden among the haze of stars" that is heading for Earth and too big to deflect:

Asteroid 'Busters' Widen Search for Earth-Threatening Objects, SPACE.com, William J. Kole, 17 August 2006 ... PRAGUE, Czech Republic (AP) -- Astronomers are stepping up the global effort to scan the skies for "near-Earth objects'': asteroids and comets on a potential collision course with the planet and big enough to pack a deadly punch. The International Astronomical Union said Thursday it has set up a special task force to broaden and sharpen its focus on impact threats. Experts say there are an estimated 1,100 known objects that are 1 kilometer (about a half-mile) or wider across--large enough to not only take out a sizable European country but threaten the entire world. "The goal is to discover these killer asteroids before they discover us," said Nick Kaiser of the University of Hawaii's Institute for Astronomy, whose Pan-STARRS program will train four powerful digital cameras on the heavens to watch for would-be intruders. NASA's Spaceguard Survey, which already has identified 800 of the larger objects and has 103 on an impact risk watchlist, wants to find 90 percent by the end of 2008. The U.S. Congress has asked the space agency for a plan to comb the cosmos for faint objects as small as 140 meters (153 yards) across and log their position, speed and course by 2020. Astronomers will have their work cut out for them: Experts say there are about 100,000 such objects hidden among the haze of stars, and as many as 1 million half that size. One known as the Tunguska object slammed into remote central Siberia in 1908, unleashing energy equivalent to a 15-megaton nuclear bomb that wiped out 60 million trees over a 2,150-square-kilometer (830-square-mile) area. Had it hit a populated area, the loss of life would have been staggering. ... But widening the search for threatening objects creates a problem: Discoveries of potential threats could become commonplace, either creating unnecessary panic and confusion or lulling the public into a false sense of complacency. "We're now going to be finding such objects once a week instead of once a year," said David Morrison, a NASA scientist who will chair the new IAU task force on impact threats. .... Ultimately, Valsecchi conceded, mankind may not be able to dodge every cosmic bullet. Earth's craters bear silent witness to what can happen. "It's through collisions that planets are born," he said, "and through collisions that planets die."

since "We are overdue for a big one":

It's called Apophis. It's 390m wide. And it could hit Earth in 31 years time, The Guardian, Alok Jha, December 7, 2005 ...Nasa has estimated that an impact from Apophis, which has an outside chance of hitting the Earth in 2036, would release more than 100,000 times the energy released in the nuclear blast over Hiroshima. Thousands of square kilometres would be directly affected by the blast but the whole of the Earth would see the effects of the dust released into the atmosphere. And, scientists insist, there is actually very little time left to decide. At a recent meeting of experts in near-Earth objects (NEOs) in London, scientists said it could take decades to design, test and build the required technology to deflect the asteroid. Monica Grady, an expert in meteorites at the Open University, said: "It's a question of when, not if, a near Earth object collides with Earth. Many of the smaller objects break up when they reach the Earth's atmosphere and have no impact. However, a NEO larger than 1km [wide] will collide with Earth every few hundred thousand years and a NEO larger than 6km, which could cause mass extinction, will collide with Earth every hundred million years. We are overdue for a big one."

What is striking (pun not intended!) to me about Apophis is that it will be threatening Earth about the time (2029-2036 AD) that the "generation" which was born in 1967 (when "Jerusalem" for the first time in ~1,900 years was no longer "trampled on by the Gentiles" - Lk 21:24b), will be in their seventies or older, and so will be about to "pass away"(Mt 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk 21:32).

And I agree with evangelical theologian Harold O.J. Brown (see `tagline' below) that, in the context of "a sign of the imminent return of Christ", "Jerusalem is more important in the timetable of history than calendar dates"!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).


"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.' It is in the light of this admonition that we must consider the apparent collapse of Chalcedonian theology. Is this also a sign? Can it be the beginning of the `falling away' foretold by Paul? ... The geographical city of Jerusalem had already endured many shocks before the Six-Day War transferred it into Jewish hands once again in 1967. ... When the calendar stood at one thousand years since the birth of Christ, hundreds of thousands of Christians took it for a sign of the end, but it was not. Neither were the calendar dates 1200 and 1260. But Jerusalem is more important in the timetable of history than calendar dates. And so is Chalcedon." (Brown, H.O.J., "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, 1984, pp.448-450)

Saturday, February 17, 2007

`the strange skeletal support of the lobe-finned fishes looks as if it had been evolved ... to support a crawling vertebrate' (Broom)

Continuing with this part #2 (see previous part #1) of my series on a book, "The Coming of Man: Was It Accident or Design?" (1933) by South African medical doctor, paleontologist and paleoanthropologist Robert Broom (1866-1951).

[Above: Comparison of the skeletons of a crossopterygian lobe-finned fish and an early amphibian, M.J. Farabee, Estrella Mountain Community College, Arizona]

Here again is my last quote of Broom in part #1, that "the evolution of man up from the fishes ... looks like a succession of very fortunate accidents" such that "it can hardly be wondered at if doubts arise as to their being accidents at all" (my emphasis):

"WE have traced the evolution of man up from the fishes, and have seen that it has been a very slow, steady progress, with never any going back and with rarely any specialisation till we come to the last stage, when man gets his large brain. The history has been a most remarkable one. It looks like a succession of very fortunate accidents; but as the apparent accidents have always given rise to higher and higher types of organisation, it can hardly be wondered at if doubts arise as to their being accidents at all." (Broom, R., "The Coming of Man: Was it Accident or Design?," H.F. & G. Witherby: London, 1933, p.212).

Broom then continued with the first stage of that "evolution" (so-called) "of man up from the fishes," that of the lobe-finned fishes (class Sarcopterygii or Crossopterygii), which from a basic Osteichthyes (bony fish) body plan, "At a very early stage fishes developed anterior and posterior lateral fins", i.e. not one but two pairs of fins, which contained the beginnings of the arm and leg bones,

[Above: The tetrapod limb, Understanding Evolution, Berkeley University]

that " later on four limbs would be required to support a land vertebrate":

"At a very early stage fishes developed anterior and posterior lateral fins. We can see how they probably arose, but there does not seem to have been any very great necessity at all for a pair of lateral fins. The most pelagic of all marine vertebrates, the whales, once had four limbs but have now only the anterior pair of flippers. Even many fishes have lost their pelvic fins, and many others have the pelvic fins shifted forward into the pectoral region. Perhaps four lateral fins were evolved, because later on four limbs would be required to support a land vertebrate. Then the strange skeletal support of the lobe-finned fishes looks as if it had been evolved, not specially to benefit the fishes, but because it would presently be required to support a crawling vertebrate." (Broom, Ibid, pp.212-213).

As Broom noted above, "the strange skeletal support of the lobe-finned fishes looks as if it had been evolved not specially to benefit the fishes, but because it would presently be required to support a crawling vertebrate" (my emphasis)!

In which case this "modification in a species ... for the good of another species" would "annihilate" Darwin's theory, were it not for his dishonest "exclusively," which he would have known turned his proposed test of his theory into a non-test because how could any critic prove that a "modification" was "exclusively for the good of another species"? (my emphasis):

"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., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," Sixth Edition, 1872, Senate: London, Facsimile Edition, 1994, p.162)

Because as Broom pointed out, "The lobe-fin is about the poorest fin that has ever been evolved ... But had it not been for the skeleton of the lobe-fin it would in all probability have been impossible for a crawling or walking limb ever to have been developed" (my emphasis):

"The lobe-fin is about the poorest fin that has ever been evolved. It was too poor for marine fishes, and seems to have been only evolved in some fresh-water types. But had it not been for the skeleton of the lobe-fin it would in all probability have been impossible for a crawling or walking limb ever to have been developed. A few of the higher fishes have taken to crawling at times, such as the gurnards, and the climbing perches, and the Indian siluroid fish Clarias, which, when the rivers dry up, crawls for long distances over the dried mud in search of water-holes, but none of these fishes has ever succeeded in evolving limbs. And the crawling limb was evolved in a type of fish that had a better brain, a higher evolved heart than the other fishes, and most probably it had lungs. The coincidences seem far too remarkable to have been due to accident." (Broom, Ibid, p.213).

And, as Broom further points out, "the crawling limb was evolved in a type of fish that had a better brain, a higher evolved heart than the other fishes, and most probably it had lungs. The coincidences seem far too remarkable to have been due to accident" (my emphasis).

So if by "evolution" is meant "the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process'" (my emphasis):

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

and if there were "miraculous additions at any one stage of descent" then it "was not evolution at all":

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

but rather "divine creation", i.e. "God ... influencing key moments in evolutionary history (especially, of course, human evolutionary history)" (my emphasis):

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

then who says God does not have a sense of humour?!

In fact the Bible says that God "laughs" at the combined efforts of the "rulers" of this world, to rebel against Him and "against his Anointed One" [Heb. "Messiah" (or "Christ" in the ancient Greek Old Testament)!] (my emphasis):

Psalm 2:1-12. 1Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? 2The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One. 3"Let us break their chains," they say, "and throw off their fetters." 4The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. 5Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, 6"I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill." 7I will proclaim the decree of the LORD : He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father. 8Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. 9You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery." 10Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. 11Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling. 12Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

The laugh is on the evolutionists because what they are studying and calling "evolution," is in fact (and always has been), "not evolution at all" but rather "divine creation"!!

To be continued in part #3.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).


Exodus 7:7-13. 7Moses was eighty years old and Aaron eighty-three when they spoke to Pharaoh. Aaron's Staff Becomes a Snake 8The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 9"When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a miracle,' then say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,' and it will become a snake." 10So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. 11Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: 12Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs. 13Yet Pharaoh's heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the LORD had said.

Friday, February 16, 2007

`The claims of chemical evolution are unreal ... that ... codes, transcription and translation ... and more, appeared in probiotic waters' (Keosian)

Continuing with this part #4, Chemical Evolution (see previous parts #1, #2 & #3),

[Left: Classical theory for chemical evolution on Earth, NASA]

of a series commenting on a paper, "The Crisis in the Problem of the Origin of Life" (1978) by Rutgers University biology professor and origin of life theorist John Keosian (1906-).

Keosian began his critique of Chemical Evolution, first fully set forth by the Russian Alexander Oparin (1894-1980) in his 1938 book, "The Origin of Life" (although the actual term "Chemical Evolution" apparently first appeared in a paper by the late Berkeley Nobel Laureate Melvin Calvin, "Chemical evolution and the origins of life," American Scientist, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp.248-263).

Chemical Evolution was a "materialistic hypothesis consisting of three (not "two") main propositions": 1) the "abiotic synthesis of organic compounds from a primordial atmosphere of gases"; 2) the organic compounds self-assembly into lipid globules called "coacervates"; and 3) and "their subsequent evolution to the level of living things":

"Chemical Evolution OPARIN in 1924 and more fully in 1938, proposed a testable, materialistic hypothesis consisting of two main propositions. The first proposition detailed the manner of abiotic synthesis of organic compounds from a primordial atmosphere of gases, and the second discussed at length the origin of microsystems (coacervates) and their subsequent evolution to the level of living things. HARRISON [sic. Garrison] and co-workers (1951) in 1951 in Calvin's laboratory, and MILLER in 1953 and 1955 in Urey's laboratory, experimentally established the validity of Oparin's first proposition. The MILLER experiments, which more closely followed (1959) Oparin's thinking, were more successful and are credited with having attracted world-wide attention once more to the problem. Thus began the accumulation of data on abiotic organic chemical synthesis which has been characterized by the term `Chemical Evolution' (CALVIN, 1956)." (Keosian, "Origin of Life: Proceedings of the Second ISSOL Meeting, the Fifth ICOL Meeting," Center for Academic Publications: Japan, 1978, pp.569-574, p.570. Emphasis original).

Keosian pointed out that "Chemical evolution is ... misnamed" because the "organic compounds" did not "evolve... from one another" but "were the result ... of separate lines of synthesis" and so it was the result of "chemical accumulation" (my emphasis). Moreover, "the term `chemical evolution' is misleading because" of its "assumption that, in time, complex ... biochemicals arose in the primordial atmosphere and waters culminating in the ... sudden origin of life therefrom" (my emphasis):

"Chemical evolution is a misnamed and misleading offspring of the central problem. The appearance of organic compounds in probiotic times was not an evolutionary process in the sense that chemical species evolved from one another. Rather, the organic compounds that did form were the result mainly of separate lines of synthesis. Organic chemical accumulation, not evolution, was the result. Further, the term `chemical evolution' is misleading because it channels thinking into the assumption that, in time, complex compounds and biochemicals arose in the primordial atmosphere and waters culminating in the more or less sudden origin of life therefrom." (Keosian, 1978, p.571. Emphasis original).

Chemical evolution therefore relies "on the preexistence of a great abundance and variety of organic and biochemical compounds" accumulating in "primordial waters" that "resembled a `soup' containing all of the biochemicals necessary for the spontaneous origin and subsequent nourishment of the first living thing(s)" (my emphasis):

"As a result, most present theories on the origin of life rely on the preexistence of a great abundance and variety of organic and biochemical compounds. MILLER'S 1955 report listed a number of relatively simple organic compounds, some of which are identical to present-day cell components, some related to or derivatives of these, and some unrelated to contemporary biochemistry. In the next few years, reports by other investigators confirmed these findings in general. Later work in this field seems to be based on the tacit assumption that the primordial waters resembled a `soup' containing all of the biochemicals necessary for the spontaneous origin and subsequent nourishment of the first living thing(s). The quest is still on to confirm this view. The list of biochemicals claimed to have been synthesized under probiotic conditions is impressively long." (Keosian, 1978, p.571. Emphasis original)

But although "The list of biochemicals claimed to have been synthesized under probiotic conditions is impressively long" (ignoring that: 1) not all have been synthesised; 2. most of them were in minuscule quantities; and 3. they were impure; 4. half the right amino acids and sugars were the wrong handedness; and 5) there were also a lot of other chemicals synthesised that would interfere with any reactions between the prebiotic biochemicals), "No single experiment yields the whole gamut of listed compounds" which "in probiotic times" therefore "would have required different probiotic conditions scattered over wide areas and over different periods"(my emphasis):

"No single experiment yields the whole gamut of listed compounds, pathways, and mechanisms. In different cases, different techniques have had to be used. Experimental design has varied from familiar laboratory glassware to intricate apparatus of special design, necessitating the manipulation of reactions that require specific durations and sequences not conceivable in a probiotic environment. Many experiments, targeted to the synthesis of a specific compound, produce nothing else. Such selectivity in the probiotic environment was unlikely. Experiments have been performed under a wide variety of conditions, some admittedly not probiotic, and some that are mutually exclusive. Translated into abiotic synthesis in probiotic times, it must therefore be assumed that the spectrum of compounds from laboratory syntheses could not have existed in any one probiotic locality, since abiotic synthesis of different compounds would have required different probiotic conditions scattered over wide areas and over different periods." (Keosian, 1978, p.571).

I remember when this first occurred to me that each different experiment producing a different building block of life, meant that they would not occur together in either time or space. I then realised that this alone kills off the entire chemical evolution paradigm. And yet this was the preferred materialistic paradigm, because then only time and chance would spontaneously produce life, with no implausibly special conditions (which could then require an Intelligent Designer) required.

Indeed, as Keosian pointed out, "none of the experiments can be so characterized" as having "been performed under simulated probiotic conditions" because of "reactions taking place within a confined space" in a laboratory which otherwise would not "remain to enter other reactions" (my emphasis):

"Most of the experiments on chemical evolution are claimed to have been performed under simulated probiotic conditions. Strictly speaking, none of the experiments can be so characterized. For obvious reasons, experiments are performed within the confined space of laboratory apparatus. But the results of reactions taking place within a confined space may differ from the results of the same reactions occurring in a relatively limitless space. Volatile products cannot escape but remain to enter other reactions. A product of low solubility can accumulate beyond its solubility product and form a precipitate which may differentially influence the course of other reactions. In vast oceans, this may never take place. Judging from the great amount of colloid formed in proportion to other products, in Miller-type and similar apparatus, the primordial oceans must have been thick with colloid. More likely, a disproportionate amount of colloid is formed experimentally due to the confined space. In such experiments the influence of colloid on the nature and direction of other reactions needs investigation. Further, potential reactants among the first generation of products can reach a reaction level early, whereas, in a vast space this may never occur. These are some of the factors to be considered when reactions are confined to experiments performed under alleged probiotic conditions. PATTEE (1965) suggested a more valid setting measured in hundreds of cubic meters and containing sand, simulated tides, and alternating day and night." (Keosian, 1978, pp.571-572. Emphasis original).

Therefore, Keosian blows the insider's whistle that "The claims of chemical evolution are unreal" because "biochemical compounds ... metabolism and storage ... codes, transcription and translation apparatus, and more" all "appeared ... with the functions they would have in a living thing before there were living things" (my emphasis). "Chemical evolution" involves "contrived or ingenious laboratory syntheses which have no counterpart in abiotic organic chemical synthesis in an acceptable range of probiotic conditions" (my emphasis):

"The claims of chemical evolution are unreal. We are asked to believe that biochemical compounds, biochemical reactions and mechanisms, energy metabolism and storage, specific polymerizations, codes, transcription and translation apparatus, and more, appeared in probiotic waters with the functions they would have in a living thing before there were living things. Chemical evolution has become an end in itself. In many cases it represents contrived or ingenious laboratory syntheses which have no counterpart in abiotic organic chemical synthesis in an acceptable range of probiotic conditions. There is no point in further pursuing this line of investigation to add more biochemicals to the list. Let it be assumed that the probiotic waters contained all of the material that `chemical evolution' is supposed to have brought about. Then how, and in what form, could life have arisen from such a scattered mélange? That question must be answered, if there is an answer, to give meaning and direction to the pursuit of chemical evolution, otherwise that pursuit will continue to be an endless series of laboratory experiments unrelated to the central problem. There has been a good deal of uncritical acceptance of experiments, results, and conclusion which we are all too ready to acknowledge because they support preconceived convictions." (Keosian, 1978, p.572).

Keosian above exposed the utter bankruptcy of the entire chemical evolution paradigm by a simple thought experiment. Even assuming that "the probiotic waters contained all of the material that `chemical evolution' is supposed to have brought about" (which it does not, even by the application of highly intelligent design in "contrived or ingenious laboratory syntheses"), "Then how, and in what form, could life have arisen from such a scattered mélange?" (my emphasis).

This point was made by the late Princeton Biology Professor Harold F. Blum that that is like saying that bringing together all the simple components of "an automobile" would cause it to "spring spontaneously from" them:

"The living machine is clearly not just a mixture of chemicals, yet there seems to be widespread belief that, once the proper molecular compounds were there, life would appear, whether on the earth, on Mars, or elsewhere in the universe. This no more follows, I may point out at the risk of being thought overly facetious, than that an automobile, 1962 model, might spring spontaneously from a mixture of all the chemical species from which it is composed." (Blum, H.F., "Time's Arrow and Evolution," [1951], Harper Torchbooks: New York NY, 1962, p.178G).

Moreover, it is far, far worse a problem than that, since, as Blum observed, the first living organism was not a comparatively simple machine like an automobile, but "a kind that is unique in our experience ... one that can replicate itself " and "this poses problems that are indeed difficult to formulate in our imagination":!

"When we examine a modern living machine [it] is of a kind that is unique in our experience, for it is one that can replicate itself ... we are trying to understand how a self-replicating machine came into existence; this poses problems that are indeed difficult to formulate in our imagination, and should not be passed over too lightly." (Blum, 1962, pp.178G-178H)

It is no wonder that Keosian's name seems to have been expunged from the record origin of life studies. A field that "has become an end in itself" does not take kindly to having the whistle blown on it by one of its own! To be continued in part #5.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).


Exodus 7:1-6. 1Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. 2You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country. 3But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, 4he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites. 5And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it." 6Moses and Aaron did just as the LORD commanded them.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

The Blasphemy Challenge and the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit

Although The Blasphemy Challenge is now over a month old,

[Left: "ABC's Nightline Devotes Nine Minutes to Blasphemy Promoting Atheists," NewsBusters, Scott Whitlock]

and has been mentioned on other blogs (e.g. Post-Darwinist, Uncommon Descent & Doubting Darwin) I have belatedly decided to comment on it, one reason being that I myself was a bit fuzzy on what exactly is meant by "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit":

Matthew 12:31-32. "31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

Mark 3:28-29. "28I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

Luke 12:10 "And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

although after checking my books it turned out to be pretty much what I thought it was (see below).

First, note the graciousness of God in the verses above, that "every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men" (my emphasis) except one.

There are a number of articles on The Blasphemy Challenge (e.g. ABC News, Christian Science Monitor & Breakpoint), but I will use this short MSNBC article, which was originally in Newsweek, as my foil. My comments are in bold.

Beliefwatch: Blasphemy, Newsweek, January 8, 2006, Jerry Adler ... 'Hi my name is Lindy and I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit and you should too.' With that five-second submission to YouTube, a 24-year-old who uses the name "menotsimple" has either condemned herself to an eternity of punishment in the afterlife or struck a courageous blow against superstition. She's one of more than 400 mostly young people who have joined a campaign by the Web site BlasphemyChallenge.com to stake their souls against the existence of God. That, of course, is the ultimate no-win wager, as the 17th-century French mathematician Blaise Pascal calculated-it can't be settled until you're dead, and if you lose, you go to hell.

Fortunately for this "Lindy" (and all others who share her misunderstanding), it is not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to "deny the existence of the Holy Spirit." If that were the case then no one could ever become a Christian, because all non-Christians, by definition, would deny the existence of the Holy Spirit (in the Christian sense).

As the following quotes from my dictionaries of theology and commentaries indicate, "The blasphemy against the Spirit ... is no specific sin ... but that disposition of deliberate hostility to ... God ... which precludes a person's contrition and repentance" (my emphasis):

"`The blasphemy against the Spirit' referred to in the above texts [Mt. 12:24-32; Mk. 3:22-30; Lk. 12:10] is no specific sin, such as denial of the Spirit's divinity, but that disposition of deliberate hostility to the power of God actualized through the third person of the Trinity which precludes a person's contrition and repentance (cf. 1 Jn. 5:16)." (Demarest, B., "Blasphemy," in Ferguson, S.B., et al., eds., "New Dictionary of Theology," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, 1988, p.105.. Emphasis original).

It is not, "insulting or rejecting Jesus or God due to ignorance or rebellion" but rather, "it is the willful and conscious rejection of God's activity and its attribution to the devil" (my emphasis):

"Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit. A sin mentioned only in Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10; Matt. 12:32. The context in Mark makes it clear that this sin is not just any serious moral failure, or persistence in sin, or insulting or rejecting Jesus or God due to ignorance or rebellion: it is the willful and conscious rejection of God's activity and its attribution to the devil. The Pharisees saw a notable miracle and heard Jesus' own teaching, but they chose darkness (John 3:19) and called good evil (Isa. 5:20) by attributing the miracle to the devil. It is the enlightened, willful, high-handed nature of such a sin that makes it unforgivable (not forgiven at death, as the Jews thought, but punished through eternity). First John 5:16 speaks of a sin unto death and Heb. 6:4-6 speaks of those no agreement can bring to repentance: that is this type of sin. The person is not ignorant, but chooses to reject God, to call God the devil. There is nothing more that can be said to such a person, nor any miracle or evidence that would help him. By definition, then, no one who worries over committing this sin could have done it, for it rules out a troubled conscience. Instead it stands as a severe warning to those who know God's truth not to turn from it or to abandon their faith. " (Davids, P.H., "Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit," in Elwell, W.A., ed., "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology," [1984], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1990, Seventh Printing, pp.161-162. Emphasis original).

It is "the sin of the wilfully blind, who persistently refuse the illumination of the Spirit ... For such, there can be no forgiveness, for they have refused the only way of forgiveness that God has provided" (my emphasis):

"MARK 3:27-30 ... 28-30. This leads to one of the most solemn pronouncements and warnings in the whole of the New Testament, coupled, as often, with one of the greatest promises. There is forgiveness with God for every sin and blasphemy except one, which may be the deadly sin of which John speaks so cautiously in 1 John 5:16. This is the sin of the wilfully blind, who persistently refuse the illumination of the Spirit, oppose the Spirit's work, and justify themselves in doing so by deliberately misrepresenting Him. For such, there can be no forgiveness, for they have refused the only way of forgiveness that God has provided: indeed, they have slammed the door (verse 30)." (Cole, R.A., "The Gospel According to Mark: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, [1961], Inter-Varsity Press Leicester UK, 1989, Second Edition, pp.222-223. Emphasis original).

It is "not of the uttering of any form of words, but of the set of the life," for example, when "Jesus' opponents attributed His works of mercy to the devil" then "They called good evil" and "Men in such a situation cannot repent and seek forgiveness" (my emphasis):

"LUKE 12:8-10 ... 10. This leads to the solemn thought that there is a sin so serious that it cannot be forgiven. Jesus introduces this with the statement that a word spoken against Himself can be forgiven. This does not mean that such a word is a trifle. The preceding verse has shown something of the dignity of the Son of man: He is not to be taken lightly. Yet even sin against this august personage may be forgiven. Men may blaspheme but then repent; the blasphemy is not their final word. But he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit is in a much worse case. We must understand this, not of the uttering of any form of words, but of the set of the life. This blasphemy is so serious because it concerns the whole man, not a few words spoken on any one occasion. Matthew and Mark put these words in connection with the Beelzebul controversy and this helps us to get the meaning. Then Jesus' opponents attributed His works of mercy to the devil. They called good evil. Men in such a situation cannot repent and seek forgiveness: they lack a sense of sin; they reject God's competence to declare what is right. It is this continuing attitude that is the ultimate sin. God's power to forgive is not abated. But this kind of sinner no longer has the capacity to repent and believe." (Morris, L., "The Gospel According to Luke: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, [1974], Inter-Varsity Press Leicester UK, Reprinted, 1986, pp.210-211. Emphasis original).

It "indicates a deliberate refusal to acknowledge God's power, a totally perverted orientation, like ... `those who call evil good and good evil'"; it is not "failure to recognize the light" but "deliberate rejection of it once recognized" and "indicates a hardening against God which is deliberate and irreversible" (my emphasis):

"MATTHEW 12:30-32 ... 31-32. Matthew has here brought together two related and puzzling sayings found in Mark 3:28-29 and in Luke 12:10, so that the interpretation of each is governed by the other. The saying in Mark contrasts blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (which is unforgivable) with all other sins and blasphemies (which may be forgiven); that in Luke specifies the forgivable blasphemy as speaking a word against the Son of man. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (i.e. against the manifest activity of God, as seen in v. 28) is more serious than other forms of slander and abuse (blasphemia is usually speech against God in the LXX, but in secular Greek it is used also of slander generally; so also in Rom. 3:8; 1 Cor. 10:30); it indicates a deliberate refusal to acknowledge God's power, a totally perverted orientation, like that of Isaiah 5:20 ('those who call evil good and good evil'). This was what the Pharisees were doing in attributing Jesus' healings to Satanic power. Is the Son of man then on a lower level, less than divine, that he can be slandered with impunity? Rather the incognito character of Jesus' ministry means that failure to recognize him for what he was might be excusable (cf. Acts 3:17); even Peter 'spoke against' him (26:69-75) and was forgiven. The difference is then between failure to recognize the light and deliberate rejection of it once recognized; cf. Numbers 15:30-31 for unforgivable blasphemy in contrast with unwitting sin in vv. 27-29. ... But the punishment for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not only on earth, but extends to the age to come; it indicates a hardening against God which is deliberate and irreversible. ... . Ultimately only God can know when an individual's opposition to his work has reached this stage of irreversible rejection." (France, R.T., "Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, 1985, pp.210-211.. Emphasis original)

The Blasphemy Challenge is a joint project of filmmaker Brian Flemming, director of the antireligion documentary "The God Who Wasn't There," and Brian Sapient, cofounder of the atheist Web site RationalResponders.com. Their intent was to encourage atheists to come forward and put their souls on the line, showing others that you don't have to be afraid of God. The particular form of the challenge was chosen because, by one interpretation, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, a part of the Christian Trinity, is the only sin that can never be forgiven. And once something you've said gets posted on YouTube, as any number of celebrities can attest, you never live it down.

So while the young participants in The Blasphemy Challenge probably don't really understand what they are doing, and if so have not blasphemed against the Holy Spirit (according to the above interpretation), the same cannot be said for its organisers. But I agree that, "Ultimately only God can know when an individual's opposition to his work has reached this stage of irreversible rejection (my emphasis)."

For better or worse, though, hell may not be so easy to get into. Despite the seemingly clear language in Mark 3:28-29 ("all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven"), most theologians are reluctant to pronounce anyone beyond repentance and salvation. Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, says the passage, read in context, refers to a very narrow and specific definition of blasphemy: maliciously attributing God's miracles to a demon. Merely "denying" the Holy Spirit, by this reading, doesn't qualify. "My response," Land says, "would be to pray for these people: 'forgive them, [for] they know not what they do'."

While I agree that "hell may not be so easy to get into" and Christians should be "reluctant to pronounce anyone beyond repentance and salvation," I disagree that "blasphemes against the Holy Spirit" is that "narrow and specific" as to mean only "maliciously attributing God's miracles to a demon." Rather, that is but one example of the attitude that "call[s] evil good and good evil" (Isa 5:20), which then cannot ask God for forgiveness and therefore is "unforgivable" but on their side, not God's.

To which another self-described blasphemer, whose real name is Michael Lawson, replies that he knows exactly what he's doing: he's daring God to send him to hell. "We want to show that we really mean it when we say we don't believe a word in this book," he says. He means the Bible.

If this "self-described blasphemer" really "knows exactly what he's doing" in "daring God to send him to hell," then he would be an example (according to the above interpretation) of one who had committed "the blasphemy against ... the Holy Spirit" and therefore "will not be forgiven."

In that case he would be yet another "successful ... rebel... to the end" who "will not be forgiven" and therefore God gives them in the next life what they most want in this life, for God "To leave them alone" (my emphasis):

"I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside. .... They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free. In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell, is itself a question: `what are you asking God to do?' To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does." (Lewis, C.S., "The Problem of Pain," [1940], Fount: London, Reprinted, 1977, pp.101-102. Emphasis original)

God could not be reached for comment.

That would then indeed the problem of those who had committed the "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit", "God could" no longer "be reached" - from their side!

[...]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).


Exodus 7:1-6. 1Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. 2You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country. 3But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, 4he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites. 5And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it." 6Moses and Aaron did just as the LORD commanded them.

Thursday, February 08, 2007

`WE have traced the evolution of man up from the fishes ... It looks like a succession of very fortunate accidents' (Broom)

I have decided to alternate my series on Keosian's paper, "The Crisis in the Problem of the Origin of Life" (1978), with a short series on a book, "The Coming of Man: Was It Accident or Design?" (1933) by Robert Broom (1866-1951).

[Above: Robert Broom & Mrs Ples, Sterkfontein Caves, South Africa, About.com]

Broom was a South African medical doctor-turned paleontologist, who became a world authority on mammal-like reptiles, and then became even more eminent as a paleoanthropologist after his discovery in 1947 at Sterkfontein Caves near Johannesburg, of Mrs Ples (i.e. Plesianthropus transvaalensis), the skull of an Australopithecus africanus (as it was later renamed).

Science writer Roger Lewin notes that, like Alfred Russel Wallace, "Broom argued that divine intervention was the only explanation for the origin of the qualities that made Homo sapiens so special" and argued that (as we shall see) "Much of evolution looks as if it had been planned to result in man" (my emphasis):

"The job of evolutionary theory was to explain the origin of such a gulf. How did the very special qualities of humanity-our intelligence, our moral sense, and so on-that set us upon Huxley's mountaintop come about as the result of naturalistic, rather than divine, forces? Some scientific authorities simply failed to see how it could be done. Most notable among these was Alfred Russel Wallace, who, along with Charles Darwin, was the coinventor of the theory of natural selection. Another was Robert Broom, a pioneer in the recovery of early human fossils from South Africa during the 1930s and 1940s. Although both Wallace and Broom argued that divine intervention was the only explanation for the origin of the qualities that made Homo sapiens so special, their reasons were different. .... Robert Broom, who greatly admired Wallace, certainly believed this, and expressed it clearly in his 1933 book, The Coming of Man: Was It Accident or Design? He wrote, `Much of evolution looks as if it had been planned to result in man, and in other animals and plants to make the world a suitable place for him to dwell in.' Like Wallace, Broom also saw a spiritual guiding hand behind the whole process." (Lewin, R., "In the Age of Mankind: A Smithsonian Book of Human Evolution," Smithsonian Books: Washington DC, 1988, p.26. Emphasis original).

UCSD Biology Professor Christopher Wills points out that Broom had already stated in his 1932 book on the mammal-like reptiles that, "Apart from minor modifications evolution is finished. ... man is the final product; and ... some intelligent controlling power has specially guided one line to result in man" (my emphasis):

"Many others were as puzzled as Wallace about how the huge and obvious differences between humans and other animals could have arisen. Robert Broom, the remarkable paleontologist who discovered the Australopithecines of Sterkfontein and Kromdraai, and whose life and work we will examine in more detail in the next section, embraced theology with only the slightest hesitation at the end of his book The Mammal-like Reptiles of South Africa and the Origin of Mammals (1932): `We seem almost driven to assume that there is some controlling power which modifies the animal according to its needs, and that the changes are inherited. Apart from minor modifications evolution is finished. From which we may perhaps conclude that man is the final product; and that amid all the thousands of apparently useless types of animals that have been formed some intelligent controlling power has specially guided one line to result in man.'" (Wills, C.J., "The Runaway Brain: The Evolution of Human Uniqueness," [1993], HarperCollins: London, Reprinted, 1994, pp.77-78).

In his 1933 book on man, Broom "suggest[s] the possibility of a spiritual agency in evolution" pointing out that "those who believe in mutations ... know nothing of what may have produced them; and Darwin had to admit that what was behind variations was quite unknown":

"To suggest the possibility of a spiritual agency in evolution will of course evoke a vigorous protest from most scientists ; but if physicists and philosophers are considering the possibility of a spiritual view of the physical universe a biologist may perhaps be excused for considering whether some spiritual agency or agencies may not be largely concerned in the processes of evolution. When we have a very definite effect we may claim the right to consider all possible causes even though at first sight they may appear improbable. Even those who believe in mutations great or small have to admit that they know nothing of what may have produced them; and Darwin had to admit that what was behind variations was quite unknown." (Broom, R., "The Coming of Man: Was it Accident or Design?," H. F. & G. Witherby: London, 1933, pp.210-211).

Broom thus put his finger on what I have, in a previous post called, "the Achilles heel of Darwinism, the unproven (and unprovable) claim that all mutations in the entire ~4 billion year history of life have been random (in the sense of unguided)."

In the concluding chapter Broom observes that "the evolution of man up from the fishes ... looks like a succession of very fortunate accidents" such that "it can hardly be wondered at if doubts arise as to their being accidents at all" (my emphasis):

"WE have traced the evolution of man up from the fishes, and have seen that it has been a very slow, steady progress, with never any going back and with rarely any specialisation till we come to the last stage, when man gets his large brain. The history has been a most remarkable one. It looks like a succession of very fortunate accidents; but as the apparent accidents have always given rise to higher and higher types of organisation, it can hardly be wondered at if doubts arise as to their being accidents at all." (Broom, Ibid, p.212).

Continued in part #2.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).


Exodus 4:10-17. 10Moses said to the LORD, "O Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue." 11The LORD said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD ? 12Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say." 13But Moses said, "O Lord, please send someone else to do it." 14Then the LORD's anger burned against Moses and he said, "What about your brother, Aaron the Levite? I know he can speak well. He is already on his way to meet you, and his heart will be glad when he sees you. 15You shall speak to him and put words in his mouth; I will help both of you speak and will teach you what to do. 16He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him. 17But take this staff in your hand so you can perform miraculous signs with it."

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

`Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins' - Alister McGrath

Other blogs (e.g. ID in the UK, Teleological Blog, Telic Thoughts and Uncommon Descent) have mentioned this, but some are referring to a link that no longer exists.

[Left: The Dawkins Delusion? by Alister McGrath & Joanna Collicutt McGrath, Amazon.co.uk]

Here, in case it also disappears, is an article in The Daily Mail by molecular biophysicist turned Oxford University Christian theologian Alister McGrath on Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion and his BBC program based on it, The Root Of All Evil?



Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins, Daily Mail, By ALISTER McGRATH, 3rd February 2007 ... He is a 'psychotic delinquent', invented by mad, deluded people. And that's one of Dawkins's milder criticisms. Dawkins, Oxford University's Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, is on a crusade. His salvo of outrage and ridicule is meant to rid the world of its greatest evil: religion. "If this book works as I intend," he says, "religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." But he admits such a result is unlikely. "Dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads" (that's people who believe in God) are "immune to argument", he says.

I have known Dawkins for more than 20 years; we are both Oxford professors. I believe if anyone is "immune to argument" it is him. He comes across as a dogmatic, aggressive propagandist. Of course, back in the Sixties, everyone who mattered was telling us that religion was dead. I was an atheist then. Growing up as a Protestant in Northern Ireland, I had come to believe religion was the cause of the Province's problems. While I loved studying the sciences at school, they were important for another reason: science disproved God. Believing in God was only for sad, mad and bad people who had yet to be enlightened by science. I went up to Oxford to study the sciences in 1971, expecting my atheism to be consolidated. In the event, my world was turned upside down. I gave up one belief, atheism, and embraced another, Christianity.

Why? There were many factors. For a start, I was alarmed by some atheist writings, which seemed more preoccupied with rubbishing religion than seeking the truth. Above all, I encountered something at Oxford that I had failed to meet in Northern Ireland - articulate Christians who were able to challenge my atheism. I soon discovered two life-changing things. First, Christianity made a lot of sense. It gave me a new way of seeing and understanding the world, above all, the natural sciences. Second, I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life. I kept studying the sciences, picking up a PhD for research in molecular biophysics. But my heart and mind had been seduced by theology. It still excites me today.

Dawkins and I both love the sciences; we both believe in evidence-based reasoning. So how do we make sense of our different ways of looking at the world? That is one of the issues about which I have often wished we might have a proper discussion. Our paths do cross on the television networks and we even managed to spar briefly across a BBC sofa a few months back. We were also filmed having a debate for Dawkins's recent Channel 4 programme, The Root Of All Evil? Dawkins outlined his main criticisms of God, and I offered answers to what were clearly exaggerations and misunderstandings. It was hardly rocket science.

For instance, Dawkins often compares belief in God to an infantile belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, saying it is something we should all outgrow. But the analogy is flawed. How many people do you know who started to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood? Many people discover God decades after they have ceased believing in the Tooth Fairy. Dawkins, of course, would just respond that people such as this are senile or mad, but that is not logical argument. Dawkins can no more 'prove' the non-existence of God than anyone else can prove He does exist. Most of us are aware that we hold many beliefs we cannot prove to be true. It reminds us that we need to treat those who disagree with us with intellectual respect, rather than dismissing them - as Dawkins does - as liars, knaves and charlatans.

But when I debated these points with him, Dawkins seemed uncomfortable. I was not surprised to be told that my contribution was to be cut. The Root Of All Evil? was subsequently panned for its blatant unfairness. Where, the critics asked, was a responsible, informed Christian response to Dawkins? The answer: on the cutting-room floor.

The God Delusion is similarly full of misunderstanding. Dawkins simply presents us with another dogmatic fundamentalism. Maybe that's why some of the fiercest attacks on The God Delusion are coming from other atheists, rather than religious believers. Michael Ruse, who describes himself as a 'hardline Darwinian' philosopher, confessed that The God Delusion made him 'embarrassed to be an atheist'. The dogmatism of the work has attracted wide criticism from the secularist community. Many who might be expected to support Dawkins are trying to distance themselves from what they see as an embarrassment. Aware of the moral obligation of a critic of religion to deal with this phenomenon at its best and most persuasive, many atheists have been disturbed by Dawkins's crude stereotypes and seemingly pathological hostility towards religion. In fact, The God Delusion might turn out to be a monumental own goal - persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant as the worst that religion can offer.

Alister McGrath is professor of theology at Oxford University. His new book The Dawkins Delusion?, co-authored by Joanna Collicutt McGrath, is published by SPCK at £7.99. [...] ©2007 Associated Newspapers Ltd [...]



For other critical reviews of The God Delusion see: ABC, Daily Telegraph, London Review of Books, New Republic (subscription), NY Review of Books, Prospect, The Age; The Australian, The Times & The Sunday Times. Also by Christians: Albert Mohler & Peter S. Williams.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).


Exodus 4:1-9. 1Moses answered, "What if they do not believe me or listen to me and say, 'The LORD did not appear to you'?" 2Then the LORD said to him, "What is that in your hand?" "A staff," he replied. 3The LORD said, "Throw it on the ground." Moses threw it on the ground and it became a snake, and he ran from it. 4Then the LORD said to him, "Reach out your hand and take it by the tail." So Moses reached out and took hold of the snake and it turned back into a staff in his hand. 5"This," said the LORD, "is so that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers-the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob-has appeared to you." 6Then the LORD said, "Put your hand inside your cloak." So Moses put his hand into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was leprous, like snow. 7"Now put it back into your cloak," he said. So Moses put his hand back into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was restored, like the rest of his flesh. 8Then the LORD said, "If they do not believe you or pay attention to the first miraculous sign, they may believe the second. 9But if they do not believe these two signs or listen to you, take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground. The water you take from the river will become blood on the ground."