Evolution's "New" Argument—Suboptimality by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=456

Evolution's "New" Argument—Suboptimality

by	Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

In setting forth the case for creation, and establishing the existence of a Creator, creationists often employ what is commonly called the “design” argument. Put into logical form, the argument looks like this:

Premise #1	If the Universe evinces purposeful design, there must have been a designer.
Premise #2	The Universe does evince purposeful design.
Conclusion	Thus, the Universe must have had a Designer.

Even atheists and agnostics admit that the form of argumentation is correct. Paul Ricci, an atheistic philosopher, has admitted in his book, Fundamentals of Critical Thinking, “...it’s true that everything designed has a designer.... ‘Everything designed has a designer’ is an analytically true statement” (1986, p. 190). Their disagreement, however, has been with the second premise, which affirms that the Universe does evince purposeful design. In the past, evolutionists simply denied the existence ofany purposeful design in the Universe, and busied themselves in attempting to prove that point. For example, in 1986 Richard Dawkins, lecturer in animal science at Oxford University, wrote The Blind Watchmaker, in which he attempted to establish the case for no design in the Universe. Were such design to exist, evolutionists would be driven to admit, as Ricci concedes, that “everything designed has a designer.” And that, to them, is unthinkable.

At least that is the way it used to be. But, evolutionists apparently are beginning to recognize that they simply cannot explain away what the “man on the street” can so easily see as evidence of design in the Universe. Now, as unbelievable as it may seem, even evolutionists are finally admitting that design does, in fact, exist. Douglas Futuyma, for example, admits: “We look at the design of organisms, then, for evidence of the Creator’s intelligence, and what do we see? A multitude of exquisite adaptations to be sure; the bones of a swallow beautifully adapted for flight; the eyes of a cat magnificently shaped for seeing in the twilight” (1983, p. 198).

Does this mean, then, that evolutionists like Dr. Futuyma are admitting defeat, and becoming committed creationists in light of these new revelations? Hardly. Rather than abandon their sacrosanct theory of evolution, they have decided to “put their heads together” in an effort to explain all of this. The resulting argument is, admittedly, unique. It goes something like this.

THE ARGUMENT FROM SUBOPTIMALITY

If design in the Universe proves the existence of a Designer, says the evolutionist, then “non-design”disproves the existence of that same Designer. Put into logical form, here is the argument.

Premise #1	If the Universe evinces traits of non-design, there is no Designer.
Premise #2	The Universe does evince non-design.
Conclusion	Thus, the Universe had no Designer.

In recent years, this argument has grown in popularity. Dr. Futuyma, in Science On Trial, devoted almost an entire chapter to examples of “non-design” in nature. Other evolutionists are joining in the fracas. For example, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard has written extensively about examples of non-design in nature.

As a result of all this attention to the matter of design versus non-design, a new term has even been coined to express the evolutionary argument. It is called the argument from suboptimality. That is to say, if all design were considered perfect, everything would be optimal. However, since there are items in nature that (allegedly) are imperfect, there is suboptimality in nature. [NOTE: The argument sometimes is known as the argument from dysteleology.] It is my contention that the argument is flawed for several reasons.

First, in arguing the case for design, creationists are not obligated to show obvious design in every single feature of the Universe. It is necessary to produce only a reasonable number of sufficient evidences in order to establish design. For the evolutionist to produce an example of something which, to him, evinces either non-design, or poor design, does not somehow magically negate all the other evidences of obvious design!

Second, it is possible that an object possesses purposeful design, but that it is not recognized by the observer. Consider the following two cases. Percival Davis, in the book he co-authored with Wayne Frair, A Case for Creation, gives the following story.

My daughter was playing with her pet rat one day when a question occurred to her. “Daddy,” she said, “why does a rat have scales on its tail?”

“You know perfectly well,” I replied. “The reptiles that were ancestral to rats and all other mammals had scales on their tails as well as on the rest of their bodies. Because there was no particular disadvantage to having them, they persisted in rats to this day.”

“Quit putting me on, Daddy. I know you don’t believe that!”

You cannot win, it seems. But it is true that one is hard put to discern the reason for the manifold adaptations that organisms possess. What I should have said to my daughter (and eventually did say) was that God had put the scales there for reasons He knew to be perfectly good ones but which may take us a lot of research to discover, since He has not told us what they are. Still, the fact was that I could not explain the presence of those scales... (1983, pp. 30-31).

Dr. Davis has raised two very important points with this simple story. First, we may not presentlyknow why an organism is designed the way it is. To us, the design is either not yet recognizable, or not well understood. Second, with further research, the heretofore unrecognizable design eventually may be discovered. And, in the case that follows below, that is exactly what happened.

In his 1980 book, The Panda’s Thumb, Dr. Gould (one of suboptimality’s most vocal supporters) presented what he believed to be perhaps the finest known example of non-design ever to be found in nature—the panda’s thumb. After providing an exhaustive explanation of how the panda has 5 other digits in each “hand,” which function quite well in the panda’s everyday life, Dr. Gould then provided an equally exhaustive explanation of the panda’s “thumb.” It is, he says, “a somewhat clumsy, but quite workable” appendage which “wins no prize in an engineer’s derby.” His whole essay was intended to portray this as good evidence of suboptimality—non-design in nature. In fact, lest the reader miss his point, Gould says that “odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread, but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce” (pp 20-21).

Interestingly, while Dr. Gould was writing about the non-design that he felt was so evident, research (the same kind of research Dr. Davis said would be needed to elucidate the purpose of design in certain structures) was ongoing in regard to the panda’s thumb. And what did that research show? The panda’s thumb now has been found to exhibit design for very special functions, as the following information attests.

First, the San Diego Zoo’s Giant Panda Zoobook states: “In fact, the giant panda is one of the few large animals that can grab things as tightly as a human can” (n.d., p. 6). Second, in 1985 Schaller et al. authored The Giant Pandas of Wolong, in which they state: “The panda can handle bamboo stems with great precision by holding them as if with forceps in the hairless groove connecting the pad of the first digit and pseudothumb” (p. 4).

Do these kinds of statements seem to describe the panda’s thumb as a “jury-rigged” device? Does being able to grasp something tightly, with great precision, using a “pseudothumb” that is compared to surgical forceps seem to convey non-design? Such statements remind us of the point originally being made: an object may possess purposeful design, but that design may not be immediately evident to the observer. Dr. Gould could not see (for whatever reasons) the design in the panda’s thumb. Nevertheless, such design now is known to be present.

The panda’s “thumb” is an enlarged and extended wrist bone covered by a thick pad. It is separated from the pads of the five digits by a furrow that the panda uses to hold bamboo stalks.

There are other flaws with the suboptimality argument as well. One of the most serious is this: those who claim that something is “suboptimal” must, by definition, set themselves up as the sole judge of what is, and what is not, “optimal.” In other words, those who would claim non-design in nature must somehow “know” two things: (1) they must know that the item under discussion positively evinces no design; and (2) they must know what the absolute standard is in the first place (i.e., “the optimal”) in order to claim that something has become “suboptimal.”

These points have not escaped the evolutionists. For example, S.R. Scadding of Guelph University in Canada has commented that the suboptimality “argument is a theological rather than a scientific argument, since it is based on the supposed nature of the Creator” (1981, p. 174, emp. added). That is to say, the evolutionist sets himself up as the Creator, presupposes to know the mind of the Creator, and then presumes to say what the Creator did, or did not, do. Observe how one evolutionist does just that:

The case for evolution then has two sides; positive evidence—that evolution has occurred; and negative evidence—that the natural world does not conform to our expectation of what an omnipotent, omniscient, truthful Creator would have created (Futuyma, 1983, p. 198, emp. added).

Notice the phrase, “that the natural world does not conform to our expectation of what an omnipotent, omniscient, truthful Creator would have created.” The evolutionist looks at the creation, sees that it does not fit what he would do if he were the Creator, and then suggests on that basis that evolution is true. And all of this is from someone who does not even believe in a Creator in the first place! Such thinking makes for an extremely weak argument. As Frair and Davis have remarked: “It could be considered arrogant to assume knowledge of a design feature’s purpose in an organism, even if it had a purpose” (1983, p. 31). But such arrogance does not stand in the way of the evolutionists.

There is yet another flaw in this “suboptimality” argument. And, like the one just discussed, it has to do with theology, not science. First, the evolutionist sets himself up as the Creator and proceeds to note that since things weren’t done as he would do them, there must not be a Creator. Second, when thereal Creator does try to explain the evidences of “non-design” in the world (as the evolutionist sees them), the evolutionist refuses to listen. Consider the following as an explanation of this point.

It is at least possible that an object once clearly reflected purposeful design, but as a result of a process of degeneration, the design has been clouded or erased. Consider the following analogy:

Suppose a gardener, digging in a pile of rubbish, discovers an ancient book. Its cover is weathered, its pages are mostly stuck together, the type has faded, etc. It is, for all practical purposes, completely illegible. Does the current condition of the book mean that it never had a message—that it never evidenced design? Of course not. Though the book is in a degenerative condition, and the message has faded with time, there is no denying that the book was at one point quite communicative (Jackson, 1989, p. 2, emp. added).

The evolutionist surveys the Earth and finds examples of what he believes are evidences of “suboptimality.” Yet in many cases he may be witnessing simply degeneration instead. In fact, that is exactly what the Creator has stated. When man sinned, and evil was introduced to this planet, a state of progressive degeneration commenced. The whole creation suffered as a result of man’s sin (Romans 8:20-22). The Hebrew writer, quoting the psalmist, observed that “the earth, like a garment, is wearing out” (Hebrews 1:10-11).

Also consider this important point: the fact that the product of an orderly mechanism is flawed does not necessarily reflect upon either the initial design or the designer.

For example, if a machine which manufactures tin cans begins to turn out irregular cans, does this somehow prove the machine had no designer? Must one postulate that the machine’s inventor intended for mutilated cans to be produced, or that the machine was imperfectly designed? Surely we can conceive that the failure could be on the part of those who failed to follow the correct procedures for maintaining the machine, or who abused it in some fashion. When man rebelled against his Maker, the Lord allowed, as a consequence of that disobedience, degenerative processes to begin, which eventually result in death (Romans 5:12). But the fact that we have eye problems, heart failure, diseases, etc., does not negate the impact as a whole that the human body is “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). We will not assume, therefore, that because our critic’s reasoning ability is flawed, this proves his brain was not designed. The “design” argument remains unscathed! (Jackson, 1989, p. 3, emp. in orig.).

Evolutionists, of course, ignore all of this. After all, they already have set themselves up as the Creator, and have determined that none of this is the way they would do it. When the real Creator speaks, they are too busy playing the Creator to hear Him. Here is a good example. Futuyma says:

The creationists admit that species can undergo limited adaptive changes by the mechanism of mutation plus natural selection. But surely an omniscient and omnipotent Creator could devise a more foolproof method than random mutation to enable his creatures to adapt. Yet mutations do occur, and we have experimental demonstration that they are not oriented in the direction of better adaptedness. How could a wise Creator, in fact, allow mutations to happen at all, since they are so often degenerative instead of uplifting? According to the creationists, there is “a basic principle of disintegration now at work in nature” that we must suppose includes mutation. But why should the Creator have established such a principle? Didn’t He like the perfection of His original creation (1983, p. 200)?

Dr. Futuyma acknowledges that creationists have tried to get him to see that there is “a basic principle of disintegration now at work in nature.” Then he asks, “But why should the Creator have established such a principle? Didn’t He like the perfection of His original creation?” This is why we say that the problem is rooted in theology, not science. Dr. Futuyma questions why the Creator enacted this “principle of degeneration,” then makes it clear that he has no intention whatsoever of accepting the answer provided by the very Creator he questions. If Dr. Futuyma had studied what the Creator didsay, he would have the answer to his question. Yes, the Creator liked His original creation, so much so He pronounced it “very good” (Genesis 1:31).

It was not God’s fault that the principle of degeneration became a reality. It was man’s fault because the first man wanted, like evolutionists today, to be the Creator. Is there a “principle of degeneration” at work? Indeed there is. Might it cause some organisms or structures to have their original message (i.e., design) diminished, or to lose it altogether? Certainly. But does that mean that there never wasany design? Or, does it reflect poorly on the Designer, proving somehow that He does not exist? In the eyes of the evolutionists, the only possible answer to these questions is a resounding “yes.” As Scadding says:

Haeckel makes clear why this line of argument was of such importance to early evolutionary biologists.... It seemed difficult to explain functionless structures on the basis of special creation without imputing some lack of skill in design to the Creator (1981, p. 174).

So, God gets the blame for man’s mistakes. And, the evolutionists get another argument for their arsenal. Here, in a nutshell, is that argument, as stated by British evolutionist Jeremy Cherfas:

In fact, as Darwin recognized, a perfect Creator could manufacture perfect adaptations. Everything would fit because everything was designed to fit. It is in the imperfect adaptations that natural selection is revealed, because it is those imperfections that show us that structure has a history. If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence of history, and therefore nothing to favor evolution by natural selection over creation (1984, p. 29).

Henry Morris, speaking specifically about the comments made by Cherfas, made an interesting observation:

This is an amazing admission. The main evidence against creation and for evolution is that natural selection doesn’t work! If there were no “imperfect” structures in nature, the evidence would all favor creation. No wonder evolution has to be imposed by authority and bombast, rather than reason, if this is its only real evidence! (1985, p. 177).

Yet this is exactly what Gould has suggested: “Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution...” (1980, p. 20, emp. added).

The creationist, however, is not willing to usurp the Creator’s prerogative and, like the evolutionist, tell Him what He can (and cannot) do, or what is (and what is not) acceptable. As Frair and Davis noted:

Yet the creationist lacks the option (open to the evolutionist) of assuming purposelessness. Human curiosity being what it is, the creationist will be motivated to inquire concerning the purpose of the universe and all its features. The purpose for most things will not be found. What we do find may, nonetheless, be sufficient justification for the endeavor (1983, pp. 31-32).

CONCLUSION

It is clear that evolutionists are “grasping at straws” when the “new” argument from suboptimality is the best they can offer. Actually, this argument is not new at all. Darwin, in his Origin of Species, addressed this very argument in 1859. Modern evolutionists—desperate to find something they can use as evidence against design in the Universe (and thus against the Designer)—have resurrected it from the relic heaps of history, given it a different name, and attempted to foist it upon the public as a legitimate response to the creationists’ argument from design. Once again they have had to set themselves up as the Creator in order to try to convince people that no Creator exists. And once again, they have failed.

REFERENCES

Cherfas, Jeremy (1984), “The Difficulties of Darwinism,” New Scientist, 102:28-30, May 17.

Davis, Percival, and Dean H. Kenyon (1989), Of Pandas and People (Dallas, TX: Haughton Publishing).

Dawkins, Richard (1986), The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton).

Frair, Wayne A. and Percival Davis (1983), A Case for Creation (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Futuyma, Douglas (1983), Science on Trial (New York: Pantheon).

Giant Panda Zoobook (undated), (San Diego, CA: San Diego Zoo).

Gould, Stephen Jay (1980), The Panda’s Thumb (New York: W.W. Norton).

Jackson, Wayne (1989), “Some Atheistic Arguments Answered,” Reason & Revelation, 9:1-3, January.

Morris, Henry M. (1985), Creation and the Modern Christian (El Cajon, CA: Master Books).

Ricci, Paul (1986), Fundamentals of Critical Thinking (Lexington, ME: Ginn Press).

Scadding, S.R. (1981), Evolutionary Theory, May.

Schaller, George B., Hu Jinchu, Pan Wenshi, and Zhu Jing (1985), The Giant Pandas of Wolong(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Personal Responsibility by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1176

Personal Responsibility

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

As the moral and spiritual fabric of American culture continues to unravel, one time-honored norm after another is being jettisoned from daily living. One of those traditional values has been the importance of taking responsibility for one’s own decisions and actions. This cultural trait was once embodied in the widely circulated quip pertaining to an incident in the life of the father of our country. George Washington was alleged as a boy to have taken it upon himself to cut down a cherry tree. When questioned about the incident, he is reported to have remarked: “I cannot tell a lie, I chopped down the cherry tree.” Regardless of whether this little ditty is fictional or historical, it illustrates the point that honesty, integrity, and owning up to one’s own actions were once cherished societal norms.

For several decades now, however, this approach to life has suffered serious erosion. A prominent feature of current culture is to look for someone else to blame for those unpleasant things that happen in one’s life. Coupled with this evasion of personal responsibility is the desire to get rich quick by suing anyone and everyone who might be even remotely connected to the circumstance. Consequently, a driver can spill coffee on herself after passing through a fast food drive-up window, sue the restaurant—and win! One can choose to smoke cigarettes for years, sue the cigarette manufacturers, and extract large sums of money. One even can eat hamburgers and French fries from fast food chains—and then turn around and blame the restaurant for gained weight and high cholesterol levels.

Don’t misunderstand. Genuine negligence takes place in our society in which those who promote services to the public fail to give adequate attention to genuinely dangerous aspects of their products. However, much litigation in America today is unjust, outrageous, and deplorable. Frivolous law suits have led to millions of dollars spent on superfluous warning labels that cheapen the significance of truly necessary ones. Since “accidents happen” through the ordinary circumstances of human existence without anyone really to blame, innocent people are being victimized, singled out to bear the brunt of reckless vengeance, undeserved retaliation, and greed.

One of the prominent teachings of the Bible is the fact that God holds all accountable human beings responsible for their own actions. The attempt to shift blame to others has been a perennial propensity on the part of many people (1 Kings 18:21; Matthew 27:24), but God consistently has insisted upon the necessity of a person accepting responsibility for his or her own thoughts, decisions, and actions. This insistence is seen, for example, in the oft’-repeated phrases, “his blood shall be upon him” (Leviticus 20:9,13,27; Deuteronomy 19:10; Ezekiel 18:13; 33:5), and “his blood be on his own head” (Joshua 2:19; 2 Samuel 1:16; Ezekiel 33:4; Acts 18:6). It also is seen in the declarations that “the soul who sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:4,20), and “the son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son” (Ezekiel 18:20; cf. Deuteronomy 24:16).

We humans may try to “pass the buck” and evade responsibility for our own actions. It’s like we tell small children: “If you put your hand in the fire, you’re going to get burned.” Yet, when we ourselves get burned for our own behavior, we become resentful and angry and want someone else “to pay.” But there are consequences to our actions. God is keeping a record, and one day will call all of us to account (Matthew 12:36; Romans 14:12). He assigns responsibility for our own actions to us, no one else. When we make choices that bring hardship or hurt into our lives, we must be willing to humble ourselves and bear the consequences. If we do not want to endure that pain, we should not commit the acts that elicit such a result. If we do commit such acts, we have earned the resultant suffering, and we deserve to get what we have earned. We need to be adult enough to “take our licks.” Even when hardship comes due to the nature of human existence and the world around us, with no particular individual responsible, we should humbly bow and commit ourselves to “Him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23).

America would be a much better place in which to live if we returned to an observance of the simple precepts of Scripture: “Repay no one evil for evil…. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath” (Romans 12:17,19); “Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing” (1 Peter 3:8-9).

Camels and the Composition of Genesis by Eric Lyons, M.Min. A.P. Staff

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=858&b=Genesis

Camels and the Composition of Genesis
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
A.P. Staff

Arguably, the most widely alleged anachronisms used in support of the idea that Moses could not have written the first five books of the Bible (a theory known as the Documentary Hypothesis) are the accounts of the early patriarchs possessing camels. The word “camel(s)” appears 23 times in 21 verses in the book of Genesis. The first book of the Bible declares that camels existed in Egypt during the time of Abraham (12:14-17), in Palestine in the days Isaac (24:63), in Padan Aram while Jacob was working for Laban (30:43), and were owned by the Midianites during the time Joseph was sold into Egyptian slavery (37:25,36). Make no mistake about it, the book of beginnings clearly teaches that camels were domesticated since at least the time of Abraham.

According to skeptics (and a growing number of liberal scholars), however, the idea that camels were domesticated in the time of Abraham directly contradicts archaeological evidence. Over one hundred years ago, T.K. Cheyne wrote: “The assertion that the ancient Egyptians knew of the camel is unfounded” (1899, 1:634). In his oft’-quoted book on the various animals of the Bible, George Cansdale stated:

The Bible first mentions the camel in Gen. 12:16, where the presents are listed which the pharaoh gave to Abram. This is generally reckoned to be a later scribe’s addition, for it seems unlikely that there were any camels in Egypt then (1970, p. 66, emp. added).

More recently, Finkelstein and Silberman confidently asserted:

We now know through archaeological research that camels were not domesticated as beasts of burden earlier than the late second millennium and were not widely used in that capacity in the ancient Near East until well after 1000 BCE (2001, p. 37, emp. added).

By way of summary, what the Bible believer has been told is: “[T]ame camels were simply unknown during Abraham’s time” (Tobin, 2000).

While these claims have been made repeatedly over the last century, the truth of the matter is that skeptics and liberal theologians are unable to cite a single piece of solid archaeological evidence in support of their claims. As Randall Younker of Andrews University stated in March 2000 while delivering a speech in the Dominican Republic: “Clearly, scholars who have denied the presence of domesticated camels in the 2^nd millennium B.C. have been committing the fallacy of arguing from silence. This approach should not be allowed to cast doubt upon the veracity of any historical document, let alone Scripture” (2000). The burden of proof actually should be upon skeptics to show that camels were not domesticated until after the time of the patriarchs. Instead, they assure their listeners of the camel’s absence in Abraham’s day—without one shred of archaeological evidence. [Remember, for many years they also argued that writing was unknown during the time of Moses—a conclusion based entirely on “silence.” Now, however, they have recanted that idea, because evidence has been found to the contrary. One might think that such “scholars” would learn not to speak with such assurance when arguing from silence.]

What makes their claims even more disturbing is that several pieces of evidence do exist (and have existed for some time) that prove camels were domesticated during (and even before) the time of Abraham (roughly 2,000 B.C.). In an article that appeared in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies a half-century ago, professor Joseph Free listed several instances of Egyptian archaeological finds supporting the domestication of camels [NOTE: The dates given for the Egyptian dynasties are from Clayton, 2001, pp.14-68]. The earliest evidence comes from a pottery camel’s head and a terra cotta tablet with men riding on and leading camels. According to Free, these are both from predynastic Egypt (1944, pp. 189-190), which according to Clayton is roughly before 3150B.C. Free also listed three clay camel heads and a limestone vessel in the form of camel lying down—all dated at the First Dynasty of Egypt (3050-2890 B.C.). He then mentioned several models of camels from the Fourth Dynasty (2613-2498 B.C.), and a petroglyph depicting a camel and a man dated at the Sixth Dynasty (2345-2184 B.C.). Such evidence has led one respected Egyptologist to conclude that “the extant evidence clearly indicates that the domestic camel was known [in Egypt—EL] by 3,000B.C.”—long before Abraham’s time (Kitchen, 1980, 1:228).

Perhaps the most convincing find in support of the early domestication of camels in Egypt is a rope made of camel’s hair found in the Fayum (an oasis area southwest of modern-day Cairo). The two-strand twist of hair, measuring a little over three feet long, was found in the late 1920s, and was sent to the Natural History Museum where it was analyzed and compared to the hair of several different animals. After considerable testing, it was determined to be camel hair, dated (by analyzing the layer in which it was found) to the Third or Fourth Egyptian Dynasty (2686-2498 B.C.). In his article, Free also listed several other discoveries from around 2,000 B.C. and later, which showed camels as domestic animals (pp. 189-190).

While prolific in Egypt, finds relating to the domestication of camels are not isolated to the African continent. In his book, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament, professor Kenneth Kitchen (retired) of the University of Liverpool reported several discoveries made outside of Egypt proving ancient camel domestication around 2,000 B.C. Lexical lists from Mesopotamia have been uncovered that show a knowledge of domesticated camels as far back as this time. Camel bones have been found in household ruins at Mari in present-day Syria that fossilologists believe are also at least 4,000 years old. Furthermore, a Sumerian text from the time of Abraham has been discovered in the ancient city of Nippur (located in what is now southeastern Iraq) that clearly implies the domestication of camels by its allusions to camels’ milk (Kitchen, 1966, p. 79).

All of these documented finds support the domestication of camels in Egypt many years before the time of Abraham. Yet, as Younker rightly observed, skeptics refuse to acknowledge any of this evidence.

It is interesting to note how, once an idea gets into the literature, it can become entrenched in conventional scholarly thinking. I remember doing research on the ancient site of Hama in Syria. As I was reading through the excavation reports (published in French), I came across a reference to a figurine from the 2nd millennium which the excavator thought must be a horse, but the strange hump in the middle of its back made one think of a camel. I looked at the photograph and the figurine was obviously that of a camel! The scholar was so influenced by the idea that camels were not used until the 1st millennium, that when he found a figurine of one in the second millennium, he felt compelled to call it a horse! This is a classic example of circular reasoning (2000, parenthetical comment in orig.).

Finds relating to the domestication of camels are not as prevalent in the second millennium B.C. as they are in the first millennium. This does not make the skeptics’ case any stronger, however. Just because camels were not as widely used during Abraham’s time as they were later, does not mean that they were entirely undomesticated. As Free commented:

Many who have rejected this reference to Abraham’s camels seem to have assumed something which the text does not state. It should be carefully noted that the biblical reference does not necessarily indicate that the camel was common in Egypt at that time, nor does it evidence that the Egyptians had made any great progress in the breeding and domestication of camels. It merely says that Abraham had camels (1944, p. 191, emp. added).

Similarly, Younker noted:

This is not to say that domesticated camels were abundant and widely used everywhere in the ancient Near East in the early second millennium. However, the patriarchal narratives do not necessarily require large numbers of camels…. The smaller amount of evidence for domestic camels in the late third and early second millennium B.C., especially in Palestine, is in accordance with this more restricted use (1997, 42:52).

Even without the above-mentioned archaeological finds (which to the unbiased examiner prove that camels were domesticated in the time of Abraham), it only seems reasonable to conclude that since wild camels have been known since the Creation, “there is no credible reason why such an indispensable animal in desert and semi-arid lands should not have been sporadically domesticated in patriarchal times and even earlier” (“Animal Kingdom,” 1988). The truth is, all of the available evidence points to one conclusion—the limited use of domesticated camels during and before the time of Abraham did occur. The supposed “anachronism” of domesticated camels during the time of the patriarchs is, in fact, an actual historical reference to the use of these animals at that time. Those who reject this conclusion cannot give one piece of solid archaeological evidence on their behalf. They simply argue from the “silence” of archaeology…which is silent no more!

REFERENCES

“Animal Kingdom” (1988), The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Cansdale, George (1970), All the Animals of the Bible Lands (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Cheyne, T.K. (1899), Encyclopedia Biblica (London: A. & C. Black).

Clayton, Peter A. (2001), Chronicle of the Pharaohs (London: Thames & Hudson).

Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman (2001), The Bible Unearthed (New York: Free Press).

Free, Joseph P. (1944), “Abraham’s Camels,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 3:187-193, July.

Kitchen, K.A. (1966), Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago, IL: InterVarsity Press).

Kitchen, K.A. (1980), The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale).

Tobin, Paul N. (2000), “Mythological Element in the Story of Abraham and the Patriachal Narratives,” The Refection of Pascal’s Wager [On-line], URL: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/abraham.html.

Younker, Randall W. (1997), “Late Bronze Age Camel Petroglyphs in the Wadi Nasib, Sinai,” Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin, 42:47-54.

Younker, Randall W. (2000), “The Bible and Archaeology,” The Symposium on the Bible and Adventist Scholarship [On-line], URL: http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_26B/26Bcc_457-477.htm.

From Roy Davidson... Sing to the Lord!

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/057-sing.html

Sing to the Lord!

“I will sing to the LORD as long as I live; I will sing praise to my God while I have my being” (Psalm 104:33).
God created man with the ability to sing. Singing gives words wings and expresses the deepest feelings of our heart. 
Singing is the music God has prescribed for His church.
During the historical period of the New Testament and for six hundred years thereafter, singing was the only music used for worship in Christendom.
That is why “a capella”^a (Italian for “as in the chapel”) is the designation in music terminology for singing without instrumental accompaniment.
It was not until 666 A.D. that Pope Vitalianus I introduced instruments in the apostate Roman church.
Not only are Christians instructed to sing, they are also told to whom they are to sing, what they are to sing, why they are to sing, and how they are to sing. Not all singing is acceptable to God.

What is singing?
To sing is to vocalize words in melodious tones with rhythmic emphasis. The melody and the rhyme enliven the words, adding depth to their meaning.

To Whom do Christians sing?

Christians sing to the Lord! 
“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Colossians 3:16); “Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:19). Christian singing is heart-felt worship directed to God.

Worshipful singing was also directed to the Lord in the Old Testament. Many elements of Old Covenant worship (such as sacrificing animals, burning incense and playing music instruments) have no place in the spiritual worship of the New Testament. Singing, however, is a form of worship found under both covenants.
“I will praise the LORD according to His righteousness, and I will sing praise to the name of the LORD Most High” (Psalm 7:17).
“I will praise You, O Lord, with my whole heart; I will tell of all Your marvelous works. I will be glad and rejoice in You; I will sing praise to Your name, O Most High” (Psalm 9:1, 2).
“Sing to Him, sing psalms to Him; talk of all His wondrous works!” (1 Chronicles 16:9).
“Sing to the LORD, all the earth; proclaim the good news of His salvation from day to day. Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all peoples” (1 Chronicles 16:23, 24).
Christians sing to the Lord!

What do Christians sing?
We sing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Colossians 3:16; Ephesians 5:19).
Because these terms overlap, they are often used interchangeably. Yet there is some distinction.
A hymn is a song of praise. A psalm is a poem that is sung as worship. A spiritual song is a song about a religious topic.

Why do Christians sing?
Christians sing to glorify God not to entertain man. Although Christian singing is directed to God, it also serves as a confession of faith to unbelievers, and as teaching for believers.

Christians sing to glorify God.
As already indicated in several Scriptures, we sing to worship and praise God. When we lift our voices to God in songs of praise, the spirits of others are also lifted.

Christians sing to confess their faith to the nations.
In his victory song, David says, “Therefore I will give thanks to You, O LORD, among the Gentiles, and sing praises to Your name” (2 Samuel 22:50; see also Psalm 18:49).

Paul quotes this verse to prove that the message of the Messiah would be for all nations: “And thus the Gentiles glorify God for his mercy. As it is written, ‘Because of this I will confess you among the Gentiles, and I will sing praises to your name’ ” (Romans 15:9 NET).

Jesus sang songs of praise with His disciples (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26) and now, two thousand years later, the church of Christ is still singing praise to God as a confession of faith to the nations.

Christians sing to instruct one another.
“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Colossians 3:16).
In a prophetic Psalm the Messiah says: “I will declare Your name to My brethren; in the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You” (Hebrews 2:12).
Followers of the Messiah also instruct their brethren in the assembly as they sing praise to God.
Christians sing on other occasions as well: “Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms” (James 5:13). 
At midnight, in a dark prison cell at Philippi, with feet fastened in the stocks, with backs beaten by many lashes of a whip, Paul and Silas “were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them” (Acts 16:25).
Christians sing to glorify God, as a confession of faith to non-Christians, and to instruct one another.


How do Christians sing?
Paul says, “I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding” (1 Corinthians 14:15).

Christians sing with the spirit.
Jesus explains that true worship must be in spirit and truth: “But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:23, 24). Thus singing, as a form of worship, must be in spirit and truth.
Worship must come from the heart to please God. That is why Christians sing and make melody in their heart to the Lord (Ephesians 5:19); that is why they sing to the Lord with gracein their hearts (Colossians 3:16).
David understood that singing must come from the heart: “I will praise You, O LORD, with my whole heart” (Psalm 9:1).
God listens to the tone-quality of the heart, not the tone-quality of the voice.
Christian singing wells up from the heart and ascends in worship to God.
Someone who sings a religious song to glorify himself or to entertain man, rather than in the spirit to the Lord, is not singing in a way that pleases God. 

Christians sing with understanding.
Christian singing is understandable melodious speech. It is “speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Ephesians 5:19); it is “teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Colossians 3:16).
What does Paul mean by, “I will also sing with the understanding” (1 Corinthians 14:15)? 
The assemblies at Corinth were disorderly. People were speaking in languages no one understood, and several people spoke at the same time.

In dealing with this problem, Paul emphasizes an important principle: Public worship must be understandable and edifying.
“Unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air” (1 Corinthians 14:9). “In the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (1 Corinthians 14:19). “Let all things be done for edification” (1 Corinthians 14:26).
This also applies to singing: “I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding” (1 Corinthians 14:15).
Paul wanted to speak with understanding so others could be taught. Thus, to sing with understanding means to sing in such a way that people understand the words and are edified.

Sounds without meaning do not edify.
“Let all things be done for edification” (1 Corinthians 14:26). Edification is a building up, an increase in spiritual insight resulting from instruction.
Through this Scripture God excludes meaningless sounds from the Christian assembly. Sounds without meaningful content do not edify.
This explains why God omitted music instruments from Christian worship. Music instruments are neither spiritual nor intelligible, they do not give instruction.
Paul compares someone without love to music instruments: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal” (1 Corinthians 13:1).
Sounding brass and clanging cymbals were used in the Old Testament (2 Chronicles 29:25, 26), but lifeless instruments are not suitable for worship in spirit and truth under the New Covenant.
God’s requirement: “Let all things be done for edification” (1 Corinthians 14:26) and the related condemnation of meaningless sounds in the assembly also preclude hand-clapping and the imitation of instruments with the voice. Such body and throat noises are not spiritual and do not have meaningful content.
Christians use the voices God has given them to sing with the spirit and with the understanding. They do not pollute their worship with sounds devoid of meaningful spiritual content.

What have we learned?
Singing is the music God has prescribed for His church. Christians are told to sing, and they have been given precise instructions. They sing to the Lord. They sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. Singing serves to glorify God, as a confession of faith to non-Christians, and as instruction for believers. Christians sing with the spirit and with the understanding. What is sung must be understandable. All things must be done for edification. Meaningless sounds do not edify and are unsuitable for worship in spirit and truth.
“Sing to the LORD, bless His name; proclaim the good news of His salvation from day to day” (Psalm 96:2). Sing to the Lord! Amen.
Roy Davison

Endnote:

^a Italian for "in the manner of the chapel," literally "according to the chapel," originally “alla capella” or “alla cappella.” 

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

From Gary... Instructed in WHAT?

And as Jesus spoke THE TRUTH.

John, Chapter 8 (WEB)

 30  As he spoke these things, many believed in him.  31 Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples.   32  You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” 

  33  They answered him, “We are Abraham’s seed, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How do you say,‘You will be made free’ ?” 

  34  Jesus answered them, “Most certainly I tell you, everyone who commits sin is the bondservant of sin.   35  A bondservant doesn’t live in the house forever. A son remains forever.   36  If therefore the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.   37  I know that you are Abraham’s seed, yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you.   38  I say the things which I have seen with my Father; and you also do the things which you have seen with your father.” 

  39  They answered him, “Our father is Abraham.” 

Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham.   40  But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God. Abraham didn’t do this.   41  You do the works of your father.” 

They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father, God.” 

  42  Therefore Jesus said to them, “If God were your father, you would love me, for I came out and have come from God. For I haven’t come of myself, but he sent me.   43  Why don’t you understand my speech? Because you can’t hear my word.   44  You are of your father, the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and doesn’t stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks on his own; for he is a liar, and its father.   45  But because I tell the truth, you don’t believe me.   46  Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?   47  He who is of God hears the words of God. For this cause you don’t hear, because you are not of God.” 

  48  Then the Jews answered him, “Don’t we say well that you are a Samaritan, and have a demon?” 

  49  Jesus answered, “I don’t have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me.   50  But I don’t seek my own glory. There is one who seeks and judges.   51  Most certainly, I tell you, if a person keeps my word, he will never see death.” 

  52  Then the Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets; and you say, ‘If a man keeps my word, he will never taste of death.’   53 Are you greater than our father, Abraham, who died? The prophets died. Who do you make yourself out to be?” 

  54  Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is our God.   55  You have not known him, but I know him. If I said, ‘I don’t know him,’ I would be like you, a liar. But I know him, and keep his word.   56  Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day. He saw it, and was glad.” 

  57  The Jews therefore said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 

  58  Jesus said to them, “Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM. ” 

  59  Therefore they took up stones to throw at him, but Jesus was hidden, and went out of the temple, having gone through their midst, and so passed by. 

The quote from Plato shows us that people have been taught falsehoods for literally thousands of years and those who tell the truth are derogatorily slandered. Why? Power, I imagine.  The one who controls the reality of a thing, controls the one who believes this reality. And condemning those who speak THE truth naturally follows. 

The benefit of truth is that it frees you from lies (8:32, above). Truth goes beyond this world and is everlasting. And if you would like to be free from lies (and therefore death) eternally, it follows that you must follow the one who has THE POWER to overcome death and the father of all lies (the devil 8:43-47). Jesus reveals himself as God (8:58) and those who were the sons of the devil wanted to destroy him then and do so until this day.

Things have not changed much; our education system has become so corrupt with liberal lies that some have even tried to petition away the first amendment of our constitution. They have chosen sides with the devil and are worthy of this condemnation...

Isaiah, Chapter 5 (WEB)

 20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
who put darkness for light,
and light for darkness;
who put bitter for sweet,
and sweet for bitter!
  21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
and prudent in their own sight!

If you are NOT being called a lunatic or a fool- ask yourself, WHY?  

Last question- "Who is YOUR FATHER"?

From Ben Columbia...

Today is the eve of the holiday we as Americans know as Christmas, and it is actually known by many peoples in many lands.  It's a good time to be with family and for people to come out of the hustle and bustle of every day life.  It's a time to share in the blessing of others with gifts and acts of generosity.  It's a "feel good" time, and we all like to feel good.

In the holy scriptures, the holiday is never mentioned, and nowhere are God's people commanded to remember and celebrate Christ's birth.  However, we are given the command to remember His death, burial and resurrection on the Lord's Day each week as a memorial of His sacrifice for our sins. To remember His body, and blood, and that He is our Savior.

As we busy ourselves with gift giving and preparations to feast with family and friends, let us also soberly reflect on the truth that Jesus Christ gave mankind the greatest gift possible.  One that sinful mankind sorely needed--the ability to have our sins forgiven, wiped out, blotted from the citation--as if we'd never sinned. Now, when immersed into His body, one is now justified and sanctified by the blood He shed on a cross over two thousand years ago.  Sins are washed away, and new spiritual life is given, along with a new name, Christian and born into a new family, the family of God and household of faith.  Christianity is the gift we ought to be seeking this season, and not only at this time, but every day alike.

Have you received this gift?