How to translate John 1:1 θεόν & θεὸς: The Trinity Yay or Nay?

 

 I came across this in considering the Greek of John 1.1 and other related text in Greek relating to the Deity of Christ. I believe he is a Professor of Linguistics. I ordered his book "Babylon Cypher" Concerning language and possibly Social Sciences.

Interestingly, the New World Translation is often targeted as being "wrong" but it is far from the only translation that renders it as such. The argument was not even about the NWT at all so it seems someone may simply have a bee in their bonnet.

Here is an interesting comment from Robert Price, who although is considered by most a rebel to New Testament theology, does shed some light on John 1.1 and other trinitarian concepts. Also,  other beliefs Jehovah's Witnesses hold. 

Interestingly, the New World Translation is often targeted as being "wrong" but it is far from the only translation that renders it as such. The argument was not even about the NWT at all so it seems someone may simply have a bee in their bonnet.

 Here are a few translations, I am sure you could find more.

 1)14th century: "and God was the word" – Wycliffe's Bible (translated from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate) 

2)1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham

 3)The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London. 1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.) 

4):1829 "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829) 

5) 1863 "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863) 

6)1864  "and a god was the Word" – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading) 

7) 1867 "and the Son was of God" – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible 1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979) 

8)1885  "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885) 

9) 1911 "and [a] God was the word" – The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, by George William Horner 

10)1924  "the Logos was divine" – The Bible: James Moffatt Translation, by James Moffatt. 1935:

11) "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago. 

12) 1955 "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen. 

13)1956  "And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" – The Wuest Expanded Translation 

14)1958  "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958); 

15)1975   "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany 

16)1975   "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975); 

17)1978   "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin 

18) 1985  “So the Word was divine” - The Original New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield. 

19) 2017 “and the Logos was god” - The New Testament: A Translation, by David Bentley Hart.

If you believe in the Trinity then why...........Joseph Pavolic

1. Then why do NUMEROUS encyclopedias agree that "... the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity"? – p. 34, The Church of the First Three Centuries, Alvan Lamson, D.D.

2. Then why do many encyclopedias, dictionaries and other sources (including Sir Isaac Newton) agree that the "Trinity was a pagan corruption imposed on Christianity in the fourth century by Athanasius" and 2 Roman Emperors?

  3. Then why does the Bible consistently identify God by singular person pronouns: "I, "Me," "He, and "Him" instead of "We", "Us", "They" or "Them"?

  4. Then why does 2 Cor. 13:14 say that the Lord Jesus Christ is one individual, the holy spirit is another individual (whether a person or a thing), and that "GOD" IS ANOTHER DIFFERENT INDIVIDUAL?

  5. Then why is there not even one scripture which clearly defines the Trinity?

  6. Then why is there not even one scripture of a vision, dream, or CLEAR description wherein God is shown as three persons?

7. Then why is there not even one scripture where God is described using the word "three"? If Jesus is Almighty God...

  1. Then why is "God the head of Christ just as Christ is head of every man"? (1 Cor. 11:3)

2. Then why does Scripture consistently phrase Jesus as a separate person from God? (John 20:17; John 14:1; Mark 10:18; John 17:1-3; etc. Also in heaven, 1 Cor. 11:3; Luke 22:69; etc.)

  3. Then how can Jesus have a God? Could Almighty God have a God? (Mic. 5:4; Ps. 45:6, 7; 89:26; John 20:17; Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph 1:3; Col 1:3; Mark 15:34; John 17:1-3; Also in heaven, Rev. 1:6; 3:2, 12)

  4. Then why does Scripture say he was born and is part of Creation? (Col. 1:15)

  5. Then why does Rev. 3:14 say that Jesus is "the beginning of the creation of God"?

  6. Then why is he subject to GOD, like we're subject to him? (1 Cor. 15:27, 28; Eph. 1:17)

  7. Then why does Micah 5:2 say that Jesus' ORIGIN was “from early times”?

  8. Then why does Jesus not know what God knows? (Matt. 24:36, Rev.1:1; Luke 8:45)

  9. Then why is Jesus still subject to God when he is as high as he will ever be? (1 Cor. 15:27, 28)

  10. Then why does Proverbs 8:22-31 show that the Messiah was CREATED / PRODUCED by God?

  11. Then why is he not powerful enough to subject things to himself? (1 Cor. 15:27, Eph. 1:17, 22)

12. Then why would he have to be given any power and authority? (Mt. 28:18; 11:27; Jn. 5:22; 17:2; 3:35; 2 Pet. 1:17)

  13. Then why did he have to learn anything? (Heb. 5:8; John 5:19; 8:28)

14. Then why is speaking against him not as bad as speaking against the Holy Spirit? (Mt. 12:31,32; Luke 12:10)

  15. Then why did Jesus call the "Father...the only true God"? (John 17:1, 3)

  16. Then why did he need to be saved? (Heb. 5:7; John 12:27)

  17. Then why did he have to be exalted to Leader and Savior? (Acts 5:31)

  18. Then how could he be exalted and given a higher name than he had? (Phil. 2:9-11; Heb. 1:2-4)

  19. Then why did he have to be given life in himself? (John 5:25,26)

  20. Then how can the Father be greater than he? (John 14:28)

21. Then how could Jesus be tempted by Satan when God cannot be tempted with evil? (James 1:13)

22. Then why did he worship the Father? (John 4:22)

23. Then why can he not do anything on his own? (John 5:19; 6:38)

  24. Then why would he pray to anybody? (Luke 22:44; John 17:1,2; Heb. 5:7)

25. Then why does John 1:18 (cf. Jn 3:16, 18) say that Jesus is God's "only BEGOTTEN Son"? ASV

  26. Then how can he be God's servant? (Acts 4:26,27,30)

  27. Then how could he receive strength from an angel? (Luke 22:43)

  28. Then how could he be a mediator between God and man? (1 Tim. 2:5)

  29. Then how could he be with God (ho theos)? (John 1:1)

  30. Then how can he be God's image? (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3)

31. Then why is he called the agency (dia) of creation and not the Originator (ek)? (1 Cor. 8:6; John 1:1-3; Prov. 8:30; Heb. 2:10; Col. 1:15

,16)

  32. Then why did Jesus say GOD was "good" in a way that Jesus was not? (Mark 10:18)

  33. Then why does he have an archangel's voice instead of God's voice? (1 Thess. 4:16)

  34. Then why is the only "worship" given to him the same given to humans? (Heb. 1:6, cf. Mt. 18:26; Rev. 3:9 - "Proskuneo")

  35. Then why do many who believe this rely on a few selected, so-called 'proof-texts' instead of the context of the consistent teaching of the entire Bible?

36. Then how could he get commanded to do anything? (John 12:49; Deut. 18:18)

  37. Then why did Steven see two separate entities, GOD and Jesus, and not just one God or three persons? (Acts 7:55)

38. Then how could he be seen at GOD's right hand? (Luke 22:69; Acts 7:55; Rom. 8:34)

39. Then how could Jesus be exalted (not to become God Himself, but) to the position at the "right hand OF God"? (Acts 2:33)

40. Then why would he have to receive a revelation from God? (Rev.1:1)

41. Then why is he called God's "begotten" Son before he came to earth? (John 3:16; Gal. 4:4; 1 John 4:9)

  42. Then how could he have a Father? (John 20:17)

  43. Then how could he come in the flesh? (1 Kings 8:27; Acts 17:24,25)

  44. Then why did he not come in his own name? (John 5:41-44)

45. Then why did Jesus "come down from heaven to do" God's will and not his own will? (Luke 22:42; John 6:38; John 5:30; John 8:42)

  46. Then how could he appear before GOD? (Heb. 9:24)

  47. Then how could he die? Can God die? Can part of God die? (Rom. 5:10; Acts 5:30; 1 Cor. 15:3; Hab.1:12; cf. 1 Tim. 6:16; Num. 23:19; Ps. 90:2; Dan. 6:25-26)

48. Then why is it that God resurrected Jesus? (Acts 2:32)

  49. Then why was he seen by men if "no man has seen God at any time"? (John 1:18)

  50. Then why is there not one clear scripture where Jesus is called "God the Son," (equal to those declaring "God, the Father)?

  51. Then why does the last Gospel writer not tell us so in his final conclusion? John 20:31 John's final conclusion IF THE HOLY SPIRIT IS ALMIGHTY GOD...

1. Then why do quotes from Trinitarians admit that the Holy Spirit is not God but rather is a force from God?

  2. Then why would Jews instructed in the Old Testament scriptures and in the teachings of John the Baptist, NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS? (Acts 19:2)

3. Then why isn't the Holy Spirit given equal description in the Bible?

  4. Then why didn't Jesus ever teach that the Holy Spirit was God along with the Father and Son?

5. Then why does the Bible describe the Holy Spirit as an "it"? (Is. 34:16 ASV, KJV; Numbers 11:17, 25 ASV, KJV, RSV, NRSV, AT, LB, NEB, REB, NAB, JB, NJB; and Romans 8:16, 26 in the KJV.)

6. Then why does the Bible describe the Holy Spirit as a thing that can be poured out into portions? (Acts 2:17, 18, 33; Numbers 11:17, 25)

  7. Then why is the holy spirit nameless and indistinguishable from all of the other holy spirits?

  8. Then why did the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD disregard the Holy Spirit as a member of the Godhead when they declared Jesus to be 'God' in 325 AD? Why did they wait until the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD to include the Holy Spirit in the formula?

  9. Then wouldn't the water and blood be persons too according to Trinitarian reasoning and 1 John 5:8?

  10. Then why is it sandwiched between a list of QUALITIES at 2 Cor. 6:6?

  11. Then why does the NT Greek Lexicon describes the Holy Spirit as "this" at Acts 2:33?

  12. Then why is it that nowhere in the Bible is the Holy Spirit ever said to be an equal member of a trinity?

  13. Then why is it that nowhere is it mentioned in the Bible the words, "God, the Holy Spirit," or "The Holy Spirit is God"?

  14. Then why is it that there is never mentioned a vision, dream or clear description in scripture wherein God and the Holy Spirit are shown as the same person? (Dozens of Questions For Those Who Believe in the Trinity )

Philippians 2.6-11 A New understanding of Christian Monotheism? Not by Jehovah's Witnesses.

In reading the Book "The Only True God" by James F. McGrath some startling observations were made concerning Monotheism and the Letters attributed to Paul, especially concerning Jesus and the exalted position given him by Jehovah.

"That Pauls application of the divine name "Lord" and of Yahweh text from the Hebrew Bible to Jesus is intended to present Jesus as God's agent, who shares in God's rule and authority, becomes clear when one considers Romans14.9-11, where Paul takes up the language of Isaiah 45.23 once again, but here emphazes that the throne of judgment is ultimately God's, even though Christ is the Lord through whom the judgment is carried out. In 1 Corinthians 15.27-28 Paul makes clear the roles played by Jesus and God: Jesus is the "(son of Man)" to whom all things are to be subjected.

  That is to say, Jesus is the representative of humankind whom God has chosen to be his agent and mediator of judgment" pg 49-50

  It does not configure that Jewish nor Christian monotheism was compromised by attaching the divine Name nor ascribing some sort of proskeneo (worship, obescience)to others to the ultimalte exhaltation to the supreme God or Lord,( Give thanks to the God of gods....give thanks to the Lord of lords. Ps.136.2,3) who is exalted over all as Almighty God Jehovah.

"To put it another way, readings of Philippians 2.6-11 which emphasize the exalted status of Jesus and the application to him of language which applied to Yahweh in Isaiah tend to emphasize only part of what this passage actually says. That Paul believed Jesus occupied this exalted status can hardly be questioned. However, this text makes equally clear thst Jesus was exalted by God to this postition, and the clear implication is that this was a position he did not previously occupy. God exalted him." pg 51

"In ancient Judaism, God could empower his agent to wield his full power and authority, precisely because any figure so empowered always remained by definition subject and subordinate to the one empowering him, namely God." pg 51

In conclusion, unless forced to understand these text in some sort of unnatural way. We must go with the clear and unambigious text and let other text help us along the way.

Did Jesus have a God?

In reply to Satan Jesus retorted, "For it is written,(Deut.10.20)'It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.'

Paul unswervingly answered yes to this question. "That with one accord you may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" Romans 15.6...'So you glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.' Romans 15.6

2 Corinthians 1.3 says,"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"

2 Corinthians 11.31: "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, even the One who is to be praised." Not only is he the God of Our Lord (Who was made Lord Acts 2.36 and sits at the right hand of Jehovah as Lord...not Adonai but Adoni used 195 times never to Jehovah.) but also the one to be praised forever.

Colosians 1.3 "We thank God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"

Ephesians 1.3 'Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"

Ephesians 1.17 "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ..."

John in his writings made it quite evident that Jesus had a God. And that God could not possibly be the Trinity. John 17.3 "Prayer to the Father..."This means everlasting life their taking in knowledge of you the only true God..."

John 20.17 Jesus calls the Father My Father and My God. Revelation was given to Jesus by God. If he was God he would not have to be given it. Rev1.1 Rev. 3.2,12

What you see ....When you can see!!!

Jesus said it: ".....because, looking, they look in vain, and hearing they hear in vain, neither do they get the sense of it; and toward them the prophecy of Isaiah is having fulfillment, which says, 'By hearing, you will hear but by no means get the sense of it; and, looking, you will look but by no means see." Matthew 13.13,14

They appear to try. Look at John 5.39: "You are searching the scriptures, because you think by means of them you will have everlasting life and these are the very ones that bear witness about me."

Paul put it this way in 2Thess.2.9-12 " But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan+ with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders*+ 10 and every unrighteous deception+ for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. 11 That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie,+ 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness."

Romans 3.14:" But their mental powers were dulled."

One such one that has escaped Trinitarianism a Professor who taught at Masters University and ended up resigning because of the doctrine wrote:

"Trinitarians are victims of a kind of a kind of cult-ish persuasion, where once someone has been thoroughly indoctrinated into a system of theology, they are unable to read Scripture and ascertain it's true historical meaning, but are bound to see in it's pages, only the theology into which they were indoctrinated.

It's like in Romans 11.8 Paul speaks of these ones: just as it is written: “God has given them a spirit of deep sleep,+ eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear, down to this very day.

 

Genesis 19.24 Two Jehovah's ?.... 0r simple Illeism

"Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens upon Sodom and Gomorrah. Genesis 19.24

For years in my discusion with trinitarians I have met with some advocating that two Jehovah's, are mentioned here in Genesis.. I would quickly retort with simple Herbraic idiom of speaking of oneself in 3rd person something common in Hebrew speech and even english denoting only one person. 1 Kings 8.1 boistered that Hebraic idomism:"At that time Solomon proceeded to congregate the older men of Israel .......to King Solomon. was always a quick example of Solomon speaking about Solomon.

 

As Acts 8.34 ask by the Eunuch. "I beg you about whom does the prophet say this? "About himself or about some other man?" An appropriate question to ask in reference to names shared in contextual parallels. What most refer to as illeism.

 Illeism is refering to oneself in the 3rd person within a text where 1st person is also present. Trinitarians have purported that these are plural hints of a plurality of God. Definatly anachronistic in understanding.

So in my attempt to clarify, here are some Biblical examples of illeism. It is also of interest that these examples are so common that we usually don't even recognize them as being such. For example I have thought of in regular speech some illeistic expressions  'Do you want your Dad to fix that. Obviously only one person is being spoken of .

Here are a few examples of illeism found in the scriptures.

Exodus 33.19 "But he said:"I will cause all my goodness to pass before your face, and I will declare the name of Jehovah before you.....(Here Jehovah is speaking of delaring the name of Jehovah.) (Two Jehovah's or illeism?)

2 Samuel 7.11b "And Jehovah has told you that a house is what Jehovah will make for you. (Two Jehovah's or simple illeism ?

Hosea 1.7 Here Jehovah is comforting the prophet. "I shall show mercy, and I shall save them by Jehovah their God. Two Jehovah's or simple illeism?

Genesis 9.12-15 Here God is speaking and saying that the rainbow is a covenant to time indefinite between God and every living soul. Are two Gods here mentioned or illeism?

Jehovah routinly refers to the House of Jehovah. Isa. 66.20; Jer.17.26; Hos.8.1

Two David's in 1 Samuel 25.22? or is this illeistic?

Genesis 4.23 Lamech titles his wives,'Wives of Lamech. Two Lamech's or illeistic?

A most quoted scripture. John 17.1,3. Here Jesus is praying to his Father. Jesus prays: "This means everlasting life, Taking in knowledge of you the only true God and the one who you sent forth Jesus Christ. Are their two Jesus' mentioned here or illeism?

If it were not for strained and tendentious attempts to prove the trinity we would see the absurdity of such claims.

See JETS 52/3 Sept. 2009 by Andrew S. Malone

Hitchens insight on the theory of evolution 'Can Bears Turn Into Whales?'

A quick treat for lovers of the never-ending evolution debate, whom I have cruelly starved of material for so long. Wesley Crosland says that ‘nothing can ever be proven in science.’ I am not quite sure what definition of 'proven' he is using here. It seems to me that there is a hierarchy of proof. Some theories can be demonstrated pretty conclusively by their reliable ability to predict, which many scientists believe to be the gold standard of scientific enquiry, and these are plainly of a different order from those which merely offer a plausible explanation for things which have already been observed. Even they are superior to theories which attempt to fit all known and many unknown facts into a pre-set theory, based on inadequate knowledge of the unobserved distant past and completely bereft of any predictive power.

   (radiometric dating) it really isn't comparable to evolution by natural selection, which arranges the known facts to suit its own subjective beliefs, and ceaselessly invents equally untestable supplementary theories to explain the various gaps and inconsistencies which then arise. (I said 'punctuated evolution' the other day when I meant 'punctuated equilibrium'. My apologies, though I suspect everyone who cared, knew what I meant to say). But if, as he says, radiometric dating has no more objective basis than evolution, perhaps I had better be more cautious about it. Any thoughts?

I am perfectly prepared to accept the possibility, dispiriting though it would be, that evolution by natural selection might explain the current state of the realm of nature. It is a plausible and elegant possible explanation. I just think the theory lacks any conclusive proof, is open to serious question on scientific grounds, from which it is only protected by a stifling orthodoxy. (This is always expressed by such expressions as 'overwhelming majority', as if scientific questions could be settled by a vote or a fashion parade).

So I am at liberty (I happen to think) not to accept it or its drab moral implications as proven or inescapable. I could do this privately and keep quiet about my view, as I suspect many do, but I think that would be cowardly.

In this matter of accepting that Darwin may conceivably be right, I have to deploy reason to triumph over my emotions. These lead to me laugh till tears flow down my face, every time I contemplate the theory of evolution for any length of time. I'm sorry. It just is very funny. I can't help it. Other people think the Marx Brothers are funny. I don't, nor am I moved by much of Monty Python, especially the 'Dead Parrot' sketch. But Darwin really does it for me, especially the bit about how a bear might turn into a whale, or was it the other way round? Ah, here we are: ’I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale,’ he once speculated. Golly. ‘No difficulty’? I can think of a few. So, I'm sure, could he, if reason rather than emotion had been on top when he wrote that. I know that I cannot let this hilarity guide me into any sort of certainty. Darwinism, despite this piffle, might in fact be true, which would in some ways be even funnier.

What I enjoy about this debate is the way in which my cautious modesty about the unknowable is made out to be a fault - often by the same people who belabour me about my passionate certainty about knowable things. You just can't please some folks.

Part 2

Can Bears Turn Into Whales? (Part Two) - Charles Darwin Revisited

Mr Platt says I have been ‘put right’ about evolution.  I imagine he says this to provoke another posting on the subject. Well, it’s been a while, so here goes anyway, useless though it is to reason on the fanatical faith which has the mighty Selfist Church in its thrall (I don't mean you, Will) .

 

I’ll come to  the matter of being ‘put right’ in a moment. First, he resurrects a silly comparison. He tries to equate encylopaedia references (and medical journal references)  to an observed fact (Delirium Tremens) witnessed by doctors and classified since 1813, and encyclopaedia references to the theory of evolution by natural selection. The latter is opinionated, differing and rapidly changing speculation about supposed events in the remote past, long before we were there to witness them (and far too slow to be detected in our own time).

 

Why does he do this obviously misleading thing, and not notice he is doing it?  As I said, and now repeat, the theory of evolution, *whatever its merits and problems*, is – and has to be by its nature - a theory about the distant past, witnessed by nobody,  based upon speculation, not upon observation.

 

Mr Platt says : ‘If he had bothered to look it up in the encyclopaedia he relied upon for information about DT, and by implication trusted as a reliable source, he would have seen how badly mistaken his ideas on the subject are. Realising the implications of his theory, Darwin spent several years making observations and collecting data after his return from the Galapagos Islands before publishing his great work. To suggest that the theory is “based upon speculation, not upon observation” is an insult to Darwin, and to the many biologists who have studied and refined the theory over the years. But why take my word for it? Consult one or more reliable texts and see for yourself! Mr. Hitchens has just taken on a medical professional and (in my view) won, simply by quoting from various textbooks. Steadfastly refusing to believe what those textbooks tell him about other subjects – presumably because it would mean having to transform his entire view of the world – seems at best stubborn and at worst hypocritical.’

 

Let me say it again. These are different kinds of information, treated differently by works of reference. The fact that they both appear in the same work of reference does not make them necessarily comparable,  let alone identical.  Newspapers contain weather forecasts, sports reports and obituaries, as well as news of differing kinds. Because all these things are in the same place, do we read them all in the same way? Not if we have any sense.  

 

Mr McStraun, whom Mr Platt applauds, had said : ‘Your [my] statement that the Theory of Evolution only concerns the distant past cannot pass uncontested. It is also used to explain present day phenomena such as the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and the rapid (within a decade) changes in common beak shapes in the Galapagos finches as a result of vegetation changes.’

 

First, what do these two gentlemen think my position is on the theory of evolution by natural selection? I will re-state it, yet again. It is that I am quite prepared to accept that it may be true, though I should personally be sorry if it turned out to be so as, it its implication is plainly atheistical, and if its truth could be proved, then the truth of atheism could be proved. I believe that is its purpose, and that it is silly to pretend otherwise.

 

It is an elegant and clever explanation for the current state of the realm of nature.  But it is a theory . Personally, I have no idea how the realm of nature took its present shape, or how life began, and I don’t think anyone else does either. There are several strands of belief among supporters of the theory (much as there are several sorts of belief in God), with Stephen Jay Gould disagreeing with Richard Dawkins, among others. The theory of evolution by natural selection has altered substantially since it was first set out, stumbles over the fossil record, which provides some unwelcome evidence of large-scale sudden change, especially in the Cambrian Explosion,  and has a general circularity problem (as do most all-explanatory theories),  which has troubled at least one notable philosopher, Sir Karl Popper. Don’t tell me he ‘recanted’ (even that is in dispute, by the way). So did Galileo, and in both cases the recantation said more about those who desired and pressed for it than it did about those who made it. In both cases a rather ossified faith come up against an enquiring mind, and the enquiring mind was compelled to conform,  by ossified faith. Which side are you on in such conflicts?  I am always on the same one.

 

Mr McStraun’s citation of ‘the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and the rapid (within a decade) changes in common beak shapes in the Galapagos finches as a result of vegetation changes,’ simply moves the problem along a few feet, much as a motorway shifts a traffic jam from one place to another. It also suggests he may not fully understand the immense ambitions of the theory he embraces. It seems to me that these problems are so obvious to a thinking mind that nothing short of fervent faith protects them from sceptical examination.

 

These undoubted phenomena, which he mentions in the apparent belief that I haven’t heard of them,  are evidence of *adaptation*, which could easily exist in a non-evolutionary system (as could extinction)  and fall well short of the far more ambitious changes required for the evolutionary theory to work. The point at which adaptation becomes evolutionary change is one of the most interesting in science, and not easily answered, particularly by measurable evidence.  This is where the circularity tends to come in.

 

The theory’s confidence has often led its proponents into error (E.g. : Darwin’s own wondrous speculation that ’I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale,’ and the willingness of so many to be fooled by the blatant fake which was Piltdown man) . Why shouldn’t it be doing the same now? And what exactly *is* punctuated equilibrium? It makes theology look straightforward.

 

Mr Platt’s assertion that ‘to suggest that the theory is “based upon speculation, not upon observation” is an insult to Darwin, and to the many biologists who have studied and refined the theory over the years.’ , with its interesting use of the word ‘insult’, is a mild but important warning of the inquisition-style rage which quickly enters arguments on this subject, and which is in fact the biggest single argument against the theory. Why are its supporters so furiously intolerant of doubt and dissent, if they are so confident?

 

By the way, I must request Mr ‘Crosland’ not to contribute to this debate until he has answered the ‘childishly simple questions’ on this subject I put to him some years ago, but to which he has mysteriously failed to respond despite numerous promptings, and now says he has lost.  Of course, I cannot stop him contributing, but I will not respond to him unless he answers the questions.

 

I’ll end as I did the last time I wasted my time trying to approach this matter in a reasoned, sceptical way, three years ago. This can be found here

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/02/can-bears-turn-into-whales.html

 ‘What I enjoy about this debate is the way in which my cautious modesty about the unknowable is made out to be a fault - often by the same people who belabour me about my passionate certainty about knowable things. You just can't please some folks.’