Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


Jewish Mysticism Meets Intelligent Design: Whose Signature in the Cell?

posted by David Klinghoffer

My op-ed in the Jerusalem Post today discusses the eerie anticipation of ideas about the genetic code by Jewish mysticism, or kabbala. I cite the Tanya (1796) but the tradition on this — creation through the combination of letters — goes much further back, at least to the Sefer Yetzirah, attributed to Abraham and referenced in the Talmud, therefore presumably predating it. What to make of this? You tell me.

Excerpt:

In [a] new book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne), my colleague Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge University-trained philosopher of science, reminds us of the failure of every avenue by which science has tried to explain the origin of the genetic information required for the first life. Explanations depending on unguided material processes alone usually founder on a chicken-or-the-egg paradox: notably, that “specified information in DNA codes for proteins, but specific proteins are necessary to transcribe and translate the information on the DNA molecule.”

DNA acts like a computer code, or like a language consisting of letters and words, arranged in specific sequences to accomplish a specific task or convey a specific meaning. As Dr. Meyer observes, the only kind of source we know of that can produce a “functionally integrated information-processing system” like that in the cell is an intelligent source.

As a Jew, I find it intriguing, at the very least, that Jewish tradition anticipated precisely the kind of evidence that Meyer deals with in his book. DNA refers to the letters of a genetic “alphabet” that in the correct combinations encode the diversity of all life forms. Kabbala too speaks of such an alphabet, comprised of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, with which God continually speaks the world into existence.

Different combinations of letters produce different creatures. A century and a half before Watson and Crick, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi sought to make Kabbala accessible to ordinary readers. In the Tanya (1796), he writes of how “the creatures are divided into categories [both] general and particular by changes in the combinations, substitutions and transpositions [of the letters].”

Read the rest at the JPost.


Advertisement
Comments read comments(32)
post a comment
Glen Davidson

posted July 7, 2009 at 4:29 pm


As Dr. Meyer observes, the only kind of source we know of that can produce a “functionally integrated information-processing system” like that in the cell is an intelligent source.

Really? Did we ever see a code like DNA that had been produced by intelligence prior to our decoding of DNA?
Simple answer, no. It is indeed quite unlikely that we would resort to such a redundant means of encoding information.
Besides that, quite obviously Meyer is spitting in the face of science by merely assuming what he claims to be demonstrating in his book. By a sloppy “comparison” that cherry picks what is similar between human codes and the DNA code, while ignoring what is dissimilar, Meyer merely asserts design instead of coming up with any kind of evidence for it.
By the way, DNA turned out to be what was predicted for genetic material, something like the aperiodic crystal mentioned by Schroedinger. To support evolution, it was also understood that it had to be quite conservative, yet capable of change–mutation. So again, evolution made predictions for genetic material, and it turned out to be accurate. Chalk another up for evolution.
This is equally ignorant:

Explanations depending on unguided material processes alone usually founder on a chicken-or-the-egg paradox: notably, that “specified information in DNA codes for proteins, but specific proteins are necessary to transcribe and translate the information on the DNA molecule.”

Specific RNAs are also needed. There is reason to suspect that only RNAs were necessary earlier, and only later did specific proteins become involved. Any chance you’ll ever learn about what you write about, David?
As for the mystical nonsense about magic from beyond the body being important for life’s development, well, that’s just what we’d expect of an anti-science DI fellow. Perhaps it would do well to remember that IDists claim (sans evidence) that ID predicts that “junk DNA” will have functions, and to realize that actual (non-ID, that is) science has found functions for many non-coding segments of DNA (while many segments may indeed be functionless).
It remains a fact that DNA and its products function in a context, which no doubt has something to do with the different types of bodies produced by similar (not identical) Hox genes. Much is also understood of how Hox genes are regulated to create different bodies, not that I’d expect an IDist to understand such science.
The fact that Hox genes are highly conserved points only to evolution, it should be noted. The fact that Hox genes once had to evolve, and now have become highly conserved elements, gives us an analogy for how DNA codes might have been flexible once, only to become highly conserved (but not totally, as pyrrolysine had to co-opt a stop codon).
The DNA code is something whose origin has not been fully explained as yet by science. But if it ever is explained, it will be by science, not by the vague musings of Meyer and other proponents of magic.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p



report abuse
 

freelunch

posted July 7, 2009 at 4:44 pm


DNA acts like a computer code, or like a language consisting of letters and words, arranged in specific sequences to accomplish a specific task or convey a specific meaning.
That’s not really accurate. DNA forms genes which do differing things in differing environments. Genes are neither codes nor language, though at times it may look like it by analogy, but they are codes or words that do things, something that real codes and real words do not. Genes are turned on and off by other genes and by other biochemicals in the area. This is a highly complex biochemical process. At times, a gene is akin to a catalytic cracker in a refinery. At times, they engage in self-replication.
Still, in the end, you are relying on nothing but the God-of-the-Gaps argument. You claim that we don’t know how this started, so for absolutely no reason at all you assign God, er, the unknown intelligent designer the task. Neither you nor any of your religious confederates at the DI can justify your claim.
There is no signature in the cell. Even if there were a designer, you cannot point to any signature, none at all.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 7, 2009 at 5:19 pm


I was under the impression that evolution actually held up acceptance of modern genetics for a long time. Darwin wrote that heredity was controlled by things he called “gemules” which were very maliable. This allowed for the variation that evolution needs to work on. But Mendel discovered that the heredity is controlled by dscrete units that are passed intact from parent to offspring. This makes it hard to find a source for the variation that natural selection needs to work on. Evolutionists resisted accepting genteics until the development of the modern synthesis, which says that mutations are the source of variation.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 7, 2009 at 5:22 pm


One interesting area in the field of biomimicry is DNA computing. Scientists are finding ways to use DNA in computers because DNA is better suited fro some tasks than silicon semiconductors.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 7, 2009 at 5:27 pm


Doesn’t transcription and translation depend on polymerase and transcriptase? These are both proteins. Every step in translation from DNA to RNA to proteins is controlled by a whole bunch of proteins. There are even proteins that attached the amino acids to the tRNA. And the nucleotides are all manufactured by proteins. So proteins are necessary at every step.



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 7, 2009 at 6:07 pm


“DNA acts like a computer code, or like a language consisting of letters and words, arranged in specific sequences to accomplish a specific task or convey a specific meaning…. [T]he only kind of source we know of that can produce a “functionally integrated information-processing system” like that in the cell is an intelligent source.”
That’s not true, of course. An example: variation and natural selection can produce a system like that in a cell. Dr.. Meyer is a philosopher, and should be able to recognize logical fallacies. Except, apparently, his own.. His syllogism is (1) we know of functionally integrated information processing systems that have been produced by an intelligent source; that is, “Some A are B.” (2) therefore, all FI IP systems are produced by an intelligent source; that is, “All A are B.” And, by the way, we know nothing about the characteristics, properties, or attributes of that intelligence, and are forsworn from naming Him—uh—it. And, by a further way, we have no clue as to how to investigate such characteristics, properties, etc.
But, even on Meyers’ own terms, there are examples of FI IP systems like that in a cell, but even more complex and integrated, that were not produced by an intelligence. Consider the global weather system. Millions upon millions of interdependent parts. A complexity that baffles the best meteorologists for detailed predictions more than a week ahead. An atmosphere that has hundreds of interdependent reactions that regulate its chemical composition and physical properties. Highly patterned hurricanes,tornadoes, and monsoons that develop spontaneously from chaotic air masses. Globally organized ocean currents with complex specified functions such as regulating temperature and salinity over thousands of miles. Clouds that are adept enough to drop their rain before crossing mountains, rather than afterward–and that can even assume recognizable shapes, such as faces and animals.
The “signature in the cell” is the colophon of natural selection, not the paraph of some unknown intelligence.



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 7, 2009 at 9:06 pm


Your Name: “One interesting area in the field of biomimicry is DNA computing. Scientists are finding ways to use DNA in computers because DNA is better suited fro some tasks than silicon semiconductors.”
Isn’t it a shame that biomimicry has never worked the other way around? Anthromimicry, we could call it. We might have silicon in our brains that could process billions of operations per second. We might have titanium bones stronger and lighter than ours. We might have wheeled animals that could outrun a cheetah, like the mufala in Philip Pullman’s “Amber Spyglass.” And we might not have to carry useless parts around in our genome, such as a broken citric acid cycle and a redundant centromere in chromosome two.
Yes, the Designer could learn a few things from us. He–uh–it has certainly suffered a ton of failures. 99% of all species have become extinct. I may draw up a list of suggestions and present them during my nightly visits.
(Well, I should talk. I can’t even get the Captcha right. And I used to work in machine pattern recognition!)



report abuse
 

freelunch

posted July 7, 2009 at 9:52 pm


(Well, I should talk. I can’t even get the Captcha right. And I used to work in machine pattern recognition!)
Unless you are the one who designed and implemented the Captcha, you have no apologies to make. Those are all due us from Beliefnet which should have used evolution for its (un)intelligently designed product.



report abuse
 

Paul Burnett

posted July 7, 2009 at 10:10 pm


Stephen Meyer’s new book, “Signature in the Cell,” has been out a few weeks, and is ranked #720 at Amazon. Jerry Coyne’s book, “Why Evolution is True,” is ranked #237 – and that’s after six months of sales.
But “Signature in the cell” is leading sales in its category at Amazon: It’s #1 in the “Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Theology > Creationism” category – which is of course where it belongs. (Thanks to “iconofid” in another blog)
Stephen Meyer has just helped put yet another nail in intelligent design creationism’s coffin, by choosing to publish “Signature in the cell” at a religious publishing house, HarperOne. In the world of actual science, authors use science publishing house – in the world of religion, authors use religious publishing houses. Meyer chose wisely – I’m sure his book will sell better to those who browse the “Religion” aisle in the book store than it would have in the “Science” aisle.



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 7, 2009 at 11:01 pm


Paul B., the book “Of Pandas and People,” that was central in the Kitzmiller v Dover ID trial was published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. One of the more riotous incidents at the trial occurred when FT&E’s CEO testified that FT&E was not a religious organization. When confronted with their 501(c)3 tax document claiming that it was a religious organization, he denied having seen the document. Then opposing counsel showed him his signature on it. Oops!
(This is the book whose draft contained the infamous “cdesign proponentsists” transitional fossil between “creationists” and “design proponents.”)



report abuse
 

freelunch

posted July 8, 2009 at 8:16 am


Olorin,
Despite this sordid history of the “intelligent design” movement, David is still shamelessly shilling books by people who write more books imbued with religious dogma that are alleged to be related to science. I understand why the Discovery Institute likes to pay him. He makes the whole enterprise look a little less like a Christianist plot. What I don’t understand is why he sold out to them.



report abuse
 

Paul Burnett

posted July 8, 2009 at 8:26 am


Olorin wrote: “When confronted with their 501(c)3 tax document claiming that it was a religious organization, he denied having seen the document. Then opposing counsel showed him his signature on it.”
For certain Jon Buell, along with Messrs. Buckingham and Bonsell, certainly helped Judge Jones understand intelligent design creationism’s roots: Lying. Judge Jones commented in his decision: “It is ironic that several of these individuals (sworn witnesses), who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the (Intelligent Design) Policy.”



report abuse
 

Heretic_for_Christ

posted July 8, 2009 at 9:03 am


This is a disappointing essay by Mr. Klinghofer. A few years ago, I was quite intrigued by the contrast in answers given by a priest and a rabbi to the question: “What if science proves that certain Bible-based notions are simply wrong?” The priest said, in essence, that if there were an out-and-out conflict between science and some scripture-based idea, he would have to look carefully to see whether there was some way to reconcile the science with scripture so that the science could be accepted; the rabbi said that he would have to see whether there was some way to reconcile his religious beliefs with the science so that the beliefs could be maintained.
In other words, the Christian started with the assumption that the Bible MUST be true, and would judge science according to whether it could be reconciled with the Bible as the standard of truth. The Jew started with the assumption that there is something called truth, and if a scientific concept is proven to be true, then a faith-based idea must be judged to according to whether it can be reconciled with the proven scientific fact as the standard of truth.
I am not a Christian or a Jew, but I admired the rabbi’s rationality–the willingness to question, which is (I believe) a prime manifestation of God’s spiritual presence within us all.
Evolution is science. As with all the biological sciences including clinical medicine, the scientific framework of evolution is far from complete; but the fact that legitimate questions can be asked does not invalidate it as true evidence-based science. Certainly, the fact that there are questions for which evolution cannot currently offer definitive answers in no way implies that some alternate explanation must therefore be true, especially given that the alternate explanation–creationism or its slightly more discreet alter ego, intelligent design–offers not one scintilla of scientific evidence or even the prospect of someday being able to offer evidence. Thus, creationism/ID is NOT an alternate theory (a scientific theory is a model that best explains the available evidence and cannot be invalidated by available data) nor is it even a hypothesis (a model for which evidence is currently lacking but could feasibly be obtained); it remains a mere conjecture or speculation, and speculation is not science of any kind.
Too bad Mr. Klinghofer lacks the intellectual honesty of that rabbi who was not afraid of scientific truth.



report abuse
 

freelunch

posted July 8, 2009 at 9:30 am


Too bad Mr. Klinghofer lacks the intellectual honesty of that rabbi who was not afraid of scientific truth.
Follow the money. The Discovery Institute, David’s employer, does not pay people to have intellectual honesty or follow science wherever it leads. They pay people to propagandize for a religious doctrine that they call intelligent design and the rest of the world calls (anti-science) creationism. Meyer, another employee of DI, like the rest of religious folks who object to evolution, cherry-picked science to misrepresent what has been discovered.



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 8, 2009 at 11:54 am


freelunch: “Follow the money.”
A convenient reason, but not the only reason. Probably not even the most important. There are many frothing fundamentalist evolution bashers who have no financial stake in the matter.
Mr Klinghoffer is a convert from Reform to Orthodox Judaism. In my experience, converts are uniformly more zealous than those who have grown up in the same religious denomination. (Read Philip Johnson’s conversion story.) And Orthodoxy has resisted evolution more than any other branch.
In his case, as in many others—even among fellows of the Discovery Institute, belief seems to be the primary motivation, not the money.
There is also, of course, the specter of discrimination. Minority groups often feel–or actually are—persecuted. This produces a group cohesion and a siege mentality. The “enemy” must be pushed back at all costs, lest they crush us.
Also, it is common for such people to be conspiracy embracers. Look up the views of Discovery Institute fellows on global warming. They uniformly believe it is a plot against them personally by Big Science, or Big Government, or Big Something or Other. Anti-vaxxers are also common among anti-evolutionists.
Judge Jones noted the irony of religious people lying for their position. But this type of folk commonly believe that their cause is just and that the end justifies the means. In the words of Martin Luther, “A small lie in the service of the Lord is no sin.” The 8th and 9th Commandments simply do not apply to them: remember the outright lies in the movie “Expelled,” and its theft of a Harvard video and a John Lennon song, for example.
Then, especially in the case of the Disco Tute, there is a strong desire for political power. Their primary financial angel is a Christian Reconstructionist. The aim of this group is to replace the pluralistic society of the United States with a government that enforces biblical law—that is, an Iranian style of government.
So, money is a factor. But I think it is not the primary factor, and focusing on money alone will not be productive either to get the professional creationists off their perch, or to change the views of the people whom they are trying to persuade.



report abuse
 

freelunch

posted July 8, 2009 at 12:28 pm


Olorin,
I agree with your expanded explanation of what appears to be going on. It does seem unlikely that someone who cares about intellectual honesty would even go to work for such an organization. The money is more of an indication of lost integrity than a cause of it.
Unlike other anti-science religious organizations like Answers in Genesis or the ICR who tend to be very conservative protestants, there is a wider variety of conservative religious deniers of science in the DI. They have added Catholics, David and even a Moonie to their squad. I wonder if they’ll find a Scientologist to add to the mix.



report abuse
 

Unaplogetic Catholic

posted July 8, 2009 at 3:24 pm


David,
How does the Kabballa numerology differ from the Bible Code mumerology?
Or does it?
Can you post a link or refer metosome resource on this?
I cannot see much a differnce from what you have described in the Kabbala and what others describe is the Bible Code.
Thanks.



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 8, 2009 at 4:59 pm


DK: “As a Jew, I find it intriguing, at the very least, that Jewish tradition anticipated precisely the kind of evidence that Meyer deals with in his book.”
Intriguing, perhaps, but not surprising. Recently, a group of mathematicians took the predictions found in the Bible Code, and applied the same techniques to “Moby Dick.” Intriguingly—but not surprisingly—most of the same predictions appeared.
The necessary conclusion is that Herman Melville was divinely inspired. QED.
Numerology can be interesting, however, in understanding ancient texts, because almost every civilization used it. The six days of creation in Genesis, for example, represents perfection. (6 is the first perfect number: the sum of all its dvisors). The seven-day cycle of Genesis represents completion. (7 is the sum of the four horizontal directions and the 3 spheres: the earth, the heavens above the earth, and the waters below the earth). So, in the New Testament, when Jesus says we must forgive “seventy times seven,” he didn’t mean we could forgive someone 490 times, and THEN smite his tush into the dirt. he meant we must forgive waaaay past everthing—infinitely. Too bad that literalists concentrate on memorizing the Bible rather than studying it.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted July 8, 2009 at 5:40 pm


Eh, DNA is an “alphabet” in only a metaphorical sense. A better analogy might be “marks on paper”.
There is a thought experiment. Suppose you wash up on a desert island. For some reason, there are white rocks arranged on the hillside that form the letters PAIN.
Perhaps you have to squint hard to see the letters, like you do the Man in the Moon.
Well, if you are an English speaker, you are going to have totally different emotions on seeing those letters than a French speaker would–and if you were an Andaman islander the rocks would have no meaning to you at all.
A string of DNA is fundamentally just a template for making a string of RNA. Now there is information encoded in it for building the organism that can interpret the DNA, but you need a very similar organism to read and execute the code, which is why if you put the DNA from an ear of corn in a human egg cell you’d get a horrible mess.
Imagine a string of ones and zeros stored on a CD ROM. Put the CD ROM into, say, a Toshiba computer which runs a Toshiba factory. The Toshiba computer reads the CD ROM and executes the instructions, which tells the factory to build a new factory with a new Toshiba computer and a new accompanying CD ROM with the instructions.
Well, putting that string of ones and zeros into an Atari 2600 attached to my TV isn’t going to produce anything but a garbled TV picture.
It’s not very like an alphabet.



report abuse
 

Alber

posted July 8, 2009 at 9:14 pm


re: Sephir Yetzirah and protein/RNA/DNA coding: 22 Hebrew letters = the 21 amino acids plus one “stop” in coding for human protein. DNA codes for mRNA, which codes for proteins, which combined in certain measures make up each individual person’s body. Protein – found in all life – is the ultimate expression of DNA.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted July 8, 2009 at 9:42 pm


Alber, thanks!
If you want 22, I’ll give you 22 a little more directly: “Proteinogenic amino acids are those 22 amino acids that are found in proteins and that are coded for in the standard genetic code.[1] Proteinogenic literally means protein building. Proteinogenic amino acids are assembled into a polypeptide (the subunit of a protein) through a process known as translation (the second stage of protein biosynthesis, part of the overall process of gene expression).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_standard_amino_acids



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 8, 2009 at 11:31 pm


If you want 22, I’ll give you 22 a little more directly:”
David, you’re asleep at the Kabbalah. 22 is the number of paths between the sephiroth. This is why there are 22 coding amino acids.
No, wait. TThe connection is actually with the 7 days of creation. Yes. 22 is a centered heptagonal (7) number. When cutting a circle with just six line segments (one for each of the 6 days of the work of creation), the maximum number of pieces that can be so created is 22. And 22/7 is the approximation used by the Hebrews for pi, the complete circle of creation. With 21 (i.e., 3×7), 22 forms a discrete biprime pair; 22 has an aliquot sum of 14 (2×7), and is a composite number found in the 7-aliquot tree.
There! See how simple it is when the result is known beforehand?



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 8, 2009 at 11:56 pm


Now, if you had said, BEFORE anyone knew how many coding animo acids there are, that 22 amino acids WOULD BE discovered, then your credibility might be less tattered.
Let’s give it a try, then. Based upon the numerology of your choice, how many protein-coding genes will be found in the human genome? Since numerology deals in exact numbers only, your answer must be precise. No approximations or orders-of-magnitude, please.



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 9, 2009 at 12:10 am


I seem to remember a book with a title something like “Interesting Numbers.” It would be very handy for David.
In fact, there can be no boring numbers, and I can prove it. Ahem. Suppose that a non-empty set of boring numbers exist. Then there must be a first boring number. Isn’t that interesting? QED.



report abuse
 

Mystic design

posted July 9, 2009 at 11:15 am


“Intelligent design” has been reduced to what it really is, mystic numerology. sheesh



report abuse
 

freelunch

posted July 9, 2009 at 11:24 am


Mystic design –
The discussion has even moved onto an evaluation about which mystic numerology is correct. Of course we could try to expand it to give some pointers to the Discovery Institute on how best to misrepresent this numerology as science.



report abuse
 

Glen Davidson

posted July 9, 2009 at 12:21 pm


“Intelligent design” has been reduced to what it really is, mystic numerology. sheesh

See, it’s numbery.
So it must be science.
And really, is Kaballah any worse than Dembski’s empiricism-free mathematical nonsense?
But you know, it’s the bad science in evolution (which David doesn’t actually comprehend) about which David is concerned. Why can’t we just do science with Kaballah?
Madonna’s a scientist, you know.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 10, 2009 at 12:40 pm


Gen Davidson on intelligent design: “See, it’s numbery.”
I think you meant “mummery.”



report abuse
 

Science Fan

posted July 25, 2009 at 11:36 pm


One of the most refreshing aspects of the Intelligent Design revolution is that it so openly addresses the origin of life. On the other hand, Darwin cultists avoid any origin of life discussion like the plague. I find that very telling.
For the record, I give Dr. Meyer’s new book 5 out of 5 stars. It’s a breathtaking piece of literature which delivers more science in its first chapter than what can be found in the entire contents of the pseudoscientist P.Z. Myers’ blog. Dr. Meyer has taken biology out of the darkness and into the light by linking it to modern information science. On the other hand, we have Darwinists trying to keep science in the Victorian era of the mid-19th century, a time when biologist’s ignorance made Darwin’s now-absurd ideas seem somewhat plausible.
Now that I’ve given it further thought, I take back my original rating of 5 stars. For helping save science from the deceptive and dangerous hands of anti-science Darwinists, I shall reward Meyer with an extra star. Signature in the Cell is now rated 6 stars out of 5. What a masterpiece!



report abuse
 

Mike McCants

posted August 4, 2009 at 2:42 am


“reminds us of the failure of every avenue by which science has tried to explain the origin of the genetic information required for the first life”
so far. Research continues. Meyer claims that such research will always fail. Forever. We don’t know yet and we never will know. After all, “chance” could never build a protein of length 150. Or else “chance” would have to build something simpler and then build on that. But that possibility is not discussed.
There is no argument against “evolution” here. The entire argument is that an “intelligent cause” created the first life about 3 billion years ago (since “chance” is ruled out). This is unrelated to any religion. But it’s still not science. It’s just hand-waving.



report abuse
 

Ron Krumpos

posted February 27, 2010 at 1:54 pm


There are three other excellent books related to this topic, written by contemporary scientists who are also deeply religious. Intelligent design need not be creationism; evolution need not be dumb design.
“The Language of God,” by Francis S. Collins (Free Press/Simon & Schuster 2006). Dr Collins was head-Human Genome Project. He believes that faith in God and science can co-exist and be harmonious.
“Let There be Light,” by Howard Smith (New World Library 2006). Dr. Smith is a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center. He explains how modern study of the cosmos complements the Kabbalah.
“Intelligence in Nature,” by Jeremy Narby (Jeremy P. Thatcher/Penguin 2005). Dr. Narby has a doctorate in anthropology. He makes a reasoned connection be shamanistic beliefs and modern science.



report abuse
 

Ron Krumpos

posted April 1, 2010 at 4:02 pm


Physicists are searching for the “creator”; they call it the Higgs boson. Evolution came later. To say evolution is not intelligent or lacks design is to deny recent discoveries of microbiology and astrophysics. Before you reject ID entirely, read the 40 books on psychology, biology and physics in the bibliographies of my e-book at http://www.suprarational.org If we were to completely dismiss that which we didn’t understand, progress in science and technology would come to a halt. It is the mysteries of life that drive researchers onward.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Kabballah Counseling Happy Reading!

posted 11:24:22am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the Serpent
Our family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul was chattering about the "shark teeth." "Shark teeth g

posted 3:56:33pm Mar. 16, 2010 | read full post »

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate Matters
If the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from a journalist whom I'd queried on the subject. "All told

posted 5:07:12pm Mar. 15, 2010 | read full post »

The Mission of the Jews
Don't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for us to fulfill the roll God gave us in the Torah. Please

posted 6:14:16pm Mar. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the Occult
Of all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the topic. But no attempt to assess the scope of his legacy

posted 2:04:11pm Mar. 04, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.