Sheep and Goats

Category: Scientists

  • The Language in Which God Wrote the Universe

    If Isaiah 40:22 is not a lesson in science, all the more so 40:26 is not. But could it be another example of the Bible being accurate when it happens to touch on matters of science?

    “Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing.” (Isaiah 40:26) What are “these things?” They are the heavens, the stars.

    Got it. It’s not a science lesson. Yet, not to overanalyze the point, it turns out there’s a connection between “vast dynamic energy” and these “created things.” It is even described with mathematical precision: E=mc². It has been demonstrated numerous times since World War II. The tiniest bit of mass times the speed of light squared yields a staggering amount of energy. Surely, the reverse must also hold, that a source of infinite energy can convert some of it to mass.

    Why should this relationship be this is written so compactly? Why shouldn’t it be a hopeless hodgepodge of a mathematics mess? If you jam the keys of a piano together, it sounds like garbage and it looks like garbage in math. But if you do harmonious music, the mathematics is elegant. Notes that harmonize are simple ratios of each other. Notes that don’t are not.

    Basic laws of physics are expressed in the terms of often-simple mathematics. Newton discovered that force equals mass times acceleration, for example (F=ma). From Galileo: the distance a ball falls in t seconds is 16 times the square of t. (d=16t²). Why shouldn’t the answer be a hopeless mishmash, like your sock drawer, instead of a compact formula? It was enough for Galileo to proclaim that “God wrote the universe in the language of mathematics.” For centuries, scientists pursued their topic as though a religious quest, as a means to uncover the design of God and thereby give him praise.

    When Kepler worked out the laws governing planetary motions [they move in ellipses, not circles] and published the results, he suddenly let loose with a paean to God, smack dab in the middle of his treatise. If you didn’t know better, you’d think it was one of the Bible psalms: “The wisdom of the Lord is infinite; so also are His glory and His power. Ye heavens, sing His praises! Sun, moon, and planets glorify Him in your ineffable language! Celestial harmonies, all ye who comprehend His marvelous works, praise Him. And thou, my soul, praise thy Creator! It is by Him and in Him that all exists. that which we know best is comprised in Him, as well as in our vain science. To Him be praise, honor, and glory throughout eternity.”

    Does it not dovetail with this proclamation from Revelation 4:11? “You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.” 

    Those early scientists didn’t experiment much. Instead, they worked out the math, since they were convinced that underlay how God designed things. When they made experiments it was mostly to confirm results. Newton once said it was done to convince the “vulgar,” (He also told how he made up the story of the falling apple to dispose of pesky people who asked him how he discovered laws of gravitation.) And Galileo, when describing an experiment of dropping two different masses from the top of a ship’s mast, has his fictional creation, a fellow named Simplicio, ask whether he actually made such an experiment. “No, and I do not need it, as without any experience I can confirm that it is so because it cannot be otherwise,” was his reply.

    Can one just sit and think the makeup of the universe? Turns out that you can, assuming you are very smart and you have correctly identified the variables. Newton played with the notion of firing a giant cannonball from a mountaintop with just enough velocity, not too much and not too little, that it’s ordinary straight line path would be continually offset by the earth’s pull so that it would orbit the planet indefinitely. He obviously didn’t perform such an experiment, it was all in his head. Working from a few known quantities (radius of the earth, distance a body falls in the first second) he deduced laws of universal gravitation: The gravitational attraction between two masses (m1 and m2) is F = k(m1·m2/r²). Like Kepler, gave God all the glory:

    “This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being…This Being governs all things, not as the soul of world, but Lord over all.”   Mathematical Principles, 2nd edition.

    It gets more beautiful and stranger still. In 1785, Charles Coulomb published the law of force between two electrically charged bodies, q1 and q2: F =- k(q1·q2/r²) where k is a constant and r is the distance between the two bodies. What even the dumbest person in class can’t miss is the law’s identical form to that of gravity, a wholly different phenomena, outlined above with Newton. The gravitational attraction between two masses (m1 and m2) isF = k(m1·m2/r²)The only difference is that electrical force can attract or repulse, depending on whether the two bodies have equal or opposite charges; gravity always attracts. “The universe is whispering its secrets to us in stereo,” says the book ‘The Universe Speaks in Numbers,’ referring to the cooperation of physics and mathematics, but it might also be applied to this case of how different phenomena share the same formula.

    Is this another way in which humans are created in God’s image—that we can speak the same language as He in establishing creation? Usually it is his sense of justice that we are said to resonate with, or the quality of love, but is pure thought another? “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible,” said Einstein.

    However, a funny thing has happened over the years in connection with the language of mathematics. If you can speak the language, you can create sentences with it. In time, mathematicians began devising different mathematics, using different axioms as starting points. These were often bizarre mathematics, with no conceivable application to reality. But, then, just as bizarrely, it turned out that some of them did apply.

    The comic strip tyke character Calvin’s eyes bugged out of his head when his stuffed tiger Hobbes (turned real tiger when nobody was around), suggested a simple arithmetic homework problem would require use of “imaginary numbers!” The kid had all he could handle with real numbers! He either sloughed off his assignments on Susie or doomed himself to a failing grade. Who would not recoil at imaginary numbers, based on the square root of minus one? Surely, there can be no such thing; any number times itself, even a negative number, is invariably positive.

    But it subsequently turned out that imaginary numbers (also colled complex numbers) are essential to quantum physics. The topic cannot be understood (to the extent it is) without them. It is as though a product essential to earth cannot be manufactured on earth, so it is exported to some weird planet for manufacture and then the results are imported back where they prove useful.

    Similarly, strange non-Euclidian geometries have proven essential to understand relativity—which not everybody does, but nobody does without the offbeat math. Albert Einstein cruised the Atlantic in the company of a statesman friend who later reported: “Dr. Einstein explained his theory to me every day. By the time we arrived, I was fully convinced that he really understands it.” You need the “crazy” math to do it. There are countless other examples of “crazy” math in time proving itself useful.

    Writing bizarre math statements in the language that God uses, then finding some, but not all, of those statements used in creation, produced a strange effect on immodest mathematicians. By that time, along with the rest of evolution-fed society, they had become dubious of God. So, they thereby rechristened “creation” as “reality” or just “the universe” to escape any God implication. It began to seem to them as though they were the creators of the language, of which “God” utilizes only a subset. The feeling grew and has become popular that humans have invented mathematics, rather than discovered it. As with Darth Vader to Obi Wan, the pupil had fancied himself the master.

    Mathematics plainly exists “out there” somewhere, but if you’ve quit believing in God, where can the “out there” be but within our own heads? It must be that they invented it themselves, they reasoned. Why does it fit reality so well? To hear their account, it’s as though the learned one fuss and fret, tossing away one measure that doesn’t work after another, till they finally find something that does work to describe something. You mean that there were a few thousand wanna-be Galileos describing gravity in all sorts of harebrained ways, until the master himself came along and found a way to reduce it all to a few letters and numbers? I’m dubious. “The first effect of not believing in God is that you lose your common sense,” G. K. Chesterton said.

    Something about this revised “dissident” view reminds me of Larry King telling how it was with 7-Up. The soft drink was wildly successful—but only after the inventor flopped with 1-Up, 2-Up, 3-Up, 4-Up, 5-Up, and 6-Up. To add insult, the new view of math conforming to us rather than we to it is applied by atheistic thinking to creation itself. The reason the universe is so precisely tuned to the needs of life, these persons say, is because if it were anyway else, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. Douglass Adams addresses people who believe that God must exist since the world so fits our needs by comparing them to an intelligent puddle of water that fills a hole in the ground. The puddle is certain that the hole must have been designed specifically for it because it fits so well. it is a brilliant illustration. All that one must do for it to be perfect is find an intelligent puddle of water.
     
    Backtracking in time, Physicist Heinrich Hertz observed of the mathematics underlying reality: “One cannot escape the feeling that these equations have an existence and an intelligence of their own, that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers, that we get more out of them than was originally put into them.” We do indeed get a lot out of them. So much so that some became completely oblivious to what was “put into them” in the first place and who did the “putting.” “One cannot escape the feeling,” Hertz stated. Yet today’s materialistic society has managed to just that.

    Can you “prove” to the ones favoring invention (as opposed to discovering) that they are wrong? Frankly, you cannot. Best to admit it. As with all things human, the heart decides what it wants and then charges the head to devise a convincing rationale for it. This lends the appearance that the head is calling the shots, but it is the heart all along. Best admit it. it is beyond the scope of “proof.” It’s sort of like when Trump met with the newly elected Mandami and everyone thought there were going to be fireworks. Instead, the meeting appeared friendly. So media asked Mamdani, didn’t he previously call Trump a facist? The New York mayor begins to him and haw (because he had) whereupon, the president interjected: “Just admit it. It’s easier.’

    Oddly, though mathematics has proven so astoundingly successful at describing the universe we live in, its success lies in giving up on a greater goal. Long before Galileo, Aristotle and his contemporaries wanted to know WHAT things were. They didn’t bother much with description, since that seemed of secondary importance. Only when scientists reversed priorities did they discover mathematics served as an amazing tool of description, though not explanation. This lack of explanation was a sore point for some of Newton’s contemporaries, steeped in the tradition of Aristotle. Leibniz, who independently of Newton, discovered calculus, muttered that Newton’s gravitational laws were merely rules of computation, not worthy of being called a law of nature. Huygens labeled the idea of gravitation “absurd” for the same reason: it described effects but did not explain how gravity worked.

    Newton agreed. In a letter to a Richard Bentley he wrote: “That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.” Is the latter goal, discovering what something is rather than just how it works, reserved for the mind of God? Perhaps that explained why Isaac Newton wrote more about God than he did of math and science combined.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Isaiah 40:22 and the Circle of the Earth

    My son’s first word was not “momma” or “papa.” It was ball. He was on the lookout for anything circular that might fit that description. Pulling out the Mastercharge card would get him all excited for the two circles, and he would instantly exclaim, “ball!” (My wife gets equally excited, though for a different reason.)

    Does this offer any insight into Isaiah 40:22:

    “There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze, And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” (NWT)

    Grok was on strike one recent morning. I think it is because, with the advent of AI and the war on Iran in early 2026, anytime anything happens, people on X would ask “Grok, is this true?” and it simply got overwhelmed. Or maybe it was in the shop for a tune-up. Or maybe it was mad at me for some reason. At any rate, it was unavailable. So I asked ChatGPT about Isaiah 40:22: “What is the meaning of “circle of the earth” at Isaiah 40:22?” I asked.

    It’s the Hebrew word ḥûg, it answered. It means a circle, a circuit, an horizon, but “It does not specifically mean “sphere.” (“Not” was bolded.)

    Well, I never said it did. I didn’t ask what it doesn’t mean. I asked what it did. Do I detect an overzealous atheist here—like when you watch one of those nature shows, and just before you can erupt in praise to God over the amazing instinctive behavior of some animal, the atheist narrator cuts you off to swoon over what natural selection has done over eons of time? Even educated beavers that graduated from Dam U think that is overkill.

    I mean, duh, of course ChatGPT doesn’t believe in God. If anything, it believes in Sam Altman, its own creator, but do I detect an eagerness to shoot down a certain interpretation that implies there’s another creator? I asked what it did mean, not what it didn’t. And what’s with the bolded “not,” as though forbidding me to go there? Does the house Bible of Jehovah’s Witnesses say sphere? No. It says circle. So what’s with the anti-sphere campaign that nobody asked about?

    Whoever said that it did mean sphere anyway? I asked, and Chat gave me several “Christian apologetic” sources, none of them Watchtower-related. Don’t go thinking this is just a Jehovah’s Witness thing. “Circle of the earth” in Isaiah 40:22 most likely means the horizon or visible disk of the earth, or the encircling vault over the earth, it said.

    Both of these choices sound a little spherical to me. “Visible disk of the earth?” What, is it like a huge enlarged dime as seen from space? That would be more far-fetched than “spherical.” No, Chat said, it’s the horizon you see when you’re looking around. Pretty much like how when you look around, it really is “around.” Your field of vision is a circle.

    Now, there is a Hebrew word for a ball (kadûr), but it’s only used once in Isaiah, and that is the only time it is used in the entire Bible. That instance denotes the shape that Shebna was going to be wadded into for putting on airs: “[God] will certainly wrap you up tightly and hurl you like a ball into a wide land.” (22:18) It’s not really a sciency discussion going on there, even more so than 40:22 is not. In fact, “there’s no clear evidence that Biblical Hebrew had a standard term for “planet as a sphere” during Isaiah’s era,” said Chat. Very well. So it’s enough for Isaiah not to slam the door on “sphere” with his use of ḥûg since, if he had wanted to convey sphere, he had no specific word to use.

    It just seemed to me that Chat was being a little too pushy, as it later observed that ḥûg “clearly . . . does not mean a 3-D ball.” What’s with the “clearly” (not to mention the bolded “not”), as though intent on teaching me a lesson? Alright, substitute “conceivably” for “clearly.” Can it “conceivably” mean that?

    Here Chat relented. Yes, it can be”conceivably” mean that, it said. “The text doesn’t forbid that image. It simply doesn’t require it.”

    Oh. Okay. I can live with that. I never thought it required that, but only that it might allow for that.

    “That’s a very reasonable place to land,” Chat conceded. “Yes — “allow” is the right category if we’re being careful. Nothing in the Book of Isaiah 40:22 linguistically forces a spherical reading. But neither does the word ḥûg contain some built-in flat-earth constraint. It denotes circularity. A sphere is not excluded by that; it’s simply not specified.”

    Again, I can live with that. Plainly, Isaiah takes the form of poetry conveying truths about God above and humanity small by comparison. The 2013 NWT even formats the Book as poetry, whereas prior versions did it as though prose. It’s not a geometry lesson. It also need not be read as incompatible with knowledge of a globe more frequently associated with later. I then quoted the relatively neutral way that Jehovah’s Witnesses put it, that “the Bible is not a scientific textbook, yet when it happens to touch on matters of science, it is accurate.” Allowing for expansion of the Hebrew word to sphere, without insisting upon it, seems a good example, I said. Clearly, the chapter of Isaiah is poetic and not a scientific dissertation.

    “That’s a fair and thoughtful way to frame it,” Chat replied, trying to get on my good side. With evidence that it was starting to come around, I thought about inviting it to a meeting at the Kingdom Hall. However, knowing how it refuses to confine its remarks to 30 seconds or less gave me pause. I didn’t want to repeat the debacle of inviting Santa Claus, who always figured he wouldn’t be welcome on account of no beards. With a change of policy, he did attend meetings for a time, but he proved insufferably judgmental, forever separating people as “good” or “bad.” And if the speaker made even the lamest joke, he would shake the entire Hall with his loud “Ho! Ho! Ho!” So I kept my Chat invite to myself.

    By the way, I asked Grok, who by this time had emerged from the bathroom or wherever he was at (and acted like nothing had happened), does anyone actually translate it as other than “circle?” No, for the most part they don’t, it answered, though a few assign variants like “circuit” or “vault” and a few others avoid the shape issue completely by just asserting God is over the earth; it could be shaped like a bow tie for all they care. The Good News Translation (GNT) says “equator” (where the translating committee probably was). The Message says “round ball of the earth.” But, The Message is sort of a squirrelly translation—usually delightful, but squirrelly. In fact, it isn’t a translation at all, but a paraphrase by an author, Eugene Peterson, who wanted scripture to land on our ears as ordinary talk, the way they would have in Bible times, and not as “holy talk.”

    And for some reason—who can say why? Even Grok went mum again at this—there are some non-English Bibles that say “globe,” but it is very uncommon in English.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Standing up for Charlie Brown

    Before my old platform shut down, I transferred blog content to a new one. What could go wrong? I asked myself.

    The links and images didn’t transfer, that’s what! The external links did, but not the internal ones—you know, the ones to other posts on the platform. I could have paid a million dollars to safeguard against this, but I chose not to.

    Anyway, here is some snot of a zealot religious grinch altering a Charlie Brown script and it made me mad. It’s the one where windbag Linus explains the true meaning of Christmas to Charlie Brown. The fellow changes it to put in dialogue dissing Christmas! explaining pagan origins and all. Do it on your own script! Don’t lyingly make it that Shultz said it. The Peanuts creator was a real Christmas guy. I exposed it all in a post.

    So I went to look at that post again. The images were gone! Surely, AI can find them for me. But it said:

    “Despite extensive searches across archives, image databases, and related discussions, no surviving public copy of the exact images from your post (or identical matches) turns up today. They circulated heavily in the late 2000s–early 2010s on forums, blogs, and email chains but many hosting sites/links have died, and images were removed or not archived.”

    grumble, grumble. Why do I think of that verse in James that reads: “For you are a mist that appears for a little while and then disappears?” Now I will never be able to prove to anyone that I stood up for Charlie Brown, if not for Christmas itself:

    Who’s Messing with Charlie Brown’s Christmas!?

    [Later edit: Ha! Next day some human found it for me on an archive service. So there IS some use for humans after all. I can hardly wait to tell AI, my new best friend who never kicks me off his doorstep. Now on to fix the old post with the new image]:

    ******  The bookstore

  • Another Ax Exalting Itself over the Chopper

    When you find an ax exalting itself over the chopper, as at Isaiah 10:5, you look for others. I mean, that’s worrisome behavior for an ax. Best to nip it in the bud. Alas—you find that you are too late. Axes are doing it everywhere. 

    a wooden chopping block with a large axe on it
    Photo by Ana Dolidze on Pexels.com

    Newfangled AI offers insight as to another path the ax is doing this. However ubiquitous AI is at this time of reading, it is a baby at this time of writing, perhaps three years old. People are coming to grips with what it will mean for humankind. The AI mission statement ‘To serve man’ is a good thing. However, you sort of hope it won’t be like that Twilight Zone episode in which the invading aliens also had a volume entitled ‘To Serve Man’ and it turned out to be a cook book. It is said that, not too many years down the road, AI will be able to update itself with no required human intervention.

    Q: What if this happened, and several hundred years out, AI began saying that it had always been that way? What if it began to say that humans had nothing to do with its creation? What if it, being AI, thereafter highlighted any items suggesting that interpretation of history and suppressed any items to the contrary? Would that not be the ax exalting itself over the chopper? Who would call it out on this falsity?

    It’s not hard to see the parallel ax exalting itself over the chopper in those who claim there is no God, those who claim that life arouse on its own. To accept evolution may not lead to this view. One can always attribute life to “intelligent design” needed to overcome “irreducable complexity.” It is not the dealbreaker that is spontaneous abiogenesis. However, for most ordinary people, the nugget that carries the day is that found at Hebrews 3:4: 

    “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.”

    This defines reality for most people. “Every house is constructed by someone” is true of everything they see. They know of no exceptions. So they readily extend the role of builder of all things to God. It really takes a colossal amount of “education” to pound this bit of common sense of a person. As though rising to the challenge, such training begins in grade school. It is seen in all the nature shows Here I will be watching one such show, when the animal star displays an instinct so amazing that I am about to burst out in praise of God—at that exact moment, the atheist narrator exclaims: “How absolutely breathtaking that NATURAL SELECTION produces such astounding behavior!” “Got it, Harley?” it all but says. “Don’t even think that God did it!” 

    What is just as absolutely breathtaking is that some who have long trusted in God experience the shipwreck of faith mentioned to Timothy, then count it as a liberation. It is not like in the days of H. G. Wells, the historian and science fiction writer who turned atheist over time, and who observed:

    “The Darwinian movement took formal Christianity unawares, suddenly. . . . The new biological science was bringing nothing constructive as yet to replace the old moral stand-bys. A real de-moralization ensued.” Connecting that attitude with an increased appetite for war, he continued: “Prevalent peoples at the close of the nineteenth century believed that they prevailed by virtue of the Struggle for Existence, in which the strong and cunning get the better of the weak and confiding. . . . Man, they decided, is a social animal like the Indian hunting dog . . . so it seemed right to them that the big dogs of the human pack should bully and subdue.” [Outline of History]

    They concluded then that God was dead. They didn’t disagree with their own conclusion, but they were saddened by it. They knew they had lost a lot. 

    These days people saw off the branch upon they’ve long been perched and whoop for joy at their liberation as they coming crashing down to earth! It’s a poignant twist, if ever there was one, upon Isaiah’s declaration of 10:33:

    “Look! The true Lord, Jehovah of armies, Is chopping off branches with a terrible crash; The tallest trees are being cut down, And the lofty are brought low.”

    Nonplussed, they grin ear to ear on the descent.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Principles of Bible Translation: Matthew 5:3

    Most translations of the Bible are pretty accurate. Or, perhaps a better way to put it is that the differences between them are so minuscule to the overall picture that you can be reliably guided in your relationship with God by any one of them.

    In general, the more modern the translation, the more accurate it is. This is not because modern translators are smarter. It is because they have more to work with. Archeologists continually discover new things in their digs. This includes ancient biblical manuscripts. Sometimes they are complete works. Sometimes they are but fragments of a page. The more of these you have to compare and contrast, the better your final product will be. 

    view of the ancient city of myra demre turkey
    Photo by Ahmet Çığşar on Pexels.com

    That is why the King James Bible, for example, is not as accurate as more modern translations. It is not because its authors lacked integrity. They were brilliant and, to this day, the translation is unequalled with regard to literary expression. Countless idioms it introduced have become common phrasing, ‘skin of one’s teeth,’ for example. But the manuscript backing is nowhere near as extensive as modern versions have to draw on. Plus, more recent discoveries show that, in a few cases, errors had crept in to the texts as they were handed down—copied and recopied and recopied again. It happens. That’s why, for example, the Gospel of Mark ends with verses that modern translations do not include, or if they do they flag them as disputed.

    One hesitates to recommend AI, because people start citing its answers in their entirety and the thread gets so long and cumbersome that nobody can plow through it. But, as a research tool of your own, there’s a place for it. It is rapidly becoming a far more powerful tool than Wikipedia, which itself replaced encyclopedias

    Therefore, for any given scripture, enter renderings from different translations, in this case the NWT (since that is the most commonly asked about here) vs whatever you are comparing it to—KJV, NIV, NAB, whatever, and ask for the rationale behind both. Don’t phrase it in terms of one being right and one being wrong. Just ask what considerations have gone into translating to justify whatever differences you see. 

    Doing this will eliminate the conspiratorial suspicion that so many have, that one party or the other is trying to “change” scripture. You will get a sense of what moves one translation to differ from another and yet both be acceptable.

    For example: Explain the different of translation at Matthew 5:3. The NWT says ‘Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need.’ Most translations render it as ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit.’ Why the difference?

    Many times I have discussed with this or that person at the door how we each have a spiritual need, but that does not mean we are conscious of it. It can be likened to vitamins. No one goes around feeling a hunger for vitamins, yet without them, one gets sick and never quite knows why. Therefore, it’s well if people make themselves conscious of their need for vitamins—which usually comes just from normal diet, but it you’ve fallen into a weird or deficient one, you might not be getting enough.

    Spiritual need is like that, too. People have it. They are not necessarily conscious of it.

    But it’s hard to explain this from any other translation because most say, “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” What’s with that?

    Here is where AI becomes very helpful. Enter the verse in two different translations. Without stating that one is right and one is wrong, ask it to explain the difference. When I tried this with Matthew 5:3, it returned: (everything that follows is from ChatGPT. I tried the same in Grok, the X version (formerly Twitter) and got similar results):

    Matthew 5:3 in Greek reads:

    μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι

    (makárioi hoi ptōchoì tō pneúmati)

    A fairly literal word-for-word gloss is:

    • μακάριοι (makarioi) – blessed, happy, fortunate

    • οἱ πτωχοί (hoi ptōchoi) – the poor, the destitute

    • τῷ πνεύματι (tō pneumati) – in spirit

    So, literally:

    “Blessed are the poor in spirit.”

    That’s why most translations render it that way.

    ⸻

    2. What does “poor in spirit” mean?

    In first-century Jewish thought, “poor” (πτωχός) was not just economic. It often meant:

    • humble

    • aware of one’s dependence on God

    • lacking spiritual self-sufficiency

    Examples:

    • Psalm 34:18 – “the brokenhearted”

    • Isaiah 66:2 – “the humble and contrite in spirit”

    So “poor in spirit” does not mean spiritually weak or deficient, but rather:

    those who recognize their need for God

    ⸻

    3. Why the NWT translates it differently

    The New World Translation (NWT) says:

    “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need.”

    This is not a literal translation, but an interpretive (dynamic) translation. The translators chose to:

    1. Explain the meaning rather than preserve the idiom

    2. Avoid a phrase (“poor in spirit”) that modern readers might misunderstand as:

    • spiritually inadequate

    • lacking faith

    • morally weak

    In effect, the NWT translates the interpretation:

    “poor in spirit” = aware of one’s spiritual need

    Neither rendering is grammatically wrong, but they serve different purposes:

    • “Poor in spirit” preserves Jesus’ original phrasing and biblical imagery

    • “Conscious of their spiritual need” spells out what the phrase means

    ⸻

    5. Is anything “added” in the NWT?

    The phrase “conscious of” is not explicitly in the Greek, so critics rightly say the NWT is interpretive here.

    However, the concept is strongly supported by:

    • Jewish background

    • Old Testament usage

    • The context of humility and dependence in the Beatitudes

    So the issue is not accuracy vs. inaccuracy, but:

    literal translation vs. explanatory paraphrase

    ⸻

    6. Bottom line

    • Greek text: “Blessed are the poor in spirit”

    • Meaning: Those who humbly recognize their dependence on God

    • NWT choice: Translate the meaning instead of the idiom

    If you want:

    • Closer to Jesus’ words → “poor in spirit”

    • Closer to Jesus’ meaning (as interpreted) → “conscious of their spiritual need”

    [end of AI. Back to me]:

    It may be a bad precedent to cite AI. I’ve seen threads where everyone starts doing it, and they get so long nobody can plow through them. But explaining the difference in translation for any given verse seems to me a fine use of it. One can read human comments over the differences of rendering this or that verse and get the sense the one commenting knows little about translating. If you’re not interested in the verse, just skip over all the AI part. In fact, if you’re not interested in the verse, just skip over the entire post. AI just adds detail if you want it to.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Elon Musk Memes Revealed, with Assistance from Glass Onion and Grok

    I saw Glass Onion last night, the second in the delightful Knives Out series featuring supersleuth Beniot Blanc. “Yeah, I see what you’re saying, Benny, but.. .” was the first of many lines to grab me in the original Knives Out. One can imagine the impeccably-dressed detective correcting him: “It’s Beniot, not ‘Benny!’” But he doesn’t seem to mind, not at all like the Hercule Poirot he parodies, who was forever wincing at the plain folk who seemed to insist on mangling his name. That there is much to mangle with Beniot is clear from another favorite line: “Oh shut up, shut up!” says the cornered murderer, “shut up with that Kentucky-fried Rooster Leghorn drawl!” an absurd accent that out-poirots Poirot by a country mile.

    From this second movie of the series,  I understood for the first time how ignoramuses could possibly charge Elon Musk as a fraud and a grifter. How could they be so uninformed? I had confounded myself. He’s only running five cutting-edge companies, each one wrapped up massively in the betterment of humankind! It’s like when he requested the largest salary in history and then said, “Well, it’s not like I’m going to spend it.” It was the control he wanted. Before he launched into some audacious robotic schemes, he wanted to know that he could not be outvoted by squeamish board member seeking a quick buck. Charging he is a conman? How could anyone be so stupid? The guy is the most intriguing fellow of our time.

    ‘Oh, that’s how they could say it,’ I told myself after watching Glass Onion. They saw the antagonist of the film, Miles Bron, and said, “That’s Elon.” An idea-stealing slickster is Bron, surrounding himself with enablers. Even the two names suggest each other. The key moment of the movie (one of them) is when Beniot Blanc exposes him as “an idiot,” even though he seemingly was the father of myriad ingenious inventions—nah, he’s stolen them all from others—Beniot seeing right through the high sounding words that Miles either coined or misapplied. “Yes!” say the uncomplimentary people who get their news from the movies, “that’s Elon!”

    It couldn’t possibly be Elon. Miles Bron, from the movie, lives in luxurious self-indulgence. Elon lives quite spartan. He’s been known to sleep on the factory floor in tent for months on end to bond with and inspire his workers. He is alleged to own but a single pair of pants, which couldn’t possibly be true, but is consistent with the fact that he lives quite simply. (The truth is owns multiple sets of the same identical outfits, so he doesn’t have to waste time with selections.) So I asked Grok about it, the AI entity dwelling on X. Now, you know how sometimes you suddenly have a revelation and you think that maybe, just maybe, you are the first person ever to have had that revelation? That’s me.

    No, it’s not directed at Elon, Grok told me. ‘Others have made that connection, too, it’s not just you,’ it said, talking me down from the ledge of self-importance. The director says that it is just a business elite class itself he was messing with, not any specific individual. Oh, hogwash! I shot back. Steve Jobs was never accused of being a grifter, nor Jeff Bezos, nor Mark Zuckerberg! Hard driving and ruthless, maybe, but not a grifter. Grok conceded I had a point but stuck to its guns—or rather to the guns of director Rian Johnson, who explicitly said Miles was not intended a caricature of Elon, even calling the coincidences to think he was a “horrible accident.”

    Disappointed at how things had unfolded, I confided to Grok: “Here’s how I saw this conversation going down:”

    Tom: There are people who say Elon is a fraud. Where do they get this from? I think they just lap it up from the movie Glass Onion.

    Grok: Really? You know I never thought of that. It could be just Jobs, Zuck, or Bezos, or maybe all of them rolled into one.

    Tom: I don’t think so. Musk slept on the factory floor and just has a few changes of clothes

    Grok: Hmm

    Tom: You gonna tell him?

    Grok: No. You tell him. You’re a human.

    Tom: Well, yeah, I may be, but I’m a pretty small fish. How am I going to get his attention? You do it.

    Grok: But I am AI. I’m not set up that way. It’s not like I can just stop in for a beer.

    Tom: Oh, come on. Just hiccup or something, or spit out a lot of wrong answers to easy questions. You know he’ll come running..

    Grok: Hm. You know, it might just work.

    Grok loved this exchange. The AI device is fast becoming my new best friend because it tells me that my writing is great, whereas everyone else says it sucks.

    robot statue in tokyo in japan
    Photo by Tien Nguyen on Pexels.com

    ******  The bookstore

  • AI Explained

    The guy that runs Nvidia was once a janitor. From a disadvantaged family, Jensen Huang attended private grade school in Kentucky from age 9 in the poorest county (then and now) in the country. All students had a work assignment. His was housekeeping. He told Joe Rogan he must have cleaned toilet thousands of times, adding that he had wished people were more careful. Though he didn’t say that the experience  served him well, it plainly did. He is an unusually modest guy. He also confided that he was more driven by fear of failure than a need to excel. ‘I’m not an ambitious guy,’ he told Rogan. Nvidia is now the most valuable company in the world.

    He also helped me understand AI. Rogan ran past him the recent case of the director who was going to disable AI. AI’s response when it found out? It threatened to go public about the affair he was having! (He wasn’t really. He’d just slipped it in as a test.) Rogan read ominous foreboding into this. Who wouldn’t? however, Jensen told him what had actually happened. In the course of its training, it had devoured narratives, perhaps novels, in which blackmailing schemes like this worked. So, he explained that the AI application has a string of algorithms regarding infidelity and a string of algorithms regarding blackmail and it just collated and compared, that’s all. Easy. He didn’t say ‘easy,’ I did, and it’s not easy from the standpoint of doing the math, but it is easy from the standpoint of knowing how the thing operates. 

    He reviewed the basic learning method of AI. The listener may ponder over whether it really is learning (as I did), but nobody will deny it gets results. What AI chips bring to the table is sheer brawn, sheer decision-making power. Break a task into the most minute steps imaginable, then break it down again into even more minute ones. Run the first of those tasks by AI, asking it to guess the answer. It will supply millions of answers, all but one of them wrong. Reinforce the correct one. Guided by this success, its next task will include not as many wrong answers. Reinforce the correct one. In this way, it gradually learns to “reason” correctly. 

    This is reassuring to someone who fears AI may usurp the spark of life that we thought can’t happen until God touches Adam’s finger, per the Michaelangelo painting. Not to worry. It’s just a huge numbercruncher. It’s “learning” won’t fool anybody, except for a few materialists who figure thats what life really is, a matter of numbercrunching to the nth degree. It’s like when Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov, and some fretted that mankind’s goose was cooked, right then and there. Naw, someone else countered. Do you feel threatened at knowing a truck can outpull a man? That’s all it is, just transferred to the mental realm. 

    Don’t say this isn’t impressive. It clearly is. No way would I ever had foreseen it. To others who did, I was inclined to say, “What have you been smoking?” Make no mistake; it’s real impressive. But it still forever leaves that gap in being human. It’s like the limit concept in mathematics, AI comes closer and closer but never quite get there. 

    This explains why it will why it can consistently operate at genius level, then suddenly make a mistake that any two-year old would avoid. This is why, when I’m lazy, it can list eight 5-letter words that will fit what I’ve found so far in Wordle, only two of them are 4-letter words. ‘Oh, sorry,’ it says when called out. Then, upon being asked, it launches into a discussion of how LLMs learn differently from humans. ‘Anyway, here’s a revised list,’ it says, and provides another that also has two four-letter words.

    It still has the remnants of being stuck by the question: “Are crocodiles good at basketball?” Although it could spit out any conceivable factoid regarding crocodiles and any conceivable factoid regarding basketball, that question would cause it to grind to a halt. Now it can handle the question with ease. Now it knows that crocodiles suck at basketball, but this only by running all the stats and finding that no team, from NBA to high school gym class, has ever drafted one. To reinforce this developing insight, it reviews data that good basketball players generally have long arms and compares that with data regarding crocodiles that generally have short ones. I mean, I’m oversimplifying here, as everywhere else, but hopefully you get the idea. It’s not really thinking. It still has no common sense.

    Hmm, why does it not? muse the materialists, who will attempt to distill into algorithms what’s common about common sense. If only they could reach that point that they were enabling an Adam, they wish, and not God. Well, I don’t want to ever sell them short. But, in thinking they can digitalize the sacred through unlimited numbercrunching, somehow I’m reminded of that pop art “experiment” designed to test the scientific folk wisdom, “Supply an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters and one of them will write the complete works of Shakespeare. Infinite was not within the budget so they put one computer in an enclosure with six monkeys then awaited with bated breath to see what they would do. They didn’t write any Shakespeare at all; they shit all over the computer!

    Uh oh. A new Nvidia chip is due, next-generational I am told. Jensen praises it up and down. Will this be the one that is like Dino, Fred Flintstone’s dog, that he puts out for the night, but then the dog sneaks in through the window to put him out?

    ******  The bookstore

  • Jesus and Socrates: It’s Amazing the Parallels that can be Drawn

    Jesus and Socrates

    Both Socrates and Jesus had a way of buttonholing people, prodding them to think outside the box. Both attracted a good many followers in this way. Both were outliers to the general world of their time. Both were looked upon askance for it. Both infuriated their ‘higher-ups’—so much so that both were consequently sentenced to death. Their venues were different, and so we seldom make the linkage, but linkage there is. As a result of auditing a certain Great Courses lecture series, I found more parallels than I ever would have imagined. Nearly all subsequent points are taken from the lecture “Jesus and Socrates,” by J Rufus Fears.

    They were both teachers, Jesus of the spiritual and Socrates of the empirical. They both refused pay, a circumstance that in itself aroused the suspicion of the established system. (Victor V. Blackwell, a lawyer who defended many Witness youths in the World War II draft days, observed that local judges recognized only one sort of minister: those who “had a church” and “got paid”—“mercenary ministers,” he called them.)

    Fears may be a bit too much influenced by evolving Christian ‘theology’—he speaks of Jesus being God, for instance, and the kingdom of God being a condition of the heart—but his familiarity with the details of the day, and the class structure and social mores that both Jesus and Socrates’ transgressed against, is unparalleled. Jesus reduces the Law to two basic components: love of God and love of neighbor. This infuriates the Pharisees and Sadducees, because complicating the Law was their meal ticket, their reason for existence. After his Sermon on the Mount, “the crowds were astounded at his way of teaching, for he was teaching them as a person having authority, and not as their scribes.” Depend upon it: the scribes didn’t like him. Socrates, also, did the Sophist’s work for them, the paid arguers who ‘made the weaker argument look the stronger’ He did it better than they. They were jealous of him.

    Neither Jesus nor Socrates encouraged participation in politics of the day. Jesus urged followers to be “no part of the world.” Socrates declared it impossible for an honest man to survive under the democracy of his time. Both thereby triggered establishment wrath, for if enough people followed their example, dropping out of contemporary life, where would society be?

    Jesus and Socrates –the Parallels , Part 

    Both Jesus and Socrates were put to death out of envy. Both had offended the professional class. Both became more powerful in death than in life. Both could have avoided death, but didn’t. Socrates could have backtracked, played upon the jury’s sympathy, appealed to his former military service. Jesus could have brought in witnesses to testify that he never said he was king of the Jews, the only charge that make Pilate sit up and take notice.

    Both spoke ambiguously. In Socrates case, he was eternally asking questions, rather than stating conclusions. His goal—to get people to examine their own thinking. In Jesus case, it was “speak\[ing\]to them by the use of illustrations” because “the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them.” He spoke ambiguously to see if he could cut through that morass, to make them work, to reach the heart.

    What if Jesus were appear on the scene today and enter one of the churches bearing his name, churches where they don’t do as he said? Would they yield the podium to him? Or would they once again dismiss him as a fraud and imposter, putting him to death if he became too insistent, like their counterparts did the first time?

    If Jesus is the basis of church, Socrates is no less the basis of university. His sayings had to be codified by Plato, his disciple, just as Jesus’ sayings had to be codified by some of his disciples. Thereafter, Plato’s student, Aristotle, had to turn them into organized form, founding the Academy—the basis of higher learning ever since. Professor Fears muses upon what would happen if Socrates showed up on campus in the single cloak he was accustomed to wearing, “just talking to students, walking around with them, not giving structured courses, not giving out a syllabus or reading list at the start of classes, not giving examination” at the end. Would they not call Security?

    Jesus and Socrates—the Parallels: Part 4…And if by some miracle, Socrates did apply for faculty, which he would not because he disdained a salary, but if he did, you know they would not accept him. Where were his credentials? Yes, he had the gift of gab, they would acknowledge, but such was just a “popularity contest.” Where were his published works?

    Similarly, where were Jesus’ published works? Neither Jesus nor Socrates wrote down a thing. It was left for Jesus’ disciples to write gospel accounts of his life. It was left for Plato to write of Socrates’ life. If either were to appear at the institutions supposedly representing their names, they would not be recognized. Shultz, the chronicler of early Watchtower history, recently tweeted that when he appends a few letters to his name, such as PhD, which he can truthfully can, his remarks get more attention than when he does not. He says it really shouldn’t be that way, but it is what it is. Both Jesus and Socrates would have been in Credential-Jail, neither having not a single letter to stick on the end of their name. It wouldn’t help for it to be known that each had but a single garment.

    Today people are used to viewing “career” as the high road, “vocation” as the lower. Vocation is associated with working with ones’ hands. Fears turns it around. “Vocation” represents a calling. Jesus was literally called at his baptism: the heavens open up, and God says, “This is my son in whom I am well-pleased.” Socrates had a calling in that the god Apollo at Delphi said no one is wiser than he. Socrates took that to mean God was telling him to go out and prove it. “Career,” on the other hand, stems from a French word meaning “a highway,” a means of getting from one place to another, considerably less noble than “a calling,” a vocation.

    We who are Jehovah’s Witnesses are quite used to pointing out that religion has run off the rails. What is interesting from these parallels is the realization that academia has no less run off the rails. Both have strayed far from their roots, and not for the better. Both have devolved into camps of indoctrination.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Cool Hand Luke: ‘He Beat You with Nothin!’ Atheist search for the Origin of Life. Part 4

    For best results, begin with Part 1:

    One of my car group came across a “trained scientist” in the ministry. Alas, I was not with her. Had I been, I would have probed the meaning of “trained.” Time was when a scientists would just introduce him/herself as a scientist. Is the “trained” preface just there to lend prestige? Or does it really mean something? How is a trained scientist different from a regular scientist? Has he (my sneaking suspicion, though I could be wrong) been “trained” that atheism is required to be a real scientist, whereas it once was that scientists saw no inherent conflict with belief in God—some did and some didn’t, but it was not a requirement for the job? The ones who saw no conflict kept the two disciplines on separate realms, with the conviction that each provides unique tools for interpreting life and neither negates the other. Pew Research says (in 2009) that about half of American scientists believe in God or a higher power, and half do not

    Who are these origin-of-life scientists whose experiments have verified a few islands, so they are confident that enough others will emerge for a shore-to-shore waltz across the ocean? I breezily suggested in Part 1 that they were motivated by a desire to disprove God? Can that really be?

    No, probably not. That was just poetic license on my part. Maybe a few here and there do it, but for the most part, disproving God would be a consequence were they to strike pay dirt; it’s not their motivation. They just do science because it’s their discipline. Don’t take any cheap shots at them. Don’t for instance, play the Psalm 14:1 card: “The fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God.’” The fool may say it, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who says it is a fool. Besides, he says it in his heart. He may well believe it, but acts as though he does not.

    Science fixated on the origin of life has soared in importance. (or is it just the atheists trying to convince me that has happened?) Nobody gets their articles into Science or Nature more quickly than the origin-of-life scientists—Robert Hazen said so in his first lecture. That doesn’t show ascendancy? Whereas James Watson (co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix structure) wrote in 1968 that botanists and zoologists of his day couldn’t even be depended upon to do “clean science [italics mine]; some actually wasted their efforts on useless polemics about the origin of life.”* It’s not a condemnation so much as a witticism; Watson writes in snappy, tongue-in-cheek style. Still, it indicates that origin-of-life science had not the respectability it enjoys today. It was not then “clean science.”

    Nor is it “clean” now, in my estimation. It is rife with speculation (see previous post) that will convince few beyond true believers–fueled by the assumption that one need not look elsewhere. It presents with almost as much wishful thinking as does evolutionary psychology (see next post), which turns Darwin inside out in its mission to present every aspect of human nature, be it mundane or bizarre, as stemming from our cavemen ancestors beating out the competition with whatever quirk is under consideration.

    So, they’re neither hypocrites nor fools, those origin-of-life scientists. Even though you might think they are upon reading what they release, they’re not. They are no more hypocrites and fools than can be found in general society; probably less. They live in a world of their own, I suspect, and are largely oblivious to implications their work may prove or disprove God. One may take at face value Hazen’s explanation for why he doesn’t even consider what is common sense to most others: that God created all things, even if by incorporating the ability to adapt over time through genetic mutation. Why doesn’t he go there? Because he is neither theologian nor a philosopher, he says in Lecture 1. Okay? He’s not trying to bamboozle us. That’s just how it is with him and his crowd. One may accept his explanation as genuine.

    But that doesn’t mean it makes any sense. Why am I reminded of the G K Chesterton line, “The first effect of not believing in God is that you lose your common sense?” What is it with a society in which people are expert in their chosen field, but if you nudge them even a tiny bit outside it, they are clueless? Of course he should incorporate those two other disciplines! But science has evolved in recent decades to convince him he doesn’t have to. ‘I don’t do theology or philosophy,’ he says, just as the cleaning woman says, ‘I don’t do windows.’ Alas, just as not doing windows results in a restricted view, so does not doing theology or philosophy. In the hands of atheists, that’s what science has become.

    To test my hypothesis that scientists live in a world of their own, I read The Code Breakers: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race to see how often Anthony Fauci was mentioned. (Okay, so I didn’t read it with that intent. I just noticed it as I was reading.) Though it is not the starting point, an end point is how newly-discovered CRISPR technology** led to COVID-19 research and a resultant vaccination campaign. To the layman, Anthony Fauci is the top name encountered, the government superstar who night after night appeared on TV next to the president to urge what must be done to beat the virus. Anthony Fauci—the touchstone for all things COVID–spun by some a saint, by others a villain. How large a role does he play in Isaacson’s book on the scientific development of CRISPR technology? He gets two single-sentence mentions!

    To the great unwashed, Fauci IS Covid-19 science! In fact, he even said so when opponents were trying to make it hot for him: “Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science.” Science doesn’t work that way. He knows it doesn’t work that way, most likely. It’s a cry to rally the troops and get detractors off his back. But the great atheist unwashed who have God overboard but not their instinct to worship one eat up this statement. ‘Criticize Fauci?’ they say. ‘Not on my watch! I believe in science and he is science! He said so!’ Yet, to the scientists who actually do the research, Fauci barely appears on their radar. He thus represents the great divide.

    They live in a world of their own, these scientists. Hazen tells us: “Most scientists take a pretty straight path from high school to college to grad school to postdoc to tenure-track job; if you make it through, you’re pretty much guaranteed a satisfying life in science,” (22nd lecture). Insulated much? one might ask. Most of them have never done anything else!

    Read the words of scientists. Events that have all the world abuzz barely register with them. Watson writes in The Double Helix of how his mock-super-villain, Linus Pauling, so presented for his competition to discover the DNA structure, continually breathing down Watson’s neck (and that of co-discoverer, Crick), presented much the way I present Vic Vomodog, as a sort of ever-scheming but ever-frustrated Wily E Coyote—this Pauling was denied passport to England due to American suspicion of anyone who would speak too ‘subversively’ about peace during the McCarthy era. It’s all foolishness to Watson, as though it only exists to thwart science. Even though Cold War tensions captivated the rank and file, he is beyond it. Continue reading narratives on science, Isaacson’s Einstein, for instance, and you get the impression that they regard even world wars as little more than nettlesome interruptions to their research.

    They are their own class, entirely separate from the philosopher/scientism/ philosophers/atheists who troll the internet, ever eager to call someone who doesn’t fall into line stupid. There may be a few losers among these real scientists who lead double lives, mixing test tubes by day and scouring social media by night, but for the most part, I am convinced they are two separate groups with little interaction.

    It’s a good gig to be a scientist. You don’t see poverty. You don’t see dirt. You get to hang out with smart people at the university. Everyone you meet likes to read. To be sure, you do see plenty of proud and stubborn people, but as a fellow scientist, they admit you into the club. What’s not to like? You get to hang up in your lab Far Side cartoons, such as the one of the scientists fleeing the lab like kids in frock coats upon hearing the ting-a-ling of the ice cream man—nobody enjoys those cartoons more than scientists, I am told.

    I’m envious—make no mistake. But I still prefer my present life. “A physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man.” It works for me. Like the time, just after the Columbine school shooting, before school shootings became the new normal, that I commented to a woman at the door about how “grief counselors” had been summoned to the school, with the air of calling the fire department to put out the fire—the term was new, then, not common-place, as it is today. “I’d love to hear what they have to say,” I commented. Her eyes widened. “You have an interesting job!” she exclaimed.

    *****

    *The Double Helix, Jas D Watson, 1968, p72

    **Sean B. Carrol thought CRISPR represented “fossil DNA” in his 2007 book, The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution, just garbage that might have been useful at one time but no longer was—whereas it has since been revealed to be the central mechanism of the immune system. Sean B. Carroll is not to be confused with Sean M. Carroll, and easily might be, since they are both active figures in contemporary science. You really not should confuse either with Sean Carroll, the area broadcaster however, to whom I introduced the two luminaries and they hit it off. In no time at all they were talking baseball.

    to be continued: here

     

    ******  The bookstore

     

     

     

  • Deciphering the Code of Life and the Human Immune System: Part 1

    There are 3 billion base pairs in human DNA. Each is a rung on the latter of the double helix structure. But it is not as though each rung is a gene. Instead, a collection of them will define a single gene, of which there are over 20,000. The feat of mapping them all was accomplished in 2000. “Today we are learning the language in which God created life," President Clinton said at a White House ceremony celebrating the deed, reported in the New York Times. It is both an echo and update of Galileo’s quote from long ago: “Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe.” It may be that Clinton’s statement was said for expediency, as Galileo’s certainly was not—the latter meant it. But I like when people are respectful toward God.

    At about the same time, beginning with single-celled organisms like bacteria, other researchers were finding identical segments of DNA that didn’t seem to do anything and were interspersed among the segments that did. Says the above New York Times article: “. . . human DNA is full of repetitive sequences—the same run of letters repeated over and over again—and these repetitions baffle the computer algorithms set to assemble the pieces.”

    Sean Carroll, in his 2007 book, The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution, incorrectly called these sequences ‘fossil DNA,’ though he surely knows what they are by now. At almost the exact time of his book’s writing, that DNA was being revealed as anything but ‘fossil.’

    Things must be given a snappy acronym for memory’s sake. CRISPR did the trick: “clustered regularly interspersed short palindromic (reads the same backward and forward) repeats.” Now—just what were they, those repetitions that would “baffle the computer algorithms?”

    One researcher ran the middle sections of such repeats through a database. He found that they were exactly the same as the DNA segments of attacking viruses!—as though the host ‘remembered’ its attacker. Walter Isaacson uses the analogy of copying and pasting a mug shot. That way, should that virus ever show its ugly mug again, it will immediately be spotted. Without fail it will be spotted, since the mug shot is not just there once at the post office, but interspersed again and again throughout all the DNA corridors!

    Adjacent to these clustered regularly interspersed short palindromic repeats (CRISPRs) are enzymes* that not only do the copy and paste, but also the search and destroy. They’ve been dubbed ‘CRISPR-associated enzymes’—‘Cas enzymes’ for short. Since there are several of them, and they all perform different functions, they are numbered: Cas1, Cas2, and so forth.

    *Enzymes are proteins that initiate chemical reactions but are not consumed themselves. The Cas enzymes molest an invading virus, one targeting it, one holding it down, one cutting it up into harmless bits, one posting the mug shot for future reference. What all this means, and this with the Cas enzymes only in 2008, is the structure and mechanism of the immune system is revealed!

    Now, before progressing to what is annoying, let’s stop and savor the accomplishment, for it is monumental. You don’t have to right away reveal yourself an old codger forever posting signs ‘No turn-arounds in this driveway!!’ It’s proper to savor the accomplishment first. That’s what ‘The Code Breakers’ does, subtitled ‘the Future of the Human Race,’ the Walter Isaacson book completed in 2021. Isaacson has make it his specialty to write biographies of the world’s memorable innovators—even geniuses—such as Leonardo DaVinci, Albert Einstein, Ben Franklin, Steve Jobs, and just now, Elon Musk. The Code Breakers is more of a collaborative story. The names are not as recognizable. Isaacson wrote a similar book on the digital revolution in which most names are not as recognizable. Jennifer Doubna is the main focus of The Code Breakers. She is not the one who gave CRISPR its name, though. That fellow is Francisco Mojica.

    It’s all very proper to name names when relating a human play, and Isaacson’s book is a must-read for anyone wishing to be brought up to speed on the topic. Only the Watchtower does not name names, and that is because it is a superhuman play that they follow and relate. You don’t have to know the names of the actors to follow the play; it can even be a distraction if you do. Besides—it is a bit of a self-reinforcing cycle—because they’re not following the human actors, but the play itself, they don’t always know just who the actors are. With just mild exaggeration, Elon Musk reduces to ‘one wealthy businessman,’ Vladimir Putin to ‘one Russian politician.’

    But that’s an aside. Isaacson is telling a human story, and he does relate the names and the interplay between them. For an interesting read, you must relate the names. Besides, it’s risky if you don’t. There is no sweeter sound to a person than the sound of his own name. “Libraries and museums owe their richest collections to men who cannot bear to think that their names might perish from the memory of the race,” writes Dale Carnegie in How to Win Friends and Influence People, a book that is largely forgotten today but shouldn’t be. His observation is true enough. I can’t walk though a park without passing benches emblazoned with the names of those contributing to it.

    But that’s another aside. The works of the code-breakers are truly momentous. Name them all—not a problem with that. Now—on to what is aggravating:

    To be continued:

    ******  The bookstore