Awake!, October 8, 1982

Awake! — October 8, 1982

Source: jw.org

Contents

Page Two

The Design in Nature—What Does It Prove?

Why Are Many Unconvinced?

It Is Still Designed!

When All Nature Will Be in Harmony

Adam and Eve—Real Persons or Only Fiction?

Crossword Puzzle

How Can I Get Rid of the Blues?

“Talking” to Computers

The Elusive Search for Happiness

From Our Readers

Watching the World

It Goes Straight to the Mark

Feed Your Mind, Feed Your Spirit—How?

Page Two

Many feel that the intricately designed things in nature are the product of an intelligent Designer. However, others say that this would mean that God designed the violence and killing so common among man and beast. Could a benevolent Designer be responsible for such bad results?

The Design in Nature—What Does It Prove? 3

Why Are Many Unconvinced? 4

It Is Still Designed! 6

When All Nature Will Be in Harmony 9

The Design in Nature—What Does It Prove?

ALL of us marvel at things that are designed well. It may be a nicely decorated room, a flower, or a computer. Good design appeals to people.

In connection with design, a line of reasoning often used to prove the existence of God is that design means the existence of a Designer. And many people feel that today’s scientific discoveries have strengthened this argument. Why? Because these help us to appreciate how complex and ingenious the natural world is.

Consider what has been discovered in the world of a single living cell. A century ago the cell was looked upon as a blob of protoplasm surrounded by a simple membrane covering. Today we know that even this outer membrane is a marvel, as it regulates what materials will be brought into the cell or cast out. And inside the cell is an amazing array of interactive material. There are proteins, enzymes, the DNA master blueprint and much, much more that is extremely complex.

The Pattern

Whether we peer into the very small world of atoms and cells, or into the awesome universe with its billions of stars and galaxies, there is a definite pattern. We observe order, intelligence—yes, design!

Whenever we see design in daily life, we do not hesitate to attribute it to intelligent humans. When we see a house, we acknowledge that it had an intelligent builder. The wristwatch that you may be wearing we acknowledge as the work of a watchmaker. When we see blueprints lying on a table, we know that they were drawn by a draftsman. When we view paintings in an art gallery, we know that they had to be painted by someone. Why, even a table, a chair, a toothbrush or a pencil all had human designers and makers. Now what would you think if you asked, ‘Who made all those things?’ and received the answer, ‘Nobody, for they just happened to come into existence by themselves’?

Yet all such things are relatively simple in design and function compared to atoms, living cells, plants, animals, humans, the universe. If the relatively simple had to have a designer and maker, is it reasonable to conclude that the far more complex did not?

At each level of observation of these things many are moved to agree with the apostle Paul when he said of God: “His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.”—Romans 1:20.

However, some ask: If this line of reasoning is so logical, why are not more persons convinced of the existence of a Designer, God?

[Pictures on page 3]

From the small world of atoms to the awesome universe we see similar design

Why Are Many Unconvinced?

MANY people observe the design in nature and yet do not believe in the existence of a Designer, a Creator. Why not?

Is this lack of belief due to someone’s having disproved the argument that design requires a Designer? Is there evidence so contrary to this that the design in nature no longer convinces the informed, reasoning mind?

Or does the argument still stand, stronger than ever? Is it, instead, what the apostle Paul said, that persons who refuse to accept what is obvious are “inexcusable”?

Design in History

A brief look back into history on this matter can be helpful. To begin with, there have been many atheists down through the years. But up until about a century ago they were not able to influence religious and scientific thought seriously.

Great scientists of the past, such as Isaac Newton (called by science writer Isaac Asimov “the greatest scientific mind the world has ever seen”), believed in God. They did not consider disbelief a necessary credential of their scientific ability.

To the contrary, Newton and many other scientists, as well as great thinkers in other fields, pointed to the design in nature as proof of the existence of the Master Designer, God. That was the prevailing idea for centuries.

The Violence in Nature

Then something happened to the concept that the universe is the work of a loving Designer.

By the middle of the nineteenth century, writers such as Darwin, Malthus and Spencer were calling attention to the violence in nature. Was it not true, they said, that the big animal was eating the little animal? Was it not true that on the jungle floor each day and night there was a pitched battle for survival?

Certainly it was a fact that animals preyed on one another. Hence, this line of reasoning continued: Was not this savage battle for survival the real truth about life on earth? Why, even in the realm of mankind, were not animalistic wars, selfish struggle and ‘the law of the jungle’ the real forces that shaped history? There was not the harmony and peace manifest in nature that one would expect of a loving Grand Designer.

George Romanes, a friend of Darwin’s, described nature this way: “We find teeth and talons whetted for slaughter, hooks and suckers moulded for torment—everywhere a reign of terror, hunger, sickness, with oozing blood and quivering limbs, with gasping breath and eyes of innocence that dimly close in deaths of cruel torture.”

Darwin’s theory of purposeless struggle and survival of the fittest—not design by God—was swept into popular acceptance. And from this a new historical concept was born: Social Darwinism.

Notice how H. G. Wells evaluated the situation in his Outline of History: “There was a real loss of faith after 1859 [the year Darwin’s Origin of Species was published]. . . . 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 . . . And just as in a pack it is necessary to bully and subdue the younger and weaker for the general good, so it seemed right to them that the big dogs of the human pack should bully and subdue.”

Many were quick to accept this line of thought. One reason why was the deserved antagonism that they already felt toward many churches for suppressing scientific inquiry. Worse yet, they could see that the prominent religions fomented and justified wars and bloodshed. Hence, Wells accurately commented: “The true gold of religion was in many cases thrown away with the worn-out purse that had contained it for so long.”

‘God Is Responsible’

As to the argument that design proves a Designer, it was then reasoned: ‘If you say that those talons, hooks and teeth, the reign of terror, hunger and sickness were designed by God, then you must accept that this God of yours is responsible for suffering and violence. Yet you say he is love. Which is it?’

Such persons thus concluded: ‘You see, the only plausible explanation is struggle, survival of the fittest, blind, unguided evolution.’

Thus the design-equals-a-Designer argument was supposedly laid in its grave. To use that argument was to bring charges of cruelty against God. And, pitifully, in their usual fashion, the religious leaders of both Christendom and heathendom gave no real answer to this problem.

Since that time the pattern has remained much the same. When the question of a Designer comes up, often the violence-in-nature dilemma is invoked. For example, philosopher Bertrand Russell said in his book Why I Am Not A Christian:

“When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the things in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?”

Let us analyze more deeply this line of thinking, since it is often used against the idea of the design in nature requiring a Designer.

[Pictures on page 5]

How does the “law of the jungle” among humans and animals fit in with a loving Designer?

It Is Still Designed!

DOES the struggle in the animal and human realm really rule out a Designer, a Creator? A close look at the matter will reveal that the answer is, No. The argument that design needs a Designer has not really been refuted.

Indeed, using the struggle in nature to disprove the existence of a Designer does not come to grips with the matter. To disprove the existence of a Designer requires more than passing a moral judgment on the use of the things designed.

Design Means a Designer

To illustrate: when you see jet aircraft, it may displease you to think that they can be made to transport atom bombs as well as passengers. However, regardless of their function, modern jet airplanes are very complex. They have highly sophisticated equipment, such as computers, navigation aids and powerful engines.

Would anyone say that jet planes are not the product of intelligent human design simply because they can be used to kill and destroy? Would anyone in his right mind suggest that, instead, they grew out of a heap of scrap metals by themselves?

Design is design, no matter what purpose it currently serves. The more complex the design and the more that all its many parts must work simultaneously, the more compelling the proof of an intelligent designer. Nothing in the whole of human experience contradicts this conclusion.

There is no reason to shy away from applying this principle to the animals that at present prey upon one another. Their teeth and claws were obviously designed. So were the hands and the brains of humans, which also can be turned to horrible use.

Consider how these organs come about. A single sex cell begins to multiply after conception and produces a cluster of copies of itself. These then begin to differentiate and produce only specialized cells and tissues. These may be as soft as the fur of an animal or as hard and razor sharp as its teeth and claws.

All of that is nothing less than exquisite design at work. Even those not inclined to credit a Designer for such workings use superlatives to describe them. For instance, Time magazine spoke of cell differentiation this way: “At a critical moment early in the life of an embryo, identical cells miraculously (no other word will do) begin to take on specialized roles—some forming tissue for the heart, for example, others that of the liver or skin.” Do not such miracles bespeak the existence of the Miracle Worker or Designer?

We quickly admit a designer when we see a camera, a radio, a robot’s artificial hand, a water pump, a computer. These things obviously were the work of intelligent humans. By what logic, then, can it be claimed that similar, but infinitely more complex things—the eye, ear, hand, heart, brain—were not designed by someone of far greater intelligence?

The Problem

The problem Bertrand Russell raised about the Klan, or the Fascists, has nothing to do with the argument as to whether a Designer exists; rather, the problem has to do with the use of what was designed. With humans, free will comes into play, and this free will is itself a marvelous product of design. But why have humans so often used free will to do bad? And the animals, were they designed to kill and maim? Too, why has the Designer permitted all of this?

Really, the problem is not a question of whether a Designer exists; rather, it is a moral question. Man’s implanted sense of right and wrong is strong enough so that at times he is not satisfied by any explanation that does not address the questions of violence and killing and God’s permission of wickedness.

The next article will deal with the way things now work in nature in contradiction to God’s goodness. But, in the meantime, the design-equals-a-Designer argument stands unrefuted. As the book The Universe: Plan or Accident? observes:

“The recognition of design in nature is no ephemeral scientific conclusion based upon the researches of a decade or two in the history of science—a conclusion which might at any time be reversed were a few new facts to come to light. Rather it is a conclusion which has stood the test of thousands of years; a conclusion so certain that if it should one day transpire that it was a gigantic mistake, man would have every ground for doubting whether valid conclusions of any kind can be reached by thinking.”

No, do not be afraid to trust your reasoning powers when they lead you to the same conclusion reached by the apostle Paul who said: “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.”—Hebrews 3:4.

However, what of the killing and violence in nature? Could that be part of the design of a loving God?

[Blurb on page 8]

For thousands of years people have recognized the design in nature

[Picture on page 6]

While jet aircraft can be made to transport people or nuclear bombs, both types of aircraft are the products of intelligent design

[Pictures on page 7]

We acknowledge these as the products of intelligent human designers

Far more marvelous things had to be designed by a superior intelligence

When All Nature Will Be in Harmony

DESPITE the abundant evidence showing that the design in nature requires an intelligent Designer, many persons do not believe that God exists. They feel that a loving Creator would not have designed the violence, killing and wickedness so prevalent on earth.

However, what if God did NOT design the violence and killing? What if he is NOT responsible for the gross wickedness among humans? Instead, what if he detests these things and promises that he will absolutely put them to an end in his own due time?

Who Is Responsible?

A company may manufacture a knife for cutting vegetables. If someone uses this knife to kill another person, who is responsible? Is the manufacturer of the knife condemned? No, the one who misused the knife is guilty.

The human hand is used wonderfully for ever so many constructive tasks. It builds houses, plants trees, picks up needles, tenderly holds babies. But if a man uses his hands to strangle another person, could we charge that the hand was improperly designed? No, it is not the designer who is to blame but the owner.

If a builder constructs a beautiful home and gives it to tenants who vandalize it, who is at fault? Would you charge the builder with the crime? No, you would hold the vandalizers responsible for the wrong. And surely you would not deny that the builder existed just because the tenants were delinquent.

It is contrary to reason and to justice to condemn the innocent. It is contrary to reason to condemn body parts or organs that God designed for a good purpose if they are used differently at present.

In the Bible we have a clear record of God’s purpose for human and animal life on earth, and why they are in chaos today. Further, that record tells us how all nature will soon come into complete peace and harmony.

Not Designed That Way

Did the human and animal creations always behave the way they do now? Have they always hurt and maimed and killed? Were they designed to do that?

The answer to these questions is: NO, not at all!

Indeed, is God even the ruler of this present system of things? Is he guiding the nations in their dealings with one another? Again, the answer to these questions is: NO, not at all!

Well, then, just how was it long ago? Why are things the way they are now? Who, indeed, does rule this world? And just how will God bring all nature into complete peace and harmony?

The Way It Was

When God created humans and animals to live on this earth, he did not purpose for them to be killers. They were created to have peaceful relations with one another. Thus conditions were altogether different from what they are today. The record tells us that “God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good.”—Genesis 1:31.

The human creation was to have in loving subjection “the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” (Ge 1 Verse 28) None of the animals in the garden of Eden were killers. They were not a threat to man, nor was man a threat to any animal.

God’s Word clearly says regarding the first humans: “I have given to you all vegetation bearing seed which is on the surface of the whole earth and every tree on which there is the fruit of a tree bearing seed. To you let it serve as food.” (Genesis 1:29) Hence, man did not use animals for food.

What was the food of the animals? The inspired record states: “To every wild beast of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving upon the earth in which there is life as a soul I have given all green vegetation for food.” Or, as Today’s English Version of the Bible puts it: “For all the wild animals and for all the birds I have provided grass and leafy plants for food.”—Genesis 1:30.

So when God designed humans, he put them in a peaceful paradise called Eden. He made them to be at peace with the animals, with no violence or killing for food among animals or man. And humans were to keep it that way by caring for themselves, the animals and the garden paradise that they and their offspring would spread to encompass eventually the entire earth.—Genesis 1:27, 28.

The Key

How could humans keep this peaceful paradise and live forever on earth, as was their prospect? By obeying God’s laws. That was the key. Why was that so important? Because God did not design humans to be independent of their Maker and still be successful. The Bible clearly says: “To earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.”—Jeremiah 10:23.

Mankind’s problems began when our first parents misused their free moral agency. They were seduced by a rebellious spirit creature to believe that they could determine right and wrong without God’s help. They chose independence from God. But that was not the Designer’s fault. “Perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; righteous and upright is he,” the Bible says. The responsibility for the consequences of rebellion lies with the rebels: “They have acted ruinously on their own part; they are not his children, the defect is their own.”—Deuteronomy 32:4, 5; Genesis 2:15–3:24.

Since humans wanted independence, God gave it to them. However, no longer would he sustain them in perfection. So imperfection and death came into being. (Romans 5:12) And God permitted this—for a period of time—so that all could see what the course of independence would cost mankind, the animals and the earth. For these thousands of years God has allowed this so that once and for all time the sad consequences of rebellion would be manifest.

Thus, independence from God and his laws is what turned man into the way of imperfection, violence and death. Also, as man turned toward lawlessness, the earthly creation, too, became chaotic. Man lost his loving dominion over the animals. Since humans could not control themselves peacefully, it is no surprise that the animals are in the same condition.

The animals—who had a vegetarian diet in Eden, as did humans—began to live off one another, some even eating humans when possible. (Genesis 1:30) And, as a concession for his survival, man was authorized to eat animal flesh for food after the Flood.—Genesis 9:2-4.

Not Designed to Kill

Yet, what about the features of animals and humans that are used for maiming and killing? Since God created a vast variety of different features, many of them could be adapted to the new situation to help in survival.

For instance, most animals would continue to eat vegetation, as is the case down to this day. An example is the powerful gorilla, with its awesome fangs—fangs still used to rip and consume heavy vegetation. But others adapted themselves to eating flesh. Yet predators make up only a very small percent of the animals.

Man, too, has adapted. In his imperfection and waywardness, he often uses his mind and hands to maim and kill. He has even cannibalized other humans for food. And his teeth can be adapted to eating meat, though that was not included in his diet in Eden.

But what of the “balance of nature”? If there was no killing, how would this be maintained? For one thing, it was man who was to live forever on earth. That promise was not given to animals. They would die when their life span was completed.

Also, many animals have built-in mechanisms that reduce their fertility when overcrowding occurs. And this is without God’s direct intercession now. Surely, when God’s time comes for all the earth to be brought back into that peaceful Edenic condition, it will be no great thing for the Grand Designer of animals and humans to control their numbers without violence.

An example of how God can subdue the violence in animals was the peace that existed among beasts and humans for about a year in Noah’s ark.

Keep in mind that what exists today is not what it was like in the paradise of Eden. That environment was vastly different. Many foods were likely different. Probably the animals with hardier teeth had rougher food. Their teeth were designed for that.

Certainly there are questions that cannot now be answered about the exact conditions in Eden. But this does not argue that there was no Designer.

Who Rules This World?

Also, what of the contention, such as Bertrand Russell’s, that anyone who was all-wise and all-powerful should not have made such a mess of this world? He assumed, as do others, that if there is a God he is responsible for this world.

However, the Creator, Jehovah God, is not this world’s ruler. This present system of things is run by men independent from him, and it is manipulated by that unseen spirit rebel, Satan the Devil. The Bible calls Satan “the god of this system of things.” (2 Corinthians 4:4) Jesus called Satan “the ruler of this world.” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11) The oversight of the nations is what Satan offered Jesus in an attempt to get him to rebel against God.—Luke 4:5-8.

Hence, all the chaos and violence committed by humans is the responsibility of rebellious humans and wicked spirit forces. God is not responsible.

The Restoration

The Bible speaks of the “restoration of all things.” (Acts 3:21) It shows unmistakably that the miserable experiment in independence from God will shortly come to an end. Both the wicked spirit forces in heavenly places and rebellious humans on earth will be cleared out, paving the way for “new heavens and a new earth . . . and in these righteousness is to dwell.”—2 Peter 3:13; see also Proverbs 2:21, 22; Revelation 19:11-21.

Then will begin the restoration of Edenic conditions—of Paradise. (Luke 23:43) That will mean the restoring of peace and harmony between humans and animals, they no longer using one another for food. The Bible states at Isaiah 11:6-9: “The wolf will actually reside for a while with the male lamb, and with the kid the leopard itself will lie down, and the calf and the maned young lion and the well-fed animal all together; and a mere little boy will be leader over them. And the cow and the bear themselves will feed; together their young ones will lie down. And even the lion will eat straw just like the bull. And the sucking child will certainly play upon the hole of the cobra; and upon the light aperture of a poisonous snake will a weaned child actually put his own hand. They will not do any harm or cause any ruin in all my holy mountain.”

In the human realm, total peace will also be a reality: “He [God] is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth. The bow he breaks apart and does cut the spear in pieces; the [war] wagons he burns in the fire.”—Psalm 46:9.

Hence, with good reason does the inspired Bible prophecy say this about the Grand Designer’s soon-to-come new order: “The meek ones themselves will possess the earth, and they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.”—Psalm 37:11; Matthew 5:5.

While the consequences of rebellion will thus be erased, the idea that our first parents, Adam and Eve, rebelled against God causes some people to wonder. They have been taught to regard Adam and Eve as mythical characters. So can we have confidence that they really existed?

[Blurb on page 10]

If someone uses his hand to hurt another, who is guilty—the hand’s designer or its owner?

[Blurb on page 11]

As man turned toward lawlessness, the earthly creation, too, became chaotic

[Picture on page 11]

The gorilla’s awesome teeth are used to consume vegetation, not meat

[Pictures on page 12]

Adam and Eve were at peace with the animals in Eden—content with vegetation as the food for all

God will soon restore Edenic conditions in an earth that will be made a paradise

Adam and Eve—Real Persons or Only Fiction?

SAY “Antony,” and many history students will quickly add: “and Cleopatra.” Say “Hansel” and opera buffs will reply: “and Gretel.” Say “Adam” and almost all of us would answer: “and Eve.”

But whereas Antony and Cleopatra were real persons, Hansel and Gretel were not. Now, what about Adam and Eve? What would you say—real persons or only fiction?

Simple, but Scientific

Admittedly, the Genesis account of Adam and Eve is very simple. It states that God created man’s body out of the elements of the earth and then proceeded “to blow into his nostrils the breath of life.” Later, with a part of man’s body as a basis, a woman was created, whom the man could appropriately describe as “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.”—Genesis 2:7, 23.

Now, should the account’s simplicity prejudice us against it? If something adheres to facts it need not be complicated to be true. And many scientists say the Genesis claim that all humans had a single source, not several, is factual. (See box, opposite page, “Mankind’s Common Origin—Scientifically Confirmed.”)

Does Evolution Fit In?

Many people reject the Adam-and-Eve story because they feel that in evolution they have found a more convincing explanation of how human life came about.

Some of these people do not necessarily deny God’s existence. They may feel that it is quite possible to reconcile the Bible account with evolutionary beliefs.

For example, the Austrian Prager-Stemberger Bible commentary supports this view, saying: “Whether man appeared at the end of a certain evolutionary process and whether the first human being was just one or a group—to both questions the Genesis text gives no definite answer.” Some religious scholars, even “various Southern Baptist seminary professors,” agree according to a recent newsmagazine. They suggest that “Adam and Eve might be symbols for primordial mankind rather than the first human beings.” But why do some try to reconcile the Bible’s creation account with evolution?

This is perhaps due to the way many scientists present evolution—as an established fact. For example, N. V. Timofeeff-Ressovsky, Soviet scientist, claims: “Evolution’s existence . . . in the world around us no longer needs to be proved.”

Thus, faced with what is called the fact of evolution, the sincere Bible student seeks a reasonable explanation. ‘If Adam and Eve were not real individuals,’ he may reason, ‘but only fictional representations of early man, then the Bible’s claim that God originally created life could be reconciled with the scientific claim that man has evolved.’

It may sound reasonable, but is it true? Evolutionists, if honest, must concede that they have been unable to prove their theory, even though they are quite adamant about believing it. One of them, writing in the German magazine Natur, admits that “our explanations for evolution are inadequate. . . . For the time being evolution’s background . . . is still an unsolved riddle.” He quotes Adolf Portmann, a Swiss zoologist, who acknowledges that his lifetime of research has failed to turn up any real explanations.

However, many sincere persons have found that the Bible offers explanations. They have found it to be consistently correct and reliable. This helps us to understand why many sincere Bible students refuse to reinterpret the Adam-and-Eve account so as to fit it in with the unproved theory of evolution.

The Matter of Logic

For the sake of argument, let us say that Adam and Eve were not real persons. How, then, would Bible references to them be understood? For some examples, see the box on page 17, “An Unavoidable Chain Reaction.”

A rejection of the Adam-and-Eve account in Genesis starts a chain reaction that ends up in almost total rejection of everything the Bible teaches. But rejecting the Bible leaves us with some rather puzzling questions, questions that only the Bible can satisfactorily answer. For example:

I. WHY DO PEOPLE DO BAD THINGS?

The Bible account about Adam and Eve says that they were given a threefold commission: to populate the earth; to cultivate and beautify it; to lovingly care for its animal population. (Genesis 1:28) Along with this commission, they were placed under one restriction. It was imposed as a test of their obedience to God, for obedience to his instructions would be absolutely necessary in order for them to carry out their duties successfully.

But Adam and Eve disobediently chose to do things their own way, ignoring God and his instructions. The result? Romans 5:12 explains: “Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” So, according to the Bible, the basic reason why people do bad things is inheritance—we have inherited sinful, wrong tendencies from our first parents, Adam and Eve.

Now, if we do not accept the Bible account of Adam and Eve as factual, then how do we satisfactorily explain why people, despite the fact that they may want peace and happiness, continue to do bad things?

II. WHY DO PEOPLE GET SICK AND EVENTUALLY DIE?

Does science have the answer? In commenting on the findings of science one reporter admitted that Tübingen professor Friedhelm Schneider has established that “nothing supports [the view] that death is tied to the concept of life as a physical necessity.”

However, the Bible explains that Adam and Eve’s rebellious course resulted in their losing God’s favor and the opportunity of living forever in an earthly paradise. The perfect bodies that God had given them began to deteriorate, finally to the point of death. Now prone to sickness and death, they could only bring forth children similarly handicapped. “Who can produce someone clean out of someone unclean?” Job once asked and then went on to answer: “There is not one.” (Job 14:4) As each generation gets farther away from mankind’s perfect start, imperfections increase.

If we do not accept the Bible’s account of Adam and Eve, then how do we explain why, despite technological and scientific progress, man continues to get sick and die?

III. WHY HAS GOD PERMITTED WICKEDNESS FOR SO LONG?

In effect Adam and Eve rejected God-rule for man-rule. To what did this lead? Some 3,000 years later King Solomon explained at Ecclesiastes 8:6-9: “The calamity of mankind is abundant upon them . . . during the time that man has dominated man to his injury.”

German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt backed up the truthfulness of those words in a television interview in June of 1981 when he said: “We humans . . . have always only partially governed the world, and most of the time very badly. . . . We have never governed it in total peace.”

By permitting man to rule himself for 6,000 years, God has allowed time for it to be demonstrated that man is unable “to direct his step”; God-rule is to be preferred. (Jeremiah 10:23) Thus, God stands vindicated. So it is quite apparent that Adam and Eve made a disastrous choice.

But without the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, what reasonable explanation is there for why God has permitted wickedness for so long?

IV. IS THERE ANY HOPE FOR THE FUTURE?

Yes, there is hope. Immediately after Adam and Eve rebelled, God promised that not all was lost. He foretold a “seed” who would eventually restore righteous conditions and do away with badness. (See Genesis 3:15; Romans 16:20; Revelation 12:7-12; 20:1-3.) This “seed” turned out to be Jesus Christ, who ransomed mankind and prepared the way for restoring God-rule for the benefit of obedient people. When will this happen?

Bible chronology and world conditions indicate that God will act shortly. His established kingdom, which Jehovah’s Witnesses are busily preaching as mankind’s only hope, will restore to obedient mankind the prospects of everlasting life in the perfect state originally enjoyed by Adam and Eve. If we reject what the Bible says about Adam and Eve, then, in the face of worsening world conditions, what hope for the future would we have?

This message about God’s incoming world government and the blessings it will bring is not a fictitious Hansel and Gretel story. Future history will bear witness to it as surely as past history does to the existence of Antony and Cleopatra. Yes, it will be just as real as were Adam and Eve! Why not contact Jehovah’s Witnesses and find out more about it?

[Blurb on page 14]

Evolutionists, if honest, must concede that they have been unable to prove their theory

[Box on page 15]

MANKIND’S COMMON ORIGIN—SCIENTIFICALLY CONFIRMED

● “The anatomy of persons of all races is the same; they all have the same protein structure and all the same ancestors.”—Anthropologist Dr. Georg Glowatzki.

● “All the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin.”—The Races of Mankind, by Anthropologists Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish.

● “All of us, if we went back far enough, hundreds of generations, would arrive at the same place . . . the evidence of science [is] that present men derive from a common stock.”—Publication by the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization of the United Nations.

● “All varieties of man belong to the same species and have the same remote ancestry. This is a conclusion to which all the relevant evidence of comparative anatomy, paleontology, serology, and genetics, points. On genetic grounds alone it is virtually impossible to conceive of the varieties of man as having originated separately.”—Anthropologist M. F. Ashley Montagu.

● “Science now corroborates what most great religions have long been preaching: Human beings of all races are . . . descended from the same first man.”—Science writer Amram Scheinfeld.

[Box on page 17]

AN UNAVOIDABLE CHAIN REACTION

NOW REASON ON WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS

● “[Jesus] said: ‘Did you not read [at Genesis 1:27; 2:24] that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife”?’”—Matthew 19:4, 5.

Jesus Christ is widely recognized as one who held to the highest standards of honesty and morality. If the Genesis account about Adam and Eve is only allegorical, would Jesus have quoted it as actual fact? Hardly!

● “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli, son of Matthat, . . . son of David, son of Jesse, . . . son of Abraham, . . . son of Shem, son of Noah, . . . son of Adam, son of God.”—Luke 3:23-38.

Where does Luke’s listing of Jesus’ ancestors change over from a mythical person to a real person? Who is the first real man on the list, if not Adam?

● “Through one man sin entered into the world . . . thus death spread to all men.” “Death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses.”—Romans 5:12, 14.

If Adam was “primordial mankind,” should not the apostle Paul have spoken of “several men” instead of “one man”? And if Adam is fictional, what about Moses? No one doubts that he existed.

● “The seventh one in line from Adam, Enoch, prophesied also regarding [the wicked].”—Jude 14.

If Adam was not a real individual, what about Enoch? And if Enoch was a real person, how could he have been the seventh in line from a fictitious Adam?

IS IT NOT APPARENT THAT, AS REFERRED TO IN THE BIBLE, ADAM AND EVE WERE REAL PERSONS?

[Picture on page 16]

By allowing humans to rule themselves for about 6,000 years, it has been demonstrated that man is unable “to direct his step”

[Picture on page 18]

Under God’s kingdom, mankind will have the prospect of enjoying everlasting life on a paradise earth

Crossword Puzzle

Clues Across

1. Jesus resurrected a widow’s son here (Luke 7:11-17)

5. Men from this nation heard their language spoken at Pentecost (Acts 2:10)

8. To take in as food (Genesis 9:3, 4)

10. A projecting edge (Ezekiel 43:13)

13. The hometown of Gideon (Judges 8:27)

16. Last king of the united kingdom of Israel (1 Kings 12:1-20)

18. Began (2 Chronicles 34:3)

19. The sorcerer who opposed Paul and Barnabas in Cyprus (Acts 13:6-12)

21. This rod symbolized one’s right to issue orders [2 words] (Genesis 49:10)

26. The sacred ark was kept in his home for some seventy years (1 Samuel 7:1)

27. David’s rebellious son Adonijah held a feast here (1 Kings 1:9)

28. To travel across (Matthew 23:15)

30. One skilled with bow and arrow (Genesis 21:20)

32. A large body of water (Exodus 14:21-28)

33. She was deceived (1 Timothy 2:13, 14)

35. Recorded or ‐‐‐‐‐ down (Daniel 10:21)

36. Judas hypocritically wanted to sell this perfumed oil (John 12:3-8)

Clues Down

2. Israel suffered defeat here due to Achan’s sin (Joshua 7:1-5)

3. Moses saw the Promised Land from this mountain (Deuteronomy 32:48-52)

4. Chedorlaomer, king of this nation, was defeated by Abram (Genesis 14:1-17)

6. “Doors and ‐‐‐ “ (Deuteronomy 3:5)

7. One of three trees called the “glory of Lebanon” (Isaiah 60:13)

9. Length of Satan’s abyssing [2 words] (Revelation 20:1-3)

11. He sentenced Jesus to death [2 words] (Acts 4:27)

12. Semitic language

14. Babylon the Great is one (Revelation 17:1-6)

15. Title applied to Christ Jesus (Revelation 3:14)

17. Aaronic priest selected to head the third priestly division organized by David (1 Chronicles 24:1-3, 8)

20. One of the six who stood on Ezra’s right as he publicly read the Law (Nehemiah 8:4)

22. Samson’s father (Judges 13:2-24)

23. A southern border town of Judah (Joshua 15:1-3)

24. False stories (Titus 1:14)

25. A confederate of Abram who accompanied him to rescue Lot (Genesis 14:13, 24)

28. To catch one unawares (Matthew 22:15)

29. “Jehovah will rule as king to time indefinite, ‐‐‐‐ forever” (Exodus 15:18)

30. Meaning “spring” or “natural fountain,” a place on the east boundary of Israel (Numbers 34:11)

31. A paralytic was brought to Jesus on this (Mark 2:3-12)

34. Abram left this city behind at God’s direction (Nehemiah 9:7)

CROSSWORD SOLUTIONS PAGE 25

Answers Across

1. NAIN

5. LIBYA

8. EAT

10. LIP

13. OPHRAH

16. REHOBOAM

18. STARTED

19. BARJESUS

21. COMMANDERS STAFF

26. ABINADAB

27. ENROGEL

28. TRAVERSE

30. ARCHER

32. SEA

33. EVE

35. NOTED

36. NARD

Answers Down

2. AI

3. NEBO

4. ELAM

6. BAR

7. ASH

9. THOUSAND YEARS

11. PONTIUS PILATE

12. ARABIC

14. HARLOT

15. AMEN

17. HARIM

20. SHEMA

22. MANOAH

23. ADDAR

24. FABLES

25. ANER

28. TRAP

29. EVEN

30. AIN

31. COT

34. UR

How Can I Get Rid of the Blues?

Young People Ask . . .

How Can I Get Rid of the Blues?

HE WAS very depressed. But he found that if he got into an exciting situation he felt better—for a while. Then he found a surefire key to excitement: picking a fight with a policeman—literally kicking him! That really got his adrenaline surging! His depression cleared up for the moment. But now he had some other problems!

If you have ever been plagued by depression you may sympathize with that man. Since his “solution” was not too practical, you may wonder what you can do to get rid of the blues.

“Some people get depressed because they’re hungry,” observed Dr. Nathan S. Kline, a New York specialist on depression. “A person may not eat breakfast and for some reason miss lunch. Then by three o’clock he begins wondering why he doesn’t feel right.”

What you eat can also make a difference. Debbie, a young woman plagued with feelings of despair, admitted: “I didn’t realize that junk food was so detrimental to my mood. I ate a lot of it. Now I notice that when I eat fewer sweets, I feel better.” Other helpful steps? Some form of exercise may lift your spirits. Or you may need a medical checkup, since depression can be a symptom of physical illness.a

However, in many cases depression is brought on by the way you think.

The Battle of the Mind

“When you’ve been through a lot of people cutting at you,” lamented eighteen-year-old Evelyn, “it makes you think you’re not worth anything.” You, too, may be a victim of such negative thinking—and be disheartened as a result.

But consider: Is it really up to your peers to measure your worth as a person? Similar ridicule was heaped upon the Christian apostle Paul. Some said that he was a weakling and a poor speaker. Did this make Paul feel worthless? Not at all! They were setting up their own standards. But Paul knew that meeting God’s standard was the important thing. He could boast over what he had accomplished with God’s help—regardless of what others were saying. So, too, if your thoughts dwell on your strengths and you have a standing with God to reflect on, the blues will often leave.—2 Corinthians 10:7, 10, 17, 18.

Maybe you feel guilty because of some weakness. Are you striving hard to overcome it? Or is your life-style making matters worse? “Though the sins of you people should prove to be as scarlet, they will be made white just like snow,” promises Jehovah God, “if you people show willingness and do listen.” (Isaiah 1:18, 19) So do your part. Never overlook the compassion and patience of our heavenly Father.—Psalm 103:8-14.

Also, set realistic standards for yourself. You don’t have to be top in your school class to be successful. (Ecclesiastes 7:16-18) Realize that you are going to have your share of disappointments in life. You may, for example, experience the breakup of a close relationship. That often triggers depression. Rather than feel, ‘No one cares what happens to me and no one ever will,’ think, ‘I’m going to miss her, but I’ll get over it.’ And there’s nothing wrong with having a good cry.

The Value of Accomplishment

“Despair doesn’t go away on its own,” advises twenty-five-year-old Daphne who successfully lived through bouts of discouragement. “You have to think on a different line or physically get involved. You have to start doing something.” But what?

“I’m on a sewing spree,” said twenty-four-year-old Linda who was working hard to fight a sullen mood. “I can work on my wardrobe and, in time, I forget about what’s troubling me. It really helps.” Doing things that you are good at can build your self-esteem—which is usually at rock bottom during depression.

Also beneficial is engaging in activities that bring you pleasure. Try shopping for some personal treat, playing games, cooking your favorite recipe, browsing through a bookstore, dining out, reading, even putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Perhaps for these “down” days you may even save something that you especially like to do as ready “medication.” If you are a young woman you may find that such “down” times may coincide with your menstrual cycle.

“When I have something to look forward to I’m not as depressed,” reported Debbie. She found that by planning short trips or setting little goals for herself to do something different in her daily routine, she could cope with her depressed mood. However, doing something to aid another person was one of her biggest helps. “I met this young woman who was very depressed, and I began to help her to study the Bible,” revealed Debbie. “These weekly discussions gave me opportunity to tell her how she could overcome her depression. The Bible gave her real hope. This helped me at the same time.” Just as Jesus said: “There is more happiness in giving than there is in receiving.”—Acts 20:35.

Confide in a Real Friend

“A friend is loving at all times, and becomes a brother in times of trouble,” according to Proverbs 17:17. (The Bible in Basic English) Yes, talking to a friend really helps. “When you keep it to yourself it is like carrying a heavy load all alone,” said twenty-two-year-old Evan. “But when you share it with someone who is qualified to help, it becomes much lighter.”

Though there is some relief by just getting your feelings “off your chest,” often more is needed. Your thinking may need some correction. So seek out a friend who will be not only an understanding listener but also an objective counselor. (Proverbs 27:5, 6) But where can you find friends like that?

Twenty-five-year-old Rosemarie kept her melancholy to herself. Her mother died when she was a child and, never having had a warm family life, she often felt dejected. “I always kept things to myself, not having anyone I could share my feelings with. This only made me feel worse.” What snapped her out of her constant dreary mood? She continues: “Then I began to study the Bible with one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. They showed real interest in me. In time, as I attended their meetings, I became close to other Witnesses and could open up about my depressed moods to some of the older, mature women. They helped me to look at matters correctly. I found within the congregation persons that were like the father and mother I never had.”

Do you need friends like that? Jesus Christ said that you can find them among his genuine followers. (Mark 10:29, 30; John 13:34, 35) They will show sincere concern about your welfare.

Rosemarie, in addition to finding close friends, developed something that is the finest aid in dispelling gloom—an intimate relationship with God.

Power Beyond What Is Normal

The apostle Paul spoke of having a “power beyond what is normal” from God. (2 Corinthians 4:7) So, too, if you learn about God through a personal study of his Word, the Bible, and apply such knowledge, you will feel close to God. He will not let you be crushed by depression if you lean on him. (Psalm 55:22) With his holy spirit he gives power beyond your normal resources.

This friendship with God is truly reassuring. “When I have sad times,” said Georgia, “I pray a lot. I know that Jehovah is going to provide a way out no matter how deep a problem I have.” Daphne agrees, adding: “You can tell Jehovah everything. You just pour out your heart and you know, even if no human can, he really understands you and cares about you.”

Yes, God “really understands,” and invites you to throw your anxieties upon him “because he cares for you.” Having such reassurance is truly the finest way to combat the blues.—1 Peter 5:6, 7.

[Footnotes]

a See the article “Why Do I Get So Depressed?” in the August 22, 1982, issue of Awake!

“Talking” to Computers

By “Awake!” correspondent in Japan

“NEW CONVERSATIONAL TYPE COMPUTER SYSTEM,” read the magazine ad. I chuckled as I thought about a person carrying on a conversation with a machine. Did this mean that the computer could actually carry on a conversation? What could be gained from communicating with a machine anyway? The answers I received from a friend in the computer field were very interesting.

First of all, I learned that the communication meant in the ad isn’t the vocal type. Usually it means interactive computing (giving instructions to the computer and receiving an immediate response) by means of a video unit or online printer (one directly connected to the computer). Just as human language is for the purpose of communication, a computer “language” allows communication with the computer for the purpose of problem solving. Such communication with the computer tells it what to do and presents responses showing what has been done.

The medium for getting instructions to the computer is called a computer or programming “language.” To “talk” with a computer, you would have to learn one of the many programming languages.

Programming Languages

According to my friend, the set of instructions provided for a computer to perform some specified activity is called a program. A modern programming language is a set of characters and words that is, ideally, similar or close to human language, yet can give instructions or transfer data to the computer.

Although the history of programming languages is short, about thirty years, there are already over 1,000 programming languages and more are being developed every day. This is due to the many uses to which computers are being put and the developments in computer technology.

The names given these languages either describe their characteristics, such as FORTRAN (FORmula TRANslation), BASIC (Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code), COBOL (COmmon Business Oriented Language), or just identify them, such as PL/1 (Programming Language 1) and APL (A Programming Language). Some, such as FORTRAN, are designed for using mathematical terms and are better suited to scientific calculation, while COBOL uses business English and is a business-oriented language. PL/1, which is the primary language employed at the New York Watch Tower headquarters and its Japanese branch for their publishing system, is a general language adaptable to most fields.

Just as there are rules governing the grammar and punctuation of human languages, each programming language has its own particular set of rules, or syntax. These must be adhered to if the program is to be understood by the machine.

As anyone who has ever learned a foreign language knows, eliminating just one necessary part of speech or mispronouncing a word can be disastrous. This is likewise true as far as programming languages are concerned. To drive this point home, think back a few years to the launching of NASA’s Mariner I spacecraft. A FORTRAN program for launching the rocket contained one programming error, a hyphen that was omitted. As a result the multimillion-dollar rocket failed to orbit! What a costly loss due to one error!

Another point that was stressed to me concerned what a computer can and can not do. The computer has no originality—it cannot produce something new unless it has the necessary components fed into it. Thus, if a program told the computer to GET FILE 1, ADD it to FILE 2, then PRINT it, but file 1 had never been entered into the computer, the work could not proceed, and a response like “FILE NOT IN LIB” would probably come back to let you know that the file is not in the memory LIBrary.

Such responses are also entered in advance. So, both the questions and the means to answer, all the information given and taken in communicating with computers, are devised by man. It reminds me of a play script with all the entrances, exits, speaking cues and lines written in for the actors. Whatever a computer does must be preprogrammed.

Here I learned another peculiarity of computer language. No matter how proficient you become, you always need a translator to make yourself understood by the computer. That is no fault of man but is due to the limitations of the machine. It can only understand information in the form of 1 and 0, so you need a translator program to put the programmer’s instructions in that form. Thus, there are really two copies of the program involved—the one the programmer writes, called a source program, and a translated copy, which the machine can execute. The computer then performs its operations using information that it can understand. It can respond to the user through a video screen or a printer by translating its response back into characters that a person can read.

What the programmer is primarily interested in is the source programming language. This is the one that men write programs in, and they must know it well to have a good program. The machine languages are installed in the computer and prepared by the company that produces them.

Who Can Learn

An important factor in whether you will learn a programming language and become proficient in its use is your interest. Those who learn the best are those who have interest in computing and its related fields.

Another requirement often stated involves age. The younger you are the better, is the usual advice. This is so because the older we get the more set our thinking patterns become and the harder they are to adapt.

In the past it was thought that a math background was essential for those desiring to go into the field of programming, but today this is not the case, unless it is to program mathematical type of material. In fact, some years ago a contest showed that one of IBM Japan’s most effective programmers was a Liberal Arts graduate. However, the type of mind that readily places things in logical order with a high degree of accuracy is necessary to good programming.

How to Learn

Today there are many aids to learning the different programming languages. Thus, you can go a long way toward teaching yourself. For one thing, the languages themselves are getting more and more like the spoken word and are therefore easier to use and learn. Also, many computer companies have publications that can be ordered that teach basic programming techniques and languages. Some secondary schools offer courses in programming, and libraries have any number of books on the subject.

There are, however, some drawbacks to learning completely on your own. Just as in spoken language, there is always the possibility of picking up bad habits, which are hard to correct later on. Also, having a good example to learn from is a great aid in developing skill. Another point that must be taken into consideration is that computer companies are constantly updating and adding new techniques. So just learning a programming language will not guarantee that it can be used as it is.

Is It Worth It?

Is the time spent learning a given task thoroughly and then programming a machine to do that task worth it? The facts answer, Yes. True, planning and writing a program take time. But once the program begins to operate, the computer can function much faster than men, some computers being able to do over 200 million basic operations a second! Also, a job done on the computer is more accurate than if it were done by many different men. All the time saved from performing repetitious operations frees men to do more worthwhile tasks. For these reasons many companies have computerized their work, thus opening up jobs for computer programmers.

Does “talking” to computers interest you? Learning their languages could present an interesting challenge.

[Picture on page 23]

100 degrees Celsius is how much in Fahrenheit?

1101 0100

That means 212 degrees Fahrenheit

The Elusive Search for Happiness

EVERYWHERE you look, you see people trying to have a good time, trying to be happy. Is that wrong? Of course not. It is only natural to want to enjoy life. Yet the world still seems to be full of unhappy people. Why?

It is because many, in seeking pleasures, miss out on happiness. The two are not the same thing at all. Pleasures can contribute to happiness, but they can also destroy it.

When Pleasures Bring Happiness

Pleasure is defined as “gratification of the senses,” or “frivolous enjoyment or amusement.” Happiness is “a state of well-being and contentment.” It is a state of mind.

Hence, pleasures are temporary. But they can contribute to more permanent things. For example, the temporary pleasure of enjoying good food and drink can help to maintain something more lasting, good health. The temporary pleasure of being with friends can help to strengthen friendships. A happy marriage, solid friendships, and—to some extent—good health can contribute to that state of mind known as happiness.

On the other hand, pleasures can detract from happiness. If our pleasures are restricted merely to pleasing ourselves, they will quickly seem boring and pointless. For real happiness, having pleasure must also include giving pleasure. This point is made in the Bible. “Happiness lies more in giving than in receiving.”—Acts 20:35, New English Bible.

Additionally, pleasures must remain within proper boundaries. Otherwise, again, they can destroy our happiness.

1. FOOD AND DRINK

For example, heavy eating and drinking may bring temporary pleasure, but they have brought little happiness to . . .

● . . . the 40 percent of those dying in the prime of life who cause their own death by such things as overeating and excessive drinking, according to the British Medical Journal;

● . . . alcoholics and their families;

● . . . the tens of thousands killed and hundreds of thousands injured yearly in traffic accidents caused by alcohol misuse. In Germany alone, there were 2,930 deaths and 66,165 injuries in one recent year.

What are the “proper boundaries” for enjoying food and drink? Consider what the Bible says: “Do not come to be among heavy drinkers of wine, among those who are gluttonous eaters of flesh.” (Proverbs 23:20) Surely, any intelligent person can see the reasonableness of this advice recommending moderation.

2. RECREATION

Recreation, too, can be fun. It can bring pleasure for a while. But it has brought little happiness to . . .

● . . . the approximately ten thousand Americans who reportedly die each year because of “exposing themselves to some degree of danger under the guise of recreation”;

● . . . the thousands—and their families—who spend more time and money on recreation, including hobbies, than is wise or practical.

When recreation becomes an end in itself, it goes beyond its “proper boundaries,” and detracts from our happiness. A Bible writer commented wisely: “I may do anything, but that does not mean that everything is good for me. I may do everything, but I must not be a slave of anything.”—1 Corinthians 6:12, Phillips.

3. SEX

“Free sex” is tried by many in their search for happiness. But while immoral sex may bring temporary pleasure, it has brought little happiness to . . .

● . . . the multitudes of unmarried, pregnant teenagers, many of whom resort to abortions to dispose of unwanted babies;

● . . . the millions of innocent mates and children living in homes broken up by adultery;

● . . . the great number suffering from the modern pandemic of venereal disease.

The “proper boundaries” for sex are clearly described in the Bible: “Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.”—Hebrews 13:4.

Once again, these boundaries are reasonable, although not popular in today’s self-indulgent world. Only in the context of marriage will the pleasures of sex contribute to real happiness.

What We See Today

Today, we see much time and money spent on the pursuit of pleasure. “Be good to yourself; you deserve it!” is the motto of many. Self-gratification is a driving force. Responsibility and unselfishness have taken a back seat, while, for the majority, serving God does not even come into the picture.

The results of a survey of a group of young people illustrate this. They were asked to describe their home on a typical Sunday. The survey concluded: “The matter-of-factness with which the vast majority . . . made no mention of anything that could be even vaguely viewed as a reference to fellowship with others, not to speak of fellowship with God was most disquieting.” This is especially true since it is God who has given us the best guidance for keeping our pleasures within reasonable limits and who knows what is needed to make us truly happy.

…

Refine Search

Index Downloading...

Awake!, October 8, 1982