The microbes in your lower intestine are like Rodney Dangerfield—they get no respect. So, I am guessing that the bacteria in your bowels helping you digest turkey and pumpkin pie are near the bottom of your list of things you will be thanking God for this Thanksgiving Day. Perhaps this article will change that.

I have written previously about the benefits of gut bacteria. A study shows that humans who were richly endowed with anti-inflammatory bacterial species in their gut were much less likely to be plagued by obesity.¹ Another study reveals that what you eat determines the diversity of your gut bacteria.²

Now, new research shows the likelihood that gut intestinal microbiota influence brain development and neurological behavior.³ These studies follow previous findings that demonstrated that mammals raised in sterile, germ-free conditions exhibited negative behaviors resulting from impaired brain physiology and neurochemistry.

The new studies reveal that gut microbes influence our brains through certain hormones, immune system molecules, and metabolites they produce. For example, a study of residents of Walkerton, Canada, who, over a short time period, ingested contaminated drinking water—thus, severely damaging their gut bacteria—suffered widespread depression and anxiety disorders that persisted for eight years.⁴ Another study showed that certain gut microbes break down complex carbohydrates to produce the fatty acid butyrate, which strengthens the blood-brain barrier.⁵ A complementary study demonstrated that disruption of the brain-gut-microbiota axis likely contributes to the development of Parkinson’s disease.⁶ Yet another study established that gut microbes directly alter neurotransmitter levels. Specifically, this study showed that certain metabolites from gut microbes promote serotonin production.⁷ Still another study reveals that the health condition of gut microbiota during the host’s early development might affect neurodevelopment, especially in males,⁸ which has touched off speculation about autism disorders.

Emerging, not-yet-published research findings show that, in at least one part of the brain, gut microbes influence the formation of the fatty sheathings that insulate nerve fibers.⁹ An older published study shows a probable link between multiple sclerosis and the disabling of a metabolite produced by certain types of gut bacteria.¹⁰

As this growing research demonstrates, if you want a healthy, high-functioning brain and an optimal psychological state of mind, it will be important to take good care of your gut microbiota. As your mother said, “Eat your vegetables”—especially the green ones.

Our Creator meticulously designed a diverse array of gut microbes to ensure that our brains can function for many decades at a high-capacity level that enables us to enjoy creation and to fulfill all the purposes for which He created us. This Thanksgiving, select a menu that will be kind to your gut microbes and take some time to thank God for the marvelous way He designed your gut bacteria.

Is debating about the validity of the evolutionary paradigm a waste of time? My Facebook friend Deb, an atheist, thinks so. After I posted a brief critique about human evolution, she left this comment out of frustration:

Instead of hitting each other over the head about evolution, maybe we could work together to solve some of this planet’s pressing problems (climate change, poverty, war, environmental degradation, wealth inequality, lack of health care and educational resources, prejudice, discrimination and so forth).

Does Deb have a point? Does the creation-evolution controversy detract us from more weighty concerns?

I would say no. In fact, I assert that our concern about humanity’s social ills and our planet’s environmental catastrophes—and our motivation to act—are deeply connected to what we think about human origins.

Let me explain.

Scripture teaches that God created human beings to bear His image (Genesis 1:26–27; 9:6). Accordingly, all human beings have intrinsic worth and dignity. All human beings are equal. The way we treat image bearers equates to the way we treat God. Serving others likens to serving God. These ideas—so clearly taught in Scripture—inspire Christians to good works. They rouse Christians to action against the injustices in our world.

On the other hand, while individual atheists are as capable of good deeds as Christians, atheism itself provides no genuine motivation for such acts. If human beings are the product of unguided evolutionary processes, then we are one among countless species that have existed on Earth. From an evolutionary standpoint, human beings are a historically contingent accident of an indiscriminate, natural process. Human life has no intrinsic value; there is no ultimate meaning or purpose to human life.

From an atheistic perspective, why should we care what happens to other human beings? In an atheistic framework, it really makes no difference if human beings suffer from poverty, lack of health care, or injustice. In fact, one could argue that an atheist showing compassion to the sick and weak is “immoral” because it disrupts the evolutionary process, in which survival of the fittest serves as the engine for evolutionary advance.

I’m not saying that atheists can’t be good or aren’t good. Many nonbelievers do good works, and I deeply admire and applaud the caring things that they do. It is wonderful to see people of different worldviews lock arms and work together to confront injustice.

But what features of an atheistic worldview justify good works? Deb explains that atheists “feel it’s the compassionate thing to do….We’re not doing this because we expect any reward in the afterlife, as we do not believe in anything beyond death. We do it because we love life in the here and now so much.” However, an atheistic worldview doesn’t require compassion or kindness or acknowledgement of human dignity. It is just as valid for an atheist to reject good works as it is to embrace them. In an atheistic framework, it is not clear what justice actually looks like; it is not clear what distinguishes a “right” action from a “wrong” one. There is no objective standard for good and evil in atheism. Without that standard, what is wrong for one society (or even one person) could be right for another.

In contrast, the biblical God, through scriptural teachings, clearly defines how and why we should live and how we should treat each other.

In my view, the reason that atheists can extend compassion toward others and place high value on human life arises from the fact that all human beings bear God’s image. We inherently know that all people have dignity and worth. We have a “law written on our hearts” that guides our behavior if we let it. The moral code many atheists adopt is designed into their DNA, as it is in all humans. Atheists are, unwittingly, borrowing from a Judeo-Christian worldview, when they express a commitment to combat poverty, end war, provide health care, and end discrimination. That is why believers and nonbelievers can work together to improve our world.

When atheists do good works, they are defying the logical outworking of their worldview. As a case in point, in The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins states emphatically:

Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try toteach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.¹

Again, if atheism is true, we should ask why we would want to “upset the designs” of our selfish genes, because to do so, would be to upset the evolutionary process. Why should we stand in opposition to biological nature? Like all atheists, Dawkins’ morality is at war with his worldview.

In the end, it is only the Christian worldview that provides the necessary framework to truly justify addressing the evils of this world.

And that is why it is important to “hit each other over the head about evolution.” What we think about human origins really matters. And the good news is that a scientific case can be made for credibility of the biblical account of human origins.

If synthetic biologists succeed in creating synthetic life, does this accomplishment prove the theory of naturalistic evolution—that life arose via undirected random processes? Does it make humans like God? The answers to these questions might be found in the creation of humankind in the image of God (imago Dei in Latin).

The Bible says that “God created man in His own image” (Genesis 1:27, NASB), but what does it mean to be created in the image of God? A clue is found in the next verse: “God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth’” (Genesis 1:28, NASB). We have argued elsewhere that a logical interpretation of Genesis 1:28 is that men and women are formed in the image of God to continue God’s work of bringing order out of chaos.

Humans are the only life-forms on Earth who have the ability to understand and experiment in science. Science has made agriculture much more productive than in biblical times and has developed electricity and machinery, which have vastly improved our quality of life. We believe that this is part of subduing and ruling creation and, thus, is a manifestation of the image of God.

But do we ever become like God? Consider the practice of medicine. According to James, prayer is always a prescription for healing: “Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14, NASB).

Prayer acknowledges that humankind is dependent upon God for our lives and our existence. Moreover, statistical studies seem to indicate that patients who are prayed over experience better healing and/or fewer complications than patients who are not.¹

Yet throughout history, humans have also benefitted from medical science. Ancient healers crafted natural remedies, and modern physics and chemistry have developed diagnostic scanners and pharmaceuticals to address a variety of medical issues. Such improvements in medical science have alleviated human suffering and extended human life. But does that make us like God? Such advances have not created anything conceptually new and do not lessen humankind’s dependence on God. Instead, humans are acting as God’s image bearers when we make things better. As the old DuPont advertising slogan stated: “Better things for better living…through chemistry.”

But consider in vitro fertilization. This process has been a boon for couples who have been unable to produce children the natural way. But is this an example of sciencecreating life? Life is not really being created; instead, we are only creating an environment in which God’s natural processes toward life can proceed. Humans might be acting godlike, but humans are not being like God.² We are acting as God’s agents to improve the lives of childless couples.

That brings us to the question of artificial life. One of the biggest obstacles to the naturalistic creation model is its theory for the origin of life. The earliest life-forms appeared quite soon (in geological time) after the formation of Earth. Probability calculations suggest spontaneous generation of life via random natural processes is virtually impossible within the time frame allowed.³

Synthetic biologists are striving to create synthetic life. Based on a detailed review of their progress in 2011, biochemist Fazale Rana says it is “just a matter of time” before they succeed in creating a “minimal life-form,” and he speculates that thereafter “new life-forms will soon become ‘old hat.’”⁴ Supporters of naturalistic evolution are elated about this progress because they seem to believe artificial life will prove their explanation of the origin of life.

But they are wrong—such an accomplishment says nothing about naturalistic evolution. If and when artificial life is created, it will be made possible only by teams of experienced and creative scientists with sophisticated equipment. Rana summarizes: “Only by deliberate effort, inordinate ingenuity, and astonishing skill can synthetic biologists even begin the process of making artificial life. Their work empirically demonstrates that even the simplest life-form cannot arise without the involvement of an intelligent agent.”⁵

The notable work of synthetic biologists is simply a derivative of God’s work. Once again, although scientists may be acting godlike, they are not being like God:

1. They are using their God-given intelligence and creativity, which is unique to humans.
2. They are working within a framework of natural laws created by God, without which their accomplishments would be impossible.
3. They are merely repeating something God has already done. They are not creating something conceptually new (as described by the Hebrew word bārā’ in Genesis 1).

As Isaac Newton said, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Artificial biologists not only stand on the shoulders of scientists who went before them, but as God’s image bearers they also stand metaphorically on the shoulders of God.

Furthermore, if science succeeds in creating artificial life, it will actually provide further proof of the implausibility that life could have emerged spontaneously via random natural processes. The creation of life still seems to require an intelligent agent. The probabilities of naturalistic evolution remain vanishingly small, and the summary analysis of astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle seems just as true today as it was in 1982:

If there were some deep principle that drove organic systems towards living systems, the operation of the principle should easily be demonstrable in a test tube in half a morning. Needless to say, no such demonstration has ever been given. Nothing happens when organic materials are subjected to the usual prescription of showers of electrical sparks or drenched in ultraviolet light, except the eventual production of a tarry sludge.⁶

We believe the intelligent agent who created life on Earth is the Judeo-Christian God. This is a faith statement, but it seems more plausible than naturalistic evolution. As synthetic biologists attempt to create artificial life, we believe they will merely scratch the surface in discerning the natural processes that God might have used to bring about the hypernatural miracle of life.

Daniel J. Dyke, MDiv, MTh

Mr. Daniel J. Dyke received his Master of Theology from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1981 and currently serves as a professor of Old Testament at Cincinnati Christian University in Cincinnati, OH.

Dr. Hugh Henry, PhD

Dr. Hugh Henry received his PhD in physics from the University of Virginia in 1971, retired after 26 years at Varian Medical Systems, and currently serves as lecturer in physics at Northern Kentucky University in Highland Heights, KY.

Among researchers, 2015 is known as the year of the phage. It marks the 100th anniversary of the discovery of bacteriophage. Bacteriophage are viruses that infect bacteria and look, for the most part, like variations of video game space invaders or real life lunar modules.

The Evergreen International Phage Meeting held at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, has been a go-to event for phage researchers for the past 40 years. Every other year, researchers from around the world gather to present work in phage ecology, phage-based biotech, agricultural and environmental applications, phage therapy, and phage-host interactions. In August 2015, I attended Evergreen to celebrate 100 years of phage.

Phage research has been incredibly significant over the past 10 decades, but phage have been around much longer than that—much, much longer, in fact. Phage have likely been around since the beginning of life on Earth some 3.8 billion years ago.

Phage in the Ecosystem

Phage play a critical role in ecology. They are nearly ubiquitous, extremely diverse, and prolific, with an estimated 10³¹ in the biosphere. Following infection, lytic phage burst open bacteria, releasing into the ecosystem nutrients and biological components (including carbon and nitrogen). This activity is most prominent in the oceans where phage density on average is an astonishing 10⁷ phages per milliliter, outnumbering bacteria and archaea by a ratio of at least 10 to 1. Phage activity critically contributes to the biogeochemical cycle and to an ecosystem that can support life on Earth.

Bacteria are absurdly copious multipliers that adapt relatively quickly to environmental changes. Adaptation occurs primarily through horizontal gene transfer, conjugation, and phage mediated transduction, and less frequently through accrual of simple point mutations. Phage help maintain microbial diversity and balance within Earth’s biosphere. Phage are thought to turn over 20–50 percent of the biomass in Earth’s oceans daily! In the absence of these microbial predators it is hard to imagine how our planet would ever sustain life beyond mere microbes. The planet would be covered with microbial competition specialists, sequestering all of Earth’s resources necessary for advanced life. If not for bacterial predation via phage, bacteria would certainly dominate life to the exclusion of advanced organisms.

One of the amazing things about phage (and other viruses) is their diversity in structure, molecular components, and host range. Phage, like all other viruses, require a living host cell in order to replicate. They depend on the metabolic energy, molecular machinery, and molecular resources of the host cell in order to produce more phage. In other words, phage are obligate intracellular pathogens. Since phage cannot precede living bacteria in their respective origins there is good reason to consider them part of God’s providential creation, either created directly and simultaneously with life or as an engineered adaptive mechanism emerging early from life in order to help drive and sustain diversity and balance in Earth’s ecosystem.

Phage Combating Bacteria

Yet, phage are even more amazing. They have the ability to target and kill specific bacteria. Since the 1920s, researchers have studied and employed phage as a therapeutic treatment to counteract harmful bacterial infections in humans. Although largely abandoned for human therapy in the United States due to the advent of antibiotics in the 1940s, various phage have gained FDA approval, including phage cocktails (mixes of various phage in solution) specific for Listeria, E. coli, andSalmonella bacterial species. However, over the past 20 years, fueled by growing concern over antibiotic-resistant bacteria, interest in phage therapy for humans has been renewed. Many of the presentations at this year’s Evergreen meeting reflected this, covering research challenges and advancements as well as technical and regulatory issues in using phage in anti-bacterial treatments.

Although bacteria can also become resistant to phage, phage have the ability to overcome resistance. So the long-term potential for phage therapy and modification may be much greater and relatively easier than developing new and effective antibiotics. Due to the specificity of phage for bacterial cells, use in humans and other animals is considered extremely safe. This is reflected by current applications in food safety, animal health, probiotics, and additional human therapeutics. In fact, phage therapy for use in humans was never abandoned in Russia and the former Soviet republic of Georgia. Many of the phage experts at Evergreen have had ties to theEliava Institute in Tbilisi, Georgia, where phage research in treating human disease has been studied continuously since 1923. On rare occasions, phage therapy—using phage cocktails characterized and provided by the Eliava Institute—has been employed in human treatment in the United States.

Phage Exemplify God’s Providence

The year of the phage is a great time to thank God for phage and for the diversity and complexity of this creation. We can also thank God for his providence in both sustaining life and in providing resources for our stewardship and well-being. I am thankful for ongoing discoveries of the diversity and complexity of phage and for the advances that scientists are making. We continue to gain insight into how we can best use phage for creation care and human health. Happy year of the phage to all!

By Anjeanette Roberts, PhD

Dr. Anjeanette “AJ” Roberts received her PhD in cell and molecular biology from the University of Pennsylvania in 1996, and currently serves as a Visiting Fellow with the Rivendell Institute at Yale University in New Haven, CT.

In an earlier article we defined the concept of hypernaturalism and justified it through the biblical text. We strove to provide scriptural evidence that God has acted hypernaturally—that is, He sometimes performed miracles by manipulating natural law, rather than by supernaturally overriding it.

Now we will discuss evidence that suggests that God’s hypernatural activity is a more plausible explanation for the origin of the universe and of life than spontaneous, random, undirected natural processes.

Overcoming Vanishingly Small Probabilities

Our earlier article suggested that any highly improbable event that occurs to serve God’s purpose might be considered the result of His hypernatural activity. It seems improbable that our universe would be governed by immutable natural laws if it had evolved in a random fashion. As Albert Einstein said, “The harmony of natural law reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”¹ An orderly universe has traditionally been seen as “proof” of a creator-God who ordained natural law.

This is in contrast to naturalistic theories of origins that are based on undirected, random activities. Our thesis is based on the fact that random activities are governed by the natural law of probability. We are suggesting that low-probability natural events might be the result of hypernatural activity by God, manipulating natural law to overcome their improbability. The lower the probability, the more likely God was involved; and if the probability is vanishingly small—to the point of being virtually impossible—God’s hypernatural activity seems especially likely.

For example, after the big bang, the overwhelming probability was that the nascent universe-to-be would collapse.² Yet it overcame the odds to evolve into the universe we see today. We could argue that this reflects God’s hypernatural activity. Genesis 1:2 says, “The Spirit of God was hovering [râchaph] over the waters.” The Hebrew râchaph is used in Deuteronomy 32:11 to describe an eagle nurturing her young.

The exquisite fine-tuning of the universe to allow for life as we know it seems to demonstrate a similar tender care. If any of the approximately 100 cosmology or nuclear parameters were changed even slightly we could not exist.³ It is extraordinarily improbable that all this came together through undirected, random, natural processes—it may, however, reflect hypernatural manipulation by a creator-God. Physicist Paul Davies has observed, “The universe does look as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator expressly for the purpose of spawning sentient beings” (emphasis original).⁴

The Evolution of Life

Let’s consider, then, naturalistic theories of life’s origin in the context of the natural law of probability. The fundamental question is: Are such theories statistically plausible? In Darwin’s day, the cell was barely visible under a primitive microscope. Scientists thought of it as only a blob of protoplasm. In the 1940s, when neo-Darwinism originated, it was accepted that the universe is eternal. This offered infinite time for infinite evolution and made probability considerations irrelevant.

But since the mid-twentieth century, science has adhered to the big bang theory, which states that the universe had a beginning. Hence there was only a finite time for evolution. Modern science estimates the universe is about 13.8 billion years old, Earth about 4.5 billion years old, and life about 3.6 billion years old. These time limitations make probability considerations crucial.

It is statistically improbable that life could spontaneously emerge from a primordial soup in a billion years. We may eventually be able to “create” life, but only with extensive intervention. This will not prove abiogenesis; it will show how God might have done it hypernaturally.

Once life is created, the standard theory predicts a gradual evolutionary process in which simpler life-forms would be expected to appear first, followed by the more complex. Instead, the fossil record suggests punctuated equilibrium, long periods of stasis followed by short bursts of change. For example, the Cambrian explosion began about 500 million years ago; and within 50 million years, “all of the main phyla and divisions of organisms that exist today—except for the land plants” appeared.⁵ Then stasis returned. The Cambrian pattern “creates the impression that [animal] evolution has by and large proceeded from the ‘top down’”⁶ rather than from the bottom up.

Yet God’s hypernatural activity could overcome the vanishingly small probability of abiogenesis. Divine hypernatural involvement during the periods of change via gene manipulation (including regulatory gene triggering) is a plausible explanation for the “punctuated equilibrium” in the fossil record. This has been suggested by evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller:

A clever and subtle God [might] influence events in ways that…could include the appearance of mutations….Enormous changes in physical systems can be brought about by unimaginably small changes in initial conditions [which] could serve as an undetectable amplifier of divine action.⁷

A Plausible Hypothesis

A scientific explanation of the origins of our universe and of life must be based in natural law. Current naturalistic theories have serious shortcomings under natural laws—especially probability. Such shortcomings must be addressed; this is how science advances. If nothing else, a different naturalistic model is needed.

The multiverse model is a popular naturalistic alternative, but it is just as improvable as a God-based model. All it does is replace infinite time with an infinite number of universes, one of which is “just so.” We cannot propose hypernatural activity by an unseen, extra-dimensional God as a valid scientific model. It cannot be proven, and the doctrine of deus absconditus suggests God may not want to make Himself always evident—but we can discuss is the plausibility of hypernaturalism.

Written 2,500–3,500 years ago, Scripture asserts creation ex nihilo (“from nothing”). This accurately predicted the big bang concept. Creation ex nihilo is unique among ancient creation accounts; others such as Enuma Elish claimed creation from existing materials. Moreover, Genesis 1 qualitatively follows the fossil record. Other Bible passages (Psalms 104 and 148) suggest an extradimensional God who exercises hypernatural control over nature.

This is still not proof, but it represents a plausible hypothesis supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Hypernaturalism in the case of creation is more plausible than either naturalism or supernaturalism—but we will let each individual decide for themselves, using their God-given intellect.

Nevertheless, it is useful to note that the above arguments—fine tuning, probability, and cell complexity—were all instrumental in converting Antony Flew, the self-proclaimed “world’s most notorious atheist,” to a theist.⁸

Daniel J. Dyke, MDiv, MTh

Mr. Daniel J. Dyke received his Master of Theology from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1981 and currently serves as a professor of Old Testament at Cincinnati Christian University in Cincinnati, OH.

Dr. Hugh Henry, PhD

Dr. Hugh Henry received his PhD in physics from the University of Virginia in 1971, retired after 26 years at Varian Medical Systems, and currently serves as lecturer in physics at Northern Kentucky University in Highland Heights, KY.