Which of all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this? (Job 12:9, NIV)

In early March (2017), I took part in a forum at Samford University (Birmingham, AL) entitled Genesis and Evolution. At this two-day event, the panelists presented and discussed scientific and biblical perspectives on young-earth, old-earth, and evolutionary versions of creationism.

The organizers of this forum charged me with the responsibility of describing old-earth creationism (OEC) from a scientific vantage point while also providing the rationale for my views. As part of my presentation, the organizers asked me to discuss the assumptions that undergird my views. One of the foundational tenets of OEC is an important idea taught in Scripture: God has revealed Himself to us through the record of nature. According to passages such as Job 12:7–9, part of that revelation includes the “fingerprints” He has left on His creation.

Detecting the Fingerprints

If Scripture is true, then scientific investigation should uncover evidence for design throughout the natural realm. Science should detect God’s fingerprints. And indeed, it has. As a biochemist, I am deeply impressed with the elegance, sophistication, and ingenuity of the cell’s molecular systems. In my view, these features reflect the work of a mind—a divine Mind. But the evidence for intelligent design in the biochemical realm is much more extensive. For example, the eerie similarity between the structure and function of biochemical systems and the objects and devices produced by human designers further evinces the Creator’s handiwork. In my book The Cell’s Design, I show how the remarkable similarities serve to revitalize William Paley’s Watchmaker argument for God’s existence.

To describe the hallmark features of human designs, Paley used the term “contrivance.” Human designs are contrivances—and so are biological systems. If human contrivances require the work of human designers, then it follows that biological systems—which are also contrivances—require a divine Designer. In The Cell’s Design, I introduce the concept of an intelligent design pattern. Following Paley, I identify several features that characterize human designs. Collectively, these characteristics form a pattern that can then be matched to the features of biological and biochemical systems. The greater the match between the intelligent design pattern and biological/biochemical systems, the greater the certainty that designs found in living systems are the work of a Mind.

Is Science Capable of Detecting the Supernatural?

In response to my presentation at the Genesis and Evolution event, cell biologist Kenneth Miller from Brown University—a well-known critic of intelligent design—argued that creationism and intelligent design cannot be part of the construct of science because science lacks the capability of detecting the supernatural. In his book The Triumph of Evolution: And the Failure of Creationism, paleontologist Niles Eldredge makes this very point:

We humans can directly experience the material world only through our senses, and there is no way we can directly experience the supernatural. Thus, in the enterprise that is science, it isn’t an ontological claim that a God . . . does not exist, but rather an epistemological recognition that even if such a God did exist, there would be no way to experience that God given the impressive, but still limited, means afforded by science. And that is true by definition.¹

But as I pointed out during my presentation, there are scientific disciplines predicated on science’s capacity to detect the activity of intelligent agency. One such research program is SETI (the search for extraterrestrial intelligence). Astronomers involved in this program seek ways to distinguish electromagnetic radiation emanating from astronomical objects from those hypothetically generated by intelligent agents that are part of alien civilizations. To put it another way, SETI is an intelligent design research program.

Aliens and Fast Radio Bursts

Research by scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics powerfully illustrates this point.² These investigators propose that fast radio bursts (FRBs) emanate from alien technology, specifically planet-sized transmitters powering interstellar probes.

Astronomers discovered FRBs in 2007. Since then, around two dozen exceedingly bright millisecond-long bursts of radio emissions have been detected. Astronomers think that FRBs originate in distant galaxies, billions of light-years away.

The Harvard-Smithsonian scientists calculate that the transmitters could generate enough energy from sunlight to move probes through space, if the light was directed onto an area of a planet twice the size of Earth. Given the energies involved, the transmitters would have to be cooled. Again, the researchers estimate that a water-cooled device twice Earth’s size could keep the transmitter from melting.

The researchers recognize that construction of the transmitters lies beyond our technology but is possible given the laws of physics. They speculate that aliens built these transmitters to power light sails to move spacecraft weighing a million tons and carrying living creatures across interstellar space.

These astronomers maintain that the transmitter would have to continually focus its beam on the light sail to power it. Accordingly, because the sail, its planet, star, and galaxy all move relative to us, FRBs originate when the transmitter’s beam sweeps across the sky and briefly points in Earth’s direction.

So, are FRBs evidence for alien technology? Avi Loeb, one of the Harvard-Smithsonian scientists, admits that their proposal is speculative but justifies it because they “haven’t identified a possible natural source with any confidence.”³ Loeb argues, “Deciding what’s likely ahead of time limits the possibilities. It’s worth putting ideas out there and letting the data be the judge.”⁴

His Evidence Is Clearly Seen

So contrary to the protests of scientists such as Miller and Eldredge, science does have the tool kit to detect the handiwork of intelligent agents and even discern the capabilities and motives of the intelligent designer(s). Therefore, why not let intelligent design proponents and creationists put their ideas out there and let the data be the judge?

It is interesting that the Harvard-Smithsonian astronomers think they can recognize the work of intelligent designers who possess capabilities beyond what we can understand—and maybe even imagine. They also think that they can discern the purpose behind the alien technology—space exploration. Then why can’t science recognize the work of a Creator whose capabilities exist beyond what we can imagine?

Considering the proposal by the Harvard-Smithsonian investigators, it is disingenuous for Miller, Eldredge, and other scientists to reject, out of hand, the scientific evidence for God’s fingerprints in biochemical systems. I contend that the intelligent design pattern that I describe in The Cell’s Design can be used to rigorously—and even quantitatively—characterize the Creator’s activity in biological systems. Moreover, as I have discussed previously, science has the tools to identify the Designer.

As the apostle Paul wrote, evidence for the Creator is “clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (Romans 1:20). If only the scientific community would be willing to look.

Resources:

• “Fast Radio Bursts: ET Is Not Calling Home” by Hugh Ross (article)
• “Fast Radio Bursts Update” by Hugh Ross (article)
• “A Biochemical Watch Found in a Cellular Heath” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Can Science Identify the Intelligent Designer?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• The Cell’s Design by Fazale Rana (book)

Endnotes:

1. Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution: And the Failure of Creationism (New York: Holt and Company, 2001), 13.
2. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “Could Fast Radio Bursts Be Powering Alien Probes?,” Science News (blog), ScienceDaily, March 9, 2017, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170309120419.htm.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.

Subjects: Intelligent Design, Old Earth Creationism

I was at a science conference a few weeks ago where one of the scientists claimed in her lecture that the altruistic behavior we observe in certain mammal species proves that we humans share a common ancestor with these animals through common descent alone. Specifically, she tried to demonstrate in her talk that the altruistic behavior of humans compared to that of these animals differs only by degree and not fundamentally in kind, and that no supernatural intervention was needed to explain the origin of altruism in either humans or in these animals. She insisted that the altruism manifested in both humans and other mammals could be explained by the drive in these animals to preserve the species—that is, the “survival of the fittest” doctrine of Darwinian evolution. In other words, she set out to prove that while we humans certainly are superior in many respects to other mammals and mammals superior in many respects to other life-forms, neither humans nor mammals are exceptional in any supernatural way.

The Bible on Altruism in Animals
The Bible begs to differ. Genesis 1 singles out the nephesh animals for their distinction from previously existing creatures. The Hebrew word nephesh is best translated as “soulish animal.” It refers to those animals that God has endowed with mind, will, and emotions. These are the animals that emotionally bond with one another. This bonding is especially evident between parents and their young offspring. One obvious way that these animals are altruistic is that the parents in each nephesh species willingly sacrifice to care for and protect their offspring. The nephesh include all bird and mammal species and just a few reptilian species.

The Hebrew word bara, translated as “create,” is used only three times in Genesis 1. It first appears when God brings the universe into existence. The second time it appears is when God creates the nephesh. The third time is when God creates humans. In the context of Genesis 1, bara is reserved for God bringing something brand-new into existence. That is, in Genesis 1 the Bible asserts that there is something truly new and exceptional about the nephesh compared to previous life on Earth and something truly new and exceptional about humans compared to all other life on Earth.

The book of Job expands on the unique relational capacities of the nephesh. It points out that these animals are uniquely and optimally capable of interacting and emotionally bonding not only with members of their own species, but also with a species that did not yet exist when they appeared—namely, the human species. A common descent model would not predict that nephesh animals would possess the capacities for social interaction with humans in advance of our arrival—features of intelligence and emotion that facilitate bonding with humans and serving and pleasing humans.¹ Without the existence of humans, such endowments would be wasteful, burdensome, and thus limiting to the fitness of these animals. However, a special creation model would indeed predict that the nephesh would be endowed in advance with these capabilities.

Overlooked Altruism
Overlooked by the scientist speaking at the conference is the point that nephesh animals not only demonstrate altruistic behavior toward members of their own species, but when bonded to a human or humans, they also demonstrate even greater altruistic behavior toward the human(s) with whom they have a strong emotional bond. For example, there are many accounts of a horse or a dog laying down its life to save the life of its human owner. Furthermore, when a nephesh animal is bonded to a human being, it will demonstrate much more enhanced altruistic behavior toward nephesh animals that are not members of its own species. Such behavior is particularly evident when nephesh animals of different species are emotionally bonded to the same human being. Anyone who has had pets of different species at the same time likely has observed this behavior.

One might be able to argue that altruism expressed toward members of the same species gives that species a survival advantage over other species and, thus, could be interpreted as evidence for a naturalistic common descent model. However, altruism expressed toward members of different species contradicts naturalistic common descent models.

Spiritual Lessons from Animal Altruism
Job 12:7, 9–10 exhorts us:

But ask the animals [land mammals], and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you. . . . Which of all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this? In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.

As the rest of the book of Job makes clear, the teaching we receive from beasts and birds is not just biological—it is also spiritual. These animals teach us important lessons about ourselves, God, and how we can enter into an emotionally rewarding relationship with our Creator.

I describe and explain these lessons in my book Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job.² In the context of altruism, one lesson is that as the nephesh animals were given the motivation and design features that enable them to express enhanced altruistic behavior to members of a higher species, so also were we humans given the motivation and design features that enable us to express enhanced altruistic behavior to a higher Being.

A second lesson is that human sin and abuse severely limit the altruistic behavior of nephesh animals bonded to humans toward 1) humans, 2) members of other nephesh species, and 3) members of the same nephesh species. Likewise, human sin and abuse severely limit the altruistic behavior of those humans toward 1) God, 2) other humans, 3) nephesh animals bonded to them, and 4) nephesh animals not bonded to them.

A third lesson is that just as it takes a higher being (a human) to tame a nephesh animal, it similarly takes a higher being (God) to tame a human.

A fourth lesson is that when a nephesh animal submits to a human and allows that human to tame them, their capacity for altruistic behavior becomes much enhanced. In the same manner, when humans submit to God and allow God to tame them, their capacity to express altruism toward God and others becomes greatly magnified.

A fifth lesson is that if it were not for God creating nephesh animals and endowing them with the motivation and the capacity to express altruism toward humans, we humans never would have launched or been able to sustain civilization.³ This fifth lesson is a humility lesson. If it were not for God specifically creating the nephesh species described in Job 38–39, we would have been permanently stuck in the Stone Age.

These lessons (and there are many more) explain why there is a correlation between the lack of contact with the altruistic behavior of the nephesh and atheistic and agnostic beliefs. In the twenty-first century, more and more humans are becoming isolated from the lessons Job speaks of in Job 12:7–10. Part of our strategy in reaching people for Christ needs to be exposing them to the great spiritual lessons being taught by the beasts and the birds.

Endnotes

1. Hugh Ross, Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job: How the Oldest Book in the Bible Answers Today’s Scientific Questions (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011), 105–85.
2. Ibid.
3. Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis: A Scientist’s Journey through Genesis 1–11 (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2014), 75–77.

Subjects: Animals, Common Design vs. Common Descent, Creation vs. Evolution, Genesis, Human Uniqueness, Naturalism

Jesus’s resurrection is at the very heart of historic Christianity. In fact, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is both a central doctrinal belief of the faith and the primary evidence for the truth of the religion itself. Given the importance of Easter for Christians, it is appropriate for us to consider 12 evidences for the resurrection of Jesus. For greater depth on these points, see the recommended resources at the end of the article.

1. Jesus’s Empty Tomb

According to the Gospels¹, after Jesus succumbed to death through crucifixion some of his followers prepared his lifeless body for burial and placed it in Joseph of Arimathea‘s tomb. Three days later the tomb was discovered empty, for Jesus’s body had vanished. The empty tomb is a critical part of the resurrection account, for if Jesus’s body had been recovered then Christianity would have been falsified right as it had just begun. Since Jesus predicted his resurrection (Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22), if he didn’t rise from the dead he would be a false prophet.

The report of Jesus’s empty tomb rings true, for the account emerges very early from a number of sources and there is no good reason to doubt any of the people mentioned in the story. Furthermore, the tomb was owned by a particular person so there is no good reason to think that Jesus’s followers had mistakenly gone to the wrong tomb. Also, the Jewish and Roman authorities had the resources to search thoroughly for the actual burial place had the empty tomb been a mere problem of mistaken identity.

2. Jesus’s Postmortem Appearances

According to the apostle Paul’s letters² as well as the four Gospel accounts, Jesus appeared alive after his death on numerous occasions. These appearances of Jesus were reported to be both physical and bodily in nature (he was seen, heard, and touched³) and not purely spiritual or ghost-like. The resurrection appearances were also diverse and varied in that Jesus appeared to men and women, friends and enemies, to single individuals as well as small and large groups of people, to some persons on a single occasion and to others more than once, during the day and the night, as well as indoors and outdoors.

It is this diverse and varied nature of the appearances that make it extremely improbable, if not impossible, to account for these encounters in terms of hallucinations. It may have been possible that the women who first encountered Jesus at the tomb succumbed to immense grief and experienced some kind of purely subjective and thus false vision of Jesus. But a purely psychological explanation is extremely implausible in the case of James the brother of Jesus who was highly suspicious of his brother’s claims and even thought that Jesus suffered from mental delusion. And in the case of Saul of Tarsus the hallucination theory is flatly impossible. Saul was an enemy of primitive Christianity and sought to imprison and even have Christians executed. Acting in a dismissive and violent manner against the early Christians and their beliefs, there is no way that Saul was susceptible to a false psychological experience.

It is also important to note that if one rejects the miraculous explanation of Jesus’s appearances, then two naturalistic alternative explanations are required—one to explain the empty tomb and another to explain the numerous appearances. But the more complex these alternative theories are, the less likely they are to be true and viable.

Stay tuned for the next article in this series as we continue briefly considering 12 evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Reflections: Your Turn

Why is the resurrection of Jesus so critically important to the truth of Christianity? Visit Reflections on WordPress to comment with your response.

Resources

1. I address the resurrection of Jesus in two of my books, Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions (see chapter 10) and 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas (see chapters 1 and 2).
2. I also recommend The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona and Knowing the Truth about the Resurrection: Our Response to the Empty Tomb by William Lane Craig.

Endnotes

Subjects: Apologetics, Jesus Christ, Resurrection

Proving the reliability of general relativity to precisely describe the dynamics (movements) of massive bodies in the universe is fundamental to establishing the space-time theorems.¹ These theorems prove the beginning (creation) of space and time. The creation of space and time implies the existence of a Creator beyond space and time, which uniquely describes the God of the Bible.

It is the theological significance of general relativity that has prompted astronomers and physicists to subject general relativity to exhaustive testing. However, one test of general relativity has proven to be elusive—namely, the Lense-Thirring effect.

Josef Lense and Hans Thirring were Austrian physicists who, in dialogue with Albert Einstein, showed in 1918 that general relativity predicts that a massive rotating body will cause the space-time fabric in its vicinity to drag. This dragging effect will cause a small-mass body orbiting a high-mass body to precess (change its rotational axis orientation).

The dragging effect, however, is extremely tiny—only a few parts per billion for a body as massive and dense as Earth (weak field case). For example, general relativity predicts that in one satellite orbit about the Earth (around 25,000 miles), the space-time fabric in the vicinity of the satellite would be dragged by only about one inch. General relativity, however, predicts more dramatic effects for bodies as massive and dense as black holes and neutron stars (strong field case).

Even though the Lense-Thirring effect was one of the first predicted distinctives of Einstein’s theory of general relativity, it was the last to be put to a set of accurate tests. It remained elusive for nearly 100 years because of how extraordinarily difficult the tests are to perform. Only within the past 15 months have astronomers and physicists finally achieved exhaustive confirmation (for both the weak and strong gravitational field cases) that the general relativistic predictions of the Lense-Thirring effect are correct.

Weak Field Confirmations
For solar system bodies, the predicted Lense-Thirring effect is extremely small. However, three laser-ranged, Earth-orbiting satellites—LAGEOS I, LAGEOS II, and LARES—have the necessary sensitivity to detect the tiny effect. Using 3.5 years of observations from LARES and several more years of observations from LAGEOS I and II, a team of a dozen astronomers established that Earth’s dragging of inertial space-time frames matched the value predicted by the Lense-Thirring effect to within 0.6 percent.²

The Gravity Probe B mission, an Earth-orbiting satellite with four precision gyroscopes on board, measured a geodetic drift rate of -6,601.8 ± 18.3 milliarcseconds per year and a frame-dragging of -37.2 ± 7.2 milliarcseconds per year.³ General relativity predicted -6,606.1 milliarcseconds per year and -39.2 milliarcseconds per year, respectively.

Strong Field Confirmations
In 2016, a team of four Polish astronomers derived jet energetics and timescales for the two pairs of extended and misaligned lobes emanating from the radio galaxy 3C 293. Their analysis demonstrated that Lense-Thirring precession generated by the supermassive black hole in 3C 293’s nucleus (black hole’s mass exceeds several tens of millions of solar masses⁴) caused the observed jet dynamics.⁵

In the same year, an international team of eight astronomers reported on their observations of the iron emission line in the X-ray spectrum of the stellar mass black hole binary H1743-322. They showed that the quasiperiodic oscillations in the iron line centroid energy are produced by Lense-Thirring precession.⁶ One month earlier, a team of five Chinese astronomers showed that the quasiperiodic oscillations in the X-ray spectra of the black hole X-ray binary SWIFT J1842.5-1124 are consistent with the Lense-Thirring effect.⁷ Four months earlier, three astronomers in the Netherlands showed that the quasiperiodic oscillations in the X-ray flux from the stellar mass black hole binary GRS 1915+105 are caused by different radii in the inner accretion flow of the black hole experiencing Lense-Thirring precession at different frequencies.⁸ Ten months earlier, five European and Canadian astronomers’ observations of the black hole binary SWIFT J1753.5-0127 likewise showed quasiperiodic oscillations due to the Lense-Thirring effect.⁹

So What?
Today, it can be said that no theory of physics has ever been tested in so many different contexts and so rigorously and exhaustively as general relativity. The fact that Einstein’s theory has withstood all these tests so remarkably well implies that no basis remains for doubting any of the theological and philosophical conclusions dependent upon it. Since general relativity accurately describes the dynamics of the universe in all contexts, the space-time theorems can be trusted. Time really does have a beginning. There really is a God who transcendently created all the space-time dimensions of our universe.

Featured image credit: Mach principle.com

Endnotes

1. I discuss the space-time theorems in my book Why the Universe Is the Way It Is. In the forthcoming reprint of my book The Creator and the Cosmos, I demonstrate why the space-time theorems are valid both for classical general relativity and also for the extremely early moment in cosmic history where general relativity is modified by quantum mechanics (the quantum gravity era).
2. Richard Matzner et al., “LARES Satellite Thermal Forces and a Test of General Relativity,” preprint, submitted September 23, 2016, arXiv:1607.08787v2; Ignazio Ciufolini et al., “A Test of General Relativity Using the LARES and LAGEOS Satellites and a GRACE Earth Gravity Model: Measurement of Earth’s Dragging of Inertial Frames,” European Physical Journal C 76 (March 2016): 120, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3961-8.
3. C. W. F. Everitt et al., “The Gravity Probe B Test of General Relativity,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 32 (November 2015): 224001, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/22/224001.
4. R. J. Beswick et al., “High-Resolution Imaging of the Radio Continuum and Neutral Gas in the Inner Kiloparsec of the Radio Galaxy 3C 293,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 352 (July 2004): 49–60, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07892.x; E. K. Mahony et al., “The Location and Impact of Jet-Driven Outflows of Cold Gas: The Case of 3C 293,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters 435 (October 2013): L58–L62, doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slt094.
5. J. Machalski et al., “Dynamical Analysis of the Complex Radio Structure in 3C 293: Clues on a Rapid Jet Realignment in X-shaped Radio Galaxies,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 595 (November 2016): A46, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629249.
6. Adam Ingram et al., “A Quasi-periodic Modulation of the Iron Line Centroid Energy in the Black Hole Binary H1743-322,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 461 (September 2016): 1967–80, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1245.
7. H.-H. Zhao et al., “The X-ray View of Black-Hole Candidate Swift J1842.5-1124 during Its 2008 Outburst,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 593 (September 2016): A23, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628647.
8. Jakob van den Eijnden, Adam Ingram, and Phil Uttley, “Probing the Origin of Quasi-periodic Oscillations: The Short-Time-Scale Evolution of Phase Lags in GRS 1915+105,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 458 (June 2016): 3655–66, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw610.
9. Alexandra Veledina et al., “Discovery of Correlated Optical/X-ray Quasi-periodic Oscillations in Black Hole Binary SWIFT J1753.5–0127,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 454 (December 2015): 2855–62, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2201.

Subjects: Creation, Einstein, God’s Existence, Origin of the Universe