Internet science discussions are abuzz about experiments showing that chimpanzees have the cognitive capacities for cooking. Scientists and laypeople alike are citing these discoveries as confirmation that chimps and humans are descended from a common ancestor. The discoveries also are fueling the growing legal movement to grant chimps and other large apes personhood status.¹ However, as usual, the peer-reviewed paper (available for free here) that generated the Internet buzz is much more nuanced and cautious.²

The researchers’ experiments demonstrated something we already know: large mammals prefer cooked vegetable tubers to raw ones. What the researchers added are the following reasons why:

• Cooked tubers are easier to digest.
• Cooked tubers deliver many more calories.
• Cooked tubers deliver more nutrients that can be assimilated.
• Cooked tubers are free of the harmful toxins common to most raw vegetable tubers.

The experiments also showed that chimps will trade raw tubers for cooked tubers even if they must wait for the cooked tubers. With some additional training, chimps will place raw tubers into a pot if by experience they know that the tubers will be returned to them cooked. The researchers did note, however, that raw tubers contain very little food value for chimps and that chimps much prefer their typical diet of raw fruits to cooked tubers. Moreover, in their experiments humans did all the cooking.

I would be willing to bet that the behavior the researchers observed concerning chimpanzees and cooked tubers is not unique among nonhuman animals. Each one of the dogs I have owned much preferred cooked vegetables to raw vegetables. That preference was especially evident with tubers. As a child I had a cat that relished fried breaded oysters.

I would add that Japanese macaques (the largest of the Japanese apes) routinely wash and season their food with sea salt. However, even though they spend long hours soaking themselves in hot spring pools, they never “cook” their food in the pools. I also find the experimental findings consistent with observations that chimps in the wild often follow wildfires to harvest roasted seeds and nuts. Evidently, chimps always are on the lookout for easy-to-forage high-quality foodstuffs.

At the end of the day, these experimental results do not really prove that humans are no more than naturally evolved apes. But they do provide more support for the Bible’s description of three distinct kinds of life created by God:

1. Life that is purely physical;
2. Animal life that is both physical and “soulish,” in that the soulishness of the animals enables them to form emotional relationships with human beings whereby they can serve and please humans; and
3. Human beings—which are physical, soulish, and spiritual—capable of forming relationships with God whereby they can serve and please Him.

These biblically based categories explain why so many soulish animals share some physical and behavioral characteristics with humans. Such shared features are critical for these animals to form strong emotional bonds with humans. They make these creatures exceptional among all nonhuman species of life. Likewise, because we humans were created to form relationships with God, we possess features that make us exceptional among all Earth’s life. I address these topics of “soulish” animal exceptionalism and human exceptionalism in much more depth in my book Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job.

Does life exist beyond Earth? Not surprisingly, searches of the solar system yield no evidence because the only planet (or moon) located in the right place is Earth. However, the discovery of exoplanets (planets outside our solar system) boosted researchers’ enthusiasm for finding life beyond Earth. Thus far, our technology lacks the sensitivity to detect any signatures of life outside of our solar system, but scientists continue to make progress. While these advances reveal additional indicators that Earth may be rare (or unique) in its capacity to support life, they also provide a way to genuinely test the rare-earth hypothesis.

Using current telescope technology, scientists can measure only orbits, masses, and sizes of exoplanets. Over the next decade, advances will permit the detection of life signatures from stars in the neighborhood of the solar system, which will allow powerful tests of the rare-earth hypothesis. An article published in the journalAstrobiology highlights one of those tests.

Earth currently resides near the habitable zone’s inner edge. Yet, as the Sun’s luminosity increases (with age), the habitable zone will move farther and farther out, making Earth less habitable. As Earth’s surface temperature increases, the planet will go from supporting large-bodied, complex life (like humanity) to hosting only multicellular life and then only microbial life. Eventually it will be completely devoid of any life. The whole progression takes between 2 to 3 billion years. Although Earth provides an impractical venue for testing this idea, older exoplanets in the solar neighborhood serve as good places for the test.

As described in Astrobiology, researchers identified six Sun-like stars that could host Earth-like planets residing in the continuous habitable zone (CHZ). Each of these stars measures between 6 and 7 billion years old (as compared to the 4.6-billion-year age for the Sun and Earth). Applying biosphere evolution models to (hypothetical) planets orbiting the stars revealed that each planet was in a different stage of decline from Earth-like to almost extinct. Future measurements to find planets around these stars and characterize their biosignatures will yield constraints on the validity of the rare-earth hypothesis.¹

Even though better testing is still a ways off, the current research does highlight one more criteria that habitable planets must meet. Not only must they start in the habitable zone, they must remain within a habitable zone that continually moves farther away from the host star. As the Astrobiology article states, “If the development of Earth-like biospheres is rare, requiring a sequence of low-probability events to occur, biosphere evolution models suggest they are rarer still, with only thousands being present in the Galaxy as a whole.” Research continues to point to a rare, finely designed Earth.

Length. Width. Height. Duration.

Cue soundtrack and sing along:
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn’t belong…

You pluck out “duration” prior to finishing the popular jingle, but there’s far more to the comparison than merely space (length, width, height) versus time (duration). That fourth dimension is laden with implications about our very existence.

Humans experience time differently from space. We can retrace our steps and return to any location in space but time moves relentlessly forward. What happens “before” affects what happens “after” but never the reverse. The Bible, in contrast to the prevailing ancient Near Eastern way of thinking about time,¹ accurately described (at the time it was written) this property of the universe, known as causality. Recent advances by scientists seeking to understand how space and time form and interact provide additional support for the biblical notion that causality arises from the Creator.

Earlier Research Leads to Dead-End Street

The Bible clearly states that the universe—and time in particular—had a beginning.²And three seminal scientific advances during the twentieth century affirmed that statement: (1) Einstein’s theory of general relativity; (2) Hubble’s detection of the universe’s expansion; and (3) Hawking and Penrose’s space-time theorems. However, despite these advances, a vexing puzzle remained.

In relativity, gravity allowed scientists to understand how space-time can adopt many different shapes (think large scale). However, behavior of particles at atomic and subatomic scales (quantum mechanics) ignores gravity and has necessitated quantum theory. Attempts to unify both seemingly discordant physical observations have led scientists to pursue a theory of quantum gravity. String theory represents the most popular attempt to provide a quantum theory of gravity. According to this theory, a multitude of space-time configurations exist with different dimensionality and different laws of physics, but testing remains elusive.

A Road to Main Street

Another recent approach reveals some remarkable properties of the fabric of space-time.³ Instead of trying to develop an overarching theory that incorporates both gravity and quantum mechanics, this alternative approach seeks to build from scratch––using basic quantum mechanical principles––a space-time structure resembling this universe. Such a process ensures the outcome obeys quantum mechanics, while allowing the number and shape of the dimensions to unfold rather than be specified.

Initially, researchers simply started with some representative four-dimensional building blocks of space-time, then allowed them to interact under simple gravitational and quantum mechanical rules, and finally observed the outcome. With no additional input, the results ended at one of two different outcomes—neither of which resembled the stable four-dimensional universe in which we live.

Scientists derived two important conclusions from this work. First, the dimensionality of space is not a fixed quantity. Instead, dimensionality can fluctuate and change depending on how the fundamental constituents of space-time assemble. Second, large, smooth, four-dimensional universes like this one are not stable under these rules.

Realizing that something was lacking in their modeling studies, scientists searched for that missing component. They discovered that adding one simple building block––causality––to the structure resulted in stable, four-dimensional universes. In other words, if the interactions were required to operate such that time always progressed in a single direction, the quantum fluctuations of curvature did cancel out on large scales to produce “normal”-looking universes. Furthermore, the overall results remained unchanged even as a variety of small details changed.

The implications of this research are far-reaching. The arrow of time that allows us to distinguish the past from the future derives from something outside of space and time. Stated another way, something beyond this universe encoded cause and effect into the very fabric of space-time.

While past and future seem like obvious concepts to the average person, they don’t make as much sense from a naturalistic viewpoint. For example, the basic laws of physics work the same regardless of any direction to time. Given the conditions of a system (for example, an interacting group of subatomic particles), the laws of physics predict the state of the system at any other arbitrary time (past, present, or future). Yet people remember the past but must wait for the future to happen.

Ironically, the same publication that describes this research into causality and dimensionality published an article in the previous month’s issue utilizing a multiverse to explain the arrow of time exhibited by this universe.⁴ The appeal to a multiverse implicitly acknowledges the “beyond natural” (or supernatural) origin of causality in this universe.

Humans on Easy Street

The twentieth-century discovery of a cosmic beginning points to a “beyond natural” cause that brought the universe into existence. The arrow of time (that is second nature to us) also provides evidence that something supernatural affected the space-time fabric of this universe. Otherwise, this creation would not have the three spatial and one temporal dimension required for life.

Given the laws of physics, life requires a universe with three large spatial dimensions and only one time dimension. A universe with fewer spatial dimensions would not permit the spatial complexity life requires. On the other hand, a universe with more spatial dimensions would not allow stable atoms or stable planetary orbits—both of which play a critical role for life. Anything other than one time dimension means that the future or past state of a system would not relate to the present. In other words, a hypothetical living organism in such a universe would not be able to find food or elude danger because the past is unknowable and the future is unpredictable. By imposing causality on the fabric of space-time, a universe with three large spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension results. Causality allows this universe to be habitable.

Causality’s significance for humanity is staggering. Without causality, life becomes a mechanical existence devoid of any hope, joy, or intrigue (or even Sesame Street). Furthermore, although our past influences our future, it does not dictate future events. We can choose among a number of different paths for our future. Though sometimes taken for granted, a universe with such features rouses wonder and gratitude.

This article was originally published in RTB’s ezine, New Reasons to Believe (Summer 2009).

Does evolution point to naturalism or to intelligent design?

Before addressing this question it is always important to define terms. Evolution, at a very basic level, means change over time. We use the words evolution and evolve in this way all the time. As an example one might assert that one’s thinking about race and cross-cultural interactions evolves over time as one gains exposure to various cultures and races. In scientific language evolution can have this same basic meaning: change. But often in naturalistic explanations of the origins of life and of species this simple concept of change is misapplied to mean more than has been scientifically or mechanistically demonstrated.

Consider mutations in the cell as an example of this misapplication. Mutations are changes to the nucleic acid molecular codes that randomly occur as a result of mistakes in DNA replication or during DNA damage repair. There are many different kinds of mutations; for example, point mutations (single base substitutions), repetition of short segments (from stuttering of the polymerase during replication), and indels (insertions or deletions of bases). Spontaneously occurring mutations result from external stimuli or internal mistakes that affect cells’ processes. Mutations can also be induced through intentional exposure to chemicals or radiation. Within a given cell, some mutations have no effect, some can be detrimental to proper functioning (even resulting in cell death), and on rare occasions some can provide increased fitness in particular environments.

For haploid organisms (those possessing one complete set of chromosomes) and single-cell organisms, mutations of any kind can have a radical effect on the cell and all its progeny. The replication of single-cell organisms is haploid and asexual, and is extremely rapid compared to the reproductive cycle of sexual organisms. Therefore, a mutation that provides a fitness advantage will often spread throughout single-cell progeny and become prevalent throughout the population within a very short period of time. The fact that rapid selection of mutations provides fitness advantages is an uncontested idea at the level of single-cell microorganisms. This type of evolution is sometimes referred to as microbial evolution or microevolution and it is noncontroversial.

Similar molecular mutations and adaptations occur, emerge, and are preserved over time within multicellular organisms and populations, especially when such genetic changes correspond to fitness advantages. But the scientific mechanisms of such inheritance and spread within multicellular organisms and populations are much more complex and less frequent than for single-cell organisms.

In multicellular, diploid organisms (those possessing two sets of chromosomes) that require sexual reproduction, mutations typically occur in somatic (nonreproductive) cells and in an allele on only one chromosome. These mutations can have an immediate effect on the single cell’s function or progeny cells if it undergoes division.

Significantly, however, somatic mutations in sexual, diploid organisms are not passed on to offspring. In order for a mutation to be inherited, the mutation must occur in a gamete, the haploid cell of a sperm or egg.¹ If the mutation occurs within a gamete (sperm or egg), upon fusion with the corresponding unmutated gamete (egg or sperm, respectively) the resulting diploid progeny becomes heterozygous (occurring in one chromosome) for the mutation. If a mutation is heterozygous but not dominant in its phenotype, it must occur independently and concurrently in both individual gametes of the reproductive pair in order to have a phenotypic effect in offspring and for subsequent positive selection to occur within a population. In fact, it would almost certainly need to have spontaneously occurred in multiple germ-line cells of each individual to result in a likely fertilization of a mutated sperm with a mutated egg. Therefore, in multicellular organisms, in order for a single change to be passed to progeny, such fitness mutations must be heterozygous dominant or they must occur independently and concurrently in multiple cells in each member of a reproductive pair. To add to the difficulty, they must occur within the germ-line cells, not just somatic cells. The intricate, complex nature of this nontrivial type of molecular change and germ line heredity was unknown to evolutionary champion Charles Darwin.

Furthermore, selection of advantageous mutations in large-organism populations is extensively prolonged in two ways compared to simple, single-cell organisms or asexual reproductive populations. First, selection is prolonged by the fact that the progeny or recipient of the germ-line mutation must reach reproductive age and successfully reproduce. And second, the spread of the trait throughout the population is prolonged by the previously unmutated allele’s predominance in the existing population, which would not necessarily result in an immediate inability or inhibited ability to compete for resources or mates.

Nevertheless, the existence of mutations (or variations) within human alleles that provide obvious environmental advantages for specific populations is uncontested. This molecular adaptation is often heralded as a hallmark of naturalistic evolution. In evolutionary dogma these nontrivial molecular changes are employed to explain not only the observation of complex organisms’ adaptive abilities but also the emergence of entirely new species.

However, macroevolutionary changes and advancements in complexity that are necessary for observed differences in biologically advanced organisms pose significant problems for naturalistic evolution. To employ microevolutionary (undisputed) explanations in an attempt to address macroevolutionary (highly disputed) advancement seems wholly inadequate. It is similar to citing the discovery and repeated verification of the use of stone tools as an explanation for the computer laptops and tablets humans use today.

From my perspective as a scientist, there is no rational reason why molecular adaptation should be co-opted and relegated only to naturalistic evolutionary explanations of the origin of species. In fact, what scientists observe about the mechanisms and advantages of molecular adaptation fits better in a biblically compatible, design narrative than in a neo-Darwinian one. In a design narrative, one starts with complex organisms that have the capacity for molecular adaptation. Such molecular adaptation would be expected as a mechanism of survival, persistence, and thriving. An insightful designer would anticipate various external challenges and environmental changes between different geographical climes and creatively engineer organisms with the capacity to accommodate such changes. Any species subject to such environmental stresses would be short-lived if not for an innate ability to adapt.

In an attempt to understand the world, we need to seek out the best possible explanations, clearly enunciating the scientific underpinnings of nature’s complexities. And for the sake of scientific inquiry and true advancement we must admit the areas where neo-Darwinian explanations fail to offer sufficient or viable mechanisms for observed phenomena. To force the observations to fit the paradigm just for the sake of maintaining the paradigm might truly hinder scientific progress.

Anjeanette Roberts

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.

Years ago, when I pitched the idea of Today’s New Reason to Believe (TNRTB) to the Reasons to Believe (RTB) scholars, I had no idea that a decade later TNRTB would stand as a powerful archive of articles thoughtfully reporting on scientific discoveries that demonstrate evidence for the God of the Bible.

TNRTB has become the place where RTB scholars can develop new arguments (such as this pioneering classic by Jeff Zweerink). It also provides a safe venue where nonbelievers can investigate the compatibility of nature and Scripture more deeply (like this recent gem).

As we press into the future, RTB wants to continue to build this resource library as well as expand our vision. Part of this expansion involves developing new ways to invest in the emerging generation of scientists and apologists.

Recently, RTB’s education team has been asking the question, What can we do, on a practical level, to encourage more Christian students to consider going into science as a noble profession? God has specially gifted about 15 percent of high school students with a natural ability in science and math, including some students who are on the autistic spectrum. Imagine the potential for new arenas of investigation that could be explored if more young Christians were involved at the highest levels of scientific research.

Investing in the Future

This is why we’re launching The Lab, RTB’s new mentoring program for science students ages 16–22. Our big vision for the next five years is to build relationships with 150–200 Christian students who intend to enter graduate programs in science, engineering, mathematics, and medical research. Our goal is to foster a change in the cultural climate by investing in the next generation of Christians working as professionals in the scientific community.

If Christians want our voice to be heard within the scientific community, it’s critical that we raise up representatives who possess a knowledge of the “rules of engagement.” This includes helping them understand how to navigate the maze of graduate school, discern which voices in their lives will be supportive of their faith and vocation, and equip them to integrate their faith with their field of study. That’s what The Lab is all about!

Introducing The Lab

This July 9–11, The Lab will introduce up to 30 students to Dr. Jeff Zweerink (astrophysicist) and Dr. Katie Galloway (biochemical engineer) as mentors for their career and faith journeys. Both are active research scientists (Jeff at UCLA and Katie at USC). In preparation for The Lab, they have designed a series of conversations to help students get ready to become professional scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and medical researchers. While student attendees are learning from Jeff and Katie, parents can attend parallel sessions to help equip them to be a supportive voice in their student’s journey into this unique calling. The Lab will also include a field trip to the historical Griffith Observatory and a special lunch session with Dr. Hugh Ross (astronomer) for students on the autistic spectrum.

We are excited to see what the Holy Spirit will do as we sow into the lives of these students in our inaugural year of this ground-breaking program. The best news of all is that it’s not too late to apply! We still have a few spots remaining for students wanting to participate in this exclusive event. We will be making our final selections for the 2015 program on June 21.

We believe that making a vital investment in the future generation will ensure the enduring legacy of Reasons to Believe. Our vision is that the students of today will be on the research teams of tomorrow. And who knows? Perhaps some of them will go on to become RTB scholars or researchers whose work we highlight as a TNRTB five or ten years from now!

****Resource: In 2012, we recorded a series of conversations with the RTB scholars with tips for those students considering a career in science: “Future Careers in Science and Faith.”