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.

In a previous article, I described how a key feature of the biblically predicted big bang creation model is its deduction that the firstborn stars will initially be comprised of just three elements: 76 percent hydrogen, 24 percent helium, and a trace amount of lithium. The failure of astronomers to detect such metal-free stars is often cited, especially by young-earth creationists, as proof that the big bang creation model has been invalidated.

As I explained in my previous article, in the context of the big bang creation model, pristine firstborn stars must be at least 13.4 billion light-years away. Currently, no operating telescope possesses the power to image individual stars at this vast distance. I then described the discovery of three very old stars that are so extremely lacking in metals that astronomers established that they must be firstborn stars. Over the course of their 13-billion-year-plus history, these formerly metal-free stars have had their atmospheres very lightly polluted by the interstellar medium, which aligns with big bang creation model predictions.

Now, a different team of astronomers has revealed further observational evidence for firstborn stars that shows them exhibiting characteristics consistent with the big bang creation model. In a recent issue of the Astrophysical Journal, a team of nine European astronomers reported on their spectroscopic measurements on a faint, very distant Lyman-alpha emitter.¹ Lyman-alpha emitters are very young, typically low-mass galaxies that are aggressively forming massive stars. The high formation rate of massive stars results in the emission of a strong Lyman-alpha spectral line (1215.67 angstroms) that, because of the great distances of Lyman-alpha emitters, is redshifted into the visible part of the spectrum.

The team targeted the Lyman-alpha emitter known as Cosmos Redshift 7 (CR7). Its redshift of 6.604 places it 12.96 billion light-years away. Using spectral instruments on the Keck telescopes and the Very Large Telescope, the team determined that CR7 possessed two distinct stellar populations. The spectra on the two populations were consistent with one being made of Pop III stars (firstborn stars) and the other of Pop II stars (second-generation stars). Using the Hubble Space Telescope, the team demonstrated that the two populations in CR7 were spatially separated from one another. The team concluded that the spatial separation in the two populations was “consistent with theoretical predictions of a Pop III wave, with Pop III star formation migrating away from the original sites of star formation.”²

This second, independent confirmation of the existence of firstborn stars—manifesting the characteristics predicted in the big bang creation model—should satisfy big bang critics who have insisted that astronomers’ failure to detect such stars falsifies all big bang models. The truth is that big bang creation models have passed every achievable test that has been thrown at them. These recent discoveries of Pop III stars count as one more trial that big bang models have overcome. That the Bible predicted the essential features of big bang cosmology thousands of years before any astronomer even hinted that the universe might possess such features firmly establishes the predictive power of the Bible and consequently its divine inspiration, inerrancy, and authority.

Resources

• For more information on the Bible’s description of the big bang creation model, please read chapter 13 of my book A Matter of Days.

The big bang creation model—which the Bible uniquely described thousands of years before any astronomer did—predicts a hierarchy in star formation. Since the big bang creation event results in the universe’s ordinary matter being composed of 76 percent hydrogen, 24 percent helium, and a trace amount of lithium, the firstborn stars, at least initially, will be composed of these three elements.

Are Firstborn Stars a Myth?

A remaining challenge to the biblically predicted big bang creation model is that astronomers have yet to detect a star that is completely devoid of elements heavier than lithium. A few atheists and all young-earth creationist scientists have pointed to this lack of evidence to assert that the big bang model has failed. For example, in his book Refuting Compromise Jonathan Sarfati writes, “The total absence of these stars counts as a falsified prediction of big bang cosmology.”¹

Astronomers respond to this alleged failure by explaining that the big bang creation model predicts that firstborn stars would be undetectable. In big bang creation models, the first stars would have formed more than 13.4 billion years ago. This means that if we want to observe them in their initial state, we must measure the spectra of individual stars more than 13.4 billion light-years away. Presently, no telescope exists with the power to measure the spectra of individual stars at that distance.

Predicting the Attributes of Firstborn Stars

All stars larger than several times the Sun’s mass explode at the end of their nuclear burning and, thus, salt the interstellar medium with their ashes. The more massive the star the faster it burns up its nuclear fuel and the sooner it explodes. Thus, the largest of the first generation stars relatively quickly pollute the interstellar medium. The second generation of stars incorporates these ashes when they form. These second generation stars compose the majority of stars in the universe. About 2 percent of their composition is comprised of elements heavier than hydrogen, helium, and lithium. Third-generation stars incorporate the ashes of exploded second-generation stars. About 3 percent of the composition of third-generation stars is comprised of elements heavier than hydrogen, helium, and lithium.

Astronomers refer to third-generation stars as Population I (Pop I) stars, second-generation stars as Population II (Pop II) stars, and first-generation stars as Population III (Pop III) stars. The Sun is a Pop I star. In big bang cosmology, life is only possible on a planet orbiting a Pop I star.

Some big bang creation models predict that all Pop III stars will be supergiant stars and will accordingly go through their entire burning phase in just a few million years or less. In these models all the still-shining Pop III stars are more than 13.4 billion light-years away and are consequently inaccessible with current telescope technology. However, many other big bang creation models predict that at least a few Pop III stars will not be supergiants. These stars with much lower masses can burn for billions of years. Therefore, they may be close enough that astronomers can detect them and measure their spectra.

However, these old Pop III stars will not be in their initial pristine state. Over their several-billion-year burning history their stellar atmospheres will have accreted a small quantity of heavy elements from the interstellar medium. This medium will be polluted by the ashes of exploded supergiant Pop III and supergiant Pop II stars. Yet, for low-mass Pop III stars that reside in regions of space where the density of stars is sparse, the pollution level will be so extremely low that there will be no doubt that astronomers are observing an old Pop III star (a.k.a. a Pop III survivor) rather than any kind of Pop II star.

Astronomers Locate Three Firstborn Stars

After a long and diligent search, astronomers have discovered three of these Pop III survivors. The one most deficient in heavy elements is SMSS J031300.36-670839.³(SM0313). Roughly 75 percent the Sun’s mass, SM0313 is 13.6 billion years old, making it the oldest known star with an accurate age determination.² Compared to the Sun, it has less than 30 millionth the density of iron.3 While iron was undetectable in the spectrum of SM0313, astronomers were able to detect calcium. SM0313 possesses 18.2 million times less calcium per unit mass compared to the Sun.⁴ This measure permitted a calculation of its iron abundance, which is 38 million times less iron per unit mass than the Sun.

The other two Pop III survivors, HE 1327-2326 and HE 0107-5240, respectively possess 500,000 and 250,000 times less iron per unit mass than the Sun.⁵ The astronomers focused on iron and calcium abundances since lighter elements, such as carbon and magnesium, are influenced by binary mass transfer and heavier elements are much too rare.

A team of Japanese astronomers placed these iron and calcium abundance measures into a cosmological context by developing a detailed theoretical model. They investigated the change of iron abundance on the surface of Pop III survivors through accretion from the interstellar medium in the framework of hierarchical star formation.⁶Their calculations showed that Pop III survivors can accumulate up to 1/100,000th as much iron per unit mass as the Sun. It would be impossible for any Pop II star to possess so little iron. On this basis they concluded that any star possessing more than 100,000 times less iron per unit mass than the Sun must be a Pop III survivor.

Rather than big bang cosmology being refuted by the supposed lack of Pop III stars, it is now vindicated. The observational measurements and theoretical calculations described here establish that Pop III stars really do exist. When the James Webb Space Telescope and ground-based telescopes with mirror diameters exceeding 100 feet become operational, there will be a high probability of astronomers detecting not only many more Pop III survivors but also newborn Pop III stars in their initial pristine state.

Resources

• For more information on the Bible’s description of the big bang creation model, please read chapter 13 of my book, A Matter of Days.