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.”

My child, never forget the things I have taught you. Store my commands in your heart.
If you do this, you will live many years, and your life will be satisfying. Proverbs 3:1–2 (NLT)

OK, I know there must be some Star Trek fans out there among the Today’s New Reason to Believe readers. Come on, admit it. Unless you’ve undergone self-imposed isolation from the world for the last 45 years, you have likely seen Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock, giving the Vulcan salute and saying, “Live long and prosper.” (I am pretty sure I mastered the Vulcan salute as a child). And chances are if you remember watching the original Star Trek series in the 1960s, then you’ve probably given some thought to things you can do to live a longer and happier life.

Healthy eating habits and regular exercise rank among the top life-prolonging activities. But there is one activity with potentially life-prolonging benefits that you may not have considered: going to church. That’s right—studies show that attending a religious service more than once a week has the potential to help you live longer.

Several years ago, a group of scientists conducted research on data collected from a large survey, principally from the National Health Interview Survey.¹ For this study, information from over 21,000 people—an amount considered a “nationally representative sample”—was used.

Here’s what the researchers found: compared to those who never attend religious services, people who attend church, temple, or synagogue more than once a week, have the equivalent of a 7.5-year-longer life expectancy! Those who do not attend religious services have a 1.87 times higher risk of death for most causes within eight years.

So does this mean that if someone is a dedicated church attendee, they have a good chance of living a healthier lifestyle than someone who never attends church? Yes, indeed, that is true. However, even after controlling for various factors, such as demographics, health status, socioeconomic status, and social ties, the researchersstill found a strong (1.5x) and significant (p<0.01) positive impact attending religious services had on the life expectancy of attendees.

It seems that Proverbs’ prescription for long life has some scientific backing. In Proverbs 3, God tells us what to do in order to “live many years.” Never forget the things He teaches us and store His commands in our hearts. One good way to not forget His teachings is to stay active in church by getting involved in a Bible study group or another church related activity. The Hummer study did show a smaller (1.21) but still significant (p<0.05) health improvement for those who attended church once a week, even after correcting for all the factors mentioned above. The larger effect was seen in those who went more than once a week.

So there you have it—going to church helps you live longer. Perhaps if Spock were familiar with this recent research he might say going to church will help you “live long and prosper”!

James C. Patterson II, MD, PhD

Dr. James C. Patterson II received his MD and PhD degrees from the University of Texas Medical Branch in 1996, and currently serves as Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Director of Emergency Psychiatry at the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in Shreveport, Louisiana. He is also a member of the Shreveport Chapter of RTB.

In Star Trek: The Next Generation, the crew of the Enterprise regularly encounters exotic alien life-forms. Many of these extraterrestrials are truly “weird”—distinctly different from life as we know it. In one particular episode, a crystalline life-form refers to humans as “ugly bags of mostly water.”¹ “Ugly” is a matter of perspective, but describing humans as “bags of mostly water” is reasonably accurate. We are composed of 60 percent water approximately. All Earth-life utilizes water as an essential component, but some people speculate that perhaps weird life might rely on ammonia or some other liquid. Could such an idea cross from science fiction to science fact?

Water inside our cells serves to dissolve the biomolecules (e.g., proteins, DNA, and lipids), nutrients, and salts needed for cells to function and serves as a medium to bring these chemicals together into a common environment in which all these molecules can interact efficiently. This facilitates the biochemical reactions needed for life. Water also excludes certain fat molecules (lipids), which drives the formation of cell membranes. Accordingly, we refer to water as being a life solvent; many critical life reactions would be impossible without it.

Some scientists have proposed that life could arise on other planets in the universe utilizing a liquid other than water as a life solvent. If these hypothetical creatures existed, we would classify them as weird life because they would have to be fundamentally different from life as we know it. (For more details, see our full paper on this subject.)

Water as the Solvent of Life

Given that water is the only known life solvent, it is useful to consider how it optimally fulfills this role. Against this benchmark, we can compare other possible solvents. A full review of water’s exceptional properties is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, we refer readers to our seven-part series titled “Water: Designed for Life.” Those articles define important terms, provide helpful background information, and explain the roles of water’s key properties. Here we will summarize only the most relevant details:

• Water is ubiquitous. Water is one of the most abundant molecules in the entire universe. As such, we can expect to find it in large quantities on most planets—although paradoxically, it is rather rare in the liquidstate (“Water,” part 7). On Earth, it is the only naturally occurring, inorganic liquid found in abundance.
• Water is the “universal solvent.” Water is considered the most effective known solvent, which has earned it the title “universal solvent.” It is a highly polarized molecule, which helps it dissolve other polar molecules as well as salts (“Water,” part 1). Non-polar organic molecules (e.g., oils) are one of the few molecule classes that generally do not dissolve in water. But even this limitation has a positive benefit: the hydrophobic effect (which we will discuss below).
• Water has a large range of liquidity. Under terrestrial conditions, pure water is a liquid over a rather impressive temperature range: 0–100°C (32–212°F). Adding common salts can reduce water’s melting point to as low as -23°C (-10°F). Increasing the external pressure to 215 times atmospheric pressure increases the boiling point to 374°C (706°F). This means that water has a potential range of liquidity of 397°C (716°F).
• Water has a strong hydrophobic effect. Water has the strongesthydrophobic effect of all naturally occurring molecules, which is essential for the formation and maintenance of strong cell membranes in Earth-life. The hydrophobic effect also plays a critical role in protein folding, whereby proteins adopt and maintain the precise three-dimensional shape required to function correctly. (Hydrophobic—i.e., “oily”—amino acids in the protein naturally fold toward the center of the protein to avoid contact with water while the remaining amino acids fold toward the outside.)
• Water has many exceptional properties. A major virtue of water is that so many of its properties are outside the normal ranges in ways that are beneficial for life. Water has an exceptionally high dielectric constant (“Water,” part 1), which is important for life solvents; and few liquids can even come close to rivaling water’s thermal properties (i.e., properties dealing with heat and temperature). Specifically, water has exceptionally high values for: heat capacity, heat of vaporization, heat of fusion, and thermal conductivity (“Water,” part 4). Moreover, it has many other useful properties, such as high surface tension, fairly low viscosity, and high rate of diffusion (“Water,” part 6).
  
• Water is ideal for carbon chemistry. Given that carbon is the only element known to be capable of supporting life chemistry, it is noteworthy that water is exceptionally well suited to facilitate carbon chemistry for at least two reasons. First, carbon forms very strong bonds with both hydrogen and oxygen, which compose water. Second, the temperature range at which water is a liquid (0–100°C or 32–212°F at standard pressure) corresponds to the upper range at which carbon chemistry is viable. While carbon chemistry could operate in lower temperature solvents, lower temperatures would result in slower chemical reactions, which would hinder the development of life. For water to have a much higher boiling point would not be helpful because most carbon compounds degrade at temperatures above 200°C (392°F). Therefore, water is a liquid at the optimal temperature range for carbon chemistry.

Water is an amazing liquid. As a life solvent, it is without equal. Water’s additional extraordinary properties are too numerous to include in this article. In our opinion, they are a clear indication that water is designed for life.

Conclusion

In scientific literature, water has been referred to as the “vital fluid” and the “elixir of life” for good reasons.² Nothing else even comes close to matching its ability to support life. For this reason, in its search for extraterrestrial life, NASA has largely embraced a “follow the water” strategy of looking for liquid water on other planets. However, not everyone agrees that water is the only possible life solvent. We will explore this possibility in a future article.

Dr. John Millam

Dr. John Millam received his PhD in theoretical chemistry from Rice University in 1997, and currently serves as a programmer for Semichem in Kansas City.

Ken Klos

Mr. Ken Klos received his MS in environmental studies from the University of Florida in 1971, and worked as an environmental/civil engineer for the state of Florida.

According to the National Geographic News web site, a major archeological discovery, referred to as “Jesus’ Brother’s Bone Box,” has moved closer to authentication than when it first appeared in Biblical Archaeology Review (2002). This find represents the oldest scientific evidence for the historical Jesus of Nazareth.  It’s a limestone “ossuary,” a box in which ancient people (including first-century Jews) stored the bones of the deceased, once the corpse had decayed and dried.

This particular ossuary carries an inscription in Aramaic: “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” Archeologists say it dates back to 62 A.D. Not only is the language that of Jesus’ era, but the inscription’s cursive writing style was used only briefly, from about 10 to 70 A.D.

What’s especially remarkable is the mention of a brother. Most ossuaries reference the deceased’s father but rarely other relatives, unless they were somehow significant. The son of a Jewish carpenter who died by Roman crucifixion certainly would not have warranted mention—apart from some amazing circumstance. The Resurrection comes to mind.

Although the names James, Joseph, and Jesus were relatively common in ancient times, the statistical probability that these three names would appear together and in this specific family relationship seems extremely remote. All these factors combine to increase archeologists’ confidence that the ossuary truly belonged to the biblical (and maternal) brother of Jesus.

According to Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archeology Review, “The James ossuary may be the most important find in the history of New Testament archaeology… It has implications not just for scholarship, but [also] for the world’s understanding of the Bible.”

For further reading see RTB Seattle Newsletter – October 2002 and also http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0418_030418_jesusrelic.html

Greg Moore

RTB apologist Greg Moore received his Bachelor of Arts degree in business administration from Washington State University in 1975, and currently serves as a program manager for the City of Everett in Everett, Washington.