Intelligent Design and Biblical Scripture

June 30, 2014
By Guest Writer

The most common definition of science requires researchers to assume naturalism, meaning that supernatural interpretations of data are excluded by assumption. So, even when the true explanation of an observation—such as the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of species—is supernatural, scientists will necessarily arrive at the wrong interpretation. Many people remain unaware that supernatural explanations—which fit the observations better than the naturalistic ones—have been excluded by assumption. This makes it important for us to be able to distinguish between observation and interpretation, and to supply the correct interpretation when the naturalistic interpretation is incorrect.

In part 1 of this series, we looked at an example from astrophysics of a widely held scientific belief (dark matter and dark energy must exist) that turns out to be an interpretation based upon an observation (that galaxies have flat rotation curves). In part 2, we’ll look at an example from biology where an alternate interpretation based upon a biblical worldview fits the observations better than the prevailing scientific explanation.

Common Design vs. Common Descent

Within modern biology it is widely held that all living organisms share common ancestors. This idea is referred to as “common descent.” The observations that led to this interpretation include shared biochemistry (for example, all organisms use the same DNA code) and morphology (for example, similarities in body plans or body structures). While common descent does not necessarily rule out a Creator’s involvement, the observations are better explained via “common design,” the idea that God reused biological designs across multiple species.

We find examples of common design throughout manmade objects. For example, the air valves on the tires of my bicycle and my car are basically the same. When engineers come up with a good design, they will carry it or a similar design across many different applications. In other words, if the design works in multiple scenarios, then there’s no need to reinvent the wheel (or air valve).

Just as engineers reuse designs, it appears that God did the same. Consider, for example, the bone structure of the middle ear in mammals. Because this structure is so complicated, biologists hypothesized that it could have evolved only once and, therefore, all mammals with this structure must share a common ancestor. That is, until researchers discovered fossils that indicated “the configuration of the bones in all living mammals’ ears arose at least twice along independent evolutionary pathways.”1 Now the scientific interpretation is that this bone structure evolved more than once. A better interpretation is that God reused the design.

Once we recognize that the design interpretation is capable of explaining observations normally attributed to evolution, it is valid to ask which interpretation is a better fit to the observations. Here are just a few of the many Today’s New Reason to Believe articles that address this question:

“Alu Sequences in Primate Genomes: Evidence for Common Descent or Common Design?”
“Old DNA Causes New Problems for Human Evolution”
“Paleoanthropologists Fail to Find Common Ancestor to Modern Humans and Neanderthals”
“High Levels of Pseudogene Expression Help Silence the Case for Common Descent”
“TNRTB Classic: A Well-Ordered Challenge to Biological Evolution”
“New Research Suggests Two Overlooked Functions of Junk DNA”
“Extinct Shell Fish Speaks Today”
“Cambrian Explosion Brings Burst of Evidence for Creation”
Clearly we can relax the assumption of naturalism and allow a design interpretation if we find that it better fits the data. It is always important to find out what observations led to a certain explanation. In all likelihood, a design interpretation will fit the observations just as well as, if not better than, the naturalistic interpretation.2

Dr. Thomas Phillips, PhD

Dr. Thomas Phillips received his PhD in particle physics from Harvard University in 1986, and recently retired from the faculty at Duke University to work as an entrepreneur. He is also currently a research professor of physics at the Illinois Institute of Technology.

Subjects: Life Design

Guest Writer

RTB &Intelligent Design And Biblical Scripture guest writers employ their backgrounds, education, and experiences to provide faith-building, testable evidence, each from the perspective of their unique disciplines.

For a listing of all of our Guest Writers, click here

References
Sid Perkins, “Groovy Bones: Mammalian Ear Structure Evolved More than Once,” Science News, published February 9, 2005, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/groovy-bones-mammalian-ear-structure-evolved-more-once?mode=magazine&context=492. For the original study, see Thomas H. Rich, et al., “Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Terians,” Science 307 (February 11, 2005): 910.
However, not all observations turn out to be correct. This may sometimes be the reason an observation does not fit our worldview.

God is an Absolute; His attributes are Absolute; the one and only source of absoluteness. Man searches for absolutes in all of his endeavors, even unto perfection which must come from an Absolute source. Jesus said that my words shall last forever because He spoke words heard straight from His Father. As man searches thereby we have man studying God.

” I want to know the thoughts of God, our Creator.”; Einstein.

Isaiah 28:16
So this is what the Sovereign Lord says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic.

Romans 9:33
As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

1 Peter 2:6
For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

*** Will Myers

Please “Donate a penny” or any amount to support the ministry’s research and development. Just click the link below:https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DKCQUR7YG7W5U

June 26, 2014
By Guest Writer

Imagine standing on Mount Carmel in Israel, watching the contest between the prophet Elijah and the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18). For nearly 12 hours, Baal’s prophets have danced around his altar, whipping themselves into a frenzy and screaming for Baal to set their sacrifice on fire. Nothing happens. Then Elijah steps up and, after drenching the altar to the Lord with water, calls on the God of Israel.

Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. When all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said, “The Lord, He is God; the Lord, He is God.” (1 Kings 18:38–39, NASB)

The story of Elijah calling down fire from heaven on an apparently cloudless day presents a scientific challenge to the Bible’s accuracy, yet one that can be explained from the perspective of hypernaturalism—which we define as extraordinary use of natural law by the God of the Bible. (God created the laws of nature and is able to control and use them. When God performs a miracle hypernaturally, He employs natural law and natural phenomena with extraordinary timing, location, and/or magnitude to effect His will.)

The phrase “fire from heaven” is an ancient designation for lightning. In the previous chapter Elijah had declared that “there will be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word” (1 Kings 17:1, NASB). Since rain comes from clouds, we can infer that this region had not seen clouds for some time. How can lightning occur naturally without a cloud in the sky? Our study suggests this may well be a hypernatural miracle.

Miracles in the Bible almost always had a religious or social significance. What is the significance of fire from heaven?

As our story opens, it had not rained for three years (1 Kings 18:1) because of Elijah’s proclamation. Thus this event took on great social importance to the average person, because much-needed rain would revive crops and replenish dwindling water supplies. The event also took on great religious importance because people believed rain came from the gods.

Elijah framed the contest as a major challenge to the god Baal. In polytheistic religions the deities were each endowed with a set of powers that defined their significance. Baal was a storm god who also had the associated power of fertility. Rain was one of the gifts he granted to his faithful worshipers, and lightning was one of his weapons (along with magical clubs).

This is illustrated by the depiction of Baal on a stela (inscribed stone slab) from the Ras Shamra excavation in modern Syria; he holds a club in one hand and a lightning bolt in the other. In ancient texts he is often given the accoutrements of a storm—clouds, wind, and rain.1

In the Old Testament the alleged powers of other “deities” were often assumed by the singular God of Israel. This point is illustrated in the Elijah narratives. In this set of stories, God not only assumed the powers of Baal’s office but also those of other gods as well. For example, when Elijah said, as noted earlier, “there will be no dew or rain during these years except by my command!” (1 Kings 17:1, NASB), he was assuming the powers of Baal’s daughter Tallai, who is referred to as the maid of morning mist (dew). Later in the same chapter Elijah raised a widow’s son, which was one of the supposed powers of Baal’s father, El the Bull. This power was indispensable because, on occasion, Baal would die and have to be raised to life again.

In the fuller context, Jezebel, wife of King Ahab and queen of Israel, had replaced worship of the God of Israel with worship of her god, Baal. The focus of this story is the question of who is able to bring lightning and the associated rainfall. Lightning and rain were believed to be powers of Baal, but Elijah proposed to show that these powers belong to the God of Israel alone; Baal was a fraud.

To emphasize his point, Elijah allowed the prophets of Baal to go first. For around 12 hours they performed some of their more potent magical rites, which included slashing themselves with lances—but they failed (1 Kings 18:25–29).

Then, without a cloud in the sky, Elijah called down fire from heaven to prove the superiority of Yahweh, the God of Israel. But how can lightning occur without a thundercloud? This appears to be supernatural. It could be. However, there is a plausible hypernatural, science-based explanation, based on a type of lightning strike commonly called a “Bolt from the Blue.” According to the U. S. National Weather Service:

Bolt from the Blue lightning flashes are a particularly dangerous type of lightning flash, as they appear to come out of clear sky….Lightning can, and does, strike many miles away from the thunderstorm cloud itself.2

To demonstrate this phenomenon, the website provides a graphic example of a lightning flash that struck in east central Florida which “travelled to the east 40 KILOMETERS (~25 miles) in less than 1 second, and then struck the ground!”3

The Bible does not say exactly where on Mount Carmel the contest occurred, but Mount Carmel is at most 5–6 miles from the Mediterranean Sea. Although there were no clouds in the sky above Mount Carmel, clouds were probably already forming above the sea. This notion is inferred from the fact that clouds coming in from the sea caused a severe rainstorm soon after Elijah’s victory over the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:44–45).

Hence the miracle on Mount Carmel could be a prime example of a hypernatural miracle. It utilized a natural phenomenon that is rare yet common enough to be observed and measured. In this context it is plausible that Elijah’s miracle was a Bolt from the Blue from a cloud above the Mediterranean. The miracle is hypernatural because it occurred at just the right time, at just the right place, and with just the right intensity to accomplish God’s purpose. It appeared immediately after the prayer of the prophet Elijah which, when compared to the lengthy prayers of the prophets of Baal, would represent a very narrow window of opportunity.

This miracle answered the question as to the identity of the true God. Was it Baal? Was it Yahweh? As it turned out, the true God, Yahweh, controlled the very forces of nature. That same God remains Lord over all creation and he invites his creatures; namely humans, to learn of his power, love, and glory.

Daniel J. Dyke, MDiv, MTh

Mr. Daniel J. Dyke received his Master of Theology from Princeton Theological Seminary 1981 and currently serves as 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.

Subjects: Bible Difficulties

Guest Writer

RTB guest writers employ their backgrounds, education, and experiences to provide faith-building, testable evidence, each from the perspective of their unique disciplines.

For a listing of all of our Guest Writers, click here

References:
Michael D. Coogan and Mark S. Smith, Stories from Ancient Canaan, 2nd ed., (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, Kindle ed.), 7.
“Bolts from the Blue,” Lightning Safety, National Weather Service, accessed June 19, 2014. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/bolt_blue.htm.
Ibid.
RELATED ARTICLES
Hypernaturalism: Integrating the Bible and Science
March 24th, 2014
TNRTB Classic: Removing Language Barriers in Bible Translation
November 21st, 2013
Israel’s Sojourn in Egypt—And How it Affects Calculation of a Creation Date, Part 1
September 16th, 2013

Support Reasons to Believe

Reasons to Believe is a ministry devoted to integrating science and faith and to demonstrating how the latest science affirms our faith in the God of the Bible. Your donation helps our ministry take this life-changing message to skeptics around the world while encouraging and strengthening the faith of Christians. Donate

Subscribe to RTB.com Emails at the website.

In science, it is important to distinguish between an observation and an interpretation. Observations are things we measure; while interpretations are the conclusions we derive from those observations. In well-designed experiments the resulting interpretations are the only possible explanations for the observations—but this is a rare occurrence. More often, alternate interpretations are possible.

Unfortunately, it is often the interpretation that gets reported in the review papers, the press, and the textbooks, while the observations may only be reported in the primary source. In cases where alternate interpretations are possible—or worse, where the observations do not actually support the vaunted interpretation—it may be necessary to examine the primary source (perhaps, even, the raw data) to determine which conclusions are justified and which are not.

To illustrate this point, let me examine an example from my own research.1 Most consider the existence of dark matter and dark energy to be scientific facts—but, in reality, this conclusion is just one of several possible interpretations based upon observations.

Do Dark Matter and Dark Energy Exist?

We have never directly observed dark matter; its existence is inferred from astronomical observation. Using the Doppler shift of light, we can very accurately measure the speed at which stars and gas clouds orbit their galactic centers. When we compare the measured velocity to the velocity calculated on the basis of the gravitational force provided by all visible mass (see here), we find that the measured velocity does not fall off rapidly with distance as predicted by our theory of gravity. Rather it remains flat at a high value out to great distances from the center of the galaxy. The accepted interpretation for this observation is that, in order to increase the gravitational force enough to keep the stars and gas in orbit around the galaxy, there must be dark matter providing additional mass that we cannot see.

However, dark matter is not the only interpretation that can explain why galaxies have flat rotation curves. It could be that our understanding of gravity is incomplete. By slightly modifying the gravitational force equation, Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MoND) can fit the galactic rotation curves without the need for dark matter. But MoND is an empirical law, not a theory—it does not explain galactic rotation curves unless there is a theory of gravity from which the MoND equation can be derived. (Similarly, Kepler’s laws fit planetary motion, but the basis for them was not understood until Isaac Newton came up with the theory of universal gravitation.)

Several such theories have been proposed, but my favorite postulates the existence of gravitational dipoles that modify gravity with gravitational vacuum polarization.2 This is my favorite theory, not only because I have proposed3 research (still unfunded) to test the underlying assumption behind this theory (specifically, that antimatter and matter repel each other gravitationally), but also because it would solve two other big mysteries in physics: missing antimatter in the universe and Type Ia supernova data.4 (It could solve the latter mystery without the need for a cosmological constant or dark energy.5)

Adjusting Arguments and Beliefs

Scientists like to think that their beliefs are entirely empirical, based only upon observation. To a certain extent, this is true. For example, before the Type Ia supernova data were published, almost all physicists and astronomers believed that the cosmological constant Λ must be exactly 0 since the universe is expanding and the natural value for Λ is enormous (10120 larger than the observed value). However, after seeing the new observations, researchers now believe Λ must be non-zero, though tiny. If confronted with a verified measurement that matter and antimatter repel each other gravitationally, most of these same scientists would change their beliefs yet again.

On a personal note, and to provide additional insight into scientists’ research, RTB scholar and UCLA researcher Jeff Zweerink is working on an experiment that is attempting to observe dark matter interactions. One might think that Jeff and I would consider ourselves rivals since I’m proposing an experiment that could show that dark matter need not exist. On the contrary, we consider ourselves colleagues. Essentially, we are both trying to explain the same observation; we are just approaching the problem in different ways. Either of us would be delighted if the other succeeded because then we would know the explanation and would gain additional insight into how God created the universe. Even if we have to forfeit apologetics arguments based upon whichever explanation proves incorrect, apologetics arguments founded on the other explanation would be strengthened as a result of the new observation.

The main point here for apologists is the importance of recognizing that when a new scientific result appears to conflict with our Christian worldview, the result reported is usually one interpretation of the data. And while this particular interpretation may clash with our worldview, it is likely that there are other possible interpretations of the relevant observations that will not cause conflict.

If you are a regular reader of Today’s New Reason to Believe, you will recognize that many of the articles address the question of how to interpret a new scientific result in light of the Christian worldview. The facts are the observations (when properly measured), and observations generally can be interpreted in a number of different ways. When a scientific result seems to contradict the Christian worldview, ask what observations form the basis for this result, and what alternate interpretations are possible.(TP,RTB)

*** Will Myers, Intelligent Design And Biblical Scripture

Scientists want to answer the question, is there life out there in the universe? Do you think astronomers want detailed measurements of eight solar system planets or limited measurements of 1,000 exoplanets?

Fortunately, they have both; unfortunately, those limited measurements don’t yet provide a definitive answer regarding the presence of life—at least not for all the exoplanets. However, as the number of known exoplanets grows, so do the number of tools scientists develop to assess the likelihood of extraterrestrial life.

One new tool combines the limited information gleaned from exoplanet data and the detailed information from our solar system to assess the relative probability of life existing on various planets. Five categories of information—geophysics, substrate, energy, temperature, and age—accessible by current technology (or by straightforward inference from that data) provide the basis for evaluating an exoplanet’s potential capacity to host life.

Geophysics and substrate overlap at some level (for example, a planet’s density will influence whether it is a gas giant or rocky planet), but they also contain independent information. Thus, proper characterization of an exoplanet’s relative capacity to host life must include both categories. Geophysics relates directly to an exoplanet’s density and eccentricity, two observable properties. Substrate refers to an exoplanet’s differentiation. Gas giants (all atmosphere) and small rocky planets (with no atmosphere) represent the least differentiated class. Planets with a solid surface and simple atmosphere reside further up the scale. The most differentiated bodies resemble Earth—a rocky surface, standing bodies of liquid, and a complex atmosphere.

Energy accounts for the two quantities available to drive the chemical reactions required by life. On Earth, many organisms ultimately derive energy from the Sun’s radiation via photosynthesis. However, others extract energy from chemical gradients present in the rocks composing Earth’s crust. So, energy includes the amount of stellar flux received by the planet and the “redox” molecules available.

Temperature characterizes where the temperature of the planet’s surface and subsurface falls in the range dictated by liquid water. Age accounts for the fact that the development of life here on Earth required a vast amount of time until the planet could support human (or even multicellular) life.

Depending on starting assumptions about the optimal values for these categories, one can calculate a biological complexity index (BCI) where higher BCI values indicate greater likelihood of supporting life. For example, one group of researchers found, based on the assumptions they made, that around 1.5% of exoplanets have a higher BCI than Europa and just under 1% exceed the value for Mars.1 Remember though, despite scientists’ optimism that one or both of these bodies might have hosted life at some point, no evidence exists to indicates that either one ever did.

High BCI values will help focus future searches for life’s signatures by identifying the most likely candidates on which to expend precious telescope resources. More important, in my opinion, is the potential to evaluate different assumptions about how common life is in the universe. Changing the starting assumptions will lead to different BCI values so measurements of any life signatures will validate or falsify different rankings. I plan to show some specific examples of how this might work in a future article.

The importance of this research is not primarily the BCI values associated with a given exoplanet but the framework it develops to guide future research. The framework includes the currently available information from exoplanet searches but is flexible enough to incorporate data that future projects expect to measure—like atmospheric composition, cloud cover, surface chemistry, rotation rate, etc. If God truly designed Earth to support human life (and I believe He did), then a framework like these BCI calculations will help provide scientific evidence in support of that assertion. (JZ,RTB)

*** Will Myers

The word “apologetics” comes from the Greek word “apologia,” pronounced “ap-ol-og-ee’-ah.” It means, “a verbal defense.” It is used eight times in the New Testament: Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Cor. 9:3; 2 Cor. 10:5-6; Phil. 1:7; 2 Tim. 4:16, and 1 Pet. 3:15. But it is the last verse that is most commonly associated with Christian apologetics.

” . . . but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” (1 Pet. 3:15, NASB).

“Apologetics is the work of convincing people to change their views.”

Therefore, Christian apologetics is that branch of Christianity that deals with answering any and all critics who oppose or question the revelation of God in Christ and the Bible. It can include studying such subjects as biblical manuscript transmission, philosophy, biology, mathematics, evolution, and logic. But it can also consist of simply giving an answer to a question about Jesus or a Bible passage. The latter case is by far the most common and you don’t have to read a ton of books to do that.

Apologetics can be defensive and offensive. Phil. 1:7 gives us instruction on the defensive side, “For it is only right for me to feel this way about you all, because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me.” 2 Cor. 10:5 gives us instruction on the offensive side: “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” The apologist can and should defend his reasons for believing (1 Pet. 3:15). But he can also go on the attack. He can seek out those who oppose Christianity (2 Cor. 10:5). Of course, he should be prepared to do this beforehand, and all apologetics is to be done with gentleness.

Apologetics is the work of convincing people to change their views. In this, it is similar to preaching because its goal is ultimately the defense and presentation of the validity and necessity of the gospel. It is an attempt to persuade the listener to change his beliefs and life to conform to biblical truth and to come to a saving relationship in Christ.

Basically apologetics can be evidential (often called “classical”) or presuppositional. Evidential apologetics deals with the evidence for Christianity: Jesus’ resurrection, the biblical manuscripts, fulfilled prophecy, miracles, etc. Presuppositional apologetics deals with the presuppositions of those who oppose Christianity because presuppositions affect how a person views evidence and reason.

Some areas of debate within Christian apologetics deal with the use of evidence, reason, philosophy, etc. Should the apologist use only those criteria acceptable to unbelievers? Are we allowed to use the Bible as a defense of our position, or must we prove Christianity without it? Is reason alone sufficient to prove God’s existence or Christianity’s truth? How much should reason and evidence be used in light of the Scriptures’ teaching that it is God who opens the mind to understand? What part does prayer, using the Bible, and the sinful nature of the unbeliever play in witnessing? How do these factors interrelate to bring an unbeliever to faith? The questions are easy. The answers are not.

Jesus chose one highly-educated religious person as an apostle. That was Paul. The rest were fishermen, a tax collector, a doctor, etc. They were normal people of the day who were available and willing to be used by the Lord. They were filled with the Spirit of God, and they were used as vessels of God. God uses all things for His glory. So, we do apologetics by faith.

The Lord has called every Christian to be ready to make a defense of his faith. That means you are called to give reasonable answers to questions regarding Christianity. Now, this does not mean that you must have a Ph.D., or that you have to go to seminary. However, it does mean that you should be willing to at least give an answer for your beliefs. If you find you cannot, then prayerfully take it to God and start studying.

What do you study?

You could pray and ask the Lord to teach you what He wants you to know. Ask Him to give you a burden for something to learn. It doesn’t matter what it is. Just ask. Whatever you become interested in is what you should learn about because it is probably something God wants you to know for later use. It is like having tools in a tool shed. The more you have, the more you can accomplish.

Another way to find out what God wants you to study is through circumstances. Let’s say that a Jehovah’s Witness comes to your door and debates the deity of Christ with you, and you find you don’t know how to defend it biblically. In that case, you know you need to study biblical verses that teach Jesus is God in flesh. Or maybe a coworker asks you how you know the Bible is true? If you don’t have an answer, pray, and start researching. Go to a Christian bookstore and get some books on the subject. Talk to your pastor. You’ll learn.

Sometimes God will make a verse or subject in the Bible “come alive” to you, and it might strike you as odd or interesting. You could get a commentary and read up on it. You could ask others about it. In so doing, you are preparing yourself through learning to be ready to answer questions and point people to the truth. You’d be surprised how many details God can use to help you in your witness even through those apparently odd times when verses suddenly “come alive.” (MS,CERN)

*** Will Myers

In 1885 a steel cube with a deep incision around it and two rounded edges was found in a block of coal from a foundry owned by Isidor Braun of Vocklabrock, Austria. It was determined that only a human could have made it. Some think it was made by a machine.
(We are not the first, by Andrew Tomas)

In 1912 a large clump of coal was taken from a mine near Wilberton, Oklahoma. It was too large to go in the furnace, so it was broken open. Inside the clump of coal was an iron pot. The impression left by the pot was photographed and many have seen it.
(Creation Research Society Quarterly vol. 7, No. 4)

In June, 1841 workers were blasting near Dorchester, Mass. They found a bell-shaped metal container with inlaid silver flowers designed by a gifted artist.
(America’s Ancient Treasures, 1971)

These are only three of many examples of human artifacts found in coal that evolutionists claim was formed about 300,000,000 years ago.
Why have we not seen this evidence before?

We have a serious problem. Either humans have been around a whole lot longer than the evolutionists claim, or the world is a whole lot younger than evolutionists want to admit. Either way, the geological time-table suddenly becomes inaccurate and irrelevant.

*** Will Myers

Unwarranted researcher involvement consistently characterizes the prebiotic simulation studies carried out over the last 60 years. Even though these experiments are designed to validate a naturalistic explanation for life’s origin, they end up demonstrating the necessity of intelligent agency in creating life from inanimate matter. Yet, many in the scientific community continue to resist any suggestion that life’s origin stems from supernatural work. As a means to build a bridge with these skeptics, we apply the concept of hypernaturalism as a means to address the concerns of the scientific community

When I’m out speaking on behalf of RTB, one question I often hear is, how did God create the first life? Did He just “zap” the first organisms into existence? Or did He bring about the origin of life by some other means?

A recent guest article by theologian Daniel Dyke and physicist Hugh Henry proves helpful in addressing this question. Our guest authors introduced the concept of hypernaturalism, which they define as the extraordinary use of natural law by an omnipotent God. When God acts in a hypernatural way, He employs the laws of nature and natural phenomena in an extraordinary manner—with respect to timing, location, and magnitude—to accomplish His will. In their framework, hypernaturalism stands distinct from “supernaturalism,” in which God always operates outside the laws of nature. Nevertheless, a hypernatural act is as much a miracle as a supernatural one.

Hypernaturalism in the Laboratory

In a sense, God, though the only being capable of supernatural acts, is not the only one who can engage in hypernatural activity. Human beings can, as well. Consider the work of an organic chemist in the laboratory. These scientists set up a glass apparatus to contain the reaction of interest. With care they add the appropriate chemicals, in a specific order. They adjust the reaction temperature, control the composition of the headspace above the reaction, and regulate the reaction’s pH. In other words, chemists, operating within the laws of nature, manipulate chemicals in extraordinary ways to accomplish a specific goal (in this case the generation of desired chemical compounds).

In fact, this type of activity is typical for origin-of-life researchers who perform prebiotic simulation experiments. Origin-of-life investigators labor to understand how undirected chemical and physical processes could have generated life. Obviously, they can’t go back in time and directly observe the chemical evolution that many believe took place on early Earth. Thus, they have no choice but to perform lab experiments with the overarching goal of recapitulating life’s origin. At the very least, the hope is that the experiments will provide some understanding of how life could have conceivably emerged on Earth via evolutionary processes.

Intervening in “Natural” Processes

The problem is that scientists carrying out laboratory experiments are not passive observers of undirected processes. Instead, they become active participants who (1) design the protocol; (2) assemble the apparatus; (3) supply the media and reagents for the experiment; (4) adjust the initial conditions and regulate them throughout the study; and (5) monitor the course of the chemical and physical changes usually by withdrawing material from the apparatus. In other words, they interject themselves into experiments designed to demonstrate how life can emerge without assistance.

If poorly executed or too extensive, this involvement runs the risk of making the experiment artificial; it no longer reflects the presumed evolutionary events thought to have occurred on early Earth. Instead it reflects what is possible if an intelligent agent (in this case, the researchers) orchestrates physicochemical processes. Of course, this result is undesirable from a naturalistic viewpoint because naturalists believe that the physicochemical processes thought to have spawned life would have proceeded without any outside intervention from an intelligent agent.

As I discuss in my book Creating Life in the Lab, unwarranted researcher involvement plagues the design and execution of virtually every prebiotic simulation experiment performed to date. For example, physicist Paul Davies notes that researchers investigating the RNA world hypothesis (one of the most important ideas in the origin-of-life discussion) face significant challenges.

As far as biochemists can see, it is a long and difficult road to produce efficient RNA replicators from scratch…This conclusion has to be that without a trained organic chemist on hand to supervise, nature would be struggling to make RNA from a dilute soup under any plausible prebiotic conditions.1

Bridging the Gap between Science and Design

In my view, the work in prebiotic simulation studies provides empirical evidence that life cannot arise from simple chemical compounds without the work of intelligent agents who employ the laws of nature and natural phenomena in an extraordinary manner to produce a desired result. The Judeo-Christian scriptures describe humans as made in God’s image. If that is the case, then it could be said that when we step into the lab to run chemical reactions that we are mimicking, albeit imperfectly, the Creator’s hypernatural activity. In this light, these studies could give us a glimpse into how God may have created the first life-forms. Perhaps God functioned like a divine organic chemist when He brought life into existence.

I believe this proposal could help dissolve some of the philosophical barriers between many scientists and the belief that life stems from the work of a Designer. A remarkable number of researchers agree that unwarranted researcher involvement bedevils the design and execution of prebiotic simulation experiments—yet they persist in resisting any suggestion of a theistic explanation for life’s origin. One key reason for this resistance is a poor view of creationism and the Intelligent Design Movement. Many scientists see any appeal to the work of a Designer as an appeal to the supernatural and, thus, a strict violation of the principle of methodological naturalism, the philosophical framework undergirding the scientific enterprise. According to this view, all scientific models require mechanistic explanations. Any appeal to the work of an intelligent Agent is forbidden because if a Designer brought life into existence “supernaturally,” then there would be nothing for scientists to study.

However, I’d argue that hypernaturalism could eliminate the dichotomy between natural process chemical evolution and intelligent design. Based on hypernaturalism, we could posit that the Creator made use of physicochemical mechanisms to bring about life’s emergence. In this schema, the Creator does not suspend the laws and processes of nature (which He Himself designed and put in place) to create life, but rather works through these laws and processes. Thus, it is possible for scientists to investigate the origin-of-life question within the framework of methodological naturalism, even if life’s emergence is understood to be a miracle.

For a more detailed treatment of the origin of life and hypernaturalism go here.

Subjects: Prebiotic Chemistry

Dr. Fazale Rana

In 1999, I left my position in R&D at a Fortune 500 company to join Reasons to Believe because I felt the most important thing I could do as a scientist is to communicate to skeptics and believers alike the powerful scientific evidence—evidence that is being uncovered day after day—for God’s existence and the reliability of Scripture. Read more about Dr. Fazale Rana

FALLEN WORLD: this answers the question of why do bad things happen to good people. The world is so noisy that we can not hear God most of the time. God is continuously warning of danger and directing our path in each person’s spirit.

God knows everything from beginning to end in one instant. We live our lives so that we experience and learn what God desires we know. God could have created all of us as robots who questions nothing, but we would not have learned about God our Creator; we would have not learned that we must absolutely obey God, our Heavenly Father. For disobedience separated us from God which lead us unto the curse of death. Regardless of how good is your bible toting Grandma, we all are under the curse of death; can not hear God over the noisy world, and have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Your Granny is at the top of being good relative to social norms, but we all are in the same boat; thereby, bad things happens to good people. After all, the Son of God was crucified in this world, and this was very bad.

God appears cruel at times, but God doesn’t want anyone to miss out on the glory that He has waiting for those who love and obey Him. The hardship that we experience is small in comparison to the unimaginable gifts awaiting each of us. Receiving Eternal Life is only the beginning of God’s Glorious Life. No one can match God’s gifts.

We are learning to resist the temptations of the devil as Jesus did so that we won’t repeat what Adam and Eve did.

*** Will Myers
Please “Donate a penny” or any amount to support the ministry’s research and development. Just click the link below:https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DKCQUR7YG7W5U

June 2, 2014
By Dr. Hugh Ross

Imagine an Earth without plate tectonics. We might envision fewer natural disasters—no tsunamis in India, no earthquakes in Japan, no volcanic eruptions in Iceland. Sounds nice, but it would be more accurate to picture something like the surface of Mars or Venus—barren and hostile to life. Though sometimes disruptive to human civilization, the movement of Earth’s crustal plates is vital for creating a hospitable environment. Life requires tectonics—and it turns out that tectonics requires life, too.

Origin-of-life researchers have established that photosynthetic life first appeared 3.83 billion years ago,1 but geophysicists have yet to establish more than a rough date for the origin of plate tectonics. Bit by bit, researchers have uncovered clues to the history of Earth’s life-sustaining plate tectonics. The picture they’ve pieced together reveals that the onset of this globally distributed phenomenon was a gradual process that required carefully orchestrated and well-timed events—including the introduction of distinct life-forms at specified times.

All of this just-right timing and fine-tuning testifies of God’s handiwork in designing a planet capable of supporting advanced life.

The Road to Sustained Tectonics

The gradual process leading up to sustained plate tectonics began as early as 3.9 billion years ago when proto-subduction and subduction zone melting began.2 Then, from 3.8 to 3.0 billion years ago, Earth’s crust evolved from just a few small isolated plates to a collection of plates, both large and small, that encompassed the entirety of the planet’s surface. Crustal slabs altered by subduction began to appear 3.6 billion years ago.3 Recently, researchers analyzed mineral inclusions in diamonds that indicate a compositional shift occurred in the mantle 3.0 billion years ago,4 simultaneous with a major alteration in Earth’s geodynamics.5 This shift and alteration mark when plate tectonics became a globally distributed, aggressive, sustained phenomenon.

Studies in geophysics have also revealed that the process of tectonics onset appears finely tuned, with many events helping to stimulate crustal movement. Below are some important examples.

Three to four billion years ago, higher radioisotope abundances in the planet’s interior raised the mantle’s temperature and, thus, lowered the mantle viscosity,6 eventually leading to more frequent breaks in Earth’s crust.
From 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago, giant asteroids and comets bombarded the planet,7 generating variations in the thickness and density of Earth’s crust. These variations resulted in local crustal stresses, which contributed to subduction initiation.8
Geochemical, petrological, and geological data reveal that Earth’s mantle has been hydrated continuously throughout the past 3.8 billion years.9 Therefore, the mantle was much drier 3–4 billion years ago, which helped ignite plate tectonics by lowering the viscosity difference between the crust and the asthenosphere (the mantle’s upper 150 kilometers).
The presence of iron- and sulfur-based anoxygenic photosynthetic life 3.80–3.85 billion years ago led to abundant black shale deposits. Radioisotope decay in these shales—which concentrate heavy radioisotopes, especially those of uranium—produced a high heat flow that, combined with a buoyancy greater than that of seafloor basalts, weakened the crust around the shales.
About 3.5 billion years ago, the continental nuclei of the Pilbara, Australia, and Kaapvaal, South Africa, cratons (“an old and stable part of the continental lithosphere”) formed as thick volcanic plateaus. These cratons generated local dynamic stresses that could have stimulated tectonic activity.10
But among all these factors, one of the most intriguing is life’s influence on tectonics. It took abundant life persisting from 3.8–3.0 billion years ago to chemically transform the atmosphere, crust, and mantle sufficiently so that plate tectonics could be sustained at a global level (such as the black shale example above). Only once the continents were fully in place, with abundant life inhabiting both oceans and land, did plate tectonics become sustained.11 (And it will remain sustained until the brightening Sun raises Earth’s surface temperature 60° Centigrade above its present level.12)

Implications for a Creation Model

Why do the first 830 million years of life history look the way they do? One reason, I believe, is because the Creator desired to make advanced life and all preceding life-forms necessary to prepare Earth to accomplish this goal.

Unless life was on Earth as early, as diverse, and as abundant as the planet’s physical and chemical conditions would permit, sustained, aggressive, globally manifested plate tectonics would never have been launched as soon as just 3.0 billion years ago. And without plate tectonics, Earth’s surface never would have attained the conditions necessary for the survival of advanced life before the Sun became too bright for any thing to survive. Life as diverse and abundant as possible throughout the past 3.0 billion years is also necessary to maintain plate tectonics at sufficiently high levels. But it also takes continued high-level tectonics to sustain life throughout the past 3.0 billion years.

The exacting synergy between life and tectonics throughout the past 3.8 billion years testifies of a Creator who is able to create and maintain just-right life in a just-right environment at just-right times. It also testifies of the magnitude of His care and love for humanity.

Subjects: Plate Tectonics

Dr. Hugh Ross

Reasons to Believe emerged from my passion to research, develop, and proclaim the most powerful new reasons to believe in Christ as Creator, Lord, and Savior and to use those new reasons to reach people for Christ. Read more about Dr. Hugh Ross.

References:
Craig E. Manning, Stephen J. Mojzsis, and T. Mark Harrison, “Geology, Age and Origin of Supracrustal Rocks at Akilia, West Greenland,” American Journal of Science 306 (May 2006): 303–66; Kevin D. McKeegan, Anatoliy B. Kudryavtsev, and J. William Schopf, “Raman and Ion Microscopic Imagery of Graphitic Inclusions in Apatite from Older than 3830 Ma Akilia Supracrustal Rocks, West Greenland,” Geology 35 (July 2007): 591–94.
Steven B. Shirey et al., “A Review of the Isotopic and Trace Element Evidence for Mantle and Crustal Processes in the Hadean and Archean: Implications for the Onset of Plate Tectonic Subduction,” in When Did Plate Tectonics Begin on Planet Earth?, eds. Kent C. Condie and Victoria Pease, Geological Society of America Special Papers 440 (2008): 1–29; David Bercovici and Yanick Ricard, “Plate Tectonics, Damage and Inheritance,” Nature 508 (April 24, 2014): 513–16.
Shirey et al., “A Review of the Isotopic,” 1–29; Bercovici and Ricard, “Plate Tectonics,” 513–16; Ali Polat, Peter W. U. Appel, and Brian J. Fryer, “An Overview of the Geochemistry of Eoarchean to Mesoarchean Ultramafic to Mafic Volcanic Rocks, SW Greenland: Implications for Mantle Depletion and Petrogenetic Processes at Subduction Zones in the Early Earth,” Gondwana Research 20 (September 2011): 255–83.
Steven B. Shirey and Stephen H. Richardson, “Start of the Wilson Cycle at 3 Ga Shown by Diamonds from Subcontinental Mantle,” Science 333 (July 22, 2011): 434–36.
Vinciane Debaille et al., “Stagnant-Lid Tectonics in Early Earth Revealed by 142Nd Variations in Late Archean Rocks,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 373 (July 2013): 83–92.
Jeroen van Hunen and Arie P. van den Berg, “Plate Tectonics on the Early Earth: Limitations Imposed by Strength and Buoyancy of Subducted Lithosphere,” Lithos 103 (June 2008): 217–35.
William F. Bottke et al., “An Archaean Heavy Bombardment from a Destabilized Extension of the Asteroid Belt,” Nature 485 (May 3, 2012): 78–81; B. C. Johnson and H. J. Melosh, “Impact Spherules As a Record of an Ancient Heavy Bombardment of Earth,” Nature 485 (May 3, 2012): 75–77.
Javier Ruiz, “Giant Impacts and the Initiation of Plate Tectonics on Terrestrial Planets,” Planetary and Space Science 59 (June 2011): 749–53.
J. Korenaga, “Thermal Evolution with a Hydrating Mantle and the Initiation of Plate Tectonics in the Early Earth,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 116 (December 2011): id. B12403, DOI: 10.1029/2011JB008410.
Svetlana G. Tessalina et al., “Influence of Hadean Crust Evident in Basalts and Cherts from the Pilbara Craton,” Nature Geoscience 3 (March 2010): 214–17; Gary Byerly et al., “An Archean Impact Layer from the Pilbara and Kaapvaal Cratons,” Science 297 (August 23, 2002): 1325–27.
C. Grigne and P. J. Tackley, “The Effect of Continents on the Initiation and Configuration of Plate Tectonics,” in EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 87, no. 52 (2006), Fall Meeting Supplement, Abstract T52D-02.
A. Lenardic, A. M. Jellinek, and L.-N. Moresi, “A Climate Induced Transition in the Tectonic Style of a Terrestrial Planet,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 271 (July 15, 2008): 31–42.
RELATED ARTICLES
TNRTB Classic: Strengthening Plate Tectonics
February 14th, 2013
Purposeful Plate Tectonics
March 25th, 2011
Subduction Design
November 3rd, 2008

Support Reasons to Believe

Reasons to Believe is a ministry devoted to integrating science and faith and to demonstrating how the latest science affirms our faith in the God of the Bible. Your donation helps our ministry take this life-changing message to skeptics around the world while encouraging and strengthening the faith of Christians. Donate