Has the development of science lead to the decline of Christianity? Does a belief that the Earth is old require accepting evolution or rejecting the words of the Bible? How should Christians deal with new scientific discoveries that appear to threaten what the Bible says?

If you wrestle with any of these questions, then I wholeheartedly recommend that you read Controversy of the Ages. This great book by Ted Cabal and Peter Rasor explores the age-of-the-Earth debate in the Christian community and provides some much needed historical and theological perspective. Cabal and Rasor highlight three important points that should become common knowledge for everyone engaged in science-faith discussions.

The Intellectually Discredited “Conflict Thesis”

First, research in the history of science shows the bankruptcy of the idea that science and Christianity are now and have always been in conflict. Those wanting to perpetuate the idea of inherent antagonism between science and Christianity (known as the “conflict thesis” or “warfare model”) usually trot out Galileo and Darwin to demonstrate their point. However, focusing on these two examples obscures the “largely independent, mutually encouraging and even symbiotic”¹interaction of science and Christianity. In fact, one historian writes that “it is salutary to note that serious historical scholarship has revealed the conflict thesis as, at best, an oversimplification and, at worst, a deception.“¹

Old-Earth ≠ Evolution

Christians who accept a billions-of-years-old Earth are often charged with compromise, taking man’s word over God’s, and accepting evolution (and all its philosophical and theological implications). One prominent young-earth ministry stated it this way: “In other words, biological evolution is only one small part of a much larger evolutionary story, the same story from which deep time comes, and which old-earth creationists accept.“ But Cabal shows that historical study does not support this claim.

During the rise of modern geology, scientists grew more and more aware of the different layers in Earth’s crust—and how those different layers contained different types of organisms. They often found those layers replicated across the continents of the globe. Continued study of those layers led to two important finds by the many Christians involved in the research. First, instead of representing God’s judgment in the Flood, the layers represented God’s progressive work in creation—culminating in humanity. Second, Earth was much older than a few thousand years. Even in the midst of these two finds, these Christians almost uniformly opposed evolutionary ideas. According to Cabal’s research, “though not all Christians contributing to the rise of modern geology held a progressive creationist view (some held to an old earth gap theory), virtually all were both old earth creationist and anti-evolutionary” (page 116, emphasis mine).

The Conservatism Principle

By studying the Galileo and Darwin affairs, Cabal identifies the “conservatism principle” and argues that young-earth, old-earth, and even some evolutionary creationists utilize this principle when addressing science-faith issues. The four basic pieces of the principle:

Assumption 1: the Biblical is inerrant, interpretations are not
Assumption 2: nature and Scripture cannot disagree
therefore,
Interpretive Step 1: traditional biblical interpretations govern unproven science
Interpretive Step 2: proven scientific theory requires biblical reinterpretation

One important point to note up front: this is not saying science trumps the Bible or that science will prove the Bible wrong (that would violate Assumption 2). Furthermore, Interpretive Step 2 is not saying “reinterpret Scripture so that it matches science.” Rather, it says that sometimes our study of creation forces us to look more closely at our interpretationof Scripture.

Cabal and Rasor rightly argue that young-earth creationists and old-earth creationists both apply this conservatism principle even though prominent young-earth organizations (like Answers in Genesis) would deny doing so (see pages 209–210). In contrast, most evolutionary creationist organizations (like BioLogos) “maintain no commitment to Biblical inerrancy,”(page 209) at least not as put forth by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. Some prominent young-earth creationists accuse Reasons to Believe scholars of valuing the work of scientists over the Word of God. Since both positions apply the conservatism principle to integrate the study of the Bible and the study of creation, the accusation is unfounded. In reality, the difference resides in our interpretation of God’s dual revelation!

I would recommend that every apologist add this new book by Cabal and Rasor to their library. The historical and theological background provided in Controversy of the Ages will help equip you to discuss science-faith issues with both Christians and skeptics.

I blog for two purposes: to spur on thinking (mine & yours) and to pursue truth (together).

Science and Scripture both reveal the truth about our world. Although they deal primarily with different types of knowledge, they are not completely separate areas of inquiry. Science, rightly employed, allows us to ask how the physical world around us functions and to learn about creation and our own physiology and well-being. Scripture—the Old and New Testaments of the Bible—reveals the purpose and meaning of our lives as those created by God and established in relationship with God, each other, and all of creation. Scripture addresses issues in the physical and supernatural realms of our lives.

Science cannot address issues which are not physical or materialistic in nature. It cannot tell us if the nonphysical or nonmaterial exists. I want to know the whole truth and not just the truth about the material world. So I seek the truth in science and Scripture and hope to share my thoughts and hear yours as I journey through this awesome, unique life and the glorious, awe-inspiring creation around us.

During any conversation, defining terms is critical. Many people talk past one another because they use terms differently. I’ll always try to define my terms carefully, so you may want to check my definitions before assuming any particular meaning. I value dialogue, and my belief that truth can be sought, found, and shared (at least in relevant terms—if not ever exhaustively) is what motivates me in life and is the impetus for this blog. I believe we can learn from one another and seek truth together. So, please define terms, too, as needed as you share your thoughts.

Why “theorems”? According to the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, “theorem” comes from the Latin word theorema, which comes from Greek theōrēma, from theōrein, or “to look at,” from theōros, or “spectator,” or from thea, or “act of seeing.” And yet the word “theorem”implies that which is not directly known by observation but follows from other known truths. Google defines “theorem” in this way: “A general proposition not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths.” It is somewhat ironic that science primarily employs observations of the physical world and yet is very often built upon truths that are not directly observed.

Theorems are strong scientific statements. But even well-established scientific dogma is open to reassessment when previous reasoning or premises have been found to be flawed. Theorems are also strong logical statements. They are anchored in, and spring from, supporting truth or facts.

Why “theology”? I once had a Harvard faculty member ask me if I would still be a Christian if it could somehow be proven that Jesus Christ had not risen from the dead. I shocked him, and many others at the table by saying, “Absolutely not.” I would not be a Christian if the evidence showed that Jesus was not who he claimed to be and had not risen from the dead as evidence of who he claimed to be. I would not be a Christian if I did not think that Jesus’s claims are true.

One of Jesus’s early followers (and a highly influential figure in the spread of the early Christian faith) was a man who once hunted and tortured those who claimed that Jesus was the risen Lord. However, he later became convinced himself that Jesus was the risen Lord: “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile . . . [and] we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Corinthians 15:17–19). So said the apostle Paul in his letter to the Christians of the church at Corinth, Greece, circa 55 AD. So my theology is grounded in this commitment. I define theology as the study of God and God’s attributes and relations to all of creation and the study of spiritual, divine, and religious truth.

I hope Theorems & Theology will be a dialogue, and not just a blog, on seeking truth in and through science and Scripture. I’m glad you’re here!

At this time of year, people everywhere celebrate the wonder of God sending his son to Earth to live, die, and be raised in order to redeem humans. Perhaps few think of the wonderful planet God created as a stage for his heavenly purposes. Two seemingly obscure events, the Hiawatha impactor and the Younger Dryas cooling event about 12,000 years ago, have made it possible for humans to live in an abnormally stable climate that launched the development of high-tech civilization.

In my blog of three weeks ago,¹ I explained how a recent reconstruction of temperature records from around the world revealed that the past 9,500 years of unprecedented climate stability at the optimal temperature for global high-technology civilization was actually twice as stable as what scientists had previously concluded. Two weeks ago,² I described how a breach in a gigantic lake of glacial meltwater sent a rush of cold, fresh water into the North Atlantic and brought about a 1,200-year-long global cooling event known as the Younger Dryas. In last week’s blog,³ I described the very recent discovery of a 31-kilometer-diameter impact crater 3,000 feet below the Hiawatha Greenland Ice Field that very likely explains both the breach in the gigantic lake and the Younger Dryas. In this blog, I will describe the most important past, present, and future blessings that the Hiawatha impactor and the Younger Dryas cooling event have brought to the human race.

An Exceptional Ice Age 
Ice age cycles previous to the current one show a near continuous, rapid rise in global mean (average) temperature from the glacial to the interglacial period (see figure 1). Our cycle is the exception. The Younger Dryas (named after Dryas octopetala, a flower that grows in cold conditions) strongly interrupted the rapid warming of Earth (see figures 1 and 2). Evidently, it prevented the global mean temperature from rising to its normal maximum value.

Figure 1: Antarctic Temperature Record for the Past Four Ice Age Cycles
Temperatures are in °C relative to the average for AD 1900–1950. Image credit: Robert A. Rohde, Global Warming Art Project, CC-by-SA

Figure 2: Younger Dryas Cooling Event
The temperature figures represent the surface air temperature in the central region of Greenland’s ice sheet. The blue curve shows the newly determined temperature record of the past 9,500 years. The purple curve shows the temperature record from 16,500–9,500 years ago derived from oxygen-18 isotope measures in ice cores drilled in the central region of Greenland’s ice sheet. The two dotted lines delineate the start and end times of the Younger Dryas event. Data credit for blue curve: Shaun A. Marcott et al. and Andy May; data credit for purple curve: United States Geological Survey; diagram credit: Hugh Ross

During ice age cycles previous to the current one, the global mean temperature rose so high that all of the Arctic sea ice melted away, causing Arctic Ocean water to absorb much more heat from the Sun.¹ This extra heat absorption resulted in more Arctic Ocean water evaporating and falling as snow upon Canada, Greenland, and Siberia. (Yes, Canada, Greenland, and Siberia were much warmer than they are now, but not warm enough for the frozen precipitation to become liquid.) The resultant increased snow cover on these large landmasses reflected away so much sunlight that the global mean temperature quickly plummeted, sending Earth into a deep ice age.

The Younger Dryas dropped the global mean temperature so severely (by 15°C) and for so long (1,200 years) that the temperature rise from the last glacial stopped 3°C short of what had occurred in previous ice age cycles. This halting of the warming rise preserved the Arctic ice cap, much of the ice over Antarctica and Greenland, and the ice fields and glaciers over the high mountain ranges and the Tibetan Plateau.

Civilization Leaps
The halting of the temperature rise briefly stabilized the global mean climate. This brief climate stabilization for the first time in human history made possible the launch and rapid advance of civilization, technology, transportation, and trade. Specifically, the advent of extreme climate stability meant that humans could specialize and scale up their agricultural endeavors. For the first time, farmers could plant thousands of acres of wheat, for example, and count on such a bountiful harvest that they could trade their excess wheat for other food products and manufactured goods. Likewise, herders could domesticate thousands of goats and count on such a bountiful production of milk, cheese, meat, and leather that they could trade these goods for other food products and manufactured goods.

Also for the first time, a small fraction of the human population could produce all the food needed for the entire population. That allowed a large fraction of the human population to focus on science, engineering, manufacturing, literature, art, music, and philosophy (among other fields). A door opened for the possible development of global, high-technology civilization and the growth of the human population into the billions.

Decline in Earth’s Axis Tilt
The tilt of Earth’s rotation axis varies cyclically from 22.1° to 24.5° with a period of 41,000 years. The greater the tilt of Earth’s rotation axis the greater its effect on increasing the global mean temperature. Earth’s rotation axis tilt attained its maximum value 8,750 years ago.⁴ This maximal value is reflected in the new improved record of the past ten thousand years of Earth’s global mean temperature (see figure 3).

Figure 3: Reconstruction of the global mean temperature over the past 11,300 years. Temperature measurements are in °C. Data credit: Marcott et al. and Andy May; Diagram credit: Hugh Ross

If left to natural processes alone, the declining tilt of Earth’s rotation axis would have rapidly dropped the global mean temperature by 10–12°C. Instead, figure 3 shows that from 8,750 years ago until 70 years ago the global mean temperature slowly and steadily declined by only 1.1°C.

The reason for such gradual, tiny decline in global mean temperature and for the maintenance of extreme climate stability over an 8,700-year period of human history is that the cooling resulting from the declining tilt in Earth’s rotation axis was almost perfectly balanced by the warming caused by the gradual advance of human agricultural industry and civilization. The biggest factors were the domestication, breeding, and population growths of farm animals, the domestication of rice, and the conversion of forests into grass- and croplands.

Benefits of the Younger Dryas
The breeding and population growths in farm animals and the domestication of rice yielded a gradual increase in the quantities of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. The input of these powerful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere warmed our planet almost as much as the natural processes were cooling it. The result: a 9,500-year period of extreme climate stability at the optimal global mean temperature for human civilization and technology during a 2.588-million-year epoch characterized by the most extreme long-lasting climate instability Earth has ever experienced! Without this recent, long-lasting extreme climate stability held at the optimal temperature, our present civilization, technology, and population would be impossible.

The Younger Dryas cooling event, the decline in Earth’s rotation axis tilt, and the gradual advance of human agricultural industry produced another huge benefit. Instead of the ice fields and glaciers that reside in the mountain ranges and high plateaus of Earth either quickly melting and disappearing or rapidly expanding, they have been slowly melting. This slow melt has provided a steady flow of fresh liquid water to Earth’s great agricultural plains. Thanks to this melt we can efficiently produce enough food to feed 7.5 billion humans with a sufficiently small percentage of our population so that most of us can devote our labor to science, engineering, technology, literature, art, music, philosophy, philanthropy, and religion.

A minor benefit that was important to the Inuit peoples was the availability of high-quality stainless steel from the Cape York meteorite fragments. Long before they made contact with Europeans, the Inuit would travel to the Cape York meteorites, chip off pieces, and use cold forging techniques to fashion advanced tools.

More than the physical benefits we have accrued, however, the three features have endowed spiritual benefits. We now have the wealth, technology, transportation, and communication means to take the good news of salvation from our sin—through what the Creator of the universe has provided in his death and bodily resurrection—to billions of human beings in decades rather than millennia. As I mentioned in Improbable Planet, all we lack is the motivation.³

Thanks in large part to the Hiawatha impactor and the Younger Dryas our redemption draws nigh. As we celebrate the first coming of our Messiah and Redeemer this Christmas season, we have many more reasons to share the good news with relatives, friends, and associates of all the blessings our Messiah and Redeemer has offered us here in this life and in the life to come.

Featured image: South Manhattan: An Example of High-Technology Civilization
Image credit: Hugh Ross

Sometimes bigger is better, and other times, not so much—particularly for scientists working in the field of nanotechnology.

Scientists and engineers working in this area are obsessed with miniaturization. And because of this obsession, they have developed techniques to manipulate matter at the molecular scale. Thanks to these advances, they can now produce novel materials (that could never be produced with macro-scale methods) with a host of applications. They also use these techniques to fabricate molecular-level devices—nanometer-sized machines—made up of complex arrangements of atoms and molecules. They hope that these machines will perform sophisticated tasks, giving researchers full control of the molecular domain.

Recently, scientists from the University of Manchester in the UK achieved a milestone in nanotechnology when they designed the first-ever molecular robot that can be deployed to build molecules in the same way that robotic arms on assembly lines manufacture automobiles.¹ These molecular robots can be used to improve the efficiency of chemical reactions and make it possible for organic chemists to design synthetic routes that, up to this point, were inconceivable.

Undoubtedly, this advance will pave the way for more cost-effective, greener chemical reactions at the bench and plant scales. It will also grant organic chemists greater control over chemical reactions, paving the way for the synthesis of new types of compounds including drugs and other pharmaceutical agents.

As exciting as these prospects are, perhaps the greater significance of this research lies in the intriguing theological implications. For example, comparison of the molecular robots to the biomolecular machines in the cell—machines that carry out similar assembly-line operations—highlights the elegant designs of biochemical systems, evincing a Creator’s handiwork. This research is theologically provocative in another way. It demonstrates human exceptionalism and, by doing so, supports the biblical claim that human beings are made in the image of God.

Molecular Robotics

University of Manchester chemists built molecular robots that consist of about 150 atoms of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen. Though these robots consist of a relatively small number of atoms, the arrangement of these atoms makes the molecular robots structurally complex.

The robots’ architecture is organized around a molecular-scale platform. Located in the middle of the platform is a molecular arm that extends upward and then bends at a 90-degree angle. This molecular prosthesis binds molecules at the end of the arm and then can be made to swivel between the two ends of the platform as researchers add different chemicals to the reaction. The swiveling action brings the bound molecule in juxtaposition to the chemical groups at the tip ends of the platform. When reactants are added to the solution, these compounds will react with the bound molecule differently depending on the placement of the arm, whether it is oriented toward one end of the platform or the other. In this way, the bound molecule—call it A—can react through two cycles of arm placement to form one of four possible compounds—B, C, D, and E. In this scheme, unwanted side reactions are kept to a minimum, because the bound molecule is precisely positioned next to either of the two ends of the molecular platform. This specificity improves the reaction efficiency, while at the same time making it possible for chemists to generate compounds that would be impossible to synthesize without the specificity granted by the molecular robots.

Molecular Robots Make the Case for Design

Many researchers working in nanotechnology did not think that the University of Manchester scientists—or any scientists, for that matter—could design and build a molecular robot that could carry out high precision molecular assembly. In the abstract of their paper, the Manchester team writes, “It has been convincingly argued that molecular machines that manipulate individual atoms, or highly reactive clusters of atoms, with Ångstrom precision are unlikely to be realized.”²

Yet, the researchers were motivated to try to achieve this goal because molecular machines with this capacity exist inside the cell. They continue, “However, biological molecular machines routinely position rather less reactive substrates in order to direct chemical reaction sequences.”³ To put it another way, the Manchester chemists derived insight and inspiration from the biomolecular machines inside the cell to design and build their molecular robot.

As I have written about before, the use of designs in biochemistry to inspire advances in nanotechnology make possible a new design argument, one I call the converse watchmaker argument. Namely, if biological designs are the work of a Creator, these systems should be so well-designed that they can serve as engineering models and otherwise inspire the development of new technologies.

Comparison of the molecular robots designed by the University of Manchester team with a typical biomolecular machine found in the cell illustrates this point. The newly synthesized molecular robot consists of around 150 atoms, yet it took an enormous amount of ingenuity and effort to design and make. Still, this molecular machine is far less efficient than the biomolecular machines found in the cell. The cell’s biomolecular machines consist of thousands of atoms and are much more elegant and sophisticated than the man-made molecular robots. Considering these differences, is it reasonable to think that the biomolecular machines in the cell resulted from unguided, undirected, contingent processes when they are so much more advanced than the molecular robots built by scientists—some of them among the best chemists in the world?

The only reasonable explanation is that the biomolecular machines in the cell stem from the work of a mind—a divine mind with unlimited creative capacity.

Molecular Robots Make the Case for Human Exceptionalism

Though unimpressive when compared to the elegant biomolecular machines in the cell, molecular robots still stand as a noteworthy scientific accomplishment—one might even say they represent science at its very best. And this accomplishment stresses the fact that human beings are the only species that has ever existed that can create technologies as advanced as the molecular robots invented by the University of Manchester chemists. Our capacity to investigate and understand nature through science and then turn that insight into technologies is unique to human beings. No other creature that exists today or that has ever existed, possesses this capability.

Thomas Suddendorf puts it this way:

“We reflect on and argue about our present situation, our history, and our destiny. We envision wonderful harmonious worlds as easily as we do dreadful tyrannies. Our powers are used for good as they are for bad, and we incessantly debate which is which. Our minds have spawned civilizations and technologies that have changed the face of the Earth, while our closest living animal relatives sit unobtrusively in their remaining forests. There appears to be a tremendous gap between human and animal minds.”⁴

Anthropologists believe that symbolism accounts for the gap between humans and the great apes. As human beings, we effortlessly represent the world with discrete symbols. We denote abstract concepts with symbols. And our ability to represent the world symbolically has interesting consequences when coupled with our abilities to combine and recombine those symbols in a nearly infinite number of ways to create alternate possibilities.

Our capacity for symbolism manifests in the form of language, art, music, and even body ornamentation. And we desire to communicate the scenarios we construct in our minds with other human beings. In a sense, symbolism and our open-ended capacity to generate alternative hypotheses are scientific descriptors of the image of God.

There also appears to be a gap between human minds and the minds of the hominins, such as Neanderthals, who preceded us in the fossil record. It is true: claims abound about Neanderthals possessing the capacity for symbolism. Yet, as I discuss in Who Was Adam, those claims do not withstand scientific scrutiny. Recently, paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall and linguist Noam Chomsky (along with other collaborators) argued that Neanderthals could not have possessed language and, hence, symbolism, because their crude “technology” remained stagnant for the duration of their time on Earth. Neanderthals—who first appear in the fossil record around 250,000 to 200,000 years ago and disappear around 40,000 years ago—existed on Earth longer than modern humans have. Yet, our technology has progressed exponentially, while Neanderthal technology remained largely static. According to Tattersall, Chomsky, and their coauthors:

“Our species was born in a technologically archaic context, and significantly, the tempo of change only began picking up after the point at which symbolic objects appeared. Evidently, a new potential for symbolic thought was born with our anatomically distinctive species, but it was only expressed after a necessary cultural stimulus had exerted itself. This stimulus was most plausibly the appearance of language. . . . Then, within a remarkably short space of time, art was invented, cities were born, and people had reached the moon.”⁵

In effect, these researchers echo Suddendorf’s point. The gap between human beings and the great apes and hominins becomes most apparent when we consider the remarkable technological advances we have made during our tenure as a species. And this mind-boggling growth in technology points to our exceptionalism as a species, affirming the biblical view that, as human beings, we uniquely bear God’s image.

Resources to Dig Deeper

• The Cell’s Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator’s Artistry by Fazale Rana (book)
• Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross (book)
• “DNA: Digitally Designed” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Darwin’s Problem: The Origin of Language” by Fazale Rana (article)

On December 14, NASA and Google announced the discovery of an eighth planet orbiting the star Kepler 90. Other media outlets picked up the hype from there, with teasers like “first solar system like ours” and “boosting the chances of finding alien life elsewhere in the universe.” What’s the stir about?

The Extrasolar Planets Catalog lists 623 multiple planet systems discovered so far.¹ Until yesterday, none included as many planets as our solar system. The discovery was made by a machine learning method developed by Google that scoured the Kepler spacecraft storage bank of data.

The number of planets orbiting Kepler 90 is where all similarity with the solar system ends. For starters, the star Kepler 90 is not like the Sun. Its diameter and mass are both about 20 percent larger than the Sun. It is about twice as bright as the Sun. At less than half the Sun’s age, it manifests considerably more intense and frequent flares. The characteristic features of Kepler 90 rule out the possibility of life on all eight of its known planets, the inner seven of which orbit Kepler 90 much closer than Earth orbits the Sun, while the most distant planet orbits Kepler 90 at the same distance Earth orbits the Sun.

The featured image compares the sizes of Kepler 90’s planets to the sizes of the Sun’s planets. All of Kepler 90’s planets are larger than Earth. The nearest three to Kepler 90 possess diameters that are 1.31, 1.18, and 1.32 times larger than Earth’s, respectively. The next three farther out planets possess diameters equal to 2.88, 2.67, and 2.89 times Earth’s, respectively. The two most distantly orbiting planets have diameters equal to 8.18 and 11.32 times Earth’s, respectively. Unlike the solar system, the planets in the Kepler 90 system consistently trend larger with orbital distance.

The biggest difference between Kepler 90’s and the Sun’s planets is their orbital spacing. Kepler 90’s eight planets are jammed tightly together while the Sun’s planets are spread apart from one another. Kepler 90’s planets orbit Kepler 90 at 7.4, 8.9, 12.3, 32, 42, 48, 71, and 101 percent of Earth’s orbital distance from the Sun, respectively. For comparison, the Sun’s eight planets orbit the Sun at 38, 72, 100, 152, 529, 958, 1,914, and 3,120 percent of Earth’ orbital distance, respectively.

Ever since the first planets orbiting hydrogen-burning stars were discovered in 1995, many astronomers have predicted that the population of extrasolar planets would include a large number of planets just like the planets in the solar system. None of the planets in the Kepler 90 system even comes close to matching the characteristics of any one of the Sun’s planets. In fact, after more than 20 years of planet hunting, none of the 3,720 planets in the Extrasolar Planets Encylopedia and Catalog matches any of the features of the Sun’s planets.

The extrasolar planet that comes the closest to matching a solar system planet is upsilon Andromedae e. That planet has nearly the same mass, orbital distance, and orbital shape as does Jupiter. However, upsilon Andromedae e lacks one of Jupiter’s features that is critical for making advanced life in the same system possible. Jupiter is the most massive planet in the solar system. It possesses 68 percent of the total mass of the Sun’s planets.

Upsilon Andromedae e is dwarfed by planets upsilon Andromedae c and d, which possess masses that are at least 14.0 and 10.3 times more massive than Jupiter. Both planets also orbit upsilon Andromedae much closer than does upsilon Andromedae e. Both planets by themselves eliminate any possibility of another planet in the upsilon Andromedae system being able to sustain life.

Given how densely packed Kepler 90’s planets are, astronomers are persuaded that Kepler 90 probably possesses more than just the eight planets discovered so far. The announcement by NASA and Google adds to the growing weight of evidence that the solar system is not normative. It appears to be unique. All the evidence shouts that the solar system is special in its exquisite designs that enable it to be a home for advanced life.

A few months ago, I posted a link on Twitter to a blog article I wrote challenging the claim that Neanderthals made jewelry and, therefore, possessed the capacity for symbolism.

When I post articles about the cognitive abilities of Neanderthals, I expect them to generate a fair bit of discussion and opinions that differ from mine (and I expect this article about neanderthal’s use of fire to be no exception). But one response I received was unexpectedly jarring. It came from a Christian who accused me of being “out of touch,” “wasting time discussing frivolous issues,” and “targeting the elite with a failed apologetic.” He admonished me to spend my time on real issues related to social justice concerns and chastised me for not focusing my efforts reaching out to the “marginalized.”

As part of my reply to my new “friend,” I pointed out that the identity and capability of Neanderthals has a direct bearing on the gospel and, consequently, social injustices in our world, because it relates to the question of humanity’s origin and identity. And what we believe about where we come from really matters.

Scripture teaches that human beings are uniquely made in God’s image. And, it is the image of God that renders human beings of infinite worth and value. Because we bear God’s image, Christ died to reconcile us to the Father. And, as Christians, the immeasurable value we place on all human life motivates us to battle against the injustices of the world—because the people who suffer these injustices are image bearers. According to Scripture, when we love and serve other human beings, it equates to loving and serving God.

Yet, the biblical view of humanity has been supplanted in the scientific community by human evolution. According to this idea, human beings are not the product of a Creator’s handiwork—the crown of creation—but, like all life on Earth, we emerged through unguided, historically contingent processes. In the evolutionary paradigm, human beings hold no special status. Human beings possess no inherent worth. We possess no more value than any other creature that has ever existed throughout Earth’s history. Human beings lack any inherent worth or dignity in the evolutionary paradigm. And, within this framework, there can be no ultimate meaning or purpose to human life.

Sadly, the evolutionary view of humanity is not confined to the halls of the academy. It permeates and influences cultures throughout the world. Once human life is rendered meaningless and stripped of its inherent value, there is no fundamental justification to stand against injustice. In fact, it becomes easier to excuse acts of injustice and becomes tolerable to look the other way when these acts occur. In the evolutionary framework, no genuine motivation exists to rescue the marginalized of our world. I would go one step further and argue that many of the social ills we face throughout the world have their etiology in the evolutionary view of humanity.

I regard my work as a Christian apologist as an antidote to this toxic worldview. Towards this end, I strive to demonstrate the credibility of the biblical view of humanity—apart from biblical and theological appeals. In an increasingly secular world, we can’t simply adopt a theological stance, declaring that human beings bear God’s image, and leave it at that. Few nonbelievers will accept that approach. We must respond to the scientific challenge to the image of God with scientific evidence for human uniqueness and exceptionalism. This endeavor isn’t about challenging the elite with an obscure apologetic argument for the validity of Christianity. Ultimately, it is about establishing the foundation for the gospel and generating the impetus and justification to treat human beings as creatures with inherent worth and dignity. As Christian apologists when we “target the elite” with apologetic arguments for the Christian worldview, we are serving the marginalized in our world.

As described in Who Was Adam? a scientific case can be marshaled for human exceptionalism in a way that aligns with the biblical view of the image of God. Remarkably, a growing minority of anthropologists and primatologists now believe that human beings really are exceptional. They contend that human beings do, indeed, differ in kind, not just degree, from other creatures. The scientists who argue for this updated perspective have developed evidence for human exceptionalism within the context of the evolutionary paradigm in their attempts to understand how the human mind evolved. Yet, ironically, these new insights marshal support for the biblical conception of humanity.

However, one potential challenge to human exceptionalism relates to the cognitive capabilities of Neanderthals. Based on archeological and fossil finds some paleoanthropologists now argue that these hominids: (1) buried their dead; (2) made specialized tools; (3) used ochre; (4) produced jewelry; (5) created art; and (6) even had language capacities. These are behaviors one would naturally associate with the image bearers.

Yet, as discussed in Who Was Adam? (and articles listed in the Resource section), careful examination of the archeological and fossil evidence reveals just how speculative the claims about Neanderthal “exceptionalism” are. Recent insights on Neanderthal fire use illustrate this point.

Did Neanderthals Use Fire?

While controversy abounds among paleoanthropologists about fire use by hominins such as Homo erectus, most scientists working in this field believe Neanderthals mastered fire. This view finds its basis in the discovery of primitive hearths, burned bones, heated lithics, and charcoal at Neanderthal archeological sites. Frankly, fire use by Neanderthals bothers me. If these creatures could create and use fire—in short, if they mastered fire (called pyrotechnology)—it makes them much more like us—but uncomfortably so.

Yet, recent work raises questions about Neanderthal fire usage.¹ Careful assessment of archeological sites in southern France occupied by Neanderthals from about 100,000 to 40,000 years ago indicates that Neanderthals could not create fire. Instead, they made opportunistic use of natural fire when available to them.

The French sites show clear evidence of fire use by Neanderthals. However, when researchers correlated the archeological layers harboring evidence for fire use with paleoclimate data, they found an unexpected pattern. Neanderthals used fire during warm climate conditions and failed to use fire during cold periods—the opposite of what would be predicted—if Neanderthals had mastery over fire.

Instead, this unusual correlation indicates that Neanderthals made opportunistic use of fire. Lightning strikes that would generate natural fires are much more likely to occur during warm periods. Instead of creating fire, Neanderthals most likely collected natural fire and cultivated it as long as they could before it extinguished.

Such evidence shows that human beings are unique and exceptional in our capacity to create and curate fire, distinguishing us from Neanderthals.

Chimpanzees Exploit Natural Fire

Still, the capacity to make opportunistic use of fire seems pretty impressive. At least until Neanderthal behavior is compared to that of chimpanzees. Recent work by Jill Pruetz indicates that these great apes understand the behavior of natural fires and even exploit them.² Pruetz and her collaborator observed the response of the Fongoli community of chimpanzees to two wildfires in the spring of 2006. The members of the community calmly monitored the fires at close range and then changed their behavior in anticipation of the fires’ movement. To put it another way, the chimpanzees’ behavior was predictive, not responsive. This capacity is impressive, because the behavior of natural fires is complex, depending on wind speed and direction and the amount and type of fuel sources.

So, as impressive as Neanderthal behavior may seem, their opportunistic use of fire seems more closely in line with chimpanzee behavior than that of human beings, who create and control fire at will. In fact, Pruetz believes one reason chimpanzees don’t harvest natural fire relates to their lack of manual dexterity.

How Did Neanderthals Survive Cold Climates without Fire?

If Neanderthals were opportunistic exploiters of fire and it was only available to them when the climate was warm, how did they survive the cold? One possibility is that they simply migrated from cold climes to warmer ones.

Another possibility is that the hominins made clothing. At least, this is the common narrative about Neanderthals. Yet, recent work indicates that this popular depiction is incorrect. These creatures did not make clothing from animal skins, but instead made use of animal hides as capes.³

A team of paleoanthropologists reached this conclusion by studying the faunal remains at Neanderthal and modern human archeological sites and comparing them to a database of animals used to make cold weather clothing. While both modern humans and Neanderthals used deer, bison, and bear hides for body coverings, the remains of these creatures were found more frequently at modern human archeological sites. Additionally, the remains of smaller creatures, such as weasels, wolverines, and dogs were found at modern human sites but were absent from sites occupied by Neanderthals. These smaller animals have no food value. Instead, modern humans used the animal hides to trim clothing.

This data indicates that modern humans made much more frequent use of animal hides for clothing than did Neanderthals. And when modern humans made clothing, it was more elaborate and well-fitted than the coverings made by Neanderthals. This conclusion finds added support from the discovery of bone needles at modern human archeological sites (and the absence of these artifacts at Neanderthal sites), and reflects cognitive differences between human beings and Neanderthals.

Even though Neanderthals made poorly crafted body coverings and most likely made little use of fire during cold periods, they were aided in their survival of frigid conditions by the design of their bodies. Anthropologists describe Neanderthals as having a hyper-polar body design that made them well-adapted to live under frozen conditions. Neanderthal bodies were stout and compact, comprised of barrel-shaped torsos and shorter limbs, which helped them retain body heat. Their noses were long and sinus cavities extensive, which helped them warm the cold air they breathed before it reached their lungs. Neanderthals most likely survived the cold because of their body design, not because of their cognitive abilities.

Even though many paleoanthropologists assert that Neanderthals possessed cognitive abilities on par with modern humans, careful evaluation finds these claims wanting, time and time again, as the latest insights about fire use by these hominins attest.

Compared to the hominins, including Neanderthals, human beings do, indeed, appear to be exceptional in a way that aligns with the image of God. These are far from “frivolous issues.” The implications are profound.

What we think about Neanderthals really matters.

Resources

• Who Was Adam? by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross (book)
• Were Neanderthals People? A Response to Jon Mooallem by Fazale Rana (article)
• Did Neanderthals Make Jewelry? by Fazale Rana (article)
• Do Neanderthal Cave Structures Challenge Human Exceptionalism? by Fazale Rana (article)
• Did Neanderthals Bury Their Dead with Flowers? by Fazale Rana (article)
• Neanderthal Burials “Deep-Sixed” by Fazale Rana (article)
• One-of-a-Kind: Three Discoveries Affirm Human Uniqueness by Fazale Rana (article)
• Did Neanderthals Make Art? by Fazale Rana (article)
• Neanderthal Brains Make Them Unlikely Social Networkers by Fazale Rana (article)
• Speaking about a Controversy, Part 1 of 2 by Fazale Rana (article)
• Speaking about a Controversy, Part 2 of 2 by Fazale Rana (article)
• Science News Flash: Chimpanzees Use Tools to Fish for Algae by Fazale Rana (article)