It is one of the most iconic Christmas songs of all time.

Written by Bob Wells and Mel Torme in the summer of 1945, “The Christmas Song” (subtitled “Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire”) was crafted in less than an hour. As the story goes, Wells and Torme were trying to stay cool during the blistering summer heat by thinking cool thoughts and then jotting them down on paper. And, in the process, “The Christmas Song” was born.

Many of the song’s lyrics evoke images of winter, particularly around Christmastime. But none has come to exemplify the quiet peace of a Christmas evening more than the song’s first line, “Chestnuts roasting on an open fire . . . ”

Gathering around the fire to stay warm, to cook food, and to share in a community has been an integral part of the human experience throughout history—including human prehistory. Most certainly our ability to master fire played a role in our survival as a species and in our ability as human beings to occupy and thrive in some of the world’s coldest, harshest climates.

But fire use is not limited only to modern humans. There is strong evidence that Neanderthals made use of fire. But, did these creatures have control over fire in the same way we do? In other words, did Neanderthals master fire? Or, did they merely make opportunistic use of natural fires? These questions are hotly debated by anthropologists today and they contribute to a broader discussion about the cognitive capacity of Neanderthals. Part of that discussion includes whether these creatures were cognitively inferior to us or whether they were our intellectual equals.

In an attempt to answer these questions, a team of researchers from the Netherlands and France characterized the microwear patterns on bifacial (having opposite sides that have been worked on to form an edge) tools made from flint recovered from Neanderthal sites, and concluded that the wear patterns suggest that these hominins used pyrite to repeatedly strike the flint. This process generates sparks that can be used to start fires.¹ To put it another way, the researchers concluded that Neanderthals had mastery over fire because they knew how to start fires.

Figure 1: Biface tools for cutting or scraping. Image credit: Shutterstock

However, a closer examination of the evidence along with results of other studies, including recent insight into the cause of Neanderthal extinction, raises significant doubts about this conclusion.

What Do the Microwear Patterns on Flint Say?

The investigators focused on the microwear patterns of flint bifaces recovered from Neanderthal sites as a marker for fire mastery because of the well-known practice among hunter-gatherers and pastoralists of striking flint with pyrite (an iron disulfide mineral) to generate sparks to start fires. Presumably, the first modern humans also used this technique to start fires.

Figure 2: Starting a fire with pyrite and flint. Image credit: Shutterstock

The research team reasoned that if Neanderthals started fires, they would use a similar tactic. Careful examination of the microwear patterns on the bifaces led the research team to conclude that these tools were repeatedly struck by hard materials, with the strikes all occurring in the same direction along the bifaces’ long axis.

The researchers then tried to experimentally recreate the microwear pattern in a laboratory setting. To do so, they struck biface replicas with a number of different types of materials, including pyrites, and concluded that the patterns produced by the pyrite strikes most closely matched the patterns on the bifaces recovered from Neanderthal sites. On this basis, the researchers claim that they have found evidence that Neanderthals deliberately started fires.

Did Neanderthals Master Fire?

While this conclusion is possible, at best this study provides circumstantial, not direct, evidence for Neanderthal mastery of fire. In fact, other evidence counts against this conclusion. For example, bifaces with the same type of microwear patterns have been found at other Neanderthal sites, locales that show no evidence of fire use. These bifaces would have had a range of usages, including butchery of the remains of dead animals. So, it is possible that these tools were never used to start fires—even at sites with evidence for fire usage.

Another challenge to the conclusion comes from the failure to detect any pyrite on the bifaces recovered from the Neanderthal sites. Flint recovered from modern human sites shows visible evidence of pyrite. And yet the research team failed to detect even trace amounts of pyrite on the Neanderthal bifaces during the course of their microanalysis.

This observation raises further doubt about whether the flint from the Neanderthal sites was used as a fire starter tool. Rather, it points to the possibility that Neanderthals struck the bifaces with materials other than pyrite for reasons not yet understood.

The conclusion that Neanderthals mastered fire also does not square with results from other studies. For example, a careful assessment of archaeological sites in southern France occupied by Neanderthals from about 100,000 to 40,000 years ago indicates that Neanderthals could not create fire. Instead, these hominins made opportunistic use of natural fire when it was available to them.²

These French sites do show clear evidence of Neanderthal fire use, but when researchers correlated the archaeological layers displaying evidence for fire use with the 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 mastered fire.

Lightning strikes that would generate natural fires are much more likely to occur during warm periods. Instead of creating fire, Neanderthals most likely harnessed natural fire and cultivated it as long as they could before it extinguished.

Another study also raises questions about the ability of Neanderthals to start fires.³ This research indicates that cold climates triggered Neanderthal extinctions. By studying the chemical composition of stalagmites in two Romanian caves, an international research team concluded that there were two prolonged and extremely cold periods between 44,000 and 40,000 years ago. (The chemical composition of stalagmites varies with temperature.)

The researchers also noted that during these cold periods, the archaeological record for Neanderthals disappears. They interpret this disappearance to reflect a dramatic reduction in Neanderthal population numbers. Researchers speculate that when this population downturn took place during the first cold period, modern humans made their way into Europe. Being better suited for survival in the cold climate, modern human numbers increased. When the cold climate mitigated, Neanderthals were unable to recover their numbers because of the growing populations of modern humans in Europe. Presumably, after the second cold period, Neanderthal numbers dropped to the point that they couldn’t recover, and hence, became extinct.

But why would modern humans be more capable than Neanderthals of surviving under extremely cold conditions? It seems as if it should be the other way around. Neanderthals had a hyper-polar body design that made them ideally suited to withstand cold 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. But, despite this advantage, Neanderthals died out and modern humans thrived.

Some anthropologists believe that the survival discrepancy could be due to dietary differences. Some data indicates that modern humans had a more varied diet than Neanderthals. Presumably, these creatures primarily consumed large herbivores—animals that disappeared when the climatic conditions turned cold, thereby threatening Neanderthal survival. On the other hand, modern humans were able to adjust to the cold conditions by shifting their diets.

But could there be a different explanation? Could it be that with their mastery of fire, modern humans were able to survive cold conditions? And did Neanderthals die out because they could not start fires?

Taken in its entirety, the data seems to indicate that Neanderthals lacked mastery of fire but could use it opportunistically. And, in a broader context, the data indicates that Neanderthals were cognitively inferior to humans.

What Difference Does It Make?

One of the most important ideas taught in Scripture is that human beings uniquely bear God’s image. As such, every human being has immeasurable worth and value. And because we bear God’s image, we can enter into a relationship with our Maker.

However, if Neanderthals possessed advanced cognitive ability just like that of modern humans, then it becomes difficult to maintain the view that modern humans are unique and exceptional. If human beings aren’t exceptional, then it becomes a challenge to defend the idea that human beings are made in God’s image.

Yet, claims that Neanderthals are cognitive equals to modern humans fail to withstand scientific scrutiny, time and time, again. Now it’s time to light a fire in my fireplace and enjoy a few contemplative moments thinking about the real meaning of Christmas.

Resources

• Who Was Adam? by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross (book)
• “Were Neanderthals People, Too? A Response to Jon Mooallem” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “New Research Douses Claim that Neanderthals Mastered Fire” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “One-of-a-Kind: Three Discoveries Affirm Human Uniqueness” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Neanderthal Brains Make Them Unlikely Social Networkers” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Differences in Human and Neanderthal Brains Explain Human Exceptionalism” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Did Neanderthals Have the Brains to Make Art?” by Fazale Rana (article)

We’ve all had journeys of various kinds. Sometimes the conceptual ones are the toughest. They’re fraught with uncertainty, fear, even peril—but the rewards of a satisfying destination make the upheaval more than worthwhile. Such was my case as I sought to understand the truth on the issue of the earth’s age.

As the title suggests, my journey from young-earth creationism (YEC) was indeed “a journey,” a portentous one filled with all the anxiety and expectation of an unforeseen expedition. I imagined myself as the audacious Professor Otto Lidenbrock, from the Jules Verne classic, Journey to the Centre of the Earth, with his indefatigable determination to discover the truth behind the coded note found in his newly purchased runic text. But, in my case it was the original text of Genesis 1, along with other relevant creation passages, which I was determined to understand. While I did not lock my family up without food until I was able to interpret the texts, I did spend countless hours in solitude. I wanted to analyze and understand all the biblical and scientific evidence thoroughly, without presumption or prejudice. I was determined to learn without allowing fear, criticism, relationships, or ministry concerns to influence the outcome of my investigation.¹ I was pursuing the truth, and I knew that calling on “the Spirit of truth” (John 14:17) was the answer. I also knew that he who was “the way and the truth” (John 14:6) would give me the proper understanding of his Word and works.

My Starting Point

Before this fortuitous trek, I was a devoted and ardent defender of YEC. I taught its tenets from the pulpit of my church and on TV and radio, and I produced YEC-related material. My feet were firmly planted in young-earth soil, and I was convinced through the work of others that science supported, and even proved, the earth and universe were only six to ten thousand years old. Further, and more importantly, I was convinced that the only option for a Bible-believing, Southern Baptist inerrantist and thoroughgoing biblicist (who was also a classic dispensationalist by birth right and conviction) was to interpret the days of Genesis as normal 24-hour days, which necessarily implied such an age.

My commitment to YEC was a matter of honoring God’s Word; thus, my championing of this position was a matter of orthodoxy and biblical infallibility. Therefore, to deny YEC was akin to calling God a liar and allowing science to tell us that the Bible was errant and Genesis 1 was myth. I was committed to defending YEC and I considered myself a creation science apologist with ambitions to serve the Lord and evangelize through that message.

A Turning Point

But, a noonday signaling shadow caught my attention, and a journey from the center of a young earth became inevitable. The caverns of my mind were enlightened and the light exposed the epistemological blind spots of my thinking. The shadows of my untested presuppositions were revealed, and I could not remain idle. What were these crucial insights that necessitated the journey from young earth creationism?

After finishing my doctoral studies in 2006, I took the opportunity to further explore the philosophical issues that caught my attention during my study and research. The two most intriguing and relevant matters were in the realm of epistemology and metaphysics. Later these two fundamental themes would serve as (two of three) main divisions in my book, The One Who Is: The Doctrine and Existence of God.

Epistemological Help along the Way

The first and most important factor for any person who desires to know truth and the nature of reality is to acquire the understanding of “how we know what we know.” This is epistemology, and to have “blind spots” here is to be subject to forming premature or erroneous conclusions in a matter. To be more specific, as a pastor and theologian, I have discovered that many Christians will allow unknown and untested presuppositions or preunderstandings to drive their interpretation of a given text of Scripture. And, most of the time they are unaware that they have “packed bags” or “mental luggage” that contributes to their understanding of Scripture and of the nature of reality. Other times, these preunderstandings are not only known, but also are deemed proper due to some otherunknown or untested presumption. In our day, it is not uncommon for someone to come to Scripture with the thought that God can speak to them in such a way that nothing else is needed in the acquisition of knowledge. Further, this view is blind to the fact that reality and reason have contributed to their understanding already, and yet those components are discarded as a source of knowing the truth and/or interpreting Scripture.

This mindset appears to be an honorable, spiritual approach to epistemology but it is beset with problems. A thorough treatment of epistemology is impossible in this short article, but a few important points should be mentioned by way of analogy. Our knowing starts with an input device called “sense perception” and our biosystem comes with a very large preformatted “mind-drive” that is ready to be written on by the experience of reality. The first principle written on our mind is the law of noncontradiction, which is followed by the law of identity and supplemented by the law of the excluded middle (called the laws of thought²). From there, our minds engage in the act of apprehension and judgment. The first act of the mind is simple apprehension (conceptus) where a noun or verb is conceptually understood. The second act of the mind is judgment (judicium), where composite understanding takes place and where the mind composes and/or divides subject and predicate. Here subject and predicate are composed into a sentence and knowledge is obtained. Throughout one’s life and experiences the mind apprehends and judges. That’s how things become known. Correct judgments will keep a person from developing erroneous preunderstandings and/or conclusions, and the simple awareness and intentional application of reason will serve in their discovery of truth.

Metaphysical Help

Now, imagine that a person has not considered “how we know what we know,” and comes to Scripture presupposing the ability to properly interpret a text apart from the input of reality and reason³ (or proper hermeneutics). Moreover, this person does not further investigate issues of metaphysics (nature of reality), and fails to understand how, for example, predications (production of meaningful statements) should be applied to God. As finite creatures with finite words and concepts, should we assume that our words and concepts apply to the infinite (God) in a univocal (one-to-one) manner?⁴ I would say no. Such an approach runs the danger of misinterpreting Scripture through wrong assumptions and epistemological blind spots.

Getting There

God is as much the author of reason as he is of Scripture, and the two must harmonize or we have interpreted either one or both incorrectly. God has designed his creation such that all people will be subject to the nature of reality as he has created it. (Therefore, the related issue of the relationship of faith and reason must be addressed—see part 2). Once I understood that God was the author of creation and the Bible then I knew that they must agree, and that reason could be helpful in understanding Scripture. I was well on my way out of the center of the YEC paradigm and into a better place of understanding.

Physicians possess various tools for determining the health status of your heart. In addition to stethoscopes, physicians possess advanced instruments like electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, and angiograms to determine the health of human hearts. Likewise, astronomers now possess advanced telescope and imaging instruments to determine the health of our Milky Way Galaxy’s heart. These instruments reveal an unusual “health” that speaks of galaxy design.

MeerKAT and the Square Kilometer Array
The latest and most advanced of these tools is the MeerKAT telescope in South Africa (see figure 1). MeerKAT is the first phase of the Square Kilometer Array (SKA).

Figure 1: One of 64 Radio Telescopes Comprising the MeerKAT Array. Each telescope has a collecting area of 15 meters in height and 12 meters in width (49 feet by 40 feet). Image credit: Morganoshell, Creative Commons Attribution

The array will consist of thousands of parabolic dishes like the one in figure 1 plus thousands of dipole antennae (see figure 2). Both the array of parabolic dishes and the dipole antenna array will have a collecting area of one square kilometer. About half of the parabolic dishes and dipole antennae will be located in South Africa and the other half in Australia.

Figure 2: Part of the Dipole Antennae Component of the Square Kilometer Array. Image credit: SKA Project Development Office and Swinburne Astronomy Productions

The enormous collecting area of the SKA will make it fifty times more sensitive than any other radio telescope. The SKA will be built to simultaneously and continuously collect radio light over a very broad frequency range: 50 Hertz to 14 Gigahertz. The amount of data the SKA can collect is greater than the entire global internet traffic as of 2014. The data will be processed by an equally impressive array of supercomputers. Eleven nations are committed to fund and build the SKA: Australia, Canada, China, India, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom.

Probing the Heart of the Milky Way Galaxy
I explain some technical details in the next section. Feel free to skim as you make your way to Philosophical Implications.

MeerKAT’s first major achievement was the production of the most-detailed radio wavelength map of the region of the center of the Milky Way Galaxy (MWG). MeerKAT astronomers mapped this region with a resolution of 6 arcseconds (1/600th of a degree), more than ten times more precise than any previous attempt.

MeerKAT’s first major discovery was finding two radio bubbles above and below the central core of our galaxy.¹ Astronomers have found gigantic radio bubbles in other galaxies but these bubbles are much smaller. They are, however, by far the largest that astronomers have discovered in our galaxy. Together they stretch out over 430 parsecs (1,400 light-years). Their width is 140 parsecs (460 light-years). For comparison the Sun is 25,900 light-years away from the galactic center.²

From observations of similar radio bubbles in the cores of other large galaxies, astronomers know that such bubbles are the remnants of energetic eruptions of hot gas. The 99 astronomers who published the MeerKAT discovery, led by Ian Heywood, Fernando Camilo, and L. P. Williams, offered two possible explanations for the bubbles.

One explanation is that the 4-million-solar-mass black hole at the galactic center³ injested a large amount of matter in the relatively recent past. When supermassive black holes gobble up matter in this way, they trigger outbursts just outside the black hole’s event horizon that result in large radio bubbles.

The second explanation involves a “starburst” event near the galactic center. A starburst occurs when a hundred or more large and giant stars form all at once within a small region. These stars burn through their nuclear fuel quickly, culminating in supernova eruptions. The near simultaneous supernova eruptions send out enormous, powerful shock waves that blow a big hole in the thick interstellar medium existing in the galactic core.

As the 99 authors point out, a combination of outbursts from outside the supermassive black hole’s event horizon and a starburst event likely would have reinforced the building of the radio bubbles. The team determined that the total energy involved in the bubbles equals 7 x 10⁵² ergs, which is equivalent to the amount of energy emitted by 580 million Suns in one year.

The measured radio spectrum of the bubbles revealed that its energy source is synchrotron radiation (nonthermal radiation generated by fast-moving electrons traveling through magnetic fields), which allowed the astronomers to determine the bubbles’ cooling time. Assuming no substantial deceleration in the bubbles’ growth (a reasonable assumption given the energy in the bubbles), the researchers calculated that the two bubbles are approximately 7 million years old. This age proves interesting to astronomers because a known starburst event occurred just 0.5 parsecs (1.6 light-years) from the MWG’s supermassive black hole about 6 million years ago.⁴

Another extraordinary feature about the two bubbles is that they apparently explain the origin of a network of more than 100 magnetized radio filaments in the galactic center region⁵ that have mystified astronomers since they were first discovered 35 years ago (see figure 3).⁶ These filaments exist nowhere else in the MWG. Like the two radio bubbles, these filaments are polarized and possess a synchrotron radiation spectrum. They are spatially associated with the two radio bubbles.

Figure 3: Some of the Radio Filaments in the Galactic Center Region. The bright region (left center) is the location of the supermassive black hole. The linear radio filaments are above and to the right of this area. This map was produced by a combination of Very Large Array and Greenbank Telescope data. image credit: NRAO/AUI/NSF, Yusef-Zadeh et al.

The team of 99 showed that when their map is viewed in projection, the two “bubble cavities contain an enhanced number of bright and multiple-filament complexes.”⁷ Hence, they concluded “the event that generated the bubbles was also the source of the relativistic particles required to illuminate the filaments on a large scale.”⁸ They further concluded that the two radio-wavelength bubbles they discovered were “a less energetic version of a process similar to that which created the Fermi bubbles”⁹ (which two different teams of astronomers discovered at gamma-ray-wavelengths in 2013).¹⁰

Philosophical Implications
The large team of researchers did not draw any philosophical implications from their discovery other than to comment that the two radio bubbles they discovered are an “example of a series of such intermittent events” that explain “the observed radio, X-ray and γ-ray structures”¹¹ in the region of the galactic center. However, as an astronomer I think their measurements and those by the teams that discovered the Fermi bubbles establish that when these events occur, they are, at best, detrimental to human health and catastrophic to human civilization and, at worst, deadly to all humans.

As I have described in several previous blogs,¹² we live in an exceptionally quiet, undisturbed galaxy. The MWG is the only known large galaxy with no merger events with large-dwarf or medium-sized galaxies over the past 10 billion years and with a small enough supermassive black hole to make advanced life possible somewhere in the galaxy.

In spite of the exceptionally small size of our galaxy’s supermassive black hole, events detrimental or deadly to humans and human civilization frequently occur, as this discovery and other measurements show. The good news is that humans happen to be living in between such events, highlighting the fact that at the present time our galaxy’s heart is conspicuously healthy. Such fortuitous events rank as more evidence that can be added to the abundance that already exists¹³ that the timing of our entry to Earth’s surface was no accident. It must have been planned and orchestrated.

Featured image: Galactic Center Region of the Milky Way Galaxy in the Infrared
Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Spitzer Science Center

What would you say is the most readily recognizable scientific icon? Is it DNA, a telescope, or maybe a test tube?

Figure 1: Scientific Icons. Image credit: Shutterstock

Marketing experts recognize the power of icons. When used well, icons prompt consumers to instantly identify a brand or product. They can also communicate a powerful message with a single glance.

Though many skeptics question if it’s science at all, the intelligent design movement has identified a powerful icon that communicates its message. Today, when most people see an image the bacterial flagellum they immediately think: Intelligent Design.

This massive protein complex powerfully communicates sophisticated engineering that could only come from an Intelligent Agent. And along these lines, it serves as a powerful piece of evidence for a Creator’s handiwork. Careful study of its molecular architecture and operation provides detailed evidence that an Intelligent Agent must be responsible for biochemical systems and, hence, the origin of life. And, as it turns out, the more we learn about the bacterial flagellum, the more evident it becomes that a Creator must have played a role in the origin and design of life—at least at the biochemical level—as new research from Japan illustrates.¹

The Bacterial Flagellum

This massive protein complex looks like a whip extending from the bacterial cell surface. Some bacteria have only a single flagellum, others possess several flagella. Rotation of the flagellum(a) allows the bacterial cell to navigate its environment in response to various chemical signals.

Figure 2: Typical Bacteria with Flagella. Image credit: Shutterstock

An ensemble of 30 to 40 different proteins makes up the typical bacterial flagellum. These proteins function in concert as a literal rotary motor. The flagellum’s components include a rotor, stator, drive shaft, bushing, universal joint, and propeller. It is essentially a molecular-sized electrical motor directly analogous to human-produced rotary motors. The rotation is powered by positively charged hydrogen ions flowing through the motor proteins embedded in the inner membrane.

Figure 3: The Bacterial Flagellum. Image credit: Wikipedia

The Bacterial Flagellum and the Revitalized Watchmaker Argument

Typically, when intelligent design proponents/creationists use the bacterial flagellum to make the case for a Creator, they focus the argument on its irreducibly complex nature. I prefer a different tact. I like to emphasize the eerie similarity between rotary motors created by human designers and nature’ bacterial flagella.

The bacterial flagellum is just one of a large number of protein complexes with machine-like attributes. (I devote an entire chapter to biomolecular machines in my book The Cell’s Design.) Collectively, these biomolecular machines can be deployed to revitalize the Watchmaker argument.

Popularized by William Paley in the eighteenth century, this argument states that as a watch requires a watchmaker, so too, life requires a Creator. Following Paley’s line of reasoning, a machine is emblematic of systems produced by intelligent agents. Biomolecular machines display the same attributes as human-crafted machines. Therefore, if the work of intelligent agents is necessary to explain the genesis of machines, shouldn’t the same be true for biochemical systems?

Skeptics inspired by atheist philosopher David Hume have challenged this simple, yet powerful, analogy. They argue that the analogy would be compelling only if there is a high degree of similarity between the objects that form the analogy. Skeptics have long argued that biochemical systems and machines are too dissimilar to make the Watchmaker argument work.

However, the striking similarity between the machine parts of the bacterial flagellum and human-made machines cause this objection to evaporate. New work on flagella by Japanese investigators lends yet more support to the Watchmaker analogy.

New Insights into the Structure and Function of the Flagellum’s Universal Joint

The flagellum’s universal joint (sometimes referred to as the hook) transfers the torque generated by the motor to the propeller. The research team wanted to develop a deeper understanding of the relationship between the molecular structure of the hook and how the structural features influence its function as a universal joint.

Comprised of nearly 100 copies (monomers) of a protein called FlgE, the hook is a curved, tube-like structure with a hollow interior. FlgE monomers stack on top of each other to form a protofilament. Eleven protofilaments organize to form the hook’s tube, with the long axis of the protofilament aligning to form the long axis of the hook.

Each FlgE monomer consists of three domains, called D0, D1, and D2. The researchers discovered that when the FlgE monomers stack to form a protofilament, the D0, D1, and D2 domains of each of the monomers align along the length of the protofilament to form three distinct regions in the hook. These layers have been labeled the tube layer, the mesh layer, and the spring layer.

During the rotation of the flagellum, the protofilaments experience compression and extension. The movement of the domains, which changes their spatial arrangement relative to one another, mediates the compression and extension. These domain movements allow the hook to function as a universal joint that maintains a rigid tube shape against a twisting “force,” while concurrently transmitting torque from the motor to the flagellum’s filament as it bends along its axis.

Regardless of one’s worldview, it is hard not to marvel at the sophisticated and elegant design of the flagellum’s hook!

The Bacterial Flagellum and the Case for a Creator

If the Watchmaker argument holds validity, it seems reasonable to think that the more we learn about protein complexes, such as the bacterial flagellum, the more machine-like they should appear to be. This work by the Japanese biochemists bears out this assumption. The more we characterize biomolecular machines, the more reason we have to think that life stems from a Creator’s handiwork.

Dynamic properties of the hook assembly add to the Watchmaker argument (when applied to the bacterial flagellum). This structure is much more sophisticated and ingenious than the design of a typical universal joint crafted by human designers. This elegance and ingenuity of the hook are exactly the attributes I would expect if a Creator played a role in the origin and design of life.

Message received, loud and clear.

Resources

• The Cell’s Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator’s Artistry by Fazale Rana (Book)

The Bacterial Flagellum and the Case for a Creator

• “The Provocative Case for Intelligent Design: New Discovery Highlights Machine-Like Character of the Bacterial Flagellum” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Bacterial Flagellum Structure Stacks the Case for Intelligent Design” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Manufacturing the Case for Intelligent Design” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Increasing the Torque on Intelligent Design” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Changing Gears” by David Rogstad (article)

Can Intelligent Design Be Part of the Scientific Construct?

• “Is SETI an Intelligent Design Program?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Can Science Detect the Creator’s Fingerprints in Nature?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Can Intelligent Design Be Part of the Construct of Science?” by Fazale Rana (article)

RTB is committed to the goal of showing exemplary character when Christians disagree with one another. We aim to do so respectfully and humbly as we pursue and help others pursue truth. Such respect and humility become especially important when we disagree on topics of importance such as how to reconcile scientific data and biblical accounts of human origins.

You may wonder how people who are committed to seeking the truth can often interpret the data so differently. The reality is that disagreement is not just an issue in science and theology but in all areas of human reasoning and worldview formation. It’s known as the underdetermination of a theory.¹ People who readily acknowledge this underdetermination often qualify their acknowledgment by adding that although this is true, science (or observational or empirical data of any kind) can rule out certain theories as inconsistent with the data. Obviously this addendum is also true.

Yet, the underdetermination of theories also means that there are (and always will be) theories in obvious conflict that are, nevertheless, empirical equivalents. This means that they account for the empirical data equally but differently. Still some theories may require more ad hoc (unevidenced) assumptions or additions to fit the same data into one or more possible theories.

Applying Respectful Dialogue in Light of the Underdetermination of Theories

I recently appeared on The Language of God (LoG), a podcast produced by BioLogos and hosted by philosopher James (Jim) Stump.² Stump interviewed several people about the topic of Adam and Eve and the scientific data supporting or challenging their existence, their relationship to our current human populations, and the dating of any possible historical progenitor pair.³ Stump did an excellent job of asking pertinent scientific and theological questions.

In an episode entitled “Adam and Eve” Stump and Deborah (Deb) Haarsma, president of BioLogos, discuss complex topics touching on science and Scripture and what each is telling us about Adam and Eve and human origins. Interspersed in their discussion are comments from the guests Stump interviewed earlier.

Together, Stump and Haarsma highlight the biggest theological issues that arise from perceived and real tensions at the interface of mainstream science and traditional biblical views. These issues include biblical authority itself, as well as accounting for the universality of human sinfulness and the image of God in humanity.

Stump acknowledges a range of perspectives on issues of how best to understand Adam and Eve in the biblical account of creation found in Genesis. He promises not to provide a definitive answer to such complex questions, but rather ways to think about the issues that help maintain a commitment to the truthfulness of God’s revelations in Scripture and in the natural world (via science). I commend him on his approach and success in clearly articulating various views.

As Stump introduces the possible ways to reconcile the biblical data with the scientific data, he offers three varying views of Adam and Eve. These are the three most prominent among possible views for considering who Adam and Eve were, and they serve as topics in the 3-chapter podcast.

• Chapter 1: Sole progenitor pair
• Chapter 2: Representative pair
• Chapter 3: Nonhistorical figures (some would say archetypical or literary)

I was pleased to participate and share my views with Stump for production of this LoG podcast. Although my views are rightly reflected, I was a bit disappointed when I listened to the podcast. Let me share why.

Sole Progenitor Pair at an Intermediate Date

In the LoG episode, three distinct ideas are conflated: (1) the sole-progenitor model of human origins, (2) “traditional” understanding of human origins, and (3) a young-earth creationist (YEC) model of human origins. This conflation obscures the fact that RTB has a tenable model of human origins which affirms traditional commitments, such as sole-progenitorship.

For brevity’s sake, I will refer to three ways to describe the dating of the sole progenitor pair: recent (less than 10-12 kya [thousand years ago]), intermediate (50-200 kya), and ancient (>450 kya). Stump and Haarsma acknowledge that the sole progenitor pair has some alternate possible datings (not just a couple constrained to YEC recent interpretations). But it is unfortunate that RTB’s sole progenitor model—with an intermediate dating for Adam and Eve—is not presented well, especially when three of the five guests might find an intermediate dating for the sole progenitor pair model much more tenable than the impression the podcast leaves.

The hosts seem to reject correlation of the data with dates (for a sole progenitor pair) younger than about 10 kya and older than about 300 kya based on general observations related to:

• Recent dating of widespread agricultural signs in the archeological record leads to rejection of dating in line with an intermediate or ancient view.
• Multiple allele frequency or allele frequency spectrum data (a measurement of population diversity based on comparing similar sites within human chromosomes)⁴ indicates that dates younger than 500 kya should be rejected. And according to BioLogos participant Dennis Venema, biologist at Trinity Western University, scientific analysis can’t tell us anything reliable about human origins at or beyond that 500 ky point.
• Fossil records of anatomically modern human remains, dating back 200–300 kya, indicate that more recent dating should be rejected (<10 ky).
• Claims that modern human behaviors such as use of fire date back to very early dates (circa 500 kya) lead to rejection of an early or intermediate dating.

Stump admits the complexity of the discussion, and I readily acknowledge that the BioLogos hosts cannot address all the details.

Nevertheless, the RTB model can account for all the points raised above, perhaps with some modifications to underlying assumptions. Yet the hosts do not consider the RTB model in their analysis. They present the data in support of an evolutionary interpretation of human origins, calling for a very ancient sole progenitor pair or a very recent (perhaps non-historical) Adam and Eve—neglecting and/or rejecting RTB’s model with an intermediate dating (50–200 kya) for a sole progenitor pair. We are in the process of addressing points of tension between the RTB model and mainstream science. Yet the RTB sole progenitor pair model successfully fits the scientific data and the biblical data within this intermediate range, and acknowledging this would have brought clarity to the general listener.

Interpreting Human Population Genetics

Venema addresses the genetic data, which Haarsma seems to indicate is what persuaded her not to hold an intermediate date for Adam and Eve. Unfortunately, I think the data and interpretation presented to listeners are filled with inaccuracies. Through multiple conversations over the past two years with computational biologist and founder of Peaceful Science, S. Joshua Swamidass, it has become clear to me that the perspective shared in this podcast is scientifically unsubstantiated.

Recently, in a lecture presented to the RTB scholar community, Swamidass, a Christian who affirms evolutionary science, graciously explained how the evidence against RTB’s position has been overstated. In his presentation, Swamidass explains how some of the arguments against RTB’s model have included misrepresentations of population genetics that cannot be found in the peer-review literature. For example, it was often reported that population genetics estimates of ancestral population size are the minimum population size, rather than the average population size.

However, by modeling population diversity and dynamics (with many evolutionary, mainstream scientific assumptions considered), it is possibly consistent with the evidence that our ancestral population dipped to as low as 10–20 individuals at 200 kya, and possibly to a single couple near 500 kya (or even more recently if other data is incorporated into the modeling, such as interbreeding with other hominids).

The podcast hosts don’t address these caveats and, along with Venema, repeat the unsubstantiated claim that the human population never dipped below thousands in the previous 500 ky. They agree a bottleneck less than thousands can be definitely ruled out. I think they brush aside the intermediate dating of a sole progenitor pair too quickly and without a fair representation of the data.

Disappointed but Looking Forward to Further Dialogue

To summarize, I think the hosts dismissed RTB’s intermediate sole progenitor pair position without adequate representation of the data or our model. Of course, the time constraints would not permit detailed analysis of RTB’s model nor was this the focus of the podcast. We acknowledge that some assessments of genetic data and their significance to the RTB model are works in progress. We are always ready to acknowledge when our model needs revision, and we expect some adjustments may be necessary in light of accumulating genetic data and subsequent computational analyses. We are working with Peaceful Science to examine these possibilities and refine our model as needed.

As an RTB scholar I was looking for an acknowledgement that we have an empirically equivalent model that dates a sole progenitor pair to an intermediate date, and that correlates much of the scientific and biblical data within this range. It would have given the listener a clearer understanding of options in this category. I hope the hosts will take a closer look at Who Was Adam?, the genetic data, and Swamidass’s presentation, and revise their future commentaries.

Yet despite my disappointment, I was treated with graciousness and respect on this podcast and have always been throughout my history with RTB in interactions with our colleagues at BioLogos. Certainly, none of us knows the details of God’s creation perfectly. I hope I always remember to treat others’ positions fairly and to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially when we find ourselves honestly interpreting the same data differently.

Like those at BioLogos and Peaceful Science, we at RTB are committed to continuing the conversation with respect and humility, as we engage in the intellectual exchange of possible interpretations and pursuit of the truth. As iron sharpens iron so one person sharpens another. We are looking forward to continuing the dialogue at an upcoming workshop at RTB (January 2020). And I’m looking forward to writing future blogs that share these dialogues and aspects of the RTB human origins model as they continue to develop.

In high school I was a bit of a troublemaker. It wasn’t out of the ordinary for me to be summoned to Mr. Reynolds’ office—the school’s vice principal—for some misdeed or other. After a few office visits, I quickly learned the value of a good story. If convincing enough, I could defray the accusations leveled against me. All I had to do was create plausible deniability.

Story Telling in the Evolutionary Paradigm

Storytelling isn’t just the purview of a mischievous kid facing the music in the principal’s office, it is part of the construct of science.

Recent work by a team of scientific investigators from the University of Florida (UF) highlights the central role that storytelling plays in evolutionary biology.¹ In fact, it is not uncommon for evolutionary biologists to weave grand narratives that offer plausible evolutionary stories for the emergence of biological or behavioral traits. And, though these accounts seem scientific, they are often unverifiable scientific explanations.

Inspired by Rudyard Kipling’s (1865–1936) book of children’s origin stories, the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) referred to these evolutionary tales as just-so stories. To be fair, others have been critical of Gould’s cynical view of evolutionary accounts, arguing that, in reality, just-so stories in evolutionary biology are actually hypotheses about evolutionary transformations. But still, more often than not, these “hypotheses” appear to be little more than convenient fictions.

An Evolutionary Just-So Story of Moths and Bats

The traditional evolutionary account of ultrasonic sound detection in nocturnal moths serves as a case in point. Moths (and butterflies) belong to one of the most important groups of insects: lepidoptera. This group consists of about 160,000 species, with nocturnal moths comprising over 75 percent of the group.

Moths play a key role in ecosystems. For example, they serve as one of the primary food sources for bats. Bats use echolocation to help them locate moths at night. Bats emit ultrasonic cries that bounce off the moths and reflect back to the bats, giving these predators the pinpoint location of the moths, even during flight.

Many nocturnal moth species have defenses that help them escape predation by bats. One defense is ears (located in different areas of their bodies) that detect ultrasonic sounds. This capability allows the moths to hear the bats coming and get out of their way.

For nearly a half century, evolutionary biologists explained moths’ ability to hear ultrasonic sounds as the outworking of an “evolutionary arms race” between echolocating bats and nocturnal moths. Presumably, bats evolved the ability to echolocate, allowing them to detect and prey upon moths at night by plucking them out of the air in mid-flight. In response, some groups of moths evolved ears that allowed them to detect the ultrasonic screeches emitted by bats, helping them to avoid detection.

Figure: Flying Pipistrelle bat. Image credit: Shutterstock

For 50 years, biologists have studied the relationship between echolocating bats and nocturnal moths with the assumption that this explanation is true. (I doubt Mr. Reynolds ever assumed my stories were true.) In fact, evolutionary accounts like this one provide evidence for the idea of coevolution. Advanced by Paul Ehrlich and Peter Raven in 1964, this evolutionary model maintains that ecosystems are shaped by species that affect one another’s evolution.

If the UF team’s work is to be believed, then it turns out that the story recounting the evolutionary arms race between nocturnal moths and echolocating bats is fictional. As team member Jesse Barber, a researcher who has studied bats and moths, complains, “Most of the introductions I’ve written in my papers [describing the coevolution of bats and moths] are wrong.”²

An Evolutionary Study on the Origin of Moths and Butterflies

To reach this conclusion, the UF team generated the most robust evolutionary tree (phylogeny) for lepidopterans to date. They also developed an understanding of the timing of events in lepidopteran natural history. They were motivated to take on this challenge because of the ecological importance of moths and butterflies. As noted, these insects play a central role in terrestrial ecosystems all over the world and coevolutionary models provide the chief explanations for their place in these ecosystems. But, as the UF researchers note, “These hypotheses have not been rigorously tested, because a robust lepidopteran phylogeny and timing of evolutionary novelties are lacking.”³

To remedy this problem, the researchers built a lepidopteran evolutionary tree from a data set of DNA sequences that collectively specified 2,100 protein-coding genes from 186 lepidopteran species. These species represented all the major divisions within this biological group. Then, they dated the evolutionary timing of key events in lepidopteran natural history from the fossil record.

Based on their analysis, the research team concluded that the first lepidopteran appeared around 300 million years ago. This creature fed on nonvascular plants. Around 240 million years ago, lepidopterans with tubelike proboscises (long, sucking mouthpiece) appeared, allowing these insects to extract nectar from flowering plants.

These results cohere with the coevolutionary model that the first lepidopterans fed internally on plants and, later, externally, as they evolved the ability to access nectar from plants. Flowering plants appear around 260 million years ago, which is about the time that the tubelike proboscis appears in lepidopterans.

But perhaps the most important and stunning finding from their study stems from the appearance of hearing organs in moths. It looks as if these organs arose independently 9 separate times—around 80 to 90 million years ago—well before bats began to echolocate. (The earliest known bat from the fossil record with the capacity to echolocate is around 45 to 50 million years old.)

The UF investigators uncovered another surprising result related to the appearance of butterflies. They discovered that butterflies became diurnal (active in the daytime) around 98 million years ago. According to the traditional evolutionary story, butterflies (which are diurnal) evolved from nocturnal moths when they transitioned to daytime activities to escape predation of echolocating bats, which feed at night. But as with the origin of hearing organs in moths, the transition from nocturnal to diurnal behavior occurred well before the first appearance of echolocating bats and seems to have occurred independently at least two separate times.

It Just Isn’t So

The UF evolutionary biologists’ study demonstrates that the coevolutionary models for the origin of hearing organs in moths and diurnal behavior of butterflies—dominant for over a half century in evolutionary thought—are nothing more than just-so stories. They appear to make sense on the surface but are no closer to the truth than the tales I would weave in Mr. Reynolds’ office.

In light of this discovery, the research team posits two new evolutionary models for the origin of these two traits, respectively. Now scientists think that the evolutionary emergence of hearing organs in moths may have provided these insects the capacity for auditory surveillance of their environment. Their capacity to hear may have helped them detect the low-frequency sounds of flapping bird wings, for example, and avoid predation. Presumably, these same hearing organs later evolved to detect the high-frequency cries of bats. As for the evolutionary origin of diurnal behavior characteristic of butterflies, researchers now speculate that butterflies became diurnal to take advantage of flowers that bloom in the daytime.

Again, on the surface, these explanations seem plausible. But one has to wonder if these models, like their predecessors, are little more than just-so stories. In fact, this study raises a general concern: How much confidence can we place in any evolutionary account? Could it be that other evolutionary accounts are, in reality, good stories, but in the end will turn out to be just as fanciful as the stories written by Rudyard Kipling?

In and of itself, recognizing that many evolutionary models could just be stories doesn’t provide sufficient warrant for skepticism about the evolutionary paradigm. But it does give pause for thought. Plus, two insights from this study raise real concerns about the capacity of evolutionary processes to account for life’s history and diversity:

1. The discovery that ultrasonic hearing in moths arose independently nine separate times
2. The discovery that diurnal behavior in butterflies appeared independently in at least two separate instances

Convergence

Evolutionary biologists use the term convergence to refer to the independent origin of identical or nearly identical biological and behavioral traits in organisms that cluster into unrelated groups.

Convergence isn’t a rare phenomenon or limited to the independent origin of hearing organs in moths and diurnal behavior in butterflies. Instead, it is a widespread occurrence in biology, as evolutionary biologists Simon Conway Morris and George McGhee document in their respective books Life’s Solution and Convergent Evolution. It appears as if the evolutionary process routinely arrives at the same outcome, time and time again.⁴ In fact, biologists observe these repeated outcomes at the ecological, organismal, biochemical, and genetic levels.

From my perspective, the widespread occurrence of convergent evolution is a feature of biology that evolutionary theory can’t explain. I see the widespread occurrence of convergence as a failed scientific prediction of the evolutionary paradigm.

Convergence Should Be Rare, Not Widespread

In effect, chance governs biological and biochemical evolution at its most fundamental level. Evolutionary pathways consist of a historical sequence of chance genetic changes operated on by natural selection, which, too, consists of chance components. The consequences are profound. If evolutionary events could be repeated, the outcome would be dramatically different every time. The inability of evolutionary processes to retrace the same path makes it highly unlikely that the same biological and biochemical designs should appear repeatedly throughout nature.⁵

In support of this view, consider a 2002 landmark study carried out by two Canadian investigators who simulated macroevolutionary processes using autonomously replicating computer programs. In their study, the computer programs operated like digital organisms.⁶ The programs could be placed into different “ecosystems” and, because they replicate autonomously, they could evolve. By monitoring the long-term evolution of these digital organisms, the two researchers determined that evolutionary outcomes are historically contingent and unpredictable. Every time they placed the same digital organism in the same environment, it evolved along a unique trajectory.

In other words, given the historically contingent nature of the evolutionary mechanisms, we would expect convergence to be rare in the biological realm. Yet, biologists continue to uncover example after example of convergent features—some of which are quite astounding.

Bat Echolocation and Convergence

Biologists have discovered one such example of convergence in the origin of echolocating bats. Echolocation appears to have arisen two times independently: once in microbats and once in Rhinolophidae, a superfamily of megabats.⁷ Prior to this discovery, reported in 2000, biologists classified Rhinolophidae as a microbat based on their capability to echolocate. But DNA evidence indicates that this superfamily has greater affinity to megabats than to microbats. This result means that echolocation must have originated separately in the microbats and Rhinolophidae. Researchers have also shown that the same genetic and biochemical changes occurred in microbats and megabats to create their echolocating ability. These changes appear to have taken place in the gene prestin and in its protein-product, prestin.⁸

In other words, we observe two outcomes: (1) the traditional evolutionary accounts for coevolution among echolocating bats, nocturnal moths, and diurnal butterflies turned out to be just-so stories, and (2) the convergence observed in these three groups stands as independent and separate instances of failed predictions of the evolutionary paradigm.

Convergence and the Case for Creation

If the widespread occurrence of convergence can’t be explained through evolutionary theory, then how can it be explained?

It is not unusual for architects and engineers to redeploy the same design features, sometimes in objects, devices, or systems that are completely unrelated to one another. So, instead of viewing convergent features as having emerged through repeated evolutionary outcomes, we could understand them as reflecting the work of a divine mind. From this perspective, the repeated origins of biological features equate to the repeated creations by an intelligent Agent who employs a common set of solutions to address a common set of problems facing unrelated organisms.

Now that’s a story even Mr. Reynolds might believe.

Resources

• The Cell’s Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator’s Artistry by Fazale Rana (book)

Convergence of Echolocation

• “Echoes of Design: Independent Origins of Echolocation in Bats and Dolphins Challenge Biological Evolution” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Convergence Drives Evolution Batty” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Analysis of Genomes Converges on the Case for a Creator” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Convergence: Evidence for a Single Creator” by Fazale Rana (article)

The Historical Contingency of the Evolutionary Process

• “Inability to Repeat Past Dooms Evolution” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Historical Contingency and the Improbability of Protein Evolution, Part 1” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Historical Contingency and the Improbability of Protein Evolution, Part 2” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Long-Term Evolution Experiment: Evidence for the Evolutionary Paradigm? Part 1” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Long-Term Evolution Experiment: Evidence for the Evolutionary Paradigm? Part 2” by Fazale Rana (article)