One of my classmates and friends in high school was a kid we nicknamed “Radar.” He was a cool kid who had special needs. He was mentally challenged. He was also funny and as good-hearted as they come, never causing any real problems—other than playing hooky from school, for days on end. Radar hated going to school.

When he eventually showed up, he would be sent to the principal’s office to explain his unexcused absences to Mr. Reynolds. And each time, Radar would offer the same excuse: his grandmother died. But Mr. Reynolds didn’t buy it—for obvious reasons. It didn’t require much investigation on the principal’s part to know that Radar was lying.

Skeptics have something in common with my friend Radar. They use the same tired excuse when presented with compelling evidence for design from biochemistry. Inevitably, they dismiss the case for a Creator by pointing out all the “flawed” designs in biochemical systems. But this excuse never sticks. Upon further investigation, claimed instances of bad designs turn out to be elegant, in virtually every instance, as recent work by scientists from UC Davis illustrates.

These researchers accomplished an important scientific milestone by using single molecule techniques to observe the replication of a single molecule of DNA.¹ Their unexpected insights have bearing on how we understand this key biochemical operation. The work also has important implications for the case for biochemical design.

For those familiar with DNA’s structure and replication process, you can skip the next two sections. But for those of you who are not, a little background information is necessary to appreciate the research team’s findings and their relevance to the creation-evolution debate.

DNA’s Structure

DNA consists of two molecular chains (called “polynucleotides”) aligned in an antiparallel fashion. (The two strands are arranged parallel to one another with the starting point of one strand of the polynucleotide duplex located next to the ending point of the other strand and vice versa.) The paired molecular chains twist around each other forming the well-known DNA double helix. The cell’s machinery generates the polynucleotide chains using four different nucleotides: adenosine, guanosine, cytidine, and thymidine, abbreviated as A, G, C, and T, respectively.

A special relationship exists between the nucleotide sequences of the two DNA strands. Biochemists say the DNA sequences of the two strands are complementary. When the DNA strands align, the adenine (A) side chains of one strand always pair with thymine (T) side chains from the other strand. Likewise, the guanine (G) side chains from one DNA strand always pair with cytosine (C) side chains from the other strand. Biochemists refer to these relationships as “base-pairing rules.” Consequently, if biochemists know the sequence of one DNA strand, they can readily determine the sequence of the other strand. Base-pairing plays a critical role in DNA replication.

Image 1: DNA’s Structure

DNA Replication

Biochemists refer to DNA replication as a “template-directed, semiconservative process.” By “template-directed,” biochemists mean that the nucleotide sequences of the “parent” DNA molecule function as a template, directing the assembly of the DNA strands of the two “daughter” molecules using the base-pairing rules. By “semiconservative,” biochemists mean that after replication, each daughter DNA molecule contains one newly formed DNA strand and one strand from the parent molecule.

Image 2: Semiconservative DNA Replication

Conceptually, template-directed, semiconservative DNA replication entails the separation of the parent DNA double helix into two single strands. By using the base-pairing rules, each strand serves as a template for the cell’s machinery to use when it forms a new DNA strand with a nucleotide sequence complementary to the parent strand. Because each strand of the parent DNA molecule directs the production of a new DNA strand, two daughter molecules result. Each one possesses an original strand from the parent molecule and a newly formed DNA strand produced by a template-directed synthetic process.

DNA replication begins at specific sites along the DNA double helix, called “replication origins.” Typically, prokaryotic cells have only a single origin of replication. More complex eukaryotic cells have multiple origins of replication.

The DNA double helix unwinds locally at the origin of replication to produce what biochemists call a “replication bubble.” During the course of replication, the bubble expands in both directions from the origin. Once the individual strands of the DNA double helix unwind and are exposed within the replication bubble, they are available to direct the production of the daughter strand. The site where the DNA double helix continuously unwinds is called the “replication fork.” Because DNA replication proceeds in both directions away from the origin, there are two replication forks within each bubble.

Image 3: DNA Replication Bubble

DNA replication can only proceed in a single direction, from the top of the DNA strand to the bottom. Because the strands that form the DNA double helix align in an antiparallel fashion with the top of one strand juxtaposed with the bottom of the other strand, only one strand at each replication fork has the proper orientation (bottom-to-top) to direct the assembly of a new strand, in the top-to-bottom direction. For this strand—referred to as the “leading strand”—DNA replication proceeds rapidly and continuously in the direction of the advancing replication fork.

DNA replication cannot proceed along the strand with the top-to-bottom orientation until the replication bubble has expanded enough to expose a sizable stretch of DNA. When this happens, DNA replication moves away from the advancing replication fork. DNA replication can only proceed a short distance for the top-to-bottom-oriented strand before the replication process has to stop and wait for more of the parent DNA strand to be exposed. When a sufficient length of the parent DNA template is exposed a second time, DNA replication can proceed again, but only briefly before it has to stop again and wait for more DNA to be exposed. The process of discontinuous DNA replication takes place repeatedly until the entire strand is replicated. Each time DNA replication starts and stops, a small fragment of DNA is produced.

Biochemists refer to these pieces of DNA (that will eventually compose the daughter strand) as “Okazaki fragments”—after the biochemist who discovered them. Biochemists call the strand produced discontinuously the “lagging strand” because DNA replication for this strand lags behind the more rapidly produced leading strand. One additional point: the leading strand at one replication fork is the lagging strand at the other replication fork since the replication forks at the two ends of the replication bubble advance in opposite directions.

An ensemble of proteins is needed to carry out DNA replication. Once the origin recognition complex (which consists of several different proteins) identifies the replication origin, a protein called “helicase” unwinds the DNA double helix to form the replication fork.

Image 4: DNA Replication Proteins

Once the replication fork is established and stabilized, DNA replication can begin. Before the newly formed daughter strands can be produced, a small RNA primer must be produced. The protein that synthesizes new DNA by reading the parent DNA template strand—DNA polymerase—can’t start production from scratch. It must be primed. A massive protein complex, called the “primosome,” which consists of over 15 different proteins, produces the RNA primer needed by DNA polymerase.

Once primed, DNA polymerase will continuously produce DNA along the leading strand. However, for the lagging strand, DNA polymerase can only generate DNA in spurts to produce Okazaki fragments. Each time DNA polymerase generates an Okazaki fragment, the primosome complex must produce a new RNA primer.

Once DNA replication is completed, the RNA primers are removed from the continuous DNA of the leading strand and from the Okazaki fragments that make up the lagging strand. A protein called a “3’-5’ exonuclease” removes the RNA primers. A different DNA polymerase fills in the gaps created by the removal of the RNA primers. Finally, a protein called a “ligase” connects all the Okazaki fragments together to form a continuous piece of DNA out of the lagging strand.

Are Leading and Lagging Strand Polymerases Coordinated?

Biochemists had long assumed that the activities of the leading and lagging strand DNA polymerase enzymes were coordinated. If not, then DNA replication of one strand would get too far ahead of the other, increasing the likelihood of mutations.

As it turns out, the research team from UC Davis discovered that the activities of the two polymerases are not coordinated. Instead, the leading and lagging strand DNA polymerase enzymes replicate DNA autonomously. To the researchers’ surprise, they learned that the leading strand DNA polymerase replicated DNA in bursts, suddenly stopping and starting. And when it did replicate DNA, the rate of production varied by a factor of ten. On the other hand, the researchers discovered that the rate of DNA replication on the lagging strand depended on the rate of RNA primer formation.

The researchers point out that if not for single molecule techniques—in which replication is characterized for individual DNA molecules—the autonomous behavior of leading and lagging strand DNA polymerases would not have been detected. Up to this point, biochemists have studied the replication process using a relatively large number of DNA molecules. These samples yield average replication rates for leading and lagging strand replication, giving the sense that replication of both strands is coordinated.

According to the researchers, this discovery is a “real paradigm shift, and undermines a great deal of what’s in the textbooks.”² Because the DNA polymerase activity is not coordinated but autonomous, they conclude that the DNA replication process is a flawed design, driven by stochastic (random) events. Also, the lack of coordination between the leading and lagging strands means that leading strand replication can get ahead of the lagging strand, yielding long stretches of vulnerable single-stranded DNA.

Diminished Design or Displaced Design?

Even though this latest insight appears to undermine the elegance of the DNA replication process, other observations made by the UC Davis research team indicate that the evidence for design isn’t diminished, just displaced.

These investigators discovered that the activity of helicase—the enzyme that unwinds the double helix at the replication fork—somehow senses the activity of the DNA polymerase on the leading strand. When the DNA polymerase stalls, the activity of the helicase slows down by a factor of five until the DNA polymerase catches up. The researchers believe that another protein (called the “tau protein”) mediates the interaction between the helicase and DNA polymerase molecules. In other words, the interaction between DNA polymerase and the helicase compensates for the stochastic behavior of the leading strand polymerase, pointing to a well-designed process.

As already noted, the research team also learned that the rate of lagging strand replication depends on primer production. They determined that the rate of primer production exceeds the rate of DNA replication on the leading strand. This fortuitous coincidence ensures that as soon as enough of the bubble opens for lagging strand replication to continue, the primase can immediately lay down the RNA primer, restarting the process. It turns out that the rate of primer production is controlled by the primosome concentration in the cell, with primer production increasing as the number of primosome copies increase. The primosome concentration appears to be fine-tuned. If the concentration of this protein complex is too large, the replication process becomes “gummed up”; if too small, the disparity between leading and lagging strand replication becomes too great, exposing single-stranded DNA. Again, the fine-tuning of primosome concentration highlights the design of this cellular operation.

It is remarkable how two people can see things so differently. For scientists influenced by the evolutionary paradigm, the tendency is to dismiss evidence for design and, instead of seeing elegance, become conditioned to see flaws. Though DNA replication takes place in a haphazard manner, other features of the replication process appear to be engineered to compensate for the stochastic behavior of the DNA polymerases and, in the process, elevate the evidence for design.

And, that’s no lie.

Resources

• The Cell’s Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator’s Artistry by Fazale Rana (book)
• “Uprooting a ‘Bad Design’ Argument” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Pseudoenzymes Make Real Case for Intelligent Design” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Pseudoenzymes Illustrate Science’s Philosophical Commitments” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “New Research Suggests Two Overlooked Functions of Junk DNA” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “How the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology Points to Design” by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

1. James E. Graham et al., “Independent and Stochastic Action of DNA Polymerases in the Replisome,” Cell 169 (June 2017): 1201–13, doi:10.1016/j.cell.2017.05.041.
2. Bec Crew, “DNA Replication Has Been Filmed for the First Time, and It’s Not What We Expected,” ScienceAlert, June 19, 2017, https://sciencealert.com/dna-replication-has-been-filmed-for-the-first-time-and-it-s-stranger-than-we-thought.

Subjects: Biochemistry, Design, Fine-Tuning, Intelligent Design, Proteins

There is the sea, vast and spacious,
teeming with creatures beyond number—
living things both large and small.
There the ships go to and fro,
and Leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.

—Psalm 104:25–26

A few weeks ago, I did something I always wanted to do. I listened to the uncut, live version of the Allman Brothers’ Mountain Jam from beginning to end. Thirty-four minutes in length, this song appears on The Allman Brothers’ live At Fillmore East album. Though The Allman Brothers are among my favorite groups, I have never had the time and motivation to listen to this song in its entirety. I like listening to jam bands, but a thirty-four-minute song . . . in any case, a cross-country flight finally afforded me the opportunity to give my undivided attention to this jam band masterpiece. What an incredible display of musicianship!

Humpback Whale Acoustical Displays

Rockers aren’t the only ones who can get a bit carried away when performing a song. Humpback whales are notorious for their jam-band-like acoustical displays. These creatures produce elaborate patterns of sounds that researchers dub songs. The whale songs can last for up to 30 minutes, and some whales will repeatedly perform the same song for up to 24 hours.

Humpback whale songs display a complex hierarchical organization. The most basic element of the song consists of a single sound, called a unit. These creatures combine units together to form phrases. In turn, they combine phrases to form themes. Finally, they combine themes to form a song, with each theme connected by transitional phrasing.

Researchers aren’t certain why humpback whales engage in these complex acoustical displays. Only the males sing. Perhaps their singing establishes dominance within the group. Most researchers think that the males sing to attract females. (Even for whales, the musicians get the girls.)

Humpback whales in the same area perform the same song. But, their songs continually evolve. Researchers refer to the complete transformation of one whale song into another as a revolution. As the songs evolve, each member of the group learns the new variant. When one group of humpback whales encounters another group, the two groups exchange songs. This exchange accelerates the song revolution. As a result of this encounter, members of both groups develop and learn a new song.

How Do Humpback Whales Learn Songs?

Researchers from the UK and Australia wanted to understand how humpback whales learn new songs.¹ Their query is part of a bigger question: How do animals transmit culture—learned information and behaviors—to other members of the group and to the next generation?

To answer this question, the research team recorded 9,300 acoustical displays over the course of two complete song revolutions for the humpback whales of the South Pacific. Among these recordings, they discovered hybrid songs—vocal displays comprised of bits and pieces of both the old and the new songs. They concluded that these hybrids songs captured the transition from one song to the next.

These song hybrids consisted of phrases and themes from the old and new songs spliced together. The structure of hybrid songs indicated to the research team that humpback whales must learn songs in the same way that humans learn languages, by learning bits and piecing them together.

Rock on!

The Creator’s Artistry

Sometimes, as Christian apologists, we tend to think of God solely as an Engineer who creates with only one specific purpose or function in mind. But, the insights researchers have gained into the vocal displays of the humpback whales reminds me that the God I worship is also a Divine Artist—a God who creates for his enjoyment.

Scripture supports this idea. Psalm 104:25 states that God formed the leviathan (which in this passage seems to refer to whales) on day five to frolic in the vast, spacious seas. In other words, God created the great sea mammals for no other purpose than to play!

Artistry and engineering are not mutually exclusive. Engineers often design cars and buildings to be both functionally efficient and aesthetically pleasing. But sometimes, as humans, we create for no other reason than for our pleasure and for others to enjoy and be moved by our work.

Nature’s Beauty and God’s Existence

The humpback whale exemplifies the remarkable beauty of the natural world. Everywhere we look in nature—whether the night sky, the oceans, the rain forests, the deserts, even the microscopic world—we see a grandeur so great that we are often moved to our very core.

Watching a humpback whale breach or hearing a recording of its vocal displays is more than sufficient to produce in us that sense of awe and wonder. And yet, our wonder and amazement only grow as we study these creatures using sophisticated scientific techniques.

For Christians, nature’s beauty prompts us to worship the Creator. But it also points to the reality of God’s existence and supports the biblical view of humanity.

As philosopher Richard Swinburne argues, “If God creates a universe, as a good workman, he will create a beautiful universe. On the other hand, if the universe came into existence without being created by God, there is no reason to suppose that it would be a beautiful universe.”² In other words, the beauty in the world around us signifies the Divine.

But, as human beings, why do we perceive beauty in the world? In response to this question, Swinburne asserts, “There is certainly no particular reason why, if the universe originated uncaused, psycho-physical laws…would bring about aesthetic sensibilities in humans.”³ But, if human beings are made in God’s image, as Scripture teaches, we should be able to discern and appreciate the universe’s beauty, made by our Creator to reveal his glory and majesty.

In short, the humpback whales’ acoustical displays—a jam band masterpiece—sing of the Creator’s existence and his artistry.

Resources

• “An Inordinate Fondness” by Fazale Rana (article)
• Question of the Week: Why Did God Create Hominids? By Fazale Rana (YouTube video)

Endnotes

1. Ellen C. Garland et al., “Song Hybridization Events during Revolutionary Song Change Provide Insights into Cultural Transmission in Humpback Whales,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 114 (July 25, 2017): 7822–29, doi:10.1073/pnas.1621072114.
2. Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 190–91.
3. Swinburne, Existence of God, 190–91.

Subjects: Argument from Beauty, Philosophy

Is the Christian faith a reasonable religion?

Some believers throughout church history have agreed with many nonbelievers in proclaiming that Christianity is not a reasonable religion. Nevertheless, a powerful theological-philosophical consensus within the history of the faith has argued that the historic Christian religion involves knowledge and is indeed compatible with reason. This historic agreement has often been expressed in the common statement: “faith seeking understanding.” Its most articulate and persuasive spokespersons through the centuries have been such distinguished Christian thinkers as Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas.¹

Five Aspects of Christianity’s Reasonableness

Since the perception that the Christian faith is not a reasonable religion persists today, it is important to examine five ways that historic Christianity is reasonable.²

First, the Christian worldview offers a plausible explanation for affirming an objective source for knowledge, reason, and rationality. That basis is found in a personal and rational God. Infinitely wise and all-knowing, God created the universe to reflect a coherent order of nomos and logos(Gk., laws and logic), and he also created humankind in his image and endowed with rational capacities to discover that reasonable organization (Genesis 1:26–28). God, in effect, networked the comprehensible cosmos and rationally capable human beings together with himself to allow for a congruence of intelligibility. Thus, in Christianity, the rationality of the universe has a reliable metaphysical ground.

Second, Christian truth claims do not violate the basic laws or principles of reason. Christian faith, though it often transcends finite human comprehension, is not irrational or absurd. In other words, faith does not damage reason. Moreover, when skeptics have challenged the logical coherence of biblical teachings, Christian thinkers through the centuries have offered viable models for showing these ideas to be mysterious, but not actually incoherent.

Third, the Bible encourages the attainment of knowledge, wisdom, and understanding (Job 28:28; Psalm 111:10; Proverbs 1:7). Scripture also promotes such intellectual virtues as source-checking, discernment, testing, reflection, and intellectual renewal (Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 14:29; Romans 12:2; Colossians 2:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Fourth, the truths of the Christian faith correspond to and are supported by such things as evidence, facts, and reason. Biblical faith (Greek: pisteuō, the verb “believe”; pistis, the noun “faith”) can be defined as confident trust in a reasonable and reliable source (God or Christ). Faith (or belief) is a necessary component of knowledge because a person must believe something in order to know anything (in other words, knowledge means believing what is true with proper justification). And reason can be applied to evaluate, confirm, and buttress faith.

Fifth, historic Christianity has made great contributions in the rational fields of logic and science. Let’s consider both very briefly.

Christianity & Logic: Many of the advancements in the study of logic through the centuries have come from the work of Christian-oriented scholars. In his fine logic textbook, A Concise Introduction to Logic, contemporary logician Patrick Hurley lists ten “eminent logicians,” six of which have deep connections to historic Christianity. These Christian-oriented scholars are Peter Abelard, William of Ockham, Gottfried Leibniz, George Boole, John Venn, and Kurt Gödel.

Christianity & Science: The intellectual climate that gave rise to modern science (roughly three centuries ago) was shaped decisively by Christianity.³ Not only were most of its founding fathers themselves devout Christians (including Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pascal, etc.), but the biblical worldview provided a basis for modern science to both emerge and flourish. Christian theism affirmed that an infinite, eternal, and personal God created the world ex nihilo. The creation, reflecting the rational nature of the Creator, was therefore orderly and uniform. Furthermore, God created humankind in his image (Genesis 1:26–28), making humans uniquely capable of reasoning and of discovering the created order’s intelligibility. In effect, the Christian worldview supported the underlying principles that made scientific inquiry possible and desirable.

Reason & Faith

In historic Christianity reason and faith, therefore, function in a complementary fashion. While reason in and of itself, apart from God’s special grace, cannot cause faith—the use of reason is normally a part of a person’s coming to faith and supports faith in innumerable ways. In summary, faith is foundational to reason (believing in order to know), while reason supports faith.

In the New Testament, descriptions of faith always focus on an object. And the trustworthy object of a person’s faith is God or the Lord Jesus Christ. Even the very faith that results in salvation involves knowledge (facts surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ) and discursive reasoning (as to what those facts really mean). Saving faith then includes knowledge of the gospel, assent to its truth, and confident reliance on the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It incorporates a human being’s full faculties—mind (knowledge), will (assent), and heart (trust).

So next time someone tells you that Christianity is not a reasonable religion, share these five powerful ways that the faith is indeed reasonable.

Endnotes

1. For a discussion of Augustine and Anselm’s expression of “faith seeking understanding” (Latin: fides quaerens intellectum) see Ed L. Miller, God and Reason, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall), 134–37.

2. This article is expanded from a section I wrote in my book A World of Difference (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 82–83.

3.  See Stanley Jaki, Science and Creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe (Scottish Academic Press, 1974); R. Hooykaas, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972); and Eric V. Snow, “Christianity: A Cause of Modern Science?” last updated August 4, 1998, http://www.geocities.com.

Subjects: Faith, Faith & Reason, History of Christianity, Science & Faith, Uncategorized

How much does any one of us know?

Even the brightest, like a Hawking, an Einstein, or a Ross only knows a fraction of what can be known. Do we corporately even possess knowledge of 0.01% of what can be known of reality?

When it comes to knowledge, and our ongoing acquisition of it, defeasible reasoning is the play of the day. Defeasible reasoning is basically belief revision—necessitated because we know so very little about what can be known of the reality that surrounds us—a reality through which we navigate life despite our pervasive ignorance.

This concept and the following series of questions go much deeper than the apologetic tactic of trying to get an atheist to transition to an agnostic by asking him how much he thinks he knows of reality and what there is to know. Or by asking him how much the most intelligent person he is aware of might know about reality. One percent? One tenth of a percent? Even less? Then following up with the concept, that if there is 99% or 99.9% or greater percent unknown, isn’t it at least reasonable to consider that God may exist as part of that unknown reality?

There Is So Much More to Know!

In conjunction with considering our pervasive ignorance and the need for defeasible reasoning, I have been contemplating the ever-increasing, often surprising, and unimagined complexity of the human genome, its controlling epigenetic molecules and signals, the diversity and complexity of protein modifications (e.g., post-translational modifications, including information-bearing glycosylations), and the striking complexity of cellular systems, pathways, networks, and signaling mechanisms (biochemical, electrochemical, mechanotransduction, etc.). We collectively know quite a bit about many intricacies of well-studied genomes, signaling and regulatory molecules, protein modifications, cellular systems, and organismic development, but the extent of what we don’t yet know is so unimaginably more in regard to these things. I am overwhelmed at the complexity of these systems and wonder how long it will take us to unpack them.

Not a problem! That’s why scientists will have endless work to pursue. We continue to revise beliefs in small and sometimes large ways with every new scientific discovery.

Is It Bad? Or Is It Just Unknown Or Mismanaged?

Now consider this, what if it is only, or primarily, our lack of current knowledge that allows us to reach conclusions that one day might be considered false (like the percent of the human genome that is of functional relevance)? What if a lack of current knowledge also causes us to brand naturally occurring things—for instance, earthquakes, bacteria, and viruses—as evil or bad? What if a lack of knowledge and a failure of adequate management of nature allows bad manifestations and outcomes from an otherwise critically good creation?

What if the ultimate function or purpose of a system is very good but obscured by ignorance beneath a veneer of “bad”—or of “somewhat good”? What if we judge something as mostly bad because of ignorance of the thing itself or ignorance leading to our mismanagement? Or what if bad things for individuals or society occur—neither by a failure to recognize something’s proper function nor lack of knowledge of how to rightly manage it—but by a failure to implement change for good due to competing reasons (such as immediate personal or corporate monetary gain)? In other words, even obviously good things can easily be bad under poor management.

Consider the three things I listed above. Earthquakes result from the movement of Earth’s crust (plate tectonics). Scientists have discovered that the movements of the continental plates are critical for recycling chemicals and nutrients and regulating global temperatures that sustain life on Earth. Likewise, we’ve discovered that the vast majority of life is single-celled life and that prokaryotes (like bacteria) are critical for maintaining the availability of key elements and organic molecules for higher organisms to live and thrive. Bacteria play key symbiotic roles in ecology and in organismal physiology and metabolism as well. And viruses—well, viruses are gems that keep Earth from being nothing more than a giant ball of bacteria and other single-celled masters of reproduction.

Plate tectonics keep our planet habitable. Bacteria critically contribute to biogeochemical and precipitation cycles as well as ecological harmony and organisms’ essential microbiomes. And viruses critically open ecological space for survival of higher organisms. All good, or at least more good than bad. But what if there is more, much more innate good to be discovered if we only persist in inquiry and examination?

What if we could predict when and where earthquakes would happen? What if we could harvest and store energy from earthquakes by developing a much deeper understanding of plate tectonics? What if, by hijacking bacterial immune systems or commandeering viruses as tools, we gain understanding and a capacity to manipulate cells in need of repair or removal? Scientists now have CRISPR, discovered in a bacterial immune system, to use as a versatile tool for managing crops, animals, and human disease. And we’ve engineered and employed viruses for delivering payloads for medical applications and in discovering the workings of our own cellular machinery and the molecular foundations for life.

What if this is only the beginning of imagined potential applications that emerge from ongoing studies of such things as plate tectonics, bacteria, and viruses?

People Love Discovery, and God Loves to Be Discovered

For some people it’s discovering a deal so good we express it as “a steal.” For others it’s sheer exuberance in finding some precious item or perhaps a friend we once considered lost. Maybe it’s a great band, a fabulous restaurant, a creative artist, or a magnificent park. Discovering something new delights us all! Many who choose science choose it for this very reason, as do many theologians. We’ve made vocations from discovering utterly new things and old things once obscured.

A robust Christian theology lies at the foundation of understanding nature this way and fosters delight in discovery. Creation was designed as good and providentially supplied for our discovery, delight, and careful management. Despite our prevailing ignorance, in each discovery we find the handiwork of a good and beautiful Creator. This is what the scholars at Reasons to Believe endeavor to do for each scientific discovery—to show you the harmony between science and the God of the Bible.

We believe that God reveals himself in nature, in the scriptures, and ultimately in the person of Jesus Christ. As we explore the good in nature we unveil the heart of a personal Creator. With each discovery we see added layers of complexity and an ever deeper engineering cleverness. All that surrounds us sustains and allows our flourishing. And all we discover reveals the power and nature of God.

This idea is at the heart of the biblical story—God delights in our discoveries, especially when they point to the grandeur of the Creator. He desires restored relationship with those created in his image, male and female. He desires our restored relationship with him, his creation, and with one another. God reveals himself in nature because he wants to be known. He reveals himself just enough so people will seek him even more. He taps into our curiosity and love of discovery and mystery. He created us with these innate characteristics. He invites us to the great hunt and promises we will find him when we seek him with all our hearts.

The delight of an infinite Creator who creates so we can eternally discover more and come to fuller knowledge, but always have still more to discover and delight in as we thrive in righteous, redemptive relationships with creation and each other: this is the Christian story. This beautiful, good, true, hope-filled, and purposeful story.

But Isn’t Science Amoral?

I was recently in a long conversation with an atheist who commented that science is amoral. We discussed how science is morally neutral but people who do science are not. And to my surprise, he judged people as basically bad, concluding that evolution has produced a type of selfish apex predator. As we talked, he admitted that his worldview was one without hope. This was the coherent outcome of his self-examined understanding of an atheistic, evolutionary worldview.

I shared with him the work we do at Reasons to Believe and how we strive to show that science harmonizes with a biblical view of God in a true story of redemption, hope, purpose, forgiveness, and a new creation. I invited him to read some of our blogs and C. S. Lewis’s Abolition of Man. I shared the hope I have for him. It seemed to be the thing that resonated with him the most. We’re in touch by email. He has bought and started the book. We hope to meet again to continue our conversation soon.

Our World Needs Hope.

This is our vocation, created for discovery and relationship, made new in Jesus Christ, appointed ambassadors for the reconciliation of others. Our world needs hope. We Christians need to be men and women of faith, courage, deep compassion, and humility. We need to embody the hope of our powerful, good, and loving Creator and share how he reveals himself in order to be known. It is our privilege at Reasons to Believe as scientists, theologians, and evangelists to unpack and share these mysteries with those around us and to encourage and equip other believers to do the same. Thanks be to God!

Additional Resources (for further discovery!):

• Why Would a Good God Create Viruses? (DVD)
• Illuminating God’s Mysteries (CD)
• Plate Tectonics Design by Hugh Ross (article)
• The Importance of Plate Tectonics by Jeff Zweerink (article)
• How Milk and Bacteria Help Us Grow by Anjeanette Roberts (article)
• Why Skiers Can Be Thankful for Bacteria by Anjeanette Roberts (article)
• More Reasons to Thank God for Viruses by Hugh Ross (article)
• Celebrating 3.8 Billion Years of Bacteriophage by Anjeanette Roberts (article)

Subjects: Apologetics, Human Flourishing, Problem of Evil

As a Christian scholar and logic instructor, I often get asked about my thoughts on strange phenomena, controversial theories, and alternative conspiratorial explanations. Through the years I’ve frequently been asked about such unusual things as UFOs, the apparitions of Mary, near-death experiences, and a host of conspiracy theories such as those relating to the JFK assassination, denial of the Holocaust, the so-called moon-landing hoax, secret societies, and various speculative end-of-the-world scenarios.

Not all of these topics are on the same level when it comes to their rational or non-rational basis and their evidentiary or non-evidentiary support level, but they are all unusual and highly controversial issues. Thus, before accepting any strange and/or controversial idea these topics need to be thought through carefully—lest we affirm belief in something that is false, misleading, or possibly even harmful. Of course from a Christian perspective a believer in Christ should also ask if certain issues and beliefs are biblical and compatible with the Christian worldview.¹

However, in this article I want to offer a basic logical checklist when it comes to thinking broadly about unusual phenomena. This list is intended to include basic questions to ask about the viability of strange ideas and beliefs. These questions will not necessarily resolve whether certain controversial ideas and theories should be affirmed, but will help to identify if some phenomenon or belief is problematic in nature. At minimum these questions will serve as a good place to begin a logical evaluation of challenging topics.

Questions to Ask about Strange Ideas and Controversial Theories

Here are five logical questions to ask when thinking about unusual phenomena or peculiar claims:

1. Does the theory hold together foundationally?

Well-conceived ideas and theories are logically sound and internally consistent. Viable explanatory theories avoid self-stultification or being self-defeating in nature (they do not contradict by both affirming and denying essential elements of the same theory). So begin by asking whether the idea, phenomenon, or explanation is logically coherent as a whole. For example: Does the grand theory that extraterrestrial civilizations are visiting Earth from other galaxies hold together internally as a whole?

2. Does the theory comport with the facts?

Good theories and explanations are closely connected to facts. They not only correspond to the known facts, they make sense of the facts by tying them together in a coherent fashion. So ask carefully about the factual nature and basis of the belief, phenomenon, or explanation. Grand conspiracy theories can often make short shrift of the facts. For example: What is one to do with the overwhelming physical evidence and eyewitness reports from various sources (Jewish, Axis, Allied) supporting the factual nature of the Holocaust?

3. Does the theory avoid unwarranted presumptions?

There is a huge difference between presuming to know something and in fact knowing something. Genuine knowledge includes proper justification for one’s true beliefs. Solid theories are based upon that which can be proved or verified. So reflect on the basic assumptions behind a theory or belief and ask whether they are well-grounded. For example: When it comes to big government conspiracy theories, can the assumption of the large number of people required to be involved in the conspiracy and keep a secret be reasonably grounded?

4. How well does the theory handle counter-evidence and viable challenges?

Feasible ideas and theories are flexible enough to accommodate possible counter-evidence. The most potent explanatory theories carefully regard the best critiques from alternative perspectives and can answer the challenges. Critical thinking, however, demands that a person fairly consider viable alternatives. Unfortunately, too often people who affirm strange beliefs and conspiracy theories in particular have not considered genuine challenges to their viewpoints. For example: If the moon-landing was a hoax how does one account for the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony supporting it?

5. Is the theory at least theoretically open to falsification; if so, how?

Viable ideas and explanatory theories make claims that can be tested and proven true or false (verified or falsified). Nonfalsifiable claims that cannot be investigated, evaluated, and critiqued carry little rational weight. So ask how an idea, theory, or phenomenon could at least theoretically be discredited. For example: How would one go about falsifying a religious-based apparition?

These are the logical questions that I begin with when something seems strange, unusual, or controversial. They help me to consider the rational and evidentiary basis of a challenging issue. I hope they will help you to think through peculiar topics. And, as a Christian, I invite people to ask these critical questions about Jesus’s resurrection.

Resources

• For a Christian evaluation of UFOs, see Hugh Ross, Kenneth Samples, and Mark Clark, Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men: A Rational Christian Look at UFOs and Extraterrestrials (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2002).
• For an Evangelical Protestant evaluation of the apparitions of Mary, see Elliot Miller and Kenneth Samples, The Cult of the Virgin: Catholic Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992).
• For an article on some of the major big government conspiracy theories, see Kenneth R. Samples, “Thinking Through Big Government Conspiracy Theories,” Reflections (blog), Reasons to Believe, March 1, 2010, http://www.reasons.org/articles/thinking-through-big-government-conspiracy-theories.

Endnotes

1. In thinking about the Christian worldview, see Kenneth Richard Samples, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).

Subjects: Conspiracy Theories, Controversies, Critical Thinking, UFOs & Extraterrestrials, End Times