I received an inquiry recently from someone wanting to know what it meant to follow the truth scientifically and theologically. In other words, when there are competing explanations in theology and science respectively, how do you follow the truth in each discipline?

To properly answer that question, let me first outline a model for how science and theology relate to one another in a Christian worldview. Historic Christianity affirms that God reveals himself in a specific way (through the words of the Bible) and in a general way (through his work in creation). To quote my colleague Ken Samples, “God is the author of both the figurative book of nature (God’s world) and the literal book of Scripture (God’s written Word).”

Because God is the source of both revelations, they must both be true and they both must agree. If we had God’s mind, perhaps this simple statement would be the end of the discussion . . . but we don’t. We cannot simply see revelation (either special or general) and understand it. Instead, we must carefully study and analyze revelation to come to a proper interpretation. For purposes of making a diagram, I use the term systematic theology to describe the process of interpreting the biblical texts. Similarly, science is the term to describe our study and analysis of creation.

While both revelations must agree (because they are derived from God’s nature), our interpretations of those revelations can conflict. Where we see conflict, that is a signpost of an inaccurate interpretation of either the record of nature or the words of the Bible.

So, how do you pursue truth when theology and science seem to conflict? Basically, you test each interpretation to ensure the highest possible accuracy in both. Scientists do this all the time. Different experiments give conflicting results, so they design more detailed experiments to resolve the conflict. For example, one of the key projects of the Hubble Space Telescope was to resolve conflicting measurements (or interpretations, if you will) of the Hubble constant. And scientists in different disciplines often encounter phenomena that requires both disciplines to understand. It took the application of physics and geology to understand the natural nuclear reactors at Oklo and Bangombé.

Often, people claim that theology and science are in conflict. Many of these conflicts arise from trying to make the data say more than it does. On one hand, some Christians claim that the Bible demands a universe/earth that is a few thousand years old—but not all legitimate interpretationsof Scripture make this demand. On the other hand, some atheists claim that science explains everything without the need for a God. Even if this were true, science does not justify the philosophical presuppositions necessary for science to operate (but a Judeo-Christian worldview does).

Also, we must also recognize that neither gives us a complete picture of reality. Although the Bible clearly provides all we need to know for a right relationship with God, it was never meant to give exhaustive truth. The universe “speaks” a less precise language and science is largely limited to physical explanations. However, in my studies so far, I have yet to encounter a genuine contradiction between the words of the Bible and the facts of nature. I have encountered numerous conflicts in our interpretations, but as I dug deeper one of two scenarios occurred. Either there was not enough data to truly answer the question at hand or the two revelations ultimately agreed. That is exactly the outcome I would expect if God created the universe and then inspired the biblical authors to pen the words they did!

Subjects: Bible, Christian History, Christianity, Creation, God, Interpretation, Science & Faith, Theology, Historical Theology

“If this result stands up to scrutiny, it does indeed change everything we thought we knew about the earliest human occupation of the Americas.”¹

This was the response of Christopher Stringer—a highly-regarded paleoanthropologist at the Natural History Museum in London—to the recent scientific claim that Neanderthals made their way to the Americas 100,000 years before the first modern humans.²

At this point, many anthropologists have expressed skepticism about this claim, because it requires them to abandon long-held ideas about the way the Americas were populated by modern humans. As Stringer cautions, “Many of us will want to see supporting evidence of this ancient occupation from other sites before we abandon the conventional model.”³

Yet, the archaeologists making the claim have amassed an impressive cache of evidence that points to Neanderthal occupation of North America.

As Stringer points out, this work has radical implications for anthropology. But, in my view, the importance of the work extends beyond questions relating to human migrations around the world. It demonstrates that intelligent design/creation models have a legitimate place in science.

The Case for Neanderthal Occupation of North America

In the early 1990s, road construction crews working near San Diego, CA, uncovered the remains of a single mastodon. Though the site was excavated from 1992 to 1993, scientists were unable to date the remains. Both radiocarbon and luminescence dating techniques failed.

Recently, researchers turned failure into success, age-dating the site to be about 130,000 years old, using uranium-series disequilibrium methods. This result shocked them because analysis at the site indicated that the mastodon remains were deliberately processed by hominids, most likely Neanderthals.

The researchers discovered that the mastodon bones displayed spiral fracture patterns that looked as if a creature, such as a Neanderthal, struck the bone with a rock—most likely to extract nutrient-rich marrow from the bones. The team also found rocks (called cobble) with the mastodon bones that bear markings consistent with having been used to strike bones and other rocks.

To confirm this scenario, the archaeologists took elephant and cow bones and broke them open with a hammerstone. In doing so, they produced the same type of spiral fracture patterns in the bones and the same type of markings on the hammerstone as those found at the archaeological site. The researchers also ruled out other possible explanations, such as wild animals creating the fracture patterns on the bones while scavenging the mastodon carcass.

Despite this compelling evidence, some anthropologists remain skeptical that Neanderthals—or any other hominid—modified the mastodon remains. Why? Not only does this claim fly in the face of the conventional explanation for the populating of the Americas by humans, but the sophistication of the tool kit does not match that produced by Neanderthals 130,000 years ago based on archaeological sites in Europe and Asia.

So, did Neanderthals make their way to the Americas 100,000 years before modern humans? An interesting debate will most certainly ensue in the years to come.

But, this work does make one thing clear: intelligent design/creation is a legitimate part of the construct of science.

A Common Skeptical Response to the Case for a Creator

Based on my experience, when confronted with scientific evidence for a Creator, skeptics will often summarily dismiss the argument by asserting that intelligent design/creation isn’t science and, therefore, it is not legitimate to draw the conclusion that a Creator exists from scientific advances.

Undergirding this objection is the conviction that science is the best, and perhaps the only, way to discover truth. By dismissing the evidence for God’s existence—insisting that it is nonscientific—they hope to undermine the argument, thereby sidestepping the case for a Creator.

There are several ways to respond to this objection. One way is to highlight the fact that intelligent design is part of the construct of science. This response is not motivated by a desire to “reform” science, but by a desire to move the scientific evidence into a category that forces skeptics to interact with it properly.

The Case for a Creator’s Role in the Origin of Life

It is interesting to me that the line of reasoning the archaeologists use to establish the presence of Neanderthals in North America equates to the line of reasoning I use to make the case that the origin of life reflects the product of a Creator’s handiwork, as presented in my three books: The Cell’s Design, Origins of Life, and Creating Life in the Lab. There are three facets to this line of reasoning.

The Appearance of Design

The archaeologists argued that: (1) the arrangement of the bones and the cobble and (2) the markings on the cobble and the fracture patterns on the bones appear to result from the intentional activity of a hominid. To put it another way, the archaeological site shows the appearance of design.

In The Cell’s Design I argue that the analogies between biochemical systems and human designs evince the work of a Mind, serving to revitalize Paley’s Watchmaker argument for God’s existence. In other words, biochemical systems display the appearance of design.

Failure to Explain the Evidence through Natural Processes

The archaeologists explored and rejected alternative explanations—such as scavenging by wild animals—for the arrangement, fracture patterns, and markings of the bones and stones.

In Origins of Life, Hugh Ross (my coauthor) and I explore and demonstrate the deficiency of natural process, mechanistic explanations (such as replicator-first, metabolism-first, and membrane-first scenarios) for the origin of life and, hence, biological systems.

Reproduction of the Design Patterns

The archaeologists confirmed—by striking elephant and cow bones with a rock—that the markings on the cobble and the fracture patterns on the bone were made by a hominid. That is, through experimental work in the laboratory, they demonstrated that the design features were, indeed, produced by intelligent agency.

In Creating Life in the Lab, I describe how work in synthetic biology and prebiotic chemistry empirically demonstrate the necessary role intelligent agency plays in transforming chemicals into living cells. In other words, when scientists go into the lab and create protocells, they are demonstrating that the design of biochemical systems is intelligent design.

So, is it legitimate for skeptics to reject the scientific case for a Creator, by dismissing it as non-scientific?

Work in archaeology illustrates that intelligent design is an integral part of science, and it highlights the fact that the same scientific reasoning used to interpret the mastodon remains discovered near San Diego, likewise, undergirds the case for a Creator.

Resources

• “Can Science Identify the Intelligent Designer?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Can Science Detect the Creator’s Fingerprints in Nature?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• The Cell’s Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator’s Artistry by Fazale Rana (book)
• Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator by Fazale Rana (book)
• Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off  by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross (book)
• How to Build the Case for Biochemical Design by Fazale Rana (DVD)

Endnotes

1. Colin Barras, “First Americans May Have Been Neanderthals 130,000 Years Ago,” New Scientist, April 26, 2017, https://www.newscientist.com/article/2129042-first-americans-may-have-been-neanderthals-130000-years-ago/.
2. Steven R. Holen et al., “A 130,000-Year-Old Archaeological Site in Southern California, USA,” Nature 544 (April 27, 2017): 479–83, doi:10.1038/nature22065.
3. Barras, “First Americans.”

Subjects: Anthropology, Archaeology, Intelligent Design

Dark energy refers to the self-stretching property of the space-time fabric of the universe. Space, because of dark energy and independent of matter and of any heat or light, stretches itself. Moreover, the larger the space-time envelope of the universe grows, the more stretching energy it gains. This gaining of stretching energy causes some science writers to refer to dark energy as an anti-gravity factor. The effect of dark energy on the space-time envelope of the universe is to make two massive bodies appear to repel one another. Moreover, the farther apart two bodies are from one another, the more strongly they will appear to repel one another.

In contrast, gravity acts as a brake on cosmic expansion. In junior high physics classes we all learned that, according to the law of gravity, two massive bodies attract one another and that the closer two massive bodies are to one another the more strongly they will attract. Since the universe contains a lot of mass, gravity works to pull the massive bodies together and thereby slows down cosmic expansion.

When the universe is young and more compact, gravity’s effect on cosmic dynamics would be powerful while dark energy’s would be weak. However, when the universe is old and more spread out, dark energy’s effect would be strong while gravity’s would be weak. Thus, if gravity alone influences cosmic dynamics, astronomers will observe that throughout cosmic history, the expansion of the universe slows down. The slowing down effect will be seen to get progressively weaker as the universe ages. However, if both gravity and dark energy are operable, astronomers will see cosmic expansion transition from slowing down to speeding up.

For more than two decades, many atheists and virtually all young-earth creationists have been adamant in denying the existence of dark energy. Atheists reject dark energy because it implies a relatively recent cosmic beginning. It implies a beginning so recent as to defy a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life and a history of life that makes possible the origin and existence of human beings who attain a global high-technology civilization.

Another reason they do not like dark energy is because of the fine-tuning design it implies. In 2002, Philip Ball (an atheist physicist and former senior editor for Nature) conducted an interview with theoretical physicists Lisa Dyson, Matthew Kleban, and Leonard Susskind about a paper¹ they had just written and quoted them as saying in regard to dark energy, “Arranging the cosmos as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle.”² In the same interview the three physicists said the existence of dark energy would imply that an “unknown agent intervened in the evolution [of the universe] for reasons of its own.”³

The three physicists, all of whom are nontheists, concluded their paper with these words, “Perhaps the only reasonable conclusion is that we do not live in a world with a true cosmological constant.”⁴ Cosmological constant is another term for dark energy. They felt compelled to deny the existence of dark energy because the alternative was an Agent beyond space and time performing miracles for reasons of his own.

Young-earth creationists, too, wish that dark energy would go away. They wish it, however, for a reason opposite to nontheistic scientists. If dark energy is real, it makes the universe too old for their interpretation of the Genesis 1 creation days and the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.

Like it or not, dark energy is real. With a measure as accurate as dark energy comprising 70.8±1.2%⁵ of all the stuff of the universe, there no longer is any rational basis for doubting its existence. It makes up more than two-thirds of the universe. Those who believe in the God of the Bible should really like it. It implies that the universe had a beginning in finite time just like the Bible repeatedly declares. Furthermore, the fine-tuning design it implies means that a known Agent who can operate from beyond space and time has miraculously intervened in the history of the universe for reasons of his own.

Featured image: Artist’s impression of the influence gravity has on space-time. Image credit: Phys.org.

Endnotes

1. Lisa Dyson, Matthew Kleban, and Leonard Susskind, “Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2002 (November 12, 2002): id. 011, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/10/011.
2. Philip Ball, “Is Physics Watching Over Us?” Nature, August 13, 2002, doi:10.1038/news020812-2.
3. Ibid.
4. Dyson, Kleban, and Susskind, “Disturbing Implications.”
5. Hugh Ross, “RTB’s Dark Energy Articles,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, December 5, 2011, http://www.reasons.org/articles/rtb-s-dark-energy-articles; The following articles give the latest and best measurements: P. A. R. Ade et al., Planck Collaboration, “Planck 2015 Results. XIII. Cosmological Parameters,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 594 (September 20, 2016): id. A13, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830; Ariel G. Sanchez et al., “The Clustering of Galaxies in the Completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological Implications of the Configuration-Space Clustering Wedges,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 464 (January 11, 2017): 1640–58, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2443; LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, “Upper Limits on the Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background from Advanced LIGO’s First Observing Run,” Physical Review Letters 118 (March 24, 2017): doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.121101; E. Komatsu et al., “Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation,” Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 180 (February 11, 2009): 333–35, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/180/2/330; G. Hinshaw et al., “Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results,” Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 208 (October 2013): 9–15, id. 19; doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19; Hinshaw et al., “Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave,” 9–11; Salvador Salazar-Albornoz et al., “The Clustering of Galaxies in the Completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Angular Clustering Tomography and Its Cosmological Implications,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 468 (March 15, 2017): 2938–2956, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx633; Éric Aubourg et al., “Cosmological Implications of Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) Measurements,” Physical Review D 92 (December 14, 2015): id. 123576, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.123516; G. S. Sharov and E. G. Vorontsova, “Parameters of Cosmological Models and Recent Astronomical Observations,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2014 (October 2014): id. 057, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/10/057; T. de Haan et al., “Cosmological Constraints from Galaxy Clusters in the 2500 Square-Degree SPT-SZ Survey,” Astrophysical Journal 832 (November 18, 2016), id. 95, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/95; Chia-Hsun Chuang et al., “The Clustering of Galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Single Probe Measurements from CMASS Anisotropic Galaxy Clustering,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 461 (June 26, 2016): 3781, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1535; Xiao-Dong Li et al., “Cosmological Constraints from the Redshift Dependence of the Alcock-Paczyski Test and Volume Effect: Galaxy Two-Point Correlation Function,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 450 (April 20, 2015): doi:10.1093/mnras/stv622; M. Betoule et al., “Improved Cosmological Constraints from a Joint Analysis of the SDSS-II and SNLS Supernova Samples,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 568 (August 2014): id. A22, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423413; Nico Hamaus et al., “Constraints on Cosmology and Gravity from the Dynamics of Voids,” Physical Review Letters 117 (August 25, 2016): id. 091302, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.091302; Raul E. Angulo and Stefan Hilbert, “Cosmological Constraints from the CFHTLenS Shear Measurements Using a New, Accurate, and Flexible Way of Predicting Non-Linear Mass Clustering,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 448 (February 5, 2015), 364, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv050; David N. Spergel, Raphael Flauger, and Renée Hložek, “Planck Data Reconsidered,” Physical Review D 91 (January 27, 2015): id. 023518, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.023518.

Subjects: Age of the Earth, Big Bang Theory, Creation & Genesis, Dark Energy & Dark Matter, Evolution, Old Earth Creationism, Young-Earth Creationism, Origin of the Universe, Universe Design

Though this be madness, yet there is method
in’t.

–Hamlet (Act II, scene II)

Was Hamlet crazy? Or was he feigning madness so he could investigate the murder of his father without raising suspicion?

In my senior year of high school, Mrs. Hodges assigned our class these questions as the topic for the first essay we wrote for honors English. I made the case that Hamlet was perfectly sane. Indeed, there was method to his madness.

I wound up with a B- on the assignment. Mrs. Hodges wasn’t impressed with my reasoning, writing on my paper in red ink, “You aren’t qualified to comment on Hamlet’s sanity. You are not a psychologist!” When she returned my paper, I muttered, “Of course, I’m not a psychologist. I’m a high school student. You were the one who asked me to speculate on his sanity. And then when I do . . .”

I was reminded of this high school memory a few days ago while contemplating the structure and function of DNA. This biomolecule’s design is “crazy.” Yet every detail of DNA’s structure is crucial for the role it plays as an information storage system in the cell. You might say there is biochemical method to DNA’s madness when it comes to its properties. One of DNA’s “insane” features is its capacity to conduct electrical current through the interior of the double helix.

DNA Wires

Caltech chemist Jacqueline Barton discovered this phenomenon in the early 1990s. Barton and her collaborators attached different chemical groups to the two ends of the DNA double helix. Both compounds possessed redox centers (metal atoms that can give off and take up electrons). When they blasted one of the redox centers with a pulse of light, it ejected an electron that was taken up by the redox center attached to the opposite end of the DNA molecule, causing the compound to emit a flash of light. The researchers concluded that the ejected electron must have travelled through the interior of the double helix from one redox center to the other.

Shortly after this discovery, Barton and her team learned that electrical charges  move through DNA only when the double helix is intact. Electrical current won’t flow through single-stranded DNA, nor will it flow if the DNA double helix is distorted, due to damage or misincorporation of DNA subunits during replication.

These (and other) observations indicate that the conductance of electrical charge through the DNA molecule stems from π-π stacking interactions of the nucleobases in the double helix interior. These interactions produce a molecular orbital that spans the length of the double helix. In effect, the molecular orbital functions like a wire running through DNA’s interior.

DNA Wires and Nanoelectronics

Charge conductance through the DNA double helix occurs more rapidly than it does through “standard” molecular wires made from inorganic materials. These “insane” transport speeds have inspired researchers to explore the possibility of using DNA as molecular scale wiring in nanoelectronic devices. In fact, some researchers think that DNA wires might become an integral feature for the next generation of medical diagnostic equipment.

Does DNA Function as a Wire in the Cell?

While the charge conductance through the DNA double helix is an interesting and potentially useful property, biochemists have long wondered if DNA functions as a nanowire in the cell.

In 2009, Barton and her team discovered the answer to this question. DNA’s capacity to transmit electrical charges along the length of the double helix plays a key role in the DNA repair process, and recently Barton’s collaborators have demonstrated that DNA’s wire property plays an important role in the initiation of DNA replication. Both processes are important for DNA to function as an information storage system. Repairing damage to DNA insures the integrity of the information it houses. And DNA replication makes it possible to pass this information on to the next generation. There is a purpose to every aspect of DNA’s properties—a method to the madness.

Detecting Damage to DNA

Damage to DNA distorts the double helix. In a process called base excision repair, the cell’s machinery recognizes and removes the damaged portion of the DNA molecule, replacing it with the correct DNA subunits.

For some time, biochemists puzzled over how the DNA repair enzymes located the damaged regions. In the bacteria E. coli, two repair enzymes, dubbed EndoIII and MutY, occur at low levels. (E. coli is a model organism often used by biochemists to study cellular processes.) Biochemists estimate that less than 500 copies of EndoIII exist in the cell and around 30 copies of MutY. These are low numbers considering the task at hand. These repair enzymes bear the responsibility of surveying the E. coli genome for damage—a genome that consists of over 4.6 million base pairs (genetic letters).

Barton and her team discovered that the two repair enzymes possess a redox center consisting of an iron-sulfur cluster (4Fe₄S) that has no enzymatic activity.¹ They speculated and then demonstrated that the 4Fe₄S cluster functions just like the compounds they attached to the DNA double helix in their original experiment in the 1990s.

It turns out Barton and her team were right. These repair proteins bind to DNA. Once bound, they send an electron from the 4Fe₄S redox center through the interior of the double helix, which establishes a current through the DNA molecule. Once the repair protein loses an electron, it cannot dissociate from the DNA double helix. Other repair proteins bound to the DNA pick up the electrons from the DNA’s interior at their iron-sulfur redox center. When they do, they dissociate from the DNA and resume their migration along the double helix. Eventually, the migrating repair protein will bind to the DNA again, sending an electron through the DNA’s interior.

This process is repeated, over and over again. However, if the DNA becomes damaged and the double helix distorted, then the DNA wire breaks, interrupting the flow of electrons. When this happens, the repair proteins remain attached to the DNA close to the location of the damage—thus, initiating the repair process.

Initiating DNA Replication

Recently, Barton and her team discovered that charge conductance through DNA also plays a critical role in the early stages of DNA replication.² DNA replication—the process of generating two “daughter molecules” identical to the “parent” molecule—serves an essential life function.

DNA replication begins at specific sites along the double helix, called replication origins. Typically, prokaryotic cells, such as E. coli, have only a single origin of replication.

The replication machinery locally unwinds the DNA double helix at the origin of replication to produce a replication bubble. 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.

Before the newly formed daughter strands can be produced, a small RNA primer must be produced. DNA polymerase—the protein that synthesizes new DNA by reading the parent template strand—can’t start production from scratch. It must be primed. The primosome, a massive protein complex that consists of over 15 different proteins (including the enzyme primase), produces the RNA primer. From there, DNA polymerase takes over and begins synthesizing the daughter DNA strand.

Barton and her team discovered that the handoff between primase and DNA polymerase relies on DNA’s wire property. Both primase and DNA polymerase possess 4Fe₄S redox clusters. When primase’s 4Fe₄S redox center loses an electron, this protein binds to DNA to produce the RNA primer. When primase’s 4Fe₄S redox center picks up an electron, the protein detaches from the DNA to end the production of the RNA primer.

When DNA polymerase binds to the DNA to begin the process of daughter strand synthesis, it sends an electron from its 4Fe₄S redox center along the double helix formed by the parent DNA-RNA primer. When the electron reaches the 4Fe₄S redox center of primase, it brings the production of the RNA primer to a halt.

DNA Wires and the Case for a Creator

The work by Barton and her colleagues highlights the elegant and sophisticated design of biochemical systems. DNA’s wire property is so remarkable that it serves as inspiration for the design of the next generation of electronic devices—at the nanoscale. The use of biological designs to drive technological advance is one of the most exciting areas in engineering. This area of study—called biomimetics and bioinspiration—presents us with new reasons to believe that life stems from a Creator. It paves the way for a new type of design argument I dub the converse Watchmaker argument: If biological designs are the work of a Creator, then these systems should be so well-designed that they can serve as engineering models and, otherwise, inspire the development of new technologies.

The converse Watchmaker argument complements William Paley’s classical Watchmaker argument for God’s existence. In my book The Cell’s Design, I describe how recent advances in biochemistry revitalize this classical argument. Over the last few decades, one of the most astounding insights from biochemistry is the recognition that many biochemical systems display the same properties as human designs. This similarity can be used to argue that life must come from the work of a Mind.

The Watchmaker Prediction

In conjunction with my presentation of the revitalized Watchmaker argument in The Cell’s Design, I proposed the Watchmaker prediction. I contend that many of the cell’s molecular systems currently go unrecognized as analogs to human designs because the corresponding technology has yet to be developed. That is, the Watchmaker argument may well become stronger in the future, and its conclusion more certain, as human technology advances.

The possibility that advances in human technology will ultimately mirror the molecular technology that already exists as an integral part of biochemical systems leads to the Watchmaker prediction: As human designers develop new technologies, examples of these technologies, which previously went unrecognized, will become evident in the operation of the cell’s molecular systems. In other words, if the Watchmaker analogy truly serves as evidence for the Creator’s existence, then it is reasonable to expect that life’s biochemical machinery anticipates human technological advances.

The Watchmaker Prediction, Satisfied

The discovery that DNA’s wire properties are critical for DNA repair and the initiation of DNA replication fulfills the Watchmaker prediction. Barton and her team recognized the physiological importance of DNA charge conductance a year after The Cell’s Design was published.

Nanoscientists have been working to develop molecular-scale nanowires for the last couple of decades. The discovery of DNA’s wire properties occurred in this context. In other words, as new technology emerged—in this case, nanoelectronics—we have discovered its existence inside the cell.

Considering the wire properties of DNA, it is not madness to think that a Creator exists and played a role in life’s genesis.

Resources

• The Cell’s Design by Fazale Rana (book)
• “DNA: Digitally Designed” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Biochemical Turing Machines ‘Reboot’ the Watchmaker Argument” by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

1. Amie K. Boal et al., “Redox Signaling between DNA Repair Proteins for Efficient Lesion Detection,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 106 (September 8, 2009): 15237–42, doi:10.1073/pnas.0908059106; Pamel A. Sontz et al., “DNA Charge Transport as a First Step in Coordinating the Detection of Lesions by Repair Proteins,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 109 (February 7, 2012): 1856–61, doi:10.1073/pnas.1120063109; Michael A. Grodick, Natalie B. Muren, and Jacqueline K. Barton, “DNA Charge Transport within the Cell,” Biochemistry 54 (February 3, 2015): 962–73, doi:10.1021/bi501520w.
2. Elizabeth O’Brien et al., “The [4Fe4S] Cluster of Human DNA Primase Functions as a Redox Switch Using DNA Charge Transport,” Science 355 (February 24, 2017): doi:10.1126/science.aag1789.

Subjects: Biochemistry, Design, Intelligent Design

Life is demanding.

In addition to requiring exquisite fine-tuning of the four fundamental forces of physics and of the constants of physics, the existence of life demands still more. It requires that the fundamental particles, the energy, and the space-time dimensions of the universe enable the principles of quantum tunneling and special relativity to operate exactly as they do. Quantum tunneling must function no more or less efficiently than what scientists observe for hemoglobin to transport the right amount of oxygen to the cells of all vertebrate and most invertebrate species.¹ Likewise, relativistic corrections, not too great and not too small, are essential in order for copper and vanadium to fulfill their critical roles in the functioning of the nervous system and bone development of all the higher animals.²

For quantum tunneling to operate so that hemoglobin functions properly, the uncertainty in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle must be fine-tuned. The uncertainty scientists observe is quite large. If the observer chooses to measure the momentum of a particle with precision, he or she discovers that the position of the particle is now known to only about ± half a mile. However, if the uncertainty in the position becomes much greater or smaller than half a mile, hemoglobin will not function as it does and advanced life becomes impossible. (There are other life-essential proteins like hemoglobin that depend on fine-tuned quantum tunneling.³)

Other uncertainties in physics, such as Brownian motion, are crucial for life to survive. Brownian motion refers to the random movement of one or more particles or bits of dust that is suspended in a gas or a liquid as a result of their collisions with molecules or atoms in the gas or liquid. Several ratchet-type machines inside living cells depend upon Brownian motion for their operations and functions.⁴

Counter to Einstein’s famous quote that “God does not play dice,” this evidence demonstrates that, given God’s goals and the laws of physics he has chosen to govern the universe, God must play dice. However, he has exquisitely designed the dice for the benefit of physical life.

For Einstein’s theory of special relativity to operate so that certain proteins containing copper and vanadium will adequately support life means that the value of the velocity of light must be fine-tuned. This proves to not be the only reason why the velocity of light must be held constant and fixed at the value of 299,792.458 kilometers per second. Because of Einstein’s equation, E = mc², even small changes in c, the velocity of light, lead to huge changes in E, the energy, or m, the mass. Thus, a slight change in light’s velocity implies that starlight will either be too strong or too feeble for life to exist on planets orbiting otherwise habitable stars or that stars will produce the wrong elements for life.

Stable orbits of planets about stars and of electrons about the nuclei of atoms are only possible in a universe described by three large and rapidly expanding dimensions of space. These dimensions are length, width, and height. In addition to these three familiar space dimensions, six extremely tiny space dimensions that are presently dormant but that actively expanded during the first 10^-43seconds of the universe’s history are critical for quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity to coexist.⁵ Therefore, physical life requires a different fine-tuning of the number of effective dimensions, both in the present, namely four (three space plus one time), and in the earliest moment of the universe’s existence, namely ten (nine space plus one time).⁶

Fine-tuning that makes possible the existence of billions of human beings really is ubiquitous.⁷Everything of significance we observe in the universe must be fine-tuned for the redemption of billions of humans to be possible. Even the uncertainties in physics, the values of physical constants, and the number and kinds of dimensions must be exquisitely fine-tuned. Humans have ample reasons to be grateful for both the certainties and uncertainties of physics.

Endnotes

1. George F. R. Ellis, “The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments,” in The Anthropic Principle: The Conditions for the Existence of Mankind in the Universe, eds. F. Bertola and U. Curi (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 30; D. Allan Bromley, “Physics,” Science 209 (July 4, 1980): 116, doi:10.1126/science.209.4452.110.
2. Ellis, “The Anthropic Principle,”; H. R. Marston, Shirley H. Allen, and S. L. Swaby, “Iron Metab­olism in Copper-Deficient Rats,” British Journal of Nutrition 25 (January 1971): 15–30, doi:10.1079/BJN19710062; K. W. J. Wahle and N. T. Davies, “Effect of Dietary Copper Deficiency in the Rat on Fatty Acid Composition of Adipose Tissue and Desaturase Activity of Liver Micro­somes,” British Journal of Nutrition 34 (July 1975): 105–12, doi:10.1017/S000711457500013X; Walter Mertz, “The Newer Essential Trace Elements, Chromium, Tin, Vanadium, Nickel, and Silicon,” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 33 (December 1974): 307–13, doi:10.1079/PNS19740054.
3. Christopher C. Page et al., “Natural Engineering Principles of Electron Tunnelling in Biological Oxidation-Reduction,” Nature 402 (November 4, 1999): 47–52, doi:10.1038/46972.
4. Fazale Rana, The Cell’s Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator’s Artistry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 91–93.
5. Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos: The Transdimensionality of God, 3rd ed. (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2017), 32–41.
6. Ross, Beyond the Cosmos.
7. Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016).

Subjects: Anthropic Principle, Design, Fine-Tuning, Intelligent Design, Proteins, Relativity, Laws of Physics, Particle Physics

Which of all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this? (Job 12:9, NIV)

In early March (2017), I took part in a forum at Samford University (Birmingham, AL) entitled Genesis and Evolution. At this two-day event, the panelists presented and discussed scientific and biblical perspectives on young-earth, old-earth, and evolutionary versions of creationism.

The organizers of this forum charged me with the responsibility of describing old-earth creationism (OEC) from a scientific vantage point while also providing the rationale for my views. As part of my presentation, the organizers asked me to discuss the assumptions that undergird my views. One of the foundational tenets of OEC is an important idea taught in Scripture: God has revealed Himself to us through the record of nature. According to passages such as Job 12:7–9, part of that revelation includes the “fingerprints” He has left on His creation.

Detecting the Fingerprints

If Scripture is true, then scientific investigation should uncover evidence for design throughout the natural realm. Science should detect God’s fingerprints. And indeed, it has. As a biochemist, I am deeply impressed with the elegance, sophistication, and ingenuity of the cell’s molecular systems. In my view, these features reflect the work of a mind—a divine Mind. But the evidence for intelligent design in the biochemical realm is much more extensive. For example, the eerie similarity between the structure and function of biochemical systems and the objects and devices produced by human designers further evinces the Creator’s handiwork. In my book The Cell’s Design, I show how the remarkable similarities serve to revitalize William Paley’s Watchmaker argument for God’s existence.

To describe the hallmark features of human designs, Paley used the term “contrivance.” Human designs are contrivances—and so are biological systems. If human contrivances require the work of human designers, then it follows that biological systems—which are also contrivances—require a divine Designer. In The Cell’s Design, I introduce the concept of an intelligent design pattern. Following Paley, I identify several features that characterize human designs. Collectively, these characteristics form a pattern that can then be matched to the features of biological and biochemical systems. The greater the match between the intelligent design pattern and biological/biochemical systems, the greater the certainty that designs found in living systems are the work of a Mind.

Is Science Capable of Detecting the Supernatural?

In response to my presentation at the Genesis and Evolution event, cell biologist Kenneth Miller from Brown University—a well-known critic of intelligent design—argued that creationism and intelligent design cannot be part of the construct of science because science lacks the capability of detecting the supernatural. In his book The Triumph of Evolution: And the Failure of Creationism, paleontologist Niles Eldredge makes this very point:

We humans can directly experience the material world only through our senses, and there is no way we can directly experience the supernatural. Thus, in the enterprise that is science, it isn’t an ontological claim that a God . . . does not exist, but rather an epistemological recognition that even if such a God did exist, there would be no way to experience that God given the impressive, but still limited, means afforded by science. And that is true by definition.¹

But as I pointed out during my presentation, there are scientific disciplines predicated on science’s capacity to detect the activity of intelligent agency. One such research program is SETI (the search for extraterrestrial intelligence). Astronomers involved in this program seek ways to distinguish electromagnetic radiation emanating from astronomical objects from those hypothetically generated by intelligent agents that are part of alien civilizations. To put it another way, SETI is an intelligent design research program.

Aliens and Fast Radio Bursts

Research by scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics powerfully illustrates this point.² These investigators propose that fast radio bursts (FRBs) emanate from alien technology, specifically planet-sized transmitters powering interstellar probes.

Astronomers discovered FRBs in 2007. Since then, around two dozen exceedingly bright millisecond-long bursts of radio emissions have been detected. Astronomers think that FRBs originate in distant galaxies, billions of light-years away.

The Harvard-Smithsonian scientists calculate that the transmitters could generate enough energy from sunlight to move probes through space, if the light was directed onto an area of a planet twice the size of Earth. Given the energies involved, the transmitters would have to be cooled. Again, the researchers estimate that a water-cooled device twice Earth’s size could keep the transmitter from melting.

The researchers recognize that construction of the transmitters lies beyond our technology but is possible given the laws of physics. They speculate that aliens built these transmitters to power light sails to move spacecraft weighing a million tons and carrying living creatures across interstellar space.

These astronomers maintain that the transmitter would have to continually focus its beam on the light sail to power it. Accordingly, because the sail, its planet, star, and galaxy all move relative to us, FRBs originate when the transmitter’s beam sweeps across the sky and briefly points in Earth’s direction.

So, are FRBs evidence for alien technology? Avi Loeb, one of the Harvard-Smithsonian scientists, admits that their proposal is speculative but justifies it because they “haven’t identified a possible natural source with any confidence.”³ Loeb argues, “Deciding what’s likely ahead of time limits the possibilities. It’s worth putting ideas out there and letting the data be the judge.”⁴

His Evidence Is Clearly Seen

So contrary to the protests of scientists such as Miller and Eldredge, science does have the tool kit to detect the handiwork of intelligent agents and even discern the capabilities and motives of the intelligent designer(s). Therefore, why not let intelligent design proponents and creationists put their ideas out there and let the data be the judge?

It is interesting that the Harvard-Smithsonian astronomers think they can recognize the work of intelligent designers who possess capabilities beyond what we can understand—and maybe even imagine. They also think that they can discern the purpose behind the alien technology—space exploration. Then why can’t science recognize the work of a Creator whose capabilities exist beyond what we can imagine?

Considering the proposal by the Harvard-Smithsonian investigators, it is disingenuous for Miller, Eldredge, and other scientists to reject, out of hand, the scientific evidence for God’s fingerprints in biochemical systems. I contend that the intelligent design pattern that I describe in The Cell’s Design can be used to rigorously—and even quantitatively—characterize the Creator’s activity in biological systems. Moreover, as I have discussed previously, science has the tools to identify the Designer.

As the apostle Paul wrote, evidence for the Creator is “clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (Romans 1:20). If only the scientific community would be willing to look.

Resources:

• “Fast Radio Bursts: ET Is Not Calling Home” by Hugh Ross (article)
• “Fast Radio Bursts Update” by Hugh Ross (article)
• “A Biochemical Watch Found in a Cellular Heath” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Can Science Identify the Intelligent Designer?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• The Cell’s Design by Fazale Rana (book)

Endnotes:

1. Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution: And the Failure of Creationism (New York: Holt and Company, 2001), 13.
2. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “Could Fast Radio Bursts Be Powering Alien Probes?,” Science News (blog), ScienceDaily, March 9, 2017, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170309120419.htm.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.

Subjects: Intelligent Design, Old Earth Creationism

I was at a science conference a few weeks ago where one of the scientists claimed in her lecture that the altruistic behavior we observe in certain mammal species proves that we humans share a common ancestor with these animals through common descent alone. Specifically, she tried to demonstrate in her talk that the altruistic behavior of humans compared to that of these animals differs only by degree and not fundamentally in kind, and that no supernatural intervention was needed to explain the origin of altruism in either humans or in these animals. She insisted that the altruism manifested in both humans and other mammals could be explained by the drive in these animals to preserve the species—that is, the “survival of the fittest” doctrine of Darwinian evolution. In other words, she set out to prove that while we humans certainly are superior in many respects to other mammals and mammals superior in many respects to other life-forms, neither humans nor mammals are exceptional in any supernatural way.

The Bible on Altruism in Animals
The Bible begs to differ. Genesis 1 singles out the nephesh animals for their distinction from previously existing creatures. The Hebrew word nephesh is best translated as “soulish animal.” It refers to those animals that God has endowed with mind, will, and emotions. These are the animals that emotionally bond with one another. This bonding is especially evident between parents and their young offspring. One obvious way that these animals are altruistic is that the parents in each nephesh species willingly sacrifice to care for and protect their offspring. The nephesh include all bird and mammal species and just a few reptilian species.

The Hebrew word bara, translated as “create,” is used only three times in Genesis 1. It first appears when God brings the universe into existence. The second time it appears is when God creates the nephesh. The third time is when God creates humans. In the context of Genesis 1, bara is reserved for God bringing something brand-new into existence. That is, in Genesis 1 the Bible asserts that there is something truly new and exceptional about the nephesh compared to previous life on Earth and something truly new and exceptional about humans compared to all other life on Earth.

The book of Job expands on the unique relational capacities of the nephesh. It points out that these animals are uniquely and optimally capable of interacting and emotionally bonding not only with members of their own species, but also with a species that did not yet exist when they appeared—namely, the human species. A common descent model would not predict that nephesh animals would possess the capacities for social interaction with humans in advance of our arrival—features of intelligence and emotion that facilitate bonding with humans and serving and pleasing humans.¹ Without the existence of humans, such endowments would be wasteful, burdensome, and thus limiting to the fitness of these animals. However, a special creation model would indeed predict that the nephesh would be endowed in advance with these capabilities.

Overlooked Altruism
Overlooked by the scientist speaking at the conference is the point that nephesh animals not only demonstrate altruistic behavior toward members of their own species, but when bonded to a human or humans, they also demonstrate even greater altruistic behavior toward the human(s) with whom they have a strong emotional bond. For example, there are many accounts of a horse or a dog laying down its life to save the life of its human owner. Furthermore, when a nephesh animal is bonded to a human being, it will demonstrate much more enhanced altruistic behavior toward nephesh animals that are not members of its own species. Such behavior is particularly evident when nephesh animals of different species are emotionally bonded to the same human being. Anyone who has had pets of different species at the same time likely has observed this behavior.

One might be able to argue that altruism expressed toward members of the same species gives that species a survival advantage over other species and, thus, could be interpreted as evidence for a naturalistic common descent model. However, altruism expressed toward members of different species contradicts naturalistic common descent models.

Spiritual Lessons from Animal Altruism
Job 12:7, 9–10 exhorts us:

But ask the animals [land mammals], and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you. . . . Which of all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this? In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.

As the rest of the book of Job makes clear, the teaching we receive from beasts and birds is not just biological—it is also spiritual. These animals teach us important lessons about ourselves, God, and how we can enter into an emotionally rewarding relationship with our Creator.

I describe and explain these lessons in my book Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job.² In the context of altruism, one lesson is that as the nephesh animals were given the motivation and design features that enable them to express enhanced altruistic behavior to members of a higher species, so also were we humans given the motivation and design features that enable us to express enhanced altruistic behavior to a higher Being.

A second lesson is that human sin and abuse severely limit the altruistic behavior of nephesh animals bonded to humans toward 1) humans, 2) members of other nephesh species, and 3) members of the same nephesh species. Likewise, human sin and abuse severely limit the altruistic behavior of those humans toward 1) God, 2) other humans, 3) nephesh animals bonded to them, and 4) nephesh animals not bonded to them.

A third lesson is that just as it takes a higher being (a human) to tame a nephesh animal, it similarly takes a higher being (God) to tame a human.

A fourth lesson is that when a nephesh animal submits to a human and allows that human to tame them, their capacity for altruistic behavior becomes much enhanced. In the same manner, when humans submit to God and allow God to tame them, their capacity to express altruism toward God and others becomes greatly magnified.

A fifth lesson is that if it were not for God creating nephesh animals and endowing them with the motivation and the capacity to express altruism toward humans, we humans never would have launched or been able to sustain civilization.³ This fifth lesson is a humility lesson. If it were not for God specifically creating the nephesh species described in Job 38–39, we would have been permanently stuck in the Stone Age.

These lessons (and there are many more) explain why there is a correlation between the lack of contact with the altruistic behavior of the nephesh and atheistic and agnostic beliefs. In the twenty-first century, more and more humans are becoming isolated from the lessons Job speaks of in Job 12:7–10. Part of our strategy in reaching people for Christ needs to be exposing them to the great spiritual lessons being taught by the beasts and the birds.

Endnotes

1. Hugh Ross, Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job: How the Oldest Book in the Bible Answers Today’s Scientific Questions (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011), 105–85.
2. Ibid.
3. Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis: A Scientist’s Journey through Genesis 1–11 (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2014), 75–77.

Subjects: Animals, Common Design vs. Common Descent, Creation vs. Evolution, Genesis, Human Uniqueness, Naturalism