The SARS-2 virus, responsible for COVID-19, has turned life upside down in nations all over the world. As I write, regions of the United States have been hit as hard as any other nation. This historic event makes everyone wonder, “Will life ever be the same?”

I am confident that the answer is no. Just like previous major disasters of the past century unalterably changed the way everyone lives, so will the COVID-19 pandemic. Consider, for example, World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, and 9/11. These catastrophic events changed the way governments, societies, cultures, and individuals operated.

As a recent example, the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, changed the way we all live. The aftermath of that fateful day changed air travel so dramatically that it not only impacted air travelers, it altered the world economy.

The degree to which the current viral outbreak will change the way we live and how the world operates depends on how much longer the pandemic lasts, how many people it kills, and how many of those who recover from COVID-19 have lasting physical consequences, such as lung damage and damage to other internal organs. Perhaps even more consequential for the millions who have been asymptomatic yet economically impacted, is how long until or even whether they can resume their livelihoods. Many others will be vulnerable to illnesses, mental health challenges, and addictions. At the date on which I completed this writing answers to these questions were still speculative. Nevertheless, certain changes to the way we live seem inevitable no matter how the pandemic ends.

Lifestyle Changes
Some are claiming that the social practices of physical touch such as handshakes, kissing, and hugging will disappear. Humans are social creatures. It is unrealistic to say that all forms of physical touch with people outside of our families will vanish. Can you imagine two business people closing a multi-million dollar deal with an elbow bump where their elbows are covered by two layers of clothing?

What is realistic is the proliferation of hand sanitizer dispensaries and people carrying personal hand sanitizers in their pockets, purses, and briefcases. Bleach wipes are even more effective against viruses than hand sanitizers. It would not surprise me to see airlines install bleach wipe dispensers in every seat.

Before COVID-19, I never got offended when someone brought out their bottle of hand sanitizer after I shook their hand. However, I saw many other people who did get offended at such an act. I anticipate that the use of a hand sanitizer after a handshake or hug will no longer be considered offensive.

On my past trips to Asian megacities I saw a high percentage of citizens routinely wearing face masks. After this scourge I expect that this practice will no longer be limited to cities like Tokyo, Shanghai, and Hong Kong. Anywhere where strangers are densely packed together I anticipate seeing a lot of face masks.

COVID-19 has taught us how much social interaction we can achieve through virtual meetings. We have a son and daughter-in-law about an hour’s drive away here in Southern California and a son in North Carolina. With the outbreak keeping all of us in our respective dwellings, we organized family get-togethers through Zoom. There we could visually show one another the different projects we were working on. We even got our pets involved. The travel times we saved enabled us to have more meetups.

Kathy and I also have had virtual dinners with friends. They could see the food we were eating and vice versa as we talked. Once the pandemic has passed, I imagine I will return to a busy travel schedule. However, I intend to keep a lot more of my regular social engagements through virtual media technology. I don’t think I will be alone.

Economic Changes
Several pandemics of the past hundred years have had their origin in animal-human contact. After the SARS-1 outbreak two decades ago, wet markets in China were banned from holding, selling, and slaughtering live wild animals for retail customers. After COVID-19 (itself caused by SARS-2), I expect a worldwide ban on city markets holding, selling, and slaughtering live animals of any kind for retail customers.

Long before the current virus struck, we at Reasons to Believe were doing much of our speaking, training, and public interviews through such virtual media as Zoom, Skype, YouTube and Facebook livestreaming, and Google hangout. Such meetings are not as personal as face-to-face events but are much more economical and have the potential to reach much larger audiences.

COVID-19 has caused an evolution in virtual meetings. They have become more personal. For example, my home church, Christ Church Sierra Madre, has been livestreaming my Sunday Paradoxes class for the past eighteen months. Until now, we would take questions through the chat feature. Now, I can see the person who is asking the question and they can see me. Also, I now start the livestreaming a half hour before the class begins and let it run for another half hour after the class ends. Why? Participants wanted the opportunity for fellowship with one another.

The pandemic has taught us all how much transportation time we save through virtual meetings. Long after COVID-19 ceases to pose a risk I anticipate that the ratio of work done at home compared to the office or classroom will increase. Such a transition will enhance the world economy not only through saving workers’ time but also by relieving pressure on our transportation systems. However, since supervisors will no longer be able to closely monitor their employees, people increasingly will be paid by their work output rather than by the hour.

COVID-19 has impacted the clothing industry in an unexpected manner. Clothing stores have seen their sales of tops outstrip their sales of bottoms. Since a virtual workplace usually displays workers only from the waist up, there will be less need to invest in dress slacks, dresses, and skirts. Your fellow workers will not know if you are wearing sweat pants, shorts, or pajamas.

Everyone is expecting air travel to drop as virtual meetings, virtual entertainment events, virtual classrooms, and virtual conferences to some degree replace in-person events. I believe that kind of business travel indeed will drop. However, I anticipate that the cabin fever effect from increased virtual work and meetings will increase the demand for recreational air travel. National and state parks and wilderness areas likely will see an increased number of visitors. Families and social groups will want to get together more frequently.

Biblical Principles
One outcome I am praying will result from the outbreak is that many more people will appreciate and start following biblical principles that are relevant to preventing and mitigating pandemics. Not until the fourteenth century during the greatest pandemic of all time—the Black Death—did the practice of quarantining extend beyond Jews and Christians.

The principle of quarantining the sick to protect the healthy is taught in five books of the Old Testament. The most extensive instruction is in Leviticus 13–15. There we learn that people with symptoms of infectious diseases are to be isolated from the rest of the population until seven days after the disappearance of all symptoms. Furthermore, such people are not permitted to return from isolation until they have bathed and washed their clothes. Leviticus 13–15 also indicates that governing authorities are permitted to enforce quarantining laws.

Numbers 5:1–4 summarizes the quarantining and cleansing laws. Numbers 31:19–24 extends these laws to anyone who has had contact with a dead body. Deuteronomy 23:12–14 commanded the Jews to immediately bury their excrement. Today, we know that flushing a toilet with the lid up can allow microscopic particles to waft up through the immediate area (called toilet plume). Applying the principle taught in Deuteronomy 23 means that it would be wise, sick or not, to close the toilet lid before flushing.

What about animal markets? These passages (Deuteronomy 25:4, Proverbs 12:10, 27:23, Deuteronomy 22:10, and Luke 14:5) exhort us to look out for the welfare of our domesticated animals and to treat them humanely. When we overcrowd domesticated animals and subject them to stressful circumstances, such overcrowding and stress greatly enhance the probability that relatively benign viruses¹ will mutate and become deadly. Likewise, when we overcrowd human beings and/or subject them to great stress, hardship, and fatigue, we create a situation where we enhance the mutation rate of viruses. Putting overcrowded and stressed-out humans into contact with overcrowded and stressed out animals increases the risk of viral mutation even more and, of course, the chance of animal to human transmission of deadly viruses.

A modern application of the biblical principle of quarantining might look like this: We would extend the quarantine beyond the infected to include reasonable social distancing, we would wash our hands, bodies, and clothes more frequently, and take steps to prevent fecal particles from getting into the air we breath. These measures would put humans at much less risk from both viral and bacterial pandemics.

To be sure, life after the pandemic will not be the same but it doesn’t necessarily mean life will be unbearable. Humans have always adjusted to changing circumstances—a trait that reminds us we are created in the image of God. By applying biblical wisdom, common sense, and love for our fellow humans, we can make life more than bearable for all. Believers in the God of the Bible can lead such efforts and point others to the ultimate assurance found in relationship with their Creator.

Can our universe come from nothing? At least one prominent physicist, Lawrence Krauss, answers with a resounding “yes.” In fact, he wrote a book titled A Universe from Nothing to articulate his position, which emanates from his worldview that no creator is involved. Krauss wants science to define nothing (instead of agreeing with the definitions of philosophy and theology). One key component of Krauss’s “nothing” hinges on the sum energy budget for the universe being zero and that requires a universe with a flat geometry. It is difficult to picture this geometry because we can’t “see” the universe’s shape, but recent evidence may undermine that key feature and worldview.

A Little Background

For the last two decades, the prevailing cosmological model for the origin of the universe has posited an inflationary big bang picture. After an incredibly brief epoch of hyperfast expansion, known as inflation, the universe continually expands from an initial hot, dense state. As it expands, it cools and forms all the structure we see—stars, planets, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies, etc. Measurements indicate that the energy of the universe is distributed such that normal matter (electrons, protons, neutrons and the like) comprises about 5%, dark matter adds another 25%, and dark energy makes up the balance. When originally proposed, inflation provided a nice answer to a nagging question: Why did our universe have a geometry so close to flat?

The very process of inflation contained the answer. The exponential growth increased the universe’s size by at least a factor of 10²⁶! This incredible expansion would take the original geometry of the universe (whether closed, flat, or open) and drive it exquisitely close to a flat geometry. This was a hallmark prediction of inflation. Regardless of the universe’s original geometry, inflation’s incredible expansion would result in a measurably flat geometry (at least with our current sensitivity).

Why Is a Flat Geometry Important?

On a basic level, the universe could assume three different geometries: closed, flat, or open—and it has nothing to do with the number of dimensions. The three diagrams below show how parallel lines behave within the different geometries.

In a closed geometry (left), parallel lines converge and eventually cross. In an open geometry (right) the lines grow farther and farther apart. In a flat geometry (center) the lines always stay the same distance apart. Although scientists cannot step outside the universe to see its geometry, they can measure various quantities like the “clumpiness” of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), which is leftover radiation from an early stage of the universe. That distribution pattern can help reveal the geometry.

Given the nature of our universe (as described above), scientists have derived an interesting feature. If the universe is flat, calculations show that the total energy of the universe is zero!¹

Krauss relies on this feature of the universe because he argues that the universe arises from a quantum fluctuation. Only if the universe has zero energy can this quantum fluctuation exist for anything more than the briefest length of time. Consequently, evidence that the universe has an open or closed geometry would undermine Krauss’s entire argument.

Is the Universe Actually Closed?

A recent article published in Nature Astronomy indicates that the universe may actually have a closed geometry.² Analysis of the Planck Legacy data suggests that the universe exhibits more gravitational lensing than expected. In gravitational lensing, gravity bends the path of light traveling through the expanding universe. Thus, a closed geometry for the universe is the simplest way to account for this variation. Furthermore, analysis of Planck satellite data tends to affirm a closed geometry. However, it’s not a closed case. When integrating the Planck analysis with baryon acoustic oscillations surveys of dark energy and gravitational shear studies, the best fits still point to a flat geometry. (On an interesting note, there are other discrepancies like this, such as the disparate measurements of the Hubble constant using the CMB and Type Ia supernovae.) Unfortunately, current technology and measurements cannot resolve whether the universe is actually closed or if scientists need more analysis.

We must wait for future space missions to provide more definitive data but we can think about the potential implications. The discovery of a closed universe would rule out the possibility of a zero-energy universe. The remaining options fit more comfortably within a theistic framework where the universe begins to exist. These results show that scientific advances can provide evidence to evaluate models for the origin of the universe and the worldviews that give rise to those models.

When Wayne Gretzky retired from playing professional hockey, National Hockey League fans referred to his departure as the end of greatness. Nicknamed “The Great One,” he was so great that no hockey fan then or now can imagine that any hockey player coming close to matching Gretzky’s talent.

In an even more dramatic manner the universe displays an end of greatness. However, the end of this greatness—a feature of the early universe’s history—signals the beginning of purpose.

The universe on its largest size-scales (13.5 billion light-years across) appears to be a homogeneous distribution of randomly located superclusters of galaxies (see figure 1). This appearance of homogeneity and uniformity suddenly disappears, however, when one examines the structure of the universe on a somewhat smaller size-scale.

Astronomers refer to the sudden appearance of cosmic homogeneity and uniformity (as one observes cosmic structure at greater and greater volumes) as the “End of Greatness.”¹ Cosmic volumes defined by spheres with diameters smaller than 840 million light-years depart from homogeneity and uniformity, manifesting magnificent interior designs (“greatness”).²

Elegant Cosmic Webs
On size-scale diameters of less than 840 million light-years the random, homogeneous, and uniform jumble of superclusters of galaxies gives way to ordered structures of galaxies, galaxy clusters, and gas. These ordered structures are cosmic webs. They look like soap foam bubbles with filaments and sheets of galaxy clusters and gases on the surfaces of the bubbles separated by giant interior voids (see figure 2). You can experience animated fly throughs of different cosmic webs in the following short YouTube videos:

The cosmic webs truly resemble soap foam bubbles. They form when spherical voids where very little matter exists are encapsulated by membranes that contain nearly all the ordinary matter (galaxy clusters, galaxies, dust, and gas) and nearly all the dark matter. Astronomers now understand why, on size-scales of less than 840 million light-years, cosmic structure is manifested as cosmic webs.

Cosmic Structure Formation
The voids formed as a result of baryon acoustic oscillations arising from the big bang creation event. (Baryons refer to the particles that comprise ordinary matter. Protons and neutrons comprise more than 99.9 percent of ordinary matter.) Baryon acoustic oscillations are fluctuations in the density of baryonic matter caused by acoustic density waves in the plasma (ionized matter) of the very early universe.

Tiny anisotropies in the quantum fluctuations of the universe when it was very much less than a trillionth of a second old grew larger as the universe expanded. High-mass density regions collapsed under the influence of gravity much more rapidly than low-mass density regions.

As this ordinary matter clumped together, it created pressure. This pressure was generated from the photons with which ordinary matter strongly interacts. The pressure counteracted gravity, creating ripples that radiated throughout the universe’s spacetime surface. These ripples are the baryon acoustic oscillations.

Dark matter, or exotic matter, interacts very weakly or not at all with photons. Hence, the pressure that causes the ripples (baryon acoustic oscillations) does not affect it. Thus, the dark matter remains at the centers of the ripples. The ordinary matter gets pushed out to form bubbles surrounding the centers of the ripples (see figure 3).

Some ordinary matter falls into the center of the bubble as a result of the gravitational attraction of the dark matter located there. The result is that most of the ordinary matter resides on the surface of the bubble and nearly all the remaining ordinary matter in the center of the bubble. The distribution of ordinary matter along the bubble surfaces takes the form of sheets of huge, closely packed aggregates of galaxy clusters and gas with filaments of galaxy clusters and gas emanating out from the sheets.

Web Design Leads to Life
The size of the bubbles that make up the cosmic webs are determined by the ratio of the quantity of dark matter to the quantity of ordinary matter, the quantity of each kind of matter, and the cosmic expansion rate. These three features of the universe explain the amazing interior designs of the cosmic webs that make possible the existence of physical life.

The bubble structures of the cosmic webs spread apart the galaxy clusters and the galaxies within the clusters by the just-right distances at the just-right times in the history of the universe to make possible the existence of advanced physical life. (Interested readers can learn much more about these just-right designs in two previous posts on supercluster design [part 1 and part 2]). In a historical context, the end of cosmic greatness is the beginning of greatness. Very early in the history of the universe, homogeneity and uniformity transitioned into magnificently great designs, great designs by the cosmic Creator that made it possible for us humans to exist, to thrive, and to fulfill our purpose and destiny.

Featured image: The Cosmic Web
Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Breakthroughs in astronomy in the early part of the twentieth century were the first of many scientific confirmations of the biblical cosmic creation model. It was the discovery of cosmic expansion that first persuaded astronomers that the universe had a beginning. Detailed measurements of the expansion of the universe throughout its history led to the recognition that space and time were created and that a Causal Agent beyond space, time, matter, and energy created our universe of space, time, matter, and energy.¹

Cosmic Expansion Rate Tension
Lately, however, tension has arisen between present-day and very distant (13.8 billion years ago) measurements of the cosmic expansion rate. Last year, a team led by Nobel laureate Adam Riess used Cepheid variable stars to calibrate the distances to local galaxies hosting type Ia supernovae. Based on this calibration, Riess’s team determined that the universe is expanding at a rate of 74.03 ± 1.42 kilometers per second per megaparsec.² (1 megaparsec = 3.26 million light-years.)

This value differs, however, from the one based on a detailed map of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), a map that reveals the state of the universe when it was only 380,000 years old. The CMBR-based cosmic expansion rate = 67.4 ± 0.5 kilometers per second per megaparsec.³

This difference between local (present-day) and very distant (13.8-billion-years-ago) determinations of the cosmic expansion rate = 6.6 kilometers per second per megaparsec. This difference amounts to a 4.4 standard deviation discrepancy. Such a large discrepancy implies that the difference is unlikely to be a statistical fluke. It is much more likely due to systematic uncertainties (instrumental effects and/or overlooked physical effects that push the measurements either above or below the true value) and/or unforeseen physics (overlooked physical phenomena).

Since the age of the universe is inversely correlated with the cosmic expansion rate, the local cosmic expansion rate measurements imply that the universe is 9 percent younger (1.2 billion years younger) than the 13.8 billion years implied from the CMBR-based cosmic expansion rate. Some young-earth creationist leaders have jumped on this discrepancy to claim “that there is something seriously wrong with the big bang model,”⁴ that “the big bang model is false,”⁵ and “Big Bang age estimates often contradict one anther.”⁶

Resolution of the Tension: Tip of the Red-Giant Branch Stars
About ten months ago, I wrote a blog demonstrating several ways that the tension between the CMBR-based and the Cepheid-supernovae-based measurements for the cosmic expansion rate could be resolved.⁷ Thanks to new sets of measurements, the means for resolution is now evident.

Astronomers have known for more than a decade that there was a second, independent method for calibrating the distances to type Ia supernovae, the basis for determining the cosmic expansion rate during the universe’s past half history. That method was to use “tip of the red-giant branch” stars.

The tip of the red-giant branch (TRGB) is an astronomical distance indicator. It uses the luminosity of the brightest red-giant branch star in a galaxy as a standard candle to determine the distance to that galaxy. In every galaxy, the brightest red-giant branch star manifests the same intrinsic brightness. Therefore, a measure of such a star’s apparent brightness yields the galaxy’s distance through the inverse square law (the luminosity of a light-emitting object decreases with the square of its distance), given that astronomers possess an accurate geometric distance to a nearby tip of the red-giant branch star.

A few months ago, a team of thirteen astronomers led by Wendy Freedman and Barry Madore (a classmate of mine at the University of Toronto), published the most comprehensive determination of the cosmic expansion rate based on TRGB.⁸ They used 20 eclipsing binary stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud (see figure 1) to determine, by far, the most accurate geometric distance to that galaxy and, hence, to its brightest red-giant branch star. That distance = 162.04 ± 0.30 million light-years.⁹

Figure 1: Large Magellanic Cloud, the Closest Galaxy to the Milky Way
Image credit: European Southern Observatory

Based on the new geometric distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud and their observations of TRGB in galaxies hosting type Ia supernovae, the Freedman-Madore team determined that the cosmic expansion rate over the past seven billion years = 69.8 ± 0.8 kilometers per second per megaparsec.¹⁰ This value is discordant with the CMBR-based cosmic expansion rate by only 2.4 kilometers per second per megaparsec.

In their paper, Freedman and Madore’s team presents a diagram showing the history of cosmic expansion rate measurements using the three methods described here: CMBR, Cepheid variable stars, and TRGB. Figure 2 below is their diagram.

Figure 2: Cosmic Expansion Rate Measurements over the Past Two Decades. The shaded portions show the probable measuring errors.
Image credit: Wendy Freedman et al., Astrophysical Journal

Whereas increasing measuring precision has resulted in greater tension between the CMBR and Cepheids determinations, the opposite trend has occurred for the CMBR and TRGB determinations. In fact, the difference between the CMBR and TRGB is now small enough to attribute to the probable measuring errors.

Resolution of the Tension: Dark Energy and the Local Hole
There are other likely reasons for the remaining difference between the CMBR and TRGB determinations. I mentioned one in my June 24, 2019, blog.¹¹ Dark energy, the dominant component of the universe, will more strongly accelerate the cosmic expansion rate when the universe is old and its space surface is larger than when it is young and its space surface is smaller. The latest and best measurements of dark energy imply that the universe should be expanding about one percent faster (about 0.7 kilometers per second per megaparsec faster) now than when it did when the universe was only 380,000 years old.

Another likely reason has been the subject of several recent research papers.¹² A local underdensity of galaxies and galaxy clusters would cause an increase in the local value of the cosmic expansion rate. A study based on the CLASSIX galaxy cluster survey revealed a 30 percent underdensity of matter in a local region with a diameter of 330–450 million light-years.¹³ Inside this underdense region, observations of the cosmic expansion rate will be about 4 kilometers per second per megaparsec greater than for the rest of the observable universe. Distance indicators outside this local underdense region will reduce this enhanced cosmic expansion rate but not to the point of making the enhancement trivial. The local underdense region probably enhances the TRGB determination by 1.0–1.6 kilometers per second per megaparsec.¹⁴

The combination of the new TRGB cosmic expansion rate determination, the impact of dark energy, the adjustment arising from the local underdensity, and the range of probable errors in all the measurements now fully resolves the tension in the cosmic expansion rate determinations. The biblically predicted big bang creation model is not in trouble; there is no cosmic age discrepancy. The latest observations demonstrate that the more we learn about the universe the more evidence we accumulate for what the Bible thousands of years ago taught about the origin and history of the universe.

I am writing this ongoing blog series on Reflections to encourage Christians to read more vigorously and enrich their lives with Christian classics in such fields as theology, philosophy, and apologetics. Hopefully, a brief introduction to these important Christian texts will motivate today’s believers to, as St. Augustine was called in his dramatic conversion to Christianity, “take up and read” (Latin: Tolle lege) these excellent books.

This week’s book, Knowing God by evangelical Protestant theologian J. I. Packer, is a contemporary classic of Christian doctrine. Widely considered one of the most important evangelical theological works of the twentieth century, Packer’s magnum opus (greatest work) has sold more than one million copies in North America alone.

Why Is This Author Notable?

James Innell (better known as J. I.) Packer was born in 1926 in England. He was educated at Oxford University where he studied under C. S. Lewis. Packer is a latter-day Puritan in the Reformed or Calvinistic tradition of the conservative side of the Anglican Church. He has taught for many years and currently serves as Board of Governors’ Professor of Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia. Packer is considered one of the most important evangelical theologians of the second half of the twentieth century.

What Is This Book About?

Originally written as a series of articles for a magazine, Knowing God was first published as a book in 1973 and has become a standard evangelical work of doctrine and theology. Consisting of 22 chapters and divided into three parts, the work explores the knowledge and attributes of God and the enjoyment that Christians derive from knowing him intimately.

Part 1 is entitled “Know the Lord” and explains just how and why the believer knows the triune God of historic Christianity who is revealed in the incarnate person of Jesus Christ. Part 2 is titled “Behold Your God” and unpacks many of God’s attributes, such as his majesty, wisdom, goodness, and justice. Part 3 carries the title “If God Be for Us” and reveals the joy of knowing God in personal relationship through Christ.

Packer’s book takes doctrine and devotion seriously as he provides practical guidance to the reader both as a theologian and as a pastor. This influential book provides evidence that reading theology can be inspirational and enjoyable. Packer is well-known for saying that the believer should “turn theology into doxology.”¹ In other words, the believer in Christ should turn the study of God into the praise of God.

In Knowing God, Packer warns of the dangers that can result when a person avoids the study of theology:

Disregard the study of God, and you sentence yourself to stumble and blunder through life blindfold, as it were, with no sense of direction and no understanding of what surrounds you. This way you can waste your life and lose your soul.2

Why Is This Book Worth Reading?

Knowing God is widely considered a contemporary masterpiece of evangelical theology and devotion. In 2006, Christianity Today magazine ranked the book number five on their list of “The Top 50 Books That Have Shaped Evangelicals.”3 This is a book that many Christians can read and study over and over throughout their lives.

Resources

Knowing God by J. I. Packer (book)

When I was five years old, Postman Pat was my favorite TV show. So, when I misbehaved my punishment included missing the show. I suffered, as only a five-year-old can, knowing that my siblings were watching while I was banished to my room.

Punishment involves suffering, be it big or small. Humans intuitively recognize that it is wrong to inflict suffering on someone, thus it follows that it is wrong to punish someone. So, why would an all-loving, all-good God make someone suffer by punishing them? Why would God send some people to suffer in hell as punishment?

Responsibility and Punishment

To address these questions, we will consider free will and how society rewards or punishes choices people make. In human society, we generally accept that it is morally justified to punish criminal behavior. When society punishes someone for committing a crime, it holds that person responsible for a free choice made. Likewise, when society praises someone for making a commendable choice, it holds that person responsible for praiseworthy behavior.

When society punishes a criminal, they are blaming that person appropriately for freely choosing to commit the crime. None of this is to say that there are not cases in the criminal justice system where we find that someone who committed a criminal act should not be held responsible because they suffer from a cognitive limitation. In these cases, we hold that the individual was not responsible for the act as they did not fully understand their actions.

Are We Humans or Animals?

Nevertheless, respecting free choice treats people as individuals who are rational and capable of exercising moral judgment. Yet some, like philosopher and political activist Bertrand Russell, have argued that we should not punish criminals, but treat their criminal actions as symptoms of a disease.¹ These groups often advocate for what they believe are more “compassionate” treatments. But a world that absolves criminals of responsibility for those crimes would be highly problematic. Christian writer and intellectual C. S. Lewis wrote:

To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason…and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we “ought to have known better,” is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.²

I agree with Lewis. If we don’t punish people for wrong actions they chose to do, then we are really treating them like animals. Animals are not morally responsible for their actions. If my dog relieves himself on the carpet, I work to train my dog not to do that in the future. However, if a person commits a crime, we do not merely train them not to do it again. They cannot be trained, like an animal, not to do certain things; rather they must freely choose not to do those things in the future. We cannot override their free will through training. And most people have a deep sense that it is inappropriate to treat a person in the same way we would treat an animal.

Philosopher Herbert Morris pointed out further problems with no-punishment treatments. He argued that a world that treats criminals as suffering from a disease would permit preventive detention before any offense is committed, if someone is believed to have dangerous tendencies. He wrote:

In the punishment system, because we are dealing with deprivations, it is understandable that we should forbear from imposing them until we are quite sure of guilt. In the therapy system, dealing as it does with benefits, there is less reason for forbearance from treatment at an early stage.³

It would also not allow offenders to pay back their debt to society. If you did not earn a punishment, then how can you earn back the respect of society? Morris wrote:

Infliction of the prescribed punishment carries the implication…that one has “paid one’s debt” to society, for the punishment is the taking from the person of something commonly recognized as valuable…What is clear is that the conceptions of “paying a debt” or “having a debt forgiven” or pardoning have no place in a system of therapy.⁴

Respect and Mercy

Punishment respects our free choices and respects us as persons capable of making moral decisions. If God holds us responsible for our moral actions, then he treats us like rational people who are responsible for our choices. In punishing those who do wrong God is not being unfair or mean, but is treating us with respect. This is the same way the criminal justice system, when properly applied, respects offenders as persons by punishing them rather than treating their offenses as something they had no control over.

The good news is that God extends mercy—even though we deserve divine punishment due to our free choices to do moral wrongs. This is not to say that God takes our moral wrongs lightly and dismisses them easily. Rather, Jesus took the punishment that we deserved by suffering and dying in our place. His righteousness (moral goodness) is imputed to us if we choose to follow and obey Him. Moreover, as Morris and Lewis pointed out, mercy only makes sense if someone deserves to be punished and punishment is not carried out. Lewis wrote: “If crime is only a disease which needs cure, not sin which deserves punishment, it cannot be pardoned. How can you pardon a man for having a humboil or a club foot?^”5 Therefore, in order to be merciful, God must hold us responsible, and mercy is clearly an exercise of a loving God.⁶

How did life on Earth begin? Does an experimenter’s intervention reveal the “hand” that made life?

Fuz Rana and I attended the 2002 International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life (ISSOL) Conference held June 30–July 5 in Oaxaca, Mexico. There we heard the atheist/agnostic chemist Robert Shapiro publicly comment on the laboratory simulation of one of the more complex chemical reactions known to be critical for any origin-of-life model. Shapiro complemented the scientific team for their brilliant lecture and amazing achievement, but pointed out how much intelligent intervention and design were needed to produce their outcome. He added that if his peers could not produce chemical outcomes known to be vital for any conceivable origin-of-life model without far less experimenter interference then they simply were proving that the origin of life required an intelligent designer. Fuz and I heard a whole row of origin-of-life chemists behind us loudly whisper, “Heaven forbid.”

Sixteen years later chemist Clemens Richert published an article in Nature Communications in which he more fully articulated Shapiro’s point.¹ He began by explaining that the reputed goal of experimental biochemists doing origin-of-life research is “to re-enact what may have happened when life arose from inanimate material.”² Richert pointed out, though, that such reenactments are unrealistic if one or more human interventions are required.

Reproducibility and Intervention
One such intervention that inevitably occurs arises from the experimenters’ desires that their results be reproducible by other biochemists. If their results cannot be reproduced, there is little, if any, likelihood that they will be published in any reputable science journal. This need for reproducibility forces the biochemists to begin with known quantities of pure chemicals. However, such fixed, pure quantities are unrealistic in any conceivable natural prebiotic scenario. The second law of thermodynamics inevitably introduces mixtures of structurally related but chemically interfering molecular aggregates.

Furthermore, to be relevant to any conceivable natural origin-of-life scenario the experiment must not involve any human intervention after the start of a reaction. There cannot be any addition or subtraction of chemicals during the reaction. The reaction must be allowed to unfold and samples drawn only after the reaction is completely finished.

Even when these strictures are rigorously obeyed not-so-subtle human interferences can and do occur. For example, in the famous Miller-Urey experiment³ where researchers claimed to synthesize amino acids from sparking a mixture of water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen in an enclosed flask, the experiment was performed about 200 times. In only one of those 200 trials were five amino acids generated, at a total concentration of two percent where nearly all of that two percent was glycine, the simplest amino acid. Moreover, the starting conditions were irrelevant. In any natural scenario, there would either be oxygen or ultraviolet radiation present and either would have halted the reaction. Also, the concentration of ammonia in any natural scenario would be far lower than what was present in the flask and inevitably there would be many more chemicals present than just water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen.

The Miller-Urey experiment is a classic example of multiple human interventions where the experimenters thought there were none. Today, the Miller-Urey experiment and many others like it are widely recognized as irrelevant to the origin-of-life on Earth or on any other planetary body.

Intervention Required for Amino Acid Joining
For more complex reactions than the Miller-Urey experiment, such as the joining together of bioactive amino acids to construct short protein segments, repeated interventions by the experimentalists have proved necessary. Each step needs a specific chemical environment or set of conditions to occur at high yields. Often, a subtraction reaction needs to occur simultaneously with an addition reaction where both must occur at specified rates.

In the case of joining together amino acids, the amino acids must all be homochiral (all left-handed in their molecular configuration). In the naturally occurring random mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids no such joining together occurs. A similar chirality limitation occurs for joining together nucleobases to make short strands of RNA or DNA. To join nucleobases together requires ribose sugars as chemical bridges and the ribose sugars must all be right-handed in their configuration. Outside of laboratories and living systems or the decay products of living systems, ribose is extremely rare, almost always undetectable, and always results as random mixtures of left- and right-handed configurations.

In living cells, biochemical synthesis usually occurs through catalyzed reactions by different enzymes where each enzyme requires a distinct, specified microenvironment at its active site for the reaction to run. In simulating an enzyme-free prebiotic scenario, experimenters find that they must employ multiple, highly ordered chemical steps that involve precipitation, crystallization, purification, and drastic changes in the chemical conditions from one synthesis step to the next. Even then, success rarely occurs.

Toward the end of his article Richert takes to task the now popular experiments of unending cycles of hydration and dehydration and/or cooling and heating. Richert points out, for example, that for cooling and heating cycles to be productive requires repeated specified transitions in a single locale from arctic to volcanic conditions then back to arctic within just hours or a few days. Such requirements, he understates, seem unrealistic for natural scenarios.

Intervention and the Hand of God
In his article, Richert coined a phrase for the experimenter intervention. He called it “the Hand of God dilemma.” His point is that experimenter intervention is akin to claiming that God did it. In saying this, he admits that “most of us [origin-of-life researchers] are not comfortable with the idea of divine intervention in this context.”³

Richert, nevertheless, makes a strong appeal to his fellow origin-of-life researchers. So as not to deceive researchers in other disciplines, and especially the lay public, or to exaggerate their successes to their research peers, Richert recommends that his peers reveal the level of experimenter intervention. In their publications, they should state as accurately as possible how many times and exactly when and where in their experiments they commit the Hand of God dilemma.

Having been to several origin-of-life conferences and having read hundreds of origin-of-life research papers, I think if Richert and his peers followed through on his recommendation, the number count of how many times the Hand of God dilemma has been committed per published origin-of-life experiment easily would exceed an average of a dozen times. If that’s the case, then the lay public, scientists in other disciplines, and maybe even origin-of-life researchers themselves will recognize and acknowledge that God, not a set of unguided natural processes, created the first life on Earth.