Mark T. Clark

Anyone who has lived at least a couple of decades has witnessed technological breakthroughs that have transformed society. Many people hold the ideas of “progress” and “progressive” in high regard. Who could be opposed to making progress toward a better future? As we consider an answer, this question raises another: To what end shall we make progress?

In chapter 9 of their book, Humans 2.0: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Perspectives on Transhumanism, Fazale Rana and Kenneth Samples show that transhumanism holds great faith in progress. They note that transhumanism “relies on advances in technology to improve the human condition, bring an end to pain and suffering, usher in a utopian future, and even attain human immortality . . .” (p. 206). They also argue that “Transhumanism plays an eschatological role for people who embrace an atheistic, materialistic worldview.”₁ But the authors also note that advances in science and technology lead to unease about the unintended consequences of such advances. As C. S. Lewis pointed out, progress can bring about both good things and bad.₂

Origin of Secular Faith

Modern hope in the future and faith in progress come from nineteenth century political theories that largely remain with us today. In particular, a school of political thought called progressivism (which gave rise to our modern sense of the term) influenced American educational institutions. Progressivism is steeped in the philosophies of Georg Hegel and Karl Marx, who theorized that history unfolds in certain (progressive) directions and a robust faith in science and technology will aid in that progress.₃ Progressivism came to the US by way of the many Americans who studied in German universities in the nineteenth century. They brought their training back to American higher education, influencing students and future policymakers. As these progressives fanned out into American higher education, they formed various academic associations late in the century that remain the premier associations of the social sciences to this day.₄

Progressive intellectuals’ impact was achieved in successive waves through the elections of three presidential administrations. The first was Woodrow Wilson; the second, Franklin Roosevelt; and the third, Lyndon Johnson. All three presidents implemented important elements of the progressive agenda that have changed the American form of government to more administrative agencies (read: bureaucracies) that cover everything from health, housing, education, social safety nets, and the like.

The newer, more radical, and postmodern form of progressivism today has emerged from the older one and differs in significant ways—though it, too, holds to a faith in progress. Modern progressivism’s most important belief is an abiding faith in history unfolding favorably in the direction of progress.

Modern Progressivism

For modern progressives, the salient question is, To what end is history progressing? They affirm that historical progress has been leading toward a form of democracy to be headed by nonpolitical administrators, both here and abroad. The administrative state is to be staffed with “neutral” scientists who can solve society’s ills apart from the normal political process. At the same time, progressives hold “a pervasive distrust of private associations (family, church, business, fraternities, clubs, political parties, and lobbyists) and a corresponding confidence in the capacity of public officials to direct the lives of the people.”₅

This is their eschatology (ultimate destiny of humanity), the democratization of the world through administration. As far back as 1888, for example, Woodrow Wilson asserted that the question of the best type of government (democracy) was settled by history.₆ Despite setbacks during the twentieth century wars, both hot and cold, the faith (in progress) of progressives continues today. At the end of the Cold War, political scientist Francis Fukuyama proclaimed “The End of History,” the triumph of western liberalism over all other viable political systems.₇ This triumph is upheld in the theory of democratic peace which arose after the Cold War, the idea that democracies do not fight other democracies.₈

Thus, progressives view the democratization of the world as a worthy objective. Such a goal has led the US to promote “democracy” abroad while overthrowing or shaming authoritarian regimes. The unintended consequence of this strategy has resulted in increased resistance from illiberal (more authoritarian) regimes (e.g., China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea) and the emergence of a new nationalism throughout the world.₉

Utopia or Redemption?

Perhaps progressives have too much faith in their views. Everyone should be cautious about an unrealistic hope in the future. Unbridled faith in the ability of some people to direct the progress of history toward their idea of the good can lead to unhealthy idolatry and unintended consequences.

When we think about the progressive view of the utopian future, we would do well to recall the irony in Sir Thomas More’s political thesis, Utopia (1516). In it, he compared the then-current social and economic conditions in Europe with an ideal, fictional society off the coast of the Americas. It was a useful way to highlight the appalling conditions of his time. However, More was a realist. He created the title from the Greek ou (meaning “no” or “not”) and topos(meaning “place”). Utopia literally means “nowhere.”

Christian realists do not dismiss that progress can be for the betterment of humanity, but we also caution that things can (and often do) get worse. Christianity has historically supported charities that alleviate hunger and suffering, helped the poor, provided medical relief, and defended the weak, and continues to do so today. The work of Christian missionaries in the developing world has led to the development of more stable, liberal (free) democratic societies in many of these countries.₁₀ They brought about such changes by caring for the people they ministered to, not through regime change.

Thus, Christians can partner with some ideas of the modern progressive agenda but should be cautious about its potential for idolatry and a utopian future. Christians believe that history is unfolding in a different way; namely, it directs people at all times toward a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ (Acts 17:24–27). The real future “good” will be the redemption of human beings from sin, a process that God must do through the work of Jesus Christ and not a political system.

Life is full of big questions. And one of the most common is this: Does the universe have a purpose?

In 2012 the Templeton Foundation asked this timeless question to astrophysicist and popular science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson. In the video below, he explains his answer while a hand-drawn animated video illustrated his ideas.

So does the universe have a purpose? According to Tyson, he’s “not sure” but he says “anyone who expresses a more definitive response to the question is claiming access to knowledge not based upon empirical foundations.” Yet at the end of the video he asserts that “the case against it [having a purpose] is strong and visible to anyone who sees the universe as it is rather than as they wish it to be.”

I hope you’ll find my response to Tyson’s video helpful as you engage with others who hold a similar view. I think his answer to the question shows convoluted logic and selective reasoning (fallacy of stacking the deck). Here’s how.

Three Examples of Convoluted Reasoning

First, while Tyson says he isn’t completely sure that the universe has a purpose, he nevertheless presents a purposeful case for why he thinks it likely that the universe has no purpose. In other words, if the universe is indeed purposeless, then how is Tyson able to rise above that cosmic purposelessness and make such a purposeful case (a presentation reflecting purpose and meaning)? C. S. Lewis reasoned in his book Mere Christianity that meaningless (or purposeless) creatures would never know or discover that they are meaningless (or purposeless) because such a discovery would be profoundly meaningful (or purposeful).¹

Second, Tyson seems to imply that it is arrogant and misguided to trust sources not based on or grounded in science (“empirical foundations”). But the necessary assumptions upon which science depends—like the truth and reliability of logic and mathematics—are not empirically derived. In other words, science itself depends upon nonscientific truths.

Third, Tyson asserts that it is obvious to anyone without a worldview agenda that the universe is purposeless. But Tyson does not come from an objective and neutral position in order to make such a claim because he also carries a worldview agenda.

Three Examples of Selective Reasoning

Selective reasoning (also known as the fallacy of stacking the deck) takes place when an arguer appeals only to evidence that favors his or her position and ignores counterevidence.

First, Tyson says that religious worldviews have been wrong about cosmological questions. But he ignores or is unaware that the Christian worldview historically birthed the prized scientific enterprise and that the philosophical assumptions that science is based on fit well in the Judeo-Christian worldview.

Second, Tyson ignores or is unaware that Christian theism possesses greater explanatory power and scope than does atheistic naturalism. Contrary to atheistic naturalism, Christian theism provides a plausible explanation for life, beauty, logic, mathematics, consciousness, morality, the human enigma, the universe’s beginning and intelligibility, and more.

Third, Tyson mentions the seemingly chaotic and inhospitable aspects of the cosmos that would appear to validate purposelessness. However, he ignores the elegant, aesthetic mathematical elements of the universe and the exquisitely fine-tuned constants of physics that are surprisingly intelligible to the human mind.

A Takeaway

Neil deGrasse Tyson’s case for doubting that the universe has a purpose reflects convoluted logic and selective reasoning. All people, regardless of their station in life, must subject their thinking to the universal laws of logic. While Tyson holds specialized training in science, his reasoning reflects glaring weaknesses in logic, philosophy, and worldview thinking.

Reflections: Your Turn

Have you watched Tyson’s video? If so, what did you think about his reasoning? Visit Reflections on WordPress to comment with your response.

Is the US government interested in the UFO phenomenon again? A recent spate of news reports indicates so. What does this development mean for Bible believers who are skeptical of the idea? And how can Christians respond respectfully and helpfully?

More UFOs Being Reported

As of May 2019, the US Navy has drafted new guidelines for pilots and other military personnel to report encounters with “unidentified aerial phenomena,” usually called unidentified flying objects (UFOs).¹ The guidelines are designed to destigmatize self-reporting of such observations and allow for assessments of them. According to the reports, there has been an uptick since 2015 in the number and frequency of unknown but “highly advanced” aircraft encroaching on US Navy aircraft and strike groups and overflying governmental facilities. Descriptions of these aircraft vary. Sometimes they are described as flying “tic tacs” and sometimes as oblong spheres. Most importantly, however, these objects act in ways that defy the laws of physics.

This news comes on the heels of a recently reported effort by the US to conduct research into “unexplained aerial phenomena” (UAP).² In 2017, a Politico reporter revealed that the Defense Intelligence Agency had funded more than $20 million of research into an Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program (AATIP) from 2007 to 2012. This research effort came at the request of then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). At best, the research projects were intended to determine whether Russia or China were testing advanced propulsion systems; at worst, to determine whether such exotic (i.e., alien) technology could “enhance the human condition.” The five-year study was terminated in 2012, with little results from the research.

What to Think about This Recent News

In our book, Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men, Hugh Ross, Ken Samples, and I evaluate the US experience of the UFO and extraterrestrial phenomena. We do so through the prism of physics, philosophy, theology, government conspiracies, classified military research, and the occult. Several points can be brought to bear for those intrigued by this latest news and who seek to understand what it means.

First, most research shows that the vast majority (95–99%) of all UFO sightings have natural explanations. We give examples in the book where most sightings had naturally occurring explanations, including misperception, faulty instrumentation, and the like. This high number of false identifications remains constant over a long period of time (since 1947). Most of these reports can be explained by natural phenomena, including classified government research into new technologies.

Second, there remains a small residual number (1–5%) of sightings that cannot be explained naturally. We call this the residual UFO, or RUFO phenomenon. RUFO activity fails to conform to the laws of physics, just as these pilots have reported.

As with our military pilots, however, there exists a problem. These pilots are highly trained and very credible witnesses. In our book, we identify credible witnesses to real, but nonphysical phenomena that include UFOs. What things are real but nonphysical? The mind, unlike the brain, is real though nonphysical. As Christians, we believe that spirits are both real and nonphysical. Also, God is both real and transcends the physical dimensions of space-time. RUFOs, however, are not benevolent. We hypothesize they are, in fact, demonic.

We discovered something else as well. The credible witnesses to incredible physical phenomena we studied had open doors to the occult. Because so many investigations into UFO phenomena fail to ask the questions we pose, this can be best seen with the people who have reported alien abductions or contacts. These open doors could easily have been the result of “innocent” activities like participating in seances, Ouija board games, fortune telling or tarot card readings at a party early in life. Or, they could be the result of something more concerning, such as active involvement in cults, the occult and New Age religion.

This news will likely continue to generate public interest, but for reasons that may not be obvious. As reported in Politico, Bob Bigelow was a regular contributor to Harry Reid’s Senate campaign, and was the one that encouraged the Senator to launch the AATIP program in the first place. As founder of Bigelow Aerospace, he was also the recipient of some of AATIP research funding. He is an outspoken proponent that extraterrestrial visitors frequently travel to earth. In addition, the head of the AATIP program, Luis Elizondo, resigned from the Pentagon in October 2017, complaining that the administration was not taking these research efforts seriously enough. Both men have now joined with other, likeminded people to launch a for-profit company called To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science to continue promoting these ideas. They have a television series, titled Unidentified: Inside America’s UFO Investigation, on The History Channel, which premiered May 31 of this year.

How to Respond

For Christians, there are some things we can do. Opinion surveys continue to show that at least 50% of Americans believe either in UFOs or extraterrestrials.³ Because of this widespread belief, most Christians will know someone with an interest in—maybe even a fascination with—these stories. I would recommend several things. First, get equipped for understanding UFOs, the precursor to the current UAP phenomenon. Our book can help readers get the background, history, and evidence needed to understand the phenomenon. Second, listen attentively and talk respectfully with those fascinated or enthused by them. Ask questions to elicit their or their friends’ interest. And third, see our book chapter dedicated to showing how you can help people close any doors they’ve opened to the occult. You may have the opportunity to show them how to allow the genuinely real but nonphysical power of God to enter into their life. As 1 Peter 3:15 commands us, “Always be ready.”

How are Christians to view systems of thought that are rooted in pagan or secular beliefs? Are non-Christian belief systems so filled with error that Christians can learn nothing from them? Are they so foreign that they only corrupt Christian truth?

Or is there important revelatory common ground made available to all people that allows non-Christians to discover critical truths about life and the world? Could that discovery of truth mean that Christians can learn from pagan or secular sources?

This controversial question of how Christians should view non-Christian belief systems goes back a long way in Christian history. In the ancient world, the question centered on Christianity’s relationship to Greco-Roman philosophy. Two early and prominent Christian church fathers in the ancient world came up with different answers to this challenging issue. Interestingly, both of these Christian thinkers were noted North African church fathers.

Tertullian’s Antithesis Perspective

Tertullian (c. 160–220) was a Latin, North African church father who was educated in the subjects of law and rhetoric and was an engaging writer. He converted to Christianity in midlife. Unique, bold, and temperamental, he served as an apologist and polemicist for early Christianity at a time when the faith encountered a hostile Roman culture.

Tertullian’s view of Christianity’s relationship to pagan philosophy reflects a clear antithesis (a clash of opposition). He strongly believed that Christians had no need or use for pagan philosophy. In his mind, pagan philosophy contaminated and corrupted the one true Christian faith.

Here’s Tertullian at his polemical best:

What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon who himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the Gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.¹

Augustine’s Critical Appropriation Perspective

Augustine (354–430) was a prolific author, a robust theologian, an insightful philosopher, and a tenacious apologist for the truth of historic Christianity. He is a universal Christian voice within Western Christendom and remains as important to Protestants as he is to Catholics.

Augustine recognized that pagan philosophy certainly involved false beliefs about God, the world, and the human condition. He saw a clash of worldview between Christian theology and pagan philosophy. But he also recognized that pagans were made in the image of God and were the recipients of general revelation and common grace. Thus, pagans got certain things wrong but also some things right about reality and moral goodness (Acts 17:22–30).

Here’s Augustine commenting on the Platonist philosophers’ nearness and farness to truth:

Platonist philosophers excel all others in reputation and authority, just because they are nearer to the truth than the rest, even though they are a long way from it.²

For Augustine, philosophy is a handmaid (servant) to theology. But pagan philosophy should not be accepted or rejected in totality. Rather, pagan philosophy needs to go through a critical appropriation. In Augustine’s thinking, the Platonists possess the divine image, general revelation, and common grace; thus their keen philosophical insights put them near or “nearer to the truth.” But original sin distorts truth and without special revelation (Christ, the gospel) they are still “a long way from it.”

Augustine’s thinking on this topic became the consensus position. For example, the great Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) followed Augustine’s critical appropriation model when forming his Christian-Aristotelian synthesis. Here’s Christian theologian Gerald McDermott’s description of Aquinas’s approach to evaluating the philosophy of Aristotle:

Thomas accepted from Aristotle what he thought was in accord with Christian doctrine, rejected what he thought was not (and explained why), and used some of Aristotle’s categories to help teach Christian faith.³

What We Can Learn

Though they got some important ideas wrong, the great Greek philosophers still had deep insights about such realities as truth, goodness, and beauty. But how do the ancient pagan religions compare to today’s world religions? Well, the ancient pagan religions were a lot like contemporary non-Christian world religions. They got a lot wrong (false gods and false beliefs about humanity) but they also got some critical issues right (for example, a sense of the divine and important aspects about morality).

I think Augustine’s model is superior to that of Tertullian when it comes to explaining how Christianity can relate to other belief systems. As Christians, we grant that people in other religious systems get important things right by a revelation of truth that is given to all (Psalm 19). Yet we must also appreciate the inevitable errors and distortions due to idolatry (false gods and immoral practices) that are inherent in non-Christian religions (Romans 1:18–28). This common ground affords Christians the opportunity to build responsible bridges that can hopefully lead to sharing the gospel message with people who don’t know Christ.

Reflections: Your Turn

Is it biblical to think non-Christian religions will always combine some basic truths mixed with deeply false ideas about God? If so, why? Visit Reflections on WordPress to comment with your response.

Resources

• For more on Tertullian, see “Christian Thinkers 101: A Crash Course on Tertullian“
• For more on Augustine, see “Christian Thinkers 101: A Crash Course on St. Augustine“
• For a Christian evaluation of some of today’s world religious systems, see Kenneth Richard Samples, God among Sages: Why Jesus Isn’t Just Another Religious Leader

How did the universe come into being? The last century has revealed a stark contrast between what secular scientists expected to find regarding the big “origins” questions and what scientific research actually uncovered. In part 1 of this series, I’ll discuss how this contrast played out concerning the origin of the universe. In future installments I’ll consider, in turn, the origins of the solar system, Earth, and the human species.

Origin of the Universe

Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BC) speculated that the cosmos was eternal. In the eighteenth century, secular Enlightenment thinkers picked up Aristotle’s line of thought, often arguing that the physical universe was eternal in age and possibly infinite in extent. The universe was viewed as a brute reality without beginning and, therefore, without the need for a cause. Skeptic Bertrand Russell insisted, in his famous BBC debate on the existence of God with Catholic philosopher Frederick Copleston, that the universe is “just there.”

In the first half of the twentieth century, the view of cosmology known as the steady-state theory was popular among secular scientists. This view reflected the belief that the universe contained a continual energy source that allowed the cosmos to remain in a constant state of existence. Philosophically speaking, an eternal universe would seem more consistent with an atheistic, naturalistic view of reality. For if the universe is eternal, then it needs no causal explanation, thus no need to postulate God as a necessary causal agent. (Though, ironically, atheists often fail to appreciate that if God exists as an eternal and necessary being then he, too, would need no causal explanation.)

Big Bang Cosmology

Over the last twenty-five years, however, big bang cosmology has undergone extensive testing and has emerged as the prevailing scientific model for the origin of the universe. According to this well-established theory, the universe (including all matter, energy, time, and space) emerged about 14 billion years ago from a singular beginning. Thus, scientists conclude that the universe is not eternal. The basic big bang cosmological model has now replaced the steady-state theory as the prevailing origin of the universe. And while the big bang continues to be refined as a theory, most leading astrophysicists argue that it is here to stay. Multiverse theories may challenge the idea of our universe having had a singular beginning, but the multiverse remains speculative and lacks direct scientific confirmation.

A universe with a singular beginning from nothing was the last thing secular scientists thought would be discovered. The problem for the atheistic naturalist is how much big bang cosmology resembles the biblical doctrine of creation ex nihilo (God created the universe from or out of nothing [no preexisting materials]: Genesis 1:1; Proverbs 3:19; Romans 4:17; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 11:3).

Herein lies the contrast between expectation and scientific advance. Secular scientists thought they would discover an eternal, self-sufficient universe, but what they actually discovered is a universe that had a singular beginning. And now they have a contingent reality—the cosmos—in need of a necessary causal explanation. While many scientists were no doubt surprised by this discovery, Christian theologians expected it. Thus, the cutting-edge scientific discovery concerning the universe’s origin (a singular beginning of all things) seems to comport best with theism.

Reflections: Your Turn

How does big bang cosmology affect the secular claim that science backs atheism? Visit Reflections on WordPress to comment with your response.

Resources

• For more on the big bang and other competing cosmological theories, see Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th ed. (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2018).
• For more on the biblical doctrine of creation ex nihilo, see Kenneth Richard Samples, A World of Difference (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 156–64.

A few years ago, we had an all-white English Bulldog named Archie. He would lumber toward even complete strangers, eager to befriend them and earn their affections. And people happily obliged this playful pup.

Archie wasn’t just an adorable dog. He was also well trained. We taught him to ring a bell hanging from a sliding glass door in our kitchen so he could let us know when he wanted to go out. He rarely would ring the bell. Instead, he would just sit by the door and wait . . . unless the neighbor’s cat was in the backyard. Then, Archie would repeatedly bang on the bell with great urgency. He had to get the cat at all costs. Clearly, he understood the bell’s purpose. He just chose to use it for his own devices.

Anyone who has owned a cat or dog knows that these animals do remarkable things. Animals truly are intelligent creatures.

But there are some people who go so far as to argue that animal intelligence is much more like human intelligence than we might initially believe. They base this claim, in part, on a handful of high-profile studies that indicate that some animals such as great apes and ravens can problem-solve and even plan for the future—behaviors that make them like us in some important ways.

Great Apes Plan for the Future

In 2006, two German anthropologists conducted a set of experiments on bonobos and orangutans in captivity that seemingly demonstrated that these creatures can plan for the future. Specifically, the test subjects selected, transported, and saved tools for use 1 hour and 14 hours later, respectively.¹

To begin the study, the researchers trained both bonobos and orangutans to use a tool to get a reward from an apparatus. In the first experiment, the researchers blocked access to the apparatus. They laid out eight tools for the apes to select—two were suitable for the task and six were unsuitable. After selecting the tools, the apes were ushered into another room where they were kept for 1 hour. The apes were then allowed back into the room and granted access to the apparatus. To gain the reward, the apes had to select the correct tool and transport it to and from the waiting area. The anthropologists observed that the apes successfully obtained the reward in 70 percent of the trials by selecting and hanging on to the correct tool as they moved from room to room.

In the second experiment, the delay between tool selection and access to the apparatus was extended to 14 hours. This experiment focused on a single female individual. Instead of taking the test subject to the waiting room, the researchers took her to a sleeping room one floor above the waiting room before returning her to the room with the apparatus. She selected and held on to to the tool for 14 hours while she moved from room to room in 11 of the 12 trials—each time successfully obtaining the reward.

On the basis of this study, the researchers concluded that great apes have the ability to plan for the future. They also argued that this ability emerged in the common ancestor of humans and great apes around 14 million years ago. So, even though we like to think of planning for the future as one of the “most formidable human cognitive achievements,”² it doesn’t appear to be unique to human beings.

Ravens Plan for the Future

In 2017, two researchers from Lund University in Sweden demonstrated that ravens are capable of flexible planning just like the great apes.³ These cognitive scientists conducted a series of experiments with ravens, demonstrating that the large black birds can plan for future events and exert self-control for up to 17 hours prior to using a tool or bartering with humans for a reward. (Self-control is crucial for successfully planning for the future.)

The researchers taught ravens to use a tool to gain a reward from an apparatus. As part of the training phase, the test subjects also learned that other objects wouldn’t work on the apparatus.

In the first experiment, the ravens were exposed to the apparatus without access to tools. As such, they couldn’t gain the reward. Then the researchers removed the apparatus. One hour later, the ravens were taken to a different location and offered tools. Then, the researchers presented them with the apparatus 15 minutes later. On average, the raven test subjects selected and used tools to gain the reward in approximately 80 percent of the trials.

In the next experiment, the ravens were trained to barter by exchanging a token for a food reward. After the training, the ravens were taken to a different location and presented with a tray containing the token and three distractor objects by a researcher who had no history of bartering with the ravens. As with the results of the tool selection experiment, the ravens selected and used the token to successfully barter for food in approximately 80 percent of the trials.

When the scientists modified the experimental design to increase the time delay from 15 minutes to 17 hours between tool or token selection and access to the reward, the ravens successfully completed the task in nearly 90 percent of the trials.

Next, the researchers wanted to determine if the ravens could exercise self-control as part of their planning for the future. First, they presented the ravens with trays that contained a small food reward. Of course, all of the ravens took the reward. Next, the researchers offered the ravens trays that had the food reward and either tokens or tools and distractor items. By selecting the token or the tools, the ravens were ensured a larger food reward in the future. The researchers observed that the ravens selected the tool in 75 percent of the trials and the token in about 70 percent, instead of taking the small morsel of food. After selecting the tool or token, the ravens were given the opportunity to receive the reward about 15 minutes later.

The researchers concluded that, like the great apes, ravens can plan for the future. Moreover, these researchers argue that this insight opens up greater possibilities for animal cognition because, from an evolutionary perspective, ravens are regarded as avian dinosaurs. And mammals (including the great apes) are thought to have shared an evolutionary ancestor with dinosaurs 320 million years ago.

Are Humans Exceptional?

In light of these studies (and others like them), it becomes difficult to maintain that human beings are exceptional. Self-control and the ability to flexibly plan for future events is considered by many to be the cornerstone of human cognition. Planning for the future requires mental representation of temporally distant events, the ability to set aside current sensory inputs for unobservable future events, and an understanding of what current actions result in achieving a future goal.

For many Christians, such as me, the loss of human exceptionalism is concerning because if this idea is untenable, so, too, is the biblical view of human nature. According to Scripture, human beings stand apart from all other creatures because we bear God’s image. And, because every human being possesses the image of God, every human being has intrinsic worth and value. But if, in essence, human beings are no different from animals, it is challenging to maintain that we are the crown of creation, as Scripture teaches.

Yet recent work by biologist Johan Lind from Stockholm University (Sweden) indicates that the results of these two studies and others like them may be misleading. In effect, when properly interpreted, these studies pose no threat to human exceptionalism in any way. According to Lind, animals can engage in behavior that resembles flexible planning through a different behavior: associative learning.⁴ If so, this insight preserves the case for human exceptionalism and the image of God, because it means that only humans engage in genuine flexible planning for the future through higher-order cognitive processes.

Associative Learning and Planning for the Future

Lind points out that researchers working in artificial intelligence (AI) have long known that associative learning can produce complex behaviors in AI systems that give the appearance of having the capacity for planning. (Associative learning is the process that animals [and AI systems] use to establish an association between two stimuli or events, usually by the use of punishments or rewards.)

Figure 1: An illustration of associative learning in dogs. Image credit: Shutterstock

Lind wonders why researchers studying animal cognition ignore the work in AI. Applying the insights from the work on AI systems, Lind developed mathematical models based on associative learning that he used to simulate results of the studies on the great apes and ravens. He discovered that associative learning produced the same behaviors as observed by the two research teams for the great apes and ravens. In other words, planning-like behavior can actually emerge through associative learning. That is, the same processes that give AI systems the capacity to beat humans in chess can, through associative learning, account for the planning-like behavior of animals.

The results of Lind’s simulations mean that it is most likely that animals “plan” for the future in ways that are entirely different from humans. In effect, the planning-like behavior of animals is an outworking of associative learning. On the other hand, humans uniquely engage in bona fide flexible planning through advanced cognitive processes such as mental time travel, among others.

Humans Are Exceptional

Even though the idea of human exceptionalism is continually under assault, it remains intact, as the latest work by Johan Lind illustrates. When the entire body of evidence is carefully weighed, there really is only one reasonable conclusion: Human beings uniquely possess advanced cognitive abilities that make possible our capacity for symbolism, open-ended generative capacity, theory of mind, and complex social interactions—scientific descriptors of the image of God.

Resources

• “Chimpanzee Behavior Supports RTB’s Model for Humanity’s Origin” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Chimpanzees Respond to Death Like Humans: Evidence for Evolution or Creation? Part 1” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Chimpanzees Respond to Death Like Humans: Evidence for Evolution or Creation? Part 2” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Comparing Chimpanzee and Hominid Tool Production Helps Build the Biblical Case for Human Origins” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Chimpanzees’ Sleeping Habits Closer to Hominid Behavior Than to Humans’” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Science News Flash: Stone Tool Use by Capuchin Monkeys Challenges Human Evolution” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Science News Flash: Chimps Use Tools to Fish for Algae” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Does Development of Artificial Intelligence Undermine Human Exceptionalism?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity, 2nd exp ed., by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross (book)

Seventy-one percent may seem like average, but when it comes to Earth’s surface water percentage, that number appears to be ideal for advanced civilization. A scientific agency like NASA recognizes that life cannot exist without liquid water—thus, their long-held astrobiology mantra is to “follow the water.”¹ That pursuit leads astrobiology researchers to look for evidence of life or life’s remains on astronomical bodies where there is at least a possibility of surface liquid water.

However, NASA’s slogan is not helpful since water is the third most abundant molecule in the universe, right after the two different forms of molecular hydrogen, H₂ and H₃. The universe is “soaking wet.”

To add to the difficulty, two Harvard University astronomers, Manasvi Lingam and Abraham Loeb, have published a paper wherein they explain how the location and quantity of liquid water on a planet’s surface seriously constrain the possibility of life.²

Problem of Too Much Water Coverage
Where astronomers are able to measure the water content of Earth-like extrasolar planets, the vast majority possess water content far exceeding that of Earth, while the remainder are bone dry. For the majority, the water fraction by weight ranges from 8 percent to 50 percent.³Earth’s water fraction is only 0.045–0.251 percent, of which just 0.02 percent is surface water.⁴

Any planet with a water fraction one percent or greater, where at least some of the water is liquid, will exhibit these features: (1) they will have surfaces with deep oceans and no landmasses, or (2) they will have deep subterranean oceans and be completely covered in ice. Such worlds will lack continental landmass weathering. The lack of such weathering will limit the availability of phosphates to the tiny amount generated by submarine weathering. This tiny amount might permit the existence of a small biomass of prokaryote microbes but not the existence of animals.⁵

Any planet with a water fraction five percent or greater will possess an ocean that is at least 100 kilometers deep. An ocean deeper than about a hundred kilometers will permit no mineral weathering at all. At the bottom of such oceans, pressures will be extreme enough to produce tetragonal (crystal-forming) ice. Tetragonal ice has a density greater than that of liquid water.⁶ Thus, an ice layer will form at the ocean bottom that will create a permanent barrier between the liquid water and the minerals of the planet’s interior (see figure 1). The oceans of such worlds will lack the nutrient density to support life. They will also be acidic.⁷

Figure 1: Water World Cross Section
Planets with a deep surface or subterranean ocean will possess a tetragonal ice layer at the ocean bottom that will permanently separate its liquid water from its mineral interior. Such an ocean will lack the nutrient density to support life. Diagram credit: Hugh Ross

Problem of Too Little Water Coverage
Planets overwhelmingly dominated by surface landmasses will face a precipitation problem. The predominant source of precipitation onto land comes from the evaporation of ocean water and landmass precipitation is proportional to the surface area of a planet’s oceans.

Another critical factor for balanced precipitation is that the larger the percentage of a planet’s surface area that is covered by land, the more uneven is its landmass precipitation distribution. Where oceans cover less than 10 percent of a planet’s surface area, very little precipitation falls on the landmasses. Most of the landmass area receives no precipitation at all. The thin strips of land that do receive precipitation are able to sustain only a tiny fraction of the net primary biological productivity that would be typical of a present-day continent or island on Earth today.

Fine-Tuned Water Coverage
For any kind of life to be possible a planet must not be 100 percent or 0 percent covered with water. Temporary microbial life can exist on a planet that is 5–25 percent covered or 80–95 percent covered.

However, the long-term existence of plants and animals requires a planet that efficiently recycles nutrients. This necessity mandates that there must be a rough balance between surface oceans and surface landmasses. For global high-technology human civilization to be possible, a planet that is almost exactly the size of Earth is required. Today, on Earth the oceans cover 71 percent of the surface area and landmasses cover the remaining 29 percent. Less landmass coverage means less space to accommodate a large population of humans, their animals, their farms, and their technology. More landmass coverage means less precipitation falling on the landmasses and less even distribution of that precipitation—with consequences for food crop production.

Since the origin of life 3.8 billion years ago, Earth’s landmass coverage has been steadily increasing. Evidently, humans appeared on Earth at the optimal time for them to launch and sustain global civilization.

So far, astronomers have only found worlds beyond Earth that are either 100 percent or 0 percent (surface) covered with water. That we are 71 percent covered with water and 29 percent covered with landmasses appears to be no accident, but rather a testimony of purposeful design.