Facts for Faith

Issue 4, 2000

Articles

Repeatable
Evolution or Repeated Creation

Bob
Stewart: Soldier, Astronaut, and Compelling Apologist

God’s
Plan for Humanity—Paradise Restored or Paradise Replaced?

Convergence:
Evidence for a Single Creator

The
Measurability of the Universe––a Record of the Creator’s Design

First
Detection of Earth-sized Planet?

Protein
Structures Reveal Even More Evidence for Design

Problem
of Evil (Part Two)

Thinking
About The Incarnation: The Divine Word Became Flesh

Book
Review: Finding Darwin’s God

* Due to copyrights, original graphics and tables do
not appear in these articles

Repeatable
Evolution or Repeated Creation?

By Fazale Rana

Any casual observer of nature recognizes that many creatures bear some
resemblance to one another. Many species of frogs, lizards, fish, and
other animals and plants from different parts of the world appear to be
nearly identical. This similarity has been the pattern throughout life’s
history. Recent biological studies have shed light on the nature of this
physical resemblance and carry significant apologetic implications. Many
species that look identical are, in fact, genetically different, and
therefore unrelated. In accounting for these unexpected differences,
evolutionary biologists have proffered inadequate explanations. This
article will discuss a few of the many recent discoveries that continue to
buttress the case for a biblical creator while continuing to erode the
foundation for the evolutionary paradigm.

According to evolutionary theory, organisms that possess identical
morphologies (forms or structures) must share a common ancestry.
Evolutionary biologists, therefore, have employed morphological
systematics––the study of the relationships among organisms according
to physical characteristics––when classifying species, and thus have
concluded that similar groups share common ancestry. However, with the
advent and widespread application of molecular systematics, in
which DNA sequences are used instead of morphologies to determine
biological relationships, science now is beginning to identify an
increasing number of challenges to the evolutionary classification.
Biologists are uncovering numerous examples of organisms that cluster
together morphologically (structurally), and yet are
genetically distinct. Frogs, lizards, or herbs that appear to be
identical are actually different at the genetic level. An evolutionary
interpretation of this data, then, demands that the morphologically
identical organisms must have evolved independently of one another
in a “repeatable” fashion.

The Contingent Nature of the Evolutionary Process

The evolutionary paradigm cannot accommodate “repeatable” evolution.
When evolutionists observe a tree frog ideally suited for its environment,
they assert that natural selection––environmental, predatory, and
competitive pressures repeatedly operating on random inheritable
variations for long periods of time––has led to this relationship. Chance
governs the evolutionary process at its most fundamental level. Because of
this, it is expected that repeated evolutionary events will result in
dramatically different outcomes.  The concept of Historical
Contingency embodies this idea and is the theme of Stephen J. Gould’s
Wonderful Life:

“…No finale can be specified at the start, none would ever
occur a second time in the same way, because any pathway proceeds
through thousands of improbable stages. Alter any early event, ever so
slightly, and without apparent importance at the time, and evolution
cascades into a radically different channel.”1

Gould’s metaphor of “replaying life’s tape” asserts that if one were to
push the rewind button, erase life’s history, and let the tape run again,
the results would be completely different.2 The very essence of
the evolutionary process renders evolutionary outcomes as nonreproducible
(or nonrepeatable). Therefore, “repeatable” evolution is inconsistent with
the mechanism available to bring about biological change.

A Test for Evolution, A Test for Creation

The idea of Historical Contingency suggests that one powerful way to
discriminate between the “appearance of design” that results from the
evolutionary process and Intelligent Design is to determine if contingency
is operating in the biological realm.3  If life is
exclusively the result of evolutionary processes, then biologists should
expect to see few, if any, cases in which evolution has “repeated” itself.
This is simply not the case. During the last six years numerous examples
of “repeatable” evolution have come to light as molecular data has been
increasingly used in biological systematics. These findings demonstrate
that the evolutionary paradigm fails the test of contingency. The
discovery of morphologically identical, yet genetically unrelated
organisms does, however, offer powerful support for biblical creation.
These examples of “repeatable” evolution include anolis lizards, ranid
frogs, cichlids, sticklebacks, mangabeys, river dolphins, and
Pericallis, an island plant.

Anolis Lizards

Anolis lizard species found on the islands
of the Greater Antilles (Cuba, Hispaniola, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico) are
perfectly adapted to fit into six distinctive ecological
niches.4  A species that is perfectly suited for a
particular ecological niche is termed an ecomorph. Two examples of
Anolis lizard ecomorphs found on the Greater Antilles are small
lizards with short legs that live on fragile twigs, and large lizards with
large toe pads that occupy the crowns of trees. Morphological analysis of
the Anolis lizards that populate the Greater Antilles reveals
objectively recognizable groups of ecomorphs.5  Based on
their morphological features (or close resemblance), members of the same
ecomorph grouping from the different islands were found to be more closely
related to one another than lizards from the same island.

Given the contingent nature of the evolutionary process, therefore, it
would be expected that each ecomorph evolved a single time from an
ancestral species. Each ecomorph produced by a single evolutionary
sequence of events would have then dispersed among the islands of the
Greater Antilles. However, when this model was tested by comparing
mitochondrial DNA sequences of the different Anolis species, it was
discovered that lizards in the same ecomorph class were not related to one
another.6  This study concluded that it would have taken
at least 17-19 separate evolutionary pathways to produce all the Anolis
ecomorphs, if natural process evolution was the explanatory agent.
Commenting on this work, biologists P.H. Harvey and L. Partridge, state,
“It seems that as the tape of life has been replayed in separate islands,
there has been a remarkable amount of convergent
evolution.”7

Ranid Frogs

Ranidfrogs–– comprised of over 1000 species––are common throughout the
world. These frogs have adapted to a wide range of lifestyles and
habitats.  Two of the Ranid subfamilies, Rhacophorinae (tree
frogs) and Tomopterninal (burrowing frogs) are found both in
Madagascar and on the Indian sub-continent of Asia.  They are nearly
indistinguishable in their morphological, physiological and developmental
characteristics and form two groups of ecomorphs.

Frogs, specifically, and amphibians, in general, cannot migrate through
salty environments. Therefore, it has long been held, from an evolutionary
standpoint, that the tree frogs and burrowing frogs evolved prior to the
separation of the Madagascar-Seychelles-Indian tectonic plate from
Gondwanaland (the earth’s one land mass prior to tectonic separation). It
is believed that this tectonic plate drifted away from Gondwanaland about
130 million years ago, separated to form Madagascar, and finally attached
onto Eurasia to form the Indian sub-continent. Some tree and burrowing
frogs were passively carried along and became isolated from one another.

Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA analyses of Madagascar and Indian Ranid
frogs demonstrate, however, that the evolutionary explanation is
untenable.8  DNA sequence analysis clusters these
ecomorphs based on geography not morphological features.  In
other words, from an evolutionary perspective, burrowing frogs and tree
frogs in Madagascar and India must have evolved independently. This
same study has also identified examples of “repeated” evolution for Ranid
ecomorphs located in Sri Lanka and India.9 Even more amazing,
researchers conclude from the DNA sequence analysis that the larval
characteristics of several Madagascar and Indian ecomorphs are also
identical. This means that the complex developmental pathways and larval
lifestyles must have evolved independently on several occasions to
produce the same result––if the data is viewed from an evolutionary
perspective.10

Cichlids

Cichlids––freshwater fish that are widely diverse in form, color and
habits––are scattered throughout the Southern Hemisphere. 11
Numerous examples of cichlid ecomorphs have been recognized in lakes
Victoria, Malawi and Tanganyika of East Africa. An evolutionary
explanation would postulate that each of the ecomorphs evolved a single
time and then was independently isolated in each lake after water levels
subsided, causing a single lake to split into three geographically
separated lakes.12

Sequence analysis of mitochondrial DNA, however, indicates that the
ecomorphs found in the three East African lakes must have evolved
independently, multiple times, assuming an evolutionary
explanation.13, 14, 15, 16, 17 Also, researchers have noted the
independent emergence of ecomorphs for cichlids in two lakes in
Cameroon.18  Even more striking is the recent recognition
that multiple independent origins occurred for ecomorphs within different
regions of a single lake, Tanganyika.19  That is, from an
evolutionary perspective, some cichlid species in Lake Tanganyika are
viewed as separate, morphologically indistinguishable species that
“evolved” in exactly the same way multiple times.

Like the cichlids, scientists believe the sticklebacks species found in
British Columbia evolved several times independently to produce the same
ecomorphs. The same two stickleback species, bulky benthic
(bottom-dwelling) feeders and streamline open-water feeders, live in
isolated lakes near the Pacific coast of British Columbia. The standard
evolutionary explanation maintains that these two species evolved from one
marine stickleback species, became trapped and isolated in the lakes after
sea levels changed, and then independently populated the
lakes.20 Mitochondrial DNA analysis provides results contrary
to the most plausible evolutionary explanations.21 These
results indicate that the stickleback species from the same lake have a
greater degree of genetic similarity than do morphologically identical
species from different lakes. From an evolutionary viewpoint, therefore,
stickleback ecomorphs in the isolated lakes must be the product of
“reproducible” evolutionary events.

A recent breeding experiment affirms the previous
conclusion.22  In a laboratory environment, researchers
discovered that corresponding ecomorphs from different lakes attempt to
interbreed with one another, while eschewing the different ecomorphs that
share their lakes. This result is interesting in light of the biological
definition of a species.  Biologically, a species is considered to be
an interbreeding population of individuals. The willingness of the same
ecomorphs from different lakes to interbreed points to just how profound
the similarity is among the stickleback ecomorphs––both morphologically
and behaviorally.

Mangabeys

Mangabeys are large Old World monkeys found in Africa. Morphological
similarity has traditionally led biologists to place all the mangabey
species into a single genus, Cercocebus. Baboons, drills,
mandrills, and geladas are closely related to mangabeys. Earlier molecular
studies and mitochondrial DNA sequence analysis challenged the
morphologically based classification that places mangabeys into a single
group.23,  24 These studies indicated that the single
mangabey genus should have been separated into two groups, and that the
nearly identical mangabey morphologies must have evolved independently two
times. Recent nuclear DNA analyses have confirmed that mangabey morphology
“evolved” on two separate occasions, when viewed from the evolutionary
paradigm.25

These results not only support two morphologically indistinguishable
genera, Cercocebus and Lophocebus, but also indicate that the strong
morphological similarities of drills, mandrills and baboons must have
evolved independently as well. Nuclear DNA sequence analysis aligns drills
and mandrills with the mangabey genus, Cercocebus, and baboons and geladas
with the mangabey genus, Lophocebus.26 Inspired by the results
of the molecular studies, two biologists have recently recognized subtle
morphological differences in dental features and in the arm and leg bones
of the Cercocebus and Lophocebus mangabeys.27  However,
these skeletal and dental differences are so slight that without the
supporting DNA sequence data it is questionable if these differences would
have been recognized at all, let alone accepted as significant.

River Dolphins

Unlike other marine mammals (whales, porpoises, and dolphins), river
dolphins live in freshwater, river environments. There are four extant
river dolphin species. Three of these species live exclusively in
freshwater and one (the La Plata dolphin) lives both in estuaries and
coastal waters. The freshwater dolphins inhabit the Ganges and Brahmaptura
Rivers of India, the Yangtze River of China, and the Amazon River.

River dolphins share similar and characteristic morphologies. The most
commonplace view among biologists is that the river dolphins emerged from
a single evolutionary pathway. Mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequence
analysis now demonstrates otherwise.28 In other words,
if the DNA sequence data is interpreted within an evolutionary
context, the four river dolphin species must have evolved the same
characteristic features independently and repeatedly.

Pericallis

Pericallis, a genus of plants related to sunflowers, are found
in the Macaronesian archipelago (Azores, Canary Islands, Cape Verde,
Madeira and Selvagens) off the west coast of Africa.29  Of
the Pericallis species found in the Macaronesian islands, six are
woody and nine are herbaceous. This is not surprising, since many island
plants are woody variants of mainland herbs or soft-bodied plants.

The most reasonable evolutionary explanation for the origin of
Pericallis woodiness is that it evolved on the mainland and found its way
to the Macaronesian islands. However, nuclear DNA sequence analysis
betrays this explanation by revealing no genetic similarity. When examined
employing evolutionary assumptions, therefore, the data indicates that
Pericallis woodiness musthave evolved on at least two separate
occasions.30

Evolutionary Attempts to Account for Repeatable Evolution

In isolation, each case of “repeatable” evolution can be viewed as an
oddity and poses no real threat to the “truth” of biological evolution.
However, the many cases of “repeatable” evolution––in which entire
organisms seem to evolve independently and reproducibly––simply doesn’t
follow, given the nature of the mechanism available to drive the
evolutionary process, chance. Biologists who embrace methodological
naturalism––the notion that only natural explanations can be used to
account for phenomena in the physical and material world––do indeed regard
the occurrences of “repeatable” evolution as unexpected and remarkable.
However, their philosophical predisposition does not allow them to be open
to the possibility that a Creator is responsible for the repeated
occurrences of ecomorphs found in nature.  These morphologically
indistinguishable, yet genetically distinct ecomorphs can be properly
considered as one of the many fingerprints that the Creator has left on
His creation. In fact, if a single Creator was responsible for life, one
could anticipate seeing repeated examples of the same blueprint throughout
the biological realm. One would expect that a single Creator would reuse
successful designs over and over again.

Given the examples cited previously, evolutionary biologists cannot
seem to account for “repeatable” evolution. One attempt at explaining this
phenomenon is to attribute “special” capability to the forces of natural
selection.31 Since organisms are perfectly suited for their
ecological milieu, and therefore more likely to survive to reproductive
age, it is thought that the forces of natural selection––competitive,
predatory, and environmental influences––repeatedly “channel” the
evolutionary process down the same pathway to produce the same organisms.
This explanation for recurrent evolution neglects the fact that selective
forces are nothing more than a blind filter. Natural selection can only
operate on traits made available by random changes in the population’s
genetic makeup. It is not likely that these changes would be repeatable,
given the complexity of genomes, nor that they would occur in the same
historical sequence.

Additionally, it is unlikely that the factors that made up an
organism’s ecology would be identical throughout time. Changes to the
ecological environment in Madagascar, for example, would not be identical
to the changes in the ecological environment in India. The components of
natural selection are influenced by chance and by history. Therefore,
natural selection would not be expected to guide separate evolutionary
sequences and then produce morphological traits in an organism that
somehow remarkably converge.

One well-known experiment with bacteria has led evolutionary biologists
to conclude that natural selection can direct the convergence of features
in the evolutionary process.33 These experiments demonstrated
that bacterial populations subjected to identical environments achieved
similar fitness (a measure of the ability of an organism to survive)
regardless of chance, mutational events, and history. However, the
conclusion drawn from these experiments does not support such a directive
role for natural selection for two reasons.

First, fitness is different from morphological characteristics. Fitness
describes the capability to survive independent of the organism’s
features. It is not surprising that natural selection converges on optimal
fitness in mathematical modeling or when characterizing the response of
bacteria to environmental stress. Yet, it does not follow that convergence
to optimal fitness explains the improbable convergence of morphological
features. Second, what is true for bacterial communities (single cell
organisms that are morphologically nondescript, comprised of large
population sizes, and short generation times) is not necessarily true for
the advanced multi-cellular organisms that have been shown to display
“repeatable” evolution.33 The population and reproductive
characteristics of these advanced, complex organisms preclude their
capability to evolve.

Another attempt to account for “repeatable” evolution within the
evolutionary paradigm is based on inherent biological and developmental
constraints.34  The idea is that these constraints only
allow certain variations to occur in the evolutionary process.  When
evolution occurs, then, it can only produce a limited number of ecomorphs,
therefore the same ecomorphs result repeatedly. This explanation falls
short. Developmental and inherent biological constraints would have no
“knowledge” of the environmental, predatory, or competitive pressures
facing the organism. Therefore, one would not expect there to be
ecomorphs. In the face of this explanation one must ask, “Why do we see
organisms that are perfectly suited to their ecological niche?” The
universal occurrence of perfect adaptation is inconsistent with any
limitations on biological variation.

Conclusion

Prior to the influence of Charles Darwin (Origin of Species was
first published in 1859) scientists viewed the nature of the similarities
among organisms as due to the variation of a fundamental design or
archetype.35 This “blueprint” for life was acknowledged as
having come directly from the mind of God. Organisms classified within a
particular grouping were viewed as variations of the design provided by
the Creator.

When the tide began to shift toward Darwinian evolution, however,
biologists came to understand the relationships among organisms as
reflecting descent with modification from a common ancestor. The ancestral
species that gave rise to a group of related organisms replaced the
archetype, and natural selection operating on random biological variation
replaced the creative hand of God.

As both evolutionists and creationists seek to account for the features
found in the biological realms, different predictions flow consequentially
from these explanations. Chance and a historical sequence of events
control biological evolution, at its essence. One would expect therefore,
few, if any, instances in which the evolutionary process would repeat
itself. On the other hand, if a single Creator were responsible for life
on earth, one would expect to see recurrent design throughout nature.

The widespread availability of molecular systematics now allows
scientists to test these two interpretations of nature. As molecular
systematics is used increasingly to characterize the relationship among
organisms––both living and extinct––numerous examples of morphologically
identical and genetically distinct groups are being uncovered. The
widespread occurrence of repeatable evolution cannot be accommodated
within the evolutionary paradigm. Any attempt to account for this
phenomenon from a naturalistic standpoint violates the very nature of the
evolutionary process or has implications that are inconsistent with what
biologists observe in nature.

The evolutionary paradigm fails in the face of the discovery of
“repeatable” evolution while biblical creation gains support from this
phenomenon. What is interpreted as “repeatable” evolution––morphologically
indistinct and genetically unique organisms––is what one would expect if a
single Creator has generated life throughout earth’s history. As time goes
on, scientists expect to see more examples of “repeatable” evolution. Each
new discovery of this phenomenon weakens the evolutionary paradigm and
strengthens the case for creation.

References:

Stephen J. Gould, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the
Nature of History (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1989),
51.

Gould, 48.

John Cafferky,  Evolution’s Hand: Searching for the Creator
in Contemporary Science (Toronto, Canada: East End Books, 1997,)
66-69.

Jonathan B. Losos and Kevin de Querioz, “Darwin’s Lizards,”
Natural History, December /January, (1997/1998): 34-37.

Jonathan B. Losos, et al., “Contingency and Determinism in
Replicated Adaptive Radiations of Island Lizards,” Science 279
(1998): 2115-2118.

Losos, et al., 2115-2118.

Paul H. Harvey and Linda Partridge, “Different Routes to Similar
Ends,” Nature 392 (1998): 552-553.

Frankly Bossuyt and Michel C. Milinkovitch, “Convergent Adaptive
Radiations in Madagascar and Asian Ranid Frogs Reveal Co-Variation
Between Larval and Adult Frogs,” Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, USA 97 (2000): 6585-6590.

Bossuyt and Milinkovitch, 6585-6590.

Bossuyt and Milinkovitch, 6585-6590.

Melanie L.J. Stiassny and Axel Meyer, “Cichlids of the Rift Lakes,”
Scientific American, February (1999): 64-69.

Erik Verhegen et. al., “Mitochondrial Phylogeography of
Rock-Dwelling Cichlid Fishes Reveals Evolutionary Influence of
Historical Lake Level Fluctuations of Lake Tanganyika, Africa,”
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 351
(1996): 797-805.

Stiassny and Meyer, 64-69.

Verheyen et al., 797-805.

Axel Meyer et. al., “Monophyletic Origin of Lake Victoria Cichlid
Fishes Suggested by Mitochondrial DNA Sequences,” Nature 347
(1990): 550-553.

John C. Arise, “Flocks of African Fishes,” Nature 347 (1990):
512-513.

Axel Meyer, “Phylogenetic Relationships and Evolutionary Processes
in East African Cichlid Fishes,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution
8 (1993): 279-284.

Ulrich K. Schliewen, et. al., “Sympatric Speciation Suggested by
Monophyly of Crater Lake Cichlids,” Nature 368 (1994): 629-632.

Lukos Ruber et. al., “Replicated Evolution of Trophic
Specializations in an Endemic Cichlid Fish Lineage from Lake
Tanganyika,” Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, USA
96 (1999): 10230-10235.

Elizabeth Pennisi, “Nature Steers a Predictable Course,”
Science 287 (2000): 207-208.

Eric B. Taylor and J.D. McPhail, “Evolutionary History of an
Adaptive Radiation in Species Pairs of Threespine Sticklebacks
(Gasterosteus): Insights from Mitochondrial DNA,” Biological
Journal of the Linnean Society 66 (1999): 271-291.

Howard D. Randle, et. al., “Natural Selection and Parallel
Speciation in Sympatric Sticklebacks,” Science 287 (2000):
306-308.

John E. Cronin and Vincent M. Sarich, “Molecular Evidence for Dual
Origins of Mangabeys Among Old World Monkeys,” Nature 260 (1976):
700-702.

Todd R. Disotell, et. al., “Mitochondrial DNA Phylogeny of the Old
World Monkey Tribe Papionini,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 9
(1992): 1-13.

Eugene E. Harris and Todd R. Disotell, “Nuclear Gene Trees and the
Phylogenetic Relationships of Mangabeys (Primates: Papionini),”
Molecular Biology and Evolution 15 (1998): 892-900.

Harris and Disotell, 892-900.

John G. Heagle and W. Scott McGraw, “Skeletal and Dental Morphology
Supports Diphyletic Origins of Baboons and Mandrills,” Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, USA 96 (1999): 1157-1161.

Insa Cassens et. al., “Independent Adaptation to Riverine Habitats
Allowed Survival of Ancient Cetacean Lineages,” Proceedings of the
National Academies of Sciences, USA 97 (2000): 11343-11347.

Kathryn S. Brown, “Why Woodiness?,” Natural History,
December/January (1999/2000): 74-77.

Jose L. Panero, et. al., “Molecular Evidence for Multiple Origins of
Woodiness and a New World Biogeographic Connection of the Macroneasian
Island Endemic Pericallis (Asteraceae: Senecimeae)” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, USA 96 (1999): 13886-13891.

Losos, et. al., 2115-2118.

Michael Travisano et. al. “Experimental Test of the Roles of
Adaptation, Chance and History in Evolution,” Science 276 (1995): 87-90.

Hugh Ross, “How Speciation “Rules” Rule Out Darwinism,” Facts for
Faith 1, no. 2 (2000): 56-57.

David B. Wake, “Homoplasy: The Result of Natural Selection, or
Evidence of Design Limitations?,” American Naturalist 138 (1991):
543-567.

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler
& Adler, 1985,) 93-117.

Bob
Stewart: Soldier, Astronaut, and Compelling Apologist

By Elaine Ervin

General Robert L. Stewart, a decorated Army combat pilot, test pilot,
and former astronaut, has flown 38 types of airplanes and helicopters.
Born in Washington D.C. and raised in Alabama, he received his bachelor’s
degree in mathematics from the University of Southern Mississippi, and a
master’s degree in aeronautical engineering from the University of Texas
at Arlington. He served his country in Vietnam, where he flew UH1-B
gunships and saw comrades fall in battle. He earned numerous medals,
including two Purple Hearts, four Distinguished Flying Crosses, a Bronze
Star, and a Meritorious Service Medal. After the war he flew cutting-edge,
experimental aircraft and completed Army aviation programs that prepared
him for selection as a NASA astronaut. He flew on the shuttles
Challenger and Atlantis, and was one of two men who first
walked in space without a tether. A member of Reasons To Believe’s
Speakers Bureau, General Stewart has blended his scientific and military
training with a calling to ministry by making apologetics presentations
throughout the world.

FfF: You’ve lived an exciting and dangerous life. What was it like
to fly armed helicopters in Vietnam?

General Stewart: In Vietnam it got to where I feared the words,
"Sir, you've got to see this," because one time I had a crack in the pitch
change horn (the linkage which controls the main rotor). That pitch change
horn should never have held together, but it did. If I had ever lost that
pitch change horn, I would have lost control of the vehicle, and we would
have all died. Another time the 42-degree gearbox was shot out. The gears
should have seized but didn't.

Having been in constant danger, did you think about life and
death?

Before I became a Christian death was something that I wanted to avoid,
but I didn't fear it. Now I know that if I had been killed in Vietnam, or
had I been killed in an accident as a test pilot, then I would have had to
spend an eternity away from God.

Did this realization bring you to faith in Christ?

No. That realization came afterward. During the war I was determined
that I would not be a "foxhole Christian." I was at such a point in my
life that I said that this is not going to drive me to believe something
just to take out a "fire insurance policy" on my own soul. My conversion
came years later.

Tell us about it.

One day my daughter was bitten by a squirrel that she had been feeding
by hand. Squirrels have been known to carry rabies, of course, so my wife
[Mary] and I immediately consulted the NASA doctors. We were told that the
chances of contracting rabies were remote so we opted not to treat her. On
the morning I had to leave Houston for Denver to train for an aspect of my
first space flight, my daughter awoke with a high fever and a very sore
throat––two possible symptoms for rabies! As I flew to Denver, I couldn’t
get it out of my head that I might have killed my daughter. When I got to
Denver and checked into my motel, I was distraught with fear because it
wasn’t my life at risk but that of my daughter. I said my first real
prayer: “God, if you are really there, I don’t know why you want my
daughter now, but please don’t take her that way.” I called home to find
that Jenny [my daughter] was fine, the fever had broken, and the sore
throat was gone. I then got down on my knees and said, “Thank you, Lord,
now what will you have me do?” I realized that all those times I should
have been dead [in Vietnam], it was He who was with me even though I
refused to acknowledge Him.

People are fascinated with the many aspects of space travel.
Describe some of the sensations of the launch.

You are enveloped in a noise and vibration far beyond your training, as
over seven million pounds of thrust hurl you off the pad. Astronauts are
trained to know the character of the event but cannot be trained to its
true magnitude. It is a noise that is felt more than heard¾a sharp,
staccato noise that hammers directly at the core of your being! Once in
space, your second impression is “Boy, are we going fast.” In an airliner
you travel at 500 mph, 40,000 feet above ground, and it hardly seems like
you’re moving. In a shuttle, however, at speeds over 17,000 mph, you know
you are smoking along!

You’re one of very few people who has seen the earth from the unique
perspective of space. Can you describe it for us?

Your first view of the home planet is breathtaking. Maybe that’s how
God intended it to be viewed. You see the lovely azure of the Atlantic
overlaid by the pristine white of swirling clouds, and here comes the
green of Africa, the whole floating in a velvety black universe. The
colors come alive, and the visible detail is far beyond that which can be
brought back on film or tape. It is truly an experience that borders on
indescribable.

After having spent some time in space, what does it feel like to be
back home?

The thing that you notice right away is the oppressive feeling of
gravity. On one of my flights, we landed on a Saturday. I got up Sunday
morning to go to Sunday school and almost couldn't walk because I was
stumbling over my feet. I found that the way that I got to the floor was
completely different. In space, I actually had to pull myself to the
floor, using one set of muscles, whereas on Earth you relax muscles and
gravity pulls you down. There is a little bit of muscular weakness but not
any worse than if you got sick for a week and had to stay in bed.

How did you become involved with Reasons To Believe?

I had been teaching a Sunday school class here at High View Baptist
Church in Woodland Park [Colorado], and the class had decided that they
wanted to study Genesis. So I began research into Genesis with scientific
as well as religious publications. One of the books that I came across was
Dr. Ross' The Creator and the Cosmos. The more I read [of Dr. Ross’
books], the more fascinated I became. The books became a part of my class.
Then, I went to the Web site where I learned about RTB’s apologetics
course. I applied, and the rest, as they say, is history.

What do you hope to communicate as a Christian apologist?

The message I hope to get across is that you don’t have to give up your
intellect to be a Christian. I am afraid that the church in the past has
evangelized only the third world. It seems that the poor and the poorly
educated have received priority in church evangelism because they are the
easy problem. It gets harder to reach a person for Christ when that person
is highly educated and sure of the primacy of science in this world.
Reasons to Believe is the first organization I know of that attempts to
tell those people that there is no conflict between religion and science.
They both use their own peculiar language to communicate the same eternal
truths: that this universe was brought into existence out of nothingness;
that it is especially fine-tuned for the existence of life on this rare,
if not unique planet; and that God did it.

How do you approach this challenge?

I try to learn as much as I can about the Scriptures and about science
so that I can communicate at whatever level is required to advance the
good news of Jesus Christ. I learned from [the apostle] Paul that you have
to approach people where they are if communication is to take place. When
I began to teach Genesis in my Sunday school class, I led off with a
primer on relativity so my class could see the historical and logical
background of this theory and lose their fear of it. This was necessary
because I intended to talk about the creation event in terms of the big
bang, and I wanted my class to understand that this was not just something
physicists thought up in a vacuum. I wanted to approach the existence of
human beings on this planet from the standpoint of their unique
relationship to the Creator and back that up with some modern numerical
biology statistics concerning the probabilities of life existing at
all from random processes.

I hope to continue to challenge the person who is scientifically
oriented with the idea that life would be prohibitively unlikely unless it
were created by God. I also hope to reassure those not conversant with
modern science that the truth of the Scriptures is still intact and even
stronger as a result of real, objective science.

In my life I have made a remarkable transition from a person whose
faith was in science to the exclusion of religion, to being
a person who holds the Scriptures to be truth with science just catching
up after 4000 years.

God’s Plan for
Humanity—Paradise Restored or Paradise Replaced?

By Hugh Ross and Mick Ukleja

Christians argue and divide over many issues, from core issues such as
the doctrine of free will to peripheral issues such as the age of the
Earth. Ironically, some of the least weighty questions draw the most
vigorous public debate while the more important ones receive less
attention. One of these ignored controversies has significant implications
for worldview, a question that either lumps Christianity with other
theistic and deistic religions or sets it distinctly apart.

The many-faceted question is this: What is the Creator’s ultimate plan
for humanity? Is it a grand scale restoration of the Garden of Eden, i.e.,
a terrestrial paradise, or is it an entirely “new” creation beyond the
confines of the universe? What is the “heaven” awaiting those who receive
His offer of eternal salvation?

A consideration of the big picture, a look at what God’s Word says in
answer to this set of questions, can shed invaluable light on the subject
of creation and focus attention on the issues that matter most. How one
thinks about the future helps shape his or her response to current and
past events.

The book of Revelation offers the best starting place for such an
inquiry. In fact, its final chapters may be the best place for a person to
begin reading Scripture. Rather than killing suspense, this end-first
reading of the story quells fear and gives birth to a lively, healthy
hope. And hope, according to Romans 5:3-5 and 1 John 3:3, carries us
through the difficulties of our sin-marred existence and keeps us going
through God’s purification process.

Redemption’s story culminates in this triumphant shout: “Now the
dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his
people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe
every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or
crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Rev.
21:3-4).

In what context does redeemed humanity enjoy the glories of
face-to-face fellowship with God? Is it here on this planet, in this
universe? Again, Scripture gives the answer. Revelation 21 identifies our
destination as the “new heaven and new earth, for the first heaven and the
first earth had passed away. . . .”  The King of Kings declares, “I
am making everything new!” Most of the chapter is devoted to a
mind-boggling description of the Holy City, the New Jerusalem. Its
magnificent features not only stretch the limits of human imagination but
also reveal that familiar physical laws exist no more.

In this passage God gives a preview of the fulfillment of Romans
8:22-23. The whole “groaning” creation—its time and space, matter and
energy, and “we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the
Spirit”—receives deliverance from “bondage to decay.” This is the moment
of our “adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.”

Humanity’s deliverance from death and decay is the focal point of the
passage; however, the reference does encompass the entire physical
universe, to which space, time, matter, and energy belong. The passage
would seem to suggest, then, that the deliverance applies even to the
physical laws, which began in effect at the cosmic creation event. They
are, thus, finite and the One who created them brings them to an end as
soon as their purpose is fulfilled.

To say that the universe and its thermodynamic laws are eternal is to
contradict both Scripture and the record of nature. To say that Adam and
Eve’s sin introduced those laws is to overlook three biblical doctrines.
First, rebellion against God’s authority, i. e., “sin,” existed prior to
Adam’s rebellion in Eden. The Bible does not record exactly when
Satan sinned, but that event certainly predates his invasion of Eden. It
could have occurred before Earth was formed. Job 38:7 says that the
angels, of whom Lucifer was one, were witnesses to God’s laying the
foundations of the earth.

Second, God decided to allow Satan’s entrance to Eden. The doctrine of
God’s omnipotence and omniscience leads to the conclusion that He had a
plan for using Adam and Eve’s tragic rebellion, with all its horrific
effects, to bring about a greater and better future than even the wonders
of Eden could afford.

Third, whatever the timing of Satan’s rebellion, God created the
universe knowing that Satan would be the first to sin. Consequently, the
universe He designed would be a universe perfectly suited to bring about
the glorious victory He planned. In other words, He made a universe
governed by the second law of thermodynamics (and other laws) wherein
humans would be tested by Satan but with the possibility of being
permanently rescued from Satan’s grasp by God’s conquering love and
grace.

The precipitating event, the time marker, for the climactic “adoption”
event is described in the final paragraphs of Revelation 20. Satan and his
henchmen have been sent to their inescapable doom, and their captives
stand before God’s judgment seat to receive the penalty, which they insist
on paying, for their pseudo autonomy. In other words, God’s conquest of
evil, which was “finished” on Calvary’s cross, has at this point been
fully carried out. This is in part an answer to the question, if there is
an all-loving God then why does evil exist? The answer is that evil is in
the process of being defeated, and humankind has the privilege of
partnering with God in that battle to conquer evil. The result is that one
day all that which is evil––everything that is irredeemable––will be
quarantined in a place called “Hell.” The result is that the new creation
will be eternally secure. Temptation’s source can no longer come into
contact with the creatures God made for His own eternal delight.

One can reasonably infer that God’s plan and purpose for the creation,
as described in Genesis 1 and amplified elsewhere in Scripture, has been
accomplished. That plan involves the conquest of evil, which was
introduced not at the time of Adam and Eve’s fall into sin but
rather when Lucifer rebelled. Sin and its consequences came to humanity
when the first humans gave in to the serpent’s temptation. And those
consequences were, and still are, devastating.

The biblical worldview we propose says that Adam and Eve’s fall into
sin radically changed the human race, impacting the entire planet. It did
not, however, change all the physical laws of the cosmos. Genesis 2
explicitly states that Adam worked physically and ate earthly food before
he sinned. Such work—including the digestion process—implies that gravity
and thermodynamics, for example, were in effect before the fall, as they
are today. The existence of stars, including the sun, also implies the
operation of thermodynamic laws.1

Work and the possibility of physical pain did not come as part of the
curse God pronounced at the time of Adam and Eve’s sin. God designed
productive work to be satisfying, enjoyable.2 He gave Adam and
Eve a job before they committed any sin.3 Sin, however,
destroyed both the productivity and joy of their work. This destruction
still makes work frustrating and painful.

Physical pain is a necessary partner to physical pleasure. Such pain
also warns of impending danger. The capacity for pain, then, cannot be
considered a bad thing. The introduction of sin means that we all
experience more pain than would otherwise be necessary. Furthermore, it
introduces an entirely new and more excruciating kind of pain—spiritual
and emotional pain. When a woman suffers to give birth to a child, her
greatest pain comes from the heart-rending awareness that this little
person, to whom her heart is inextricably attached, must experience the
awful effects of sin, both within and without.4 Such pain
completely overshadows the physical pain of childbearing.

The end of that pain, the enactment of God’s judgment against it at the
Great White Throne, comes with the end of the physical universe as we know
it. Revelation is not the only portion of Scripture in which this point is
made. The Psalmist declares:

In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the
heavens are the work of your hands.
They will perish, but you
remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
Like clothing you
will change them
and they will be discarded.5

Isaiah says that “all the stars of the heavens will be
dissolved,”6 that “the heavens will vanish like
smoke,”7 that God “will create new heavens and a new
earth,”8 and that “the former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.”9 Jesus proclaims that “heaven and
earth will pass away.”10 The author of the book of Hebrews
quotes directly from the Psalm above.11 Peter explains:

Long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed. .
. . By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire,
being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. . . .
The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by
fire. . . . Everything will be destroyed in this way. . . . That day will
bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will
melt in the heat. But in keeping with His promise we are looking forward
to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of
righteousness.12

When Christ takes His seat to judge Earth’s rebels, the earth and the
sky “flee” from His presence.13 Obviously this seat exists
beyond the confines of “the heavens and the earth” mentioned in Genesis
1:1. Living beings, angels and humans, remain alive in place beyond the
“very good” Earth. Some go to the place of “second death,”14
and some remain in the glorious presence of God. At this point, God has no
more use for this planet and cosmos.

Just how new is the new creation? It is more than just a remake or
renovation of the old creation. It is completely and radically new. The
laws of gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics are gone. The text
directly claims that everything associated with the second law of
thermodynamics (decay, death, pain, etc.) never again exists.15
Gravity as we know it no longer exists. (Gravity does not allow a
structure of the dimensions ascribed to the New Jerusalem. Gravity would
force it into a spherical shape.)16 Electromagnetism as we know
it no longer exists, for light in an electromagnetic environment coexists
with darkness and shadows. The new creation will be filled with “light”
without any darkness or shadows and without such entities as the sun,
stars, and light bulbs as sources of illumination.17

What can be said, then, of Old Testament verses that seem to suggest
the Earth and universe last forever? The interpretation we proffer must
account for the following passages:

He set them [the sun, moon, stars, highest heavens and waters above the
skies] forever and ever. (Psalm 148:6)

I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be
added to it and nothing taken from it. (Ecclesiastes 3:14)

[Those] who lead many to righteousness [will shine] like the stars for
ever and ever. (Daniel 12:3)

[God’s] work has been finished since the creation of the world.
(Hebrews 4:3)

The Hebrew word translated as “forever” in Psalm 148:6 (also in
Ecclesiastes 3:14, and Daniel 12:3) is olam. In Psalm 148:6 and
Daniel 12:3, the Hebrew word ‘ad is included in the phrase as well.
These words carry slightly different meanings in different contexts
(unlike the Greek word for “forever”), and one of their literal meanings
is a “long continuance into the future.”18 In the light of the
rest of Scripture, that meaning seems to apply here.

Many Bible scholars view Ecclesiastes 3:14 and Hebrews 4:3 as
declarations of God’s sovereign, immutable plan for humanity. In other
words, God’s has determined what He will do and nothing can change that.
As for Daniel 12:3, the shining “forever” seems in the context of the
larger passage to describe “those who lead many to righteousness.”

Better Than Eden19

One argument for a completely and radically new creation comes from 1
Corinthians 2:9. In this passage Paul explains that no human can “conceive
or imagine what God has prepared for those who love Him.” Imagining or
visualizing phenomena within the laws of physics and space-time dimensions
of our universe certainly is possible. We can picture, at least in
a limited way, what Eden, or a renewed earth might be like if we could go
there, but we humans simply cannot picture life in a realm beyond the
dimensions and physical laws of our universe.

God has promised to His believers a reward far beyond what anyone, no
matter how spiritual or imaginative, can conceive. Moreover, the doctrine
of heaven is one of the chief distinctions between Christianity and other
belief systems. Many cults, for example, promise an Earth-bound (or
planet-bound) paradise replete with physical pleasures, including sexual
pleasure; Christianity promises deliverance from earthly paradise, no
matter how magnificently restored its condition. In one sense, any earthly
paradise may be compared with Egypt in Moses’ time. It was a land of
splendor and plenty but also a land of slavery.

Slavery of one kind or another is inherently associated with the laws
of thermodynamics. If we eliminate the law of entropy, for example, we
have not eliminated all decay in the universe. As people age, they observe
that certain body parts begin to lose the battle with gravity. Skin breaks
down under long-term exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of Eden’s slavery has to do with
time. Our original parents were confined, as we humans still are, to a
single time dimension. Time’s forward march can be neither stopped nor
reversed. This time line limits each one of us to just a few close
relationships in our lifetime. In fact, the deepest level of intimacy
possible in this creation, inside or outside Eden, can be experienced with
only one fellow human at a time. For this reason God gave us marriage,
monogamous marriage.

Jesus tells His followers that in the new creation there will be no
marriage and, evidently, no sexual relationships or nuclear
families.20 The relationship all believers will enjoy with
Christ and with each other is likened to a marriage. Jesus often refers to
believers in the new creation with singular nouns and
pronouns.21 We are, He says, His bride, and we all will be one
as He and the Father (and of course the Holy Spirit) are one. The oneness
of the Godhead implies that the Father, Son, and Spirit are in continuous
communication and fellowship with one another. For us to experience a
comparable kind of oneness we, too, must be in continuous communication
and fellowship with one another and with Him. Somehow, the new creation
will allow us to communicate and relate intimately with billions of others
all at once and always in perfect harmony.

Given this new capacity for knowing and being known, for loving and
being loved, our need and desire for marriage and family are more than
fully met. According to God’s promise, we will continuously enjoy
something superior to the pleasures of the very best earthly
relationships, including marriage, with all fellow believers
simultaneously. Whatever responsibilities He assigns to us will be
fulfilled with complete and unhindered joy. Just as this universe was
designed for the purpose of Redemption, the new creation is designed for
Reward.22 In fact, even our limited comprehension of the place
He is preparing for us gives new meaning to that word.

References:

Job 38:33.

Ecclesiastes 3:13.

Genesis 1:28.

Genesis 3:16.

Psalm 102:25-26.

Isaiah 34:4.

Isaiah 51:6.

Isaiah 66:22.

Isaiah 65:17.

Matthew 24:35.

Hebrews 1:10-12.

2 Peter 3:5-13.

Revelation 20:11.

Revelation 20:14.

Revelation 21:4.

Revelation 21:16-17.

Revelation 21:23, 22:4.

R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke,
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, v. 2 (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1981), 673.

See Hugh Ross, chapter 17 in Beyond the Cosmos,
2nd ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1999).

Matthew 22:29-30; Luke 20:34-35.

John 17:11, Romans 12:5, 15:5-6, Revelation 21:9-27.

Matthew 5:12, 16:27; Luke 6:23, 35; 1 Corinthians 3:14; Ephesians
6:8; Colossians 3:24; Hebrews 11:26; Revelation 22:12.

Convergence:
Evidence for a Single Creator

By Fazale (Fuz) R. Rana, Ph.D.

Closely related to the phenomenon of repeatable evolution is
convergence. Convergence refers to the widespread tendency in nature of
unrelated organisms to possess nearly identical anatomical and
physiological characteristics.1 The wings of birds and bats is
one textbook example of convergence.  Birds and bats are unrelated
organisms, with birds belonging to the class Aves and bats to the class
Mammalia.  Though superficially similar, the wing structures of birds
and bats are fundamentally different.  Another common example of
convergence¾one in which the fundamental structural differences are not so
obvious¾is the remarkable anatomical similarity shared by the modern
placental wolf and the extinct Tasmanian wolf.2

Both the creation and evolutionary paradigms offer an explanation for
convergence. Creationists view convergence as the intelligent activity of
a single Creator who employs a common set of solutions to address a common
set of problems facing unrelated organisms in their quest for survival.
Evolutionists assert that convergence results when unrelated organisms
encounter nearly identical selection forces (environmental, competitive,
and predatory pressures). Natural selection then channels the random
variations believed to be responsible for evolutionary change along
similar pathways to produce similar features in unrelated
organisms.3

Since both the creation and evolutionary frameworks attempt to explain
biological convergence, an analysis of this feature of nature can be used
to evaluate the two paradigms. When critically assessed, the evolutionary
paradigm is found to be woefully inadequate when accounting for all the
facets of biological convergence.  On the other hand, biological
convergence is readily explained by an origins model that evokes a single
Creator.

One of the challenges that convergence creates for the evolutionary
paradigm is the frequency with which it occurs throughout life’s history.
Convergence is a common characteristic of life. This commonness makes
little sense in light of evolutionary theory. If evolution is indeed
responsible for the diversity of life, one would expect convergence to be
extremely rare.  The mechanism that drives the evolutionary process
consists of a large number of unpredictable, chance events that occur one
after another. Given this mechanism and the complexity and fine-tuning of
biological systems, it seems improbable that disparate evolutionary
pathways would ever lead to the same biological feature.4

Two remarkable examples of complex biological features recently
recognized as being convergent are bat echolocation (the ability of an
organism to orient itself based on perceiving reflections of sound it
emits) and parrot, songbird, and hummingbird forebrain structure.  A
recent DNA sequence analysis has just confirmed two earlier studies that,
from an evolutionary perspective, requires echolocation in bats to have
evolved independently in two separate groups (microchiroptera and
megachiroptera).5, 6, 7  This study, along with previous
analyses also indicate that the strikingly similar limb structures of bats
and flying lemurs used for flying, likewise, must have evolved
independently, when the data is interpreted from an evolutionary
perspective.

Another recent study, employing behavioral differences in gene
expression in brain tissue, has demonstrated that the brain structure of
hummingbirds, songbirds, and parrots responsible for vocal learning (the
ability to “learn” vocalizations by imitation rather than by instinct) is
essentially identical.8, 9  This is surprising, since
these three birds are unrelated to one another. That is, the seven
distinct structures in the forebrain of these three groups of birds that
are responsible for vocal learning are convergent. From an evolutionary
perspective, these structures must have evolved independently of one
another on three separate occasions.

It is difficult to accept, even when biased towards naturalism, that
the complex structures involved in bat echolocation, bat and lemur flight,
and bird vocal learning could have emerged strictly through random events.
However, the remarkable convergence just described would be
expected if a single Creator was responsible for creating bats,
lemurs, parrots, songbirds, and hummingbirds.

Even more challenging for the evolutionist are the cases in which
convergence occurs in organisms from radically different environments.
Under these circumstances, the forces that comprise natural selection must
be different by definition.  The classic example of this type of
convergence is found in the eye structure of the cephalopods (nautili,
cuttlefish, squids, and octopods).10  Their similarity to
vertebrate eyes is remarkable from an evolutionary perspective, given that
1) mollusks, which include cephalopods, are classified as a member of a
fundamentally different group (lophotrochozoan) than vertebrates
(deuterostomes)11; and 2) the selective forces that would have
shaped the formation of both the cephalopod eye and vertebrate eye must
have been quite different. Evolution would have required an aquatic
environment for the cephalopods and a primarily terrestrial environment
for the vertebrates.

An even more remarkable example of convergence occurring in aquatic and
terrestrial environments can be seen in the sandlance (fish) and chameleon
(reptile), respectively.  Recent experiments have uncovered an
extraordinary similarity in the visual systems and behavior for these two
creatures.12, 13, 14, 15  Both the chameleon and the
sandlance move their eyes independent of one another in a jerky manner,
rather than in concert. While one eye is in motion the other eye is
motionless.  Moreover, both animals use the cornea of the eye to
focus on objects.  All other reptiles and fish use the lens of the
eye to focus images on the retina. The chameleon and sandlance both rely
on a specialized muscle (the cornealis muscle) to adjust the focusing of
the cornea. The chameleon determines depth perception using a single eye.
Scientists believe the sandlance also determines depth perception in this
manner. Both the sandlance and the chameleon have skin coverings over
their eyes to prevent them from being conspicuous to both predators and
prey.  The feeding behavior of both animals is also the same. The
trajectory that the chameleon tongue takes when attacking its prey is the
same as that taken by the sandlance when it lunges for its prey. (The
sandlance buries itself in sand beds with its eyes above the surface of
the sand and waits for tiny crustaceans to pass by.)

The words of the team of researchers who were among the first to
discover this convergence are compelling: “When faced with a beautifully
coordinated optical system such as this, it is a challenge to provide an
explanation for the convergence of so many different finely-tuned
mechanisms.”16

These examples highlight the difficulty that convergence creates for
the evolutionary paradigm. No known evolutionary mechanism can account for
the nature of biological convergence. Convergence has been far too common
throughout life’s history, has involved exceedingly complex structures,
and has occurred in situations in which the forces of natural selection
have been vastly different.  Biological convergence is an important
component in the argument that life, throughout earth’s history, is a
result of the supernatural activity of a Creator.

References:

Monroe W. Strickberger, Evolution, 3d ed., (Sunberg, MA: Jones and
Bartlett Publishers, 2000), 632; 637.

Mark Ridley, Evolution, 2d ed. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science,
1996), 470-72.

Strickberger, 632; 637.

Kurt Wise, “The Origin of Life’s Major Groups,” in The Creation
Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, J.P.
Moreland, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 212-15.

Emma C. Teeling et al., “Molecular Evidence Regarding the Origin of
Echolocation and Flight in Bats,” Nature 403 (2000): 188-92.

Dorothy E. Pumo et al., “Complete Mitochondrial Genome of a
Neotropical Fruit Bat, Artibues Jamaicensis, and a New Hypothesis of the
Relationships of Bats to Other Eutherian Mammals,” Journal of Molecular
Evolution 47 (1998): 709-17.

James M. Hutcheon et al., “Base Compositional Biases and the Bat
Problem III. The Question of Microchiropteran Monophyly,” Philosophical
Transaction of the Royal Society of LondonB 353 (1998): 607-17.

Erich D. Jarvis et al., “Behaviorally Driven Gene Expression Reveals
Song Nuclei in Hummingbird Brain,” Nature 406 (2000): 628-32.

Annette Heist, “Singing in the Brain,” Natural History, October
(2000): 14-16.

Robert D. Barnes, Invertebrate Zoology, 3d ed., (Philadelphia, PA:
W.B. Sanders Company, 1974), 424-27.

Anna Marie A. Aquinaldo and James A. Lake, “Evolution of
Multicellular Animals,” American Zoologist 38 (1998): 878-87.

Mandyam V. Srinivasan, “When One Eye Is Better Than Two,” Nature 399
(1999): 305-07.

J.D. Pettigrew and S.P. Collin, “Terrestrial Optics in an Aquatic
Eye: The Sandlance, Limnichthytes fasciatus (Creediidae, Teleostei),”
Journal of Comparative Physiology A 177 (1995): 397-408.

John D. Pettigrew et al., “Convergence of Specialised Behavior, Eye
Movements and Visual Optics in the Sandlance (Teleostei) and Chameleon
(Reptilia),” Current Biology 9 (1999): R286-88.

Kerstin A. Fritsches and Justin Marshall, “A New Category of Eye
Movements in a Small Fish,” Current Biology 9 (1999): R272-73.

Pettigrew and Collin, 407.

The Measurability of the
Universe––a Record of the Creator’s Design

By Guillermo Gonzalez

If the universe were not measurable, scientific study would be
impossible. Astronomy, biology, chemistry, cosmology, geology, physics,
and the other disciplines of science would be no less quixotic than
alchemy or astrology. Science would not—could not—shed much light in the
cosmic darkness.

Most scientists take the measurability of the physical realm completely
for granted: It is measurable because scientists have found ways to
measure it. Scientists (myself included) may take pride in our ability to
make measurements––especially those measurements requiring ingenuity,
persistence, and skill––but why take the universe’s measurability for
granted? Is there any deep significance to the measurability of the
universe? The answer springs from the very foundations of science, from
the philosophical assumptions  (chiefly drawn from the
Judeo-Christian Scriptures1) on which scientific endeavor
rests. These assumptions include, among others, the existence of a
theory-independent external world, the existence of order in the external
world, the reality of truth, the validity and reliability of the laws of
logic and mathematics, the basic reliability of sense perception, and the
adequacy of the human mind to comprehend the universe.2
The Judeo-Christian vision of reality predicts a unique
correspondence between the physical universe and the human mind.

By identifying the aspects of measurability humans cannot
influence or control, one can determine (at least roughly) whether or not
the measurability of the universe requires supernatural fine-tuning, and
if so, to what degree. This study begins with a look at the nearby cosmos
and from there moves outward in space, backward in time.

The Measurability of the Earth

One of the characteristics that makes Earth such an ideal “recording
device” is its built-in set of time markers––cyclical rhythms on time
scales of days, months, seasons, years, centuries, periods, eras, and
eons. Humanity could have found itself in a far less measurable place. The
Moon, for example, does not have active weather, seasons, or tectonics,
and therefore offers few time markers. The Moon looks ancient, yet
ageless. Jupiter and the other gas giants have active weather, but they
lack any solid surface on which to record their rhythms and events. The
thin crust of the Earth provides not only a safe and comfortable place for
living creatures of all kinds, but it also serves as the planet’s
information storage space. The deep, hot interior of the planet, the
atmosphere, and the oceans are all too fluid to preserve much of the
past.

Earth’s cycles provide the steady beat of time markers, with other,
more subtle, fluctuations superimposed. Because of seasonal changes in
weather and plant life in a given locale, growth and deposition phenomena
leave easily distinguishable (and measurable) features. Growth rings in
trees not only yield information on the rain and temperature for a given
season, but they also provide a unique tool for measuring the carbon-14
content of the atmosphere, which is modulated, in turn, by the sunspot
cycle. Research on tree rings gives astronomers information about solar
variations on a wide range of time scales, from decades to millennia.

Snow deposits in Greenland and Antarctica have created a four
hundred-thousand-year record of the composition of Earth’s
atmosphere. 3 Ancient air bubbles trapped within these deposits
allow us to measure the concentration of carbon dioxide and other gases in
past eras. The snow deposits give us a measure of ancient dust levels,
which are indicative of large volcanic eruptions or very dry conditions.
They also enable us to measure the ratios of three oxygen isotopes, which
indicate the mean global temperature in past epochs. According to a very
recent study, nitrate spikes in Antarctic ice deposits may help us trace
supernova events (gigantic star explosions) of the past thousand
years.

Certain features of the ocean floor allow us an even longer-range view,
hundreds of millions of years back into Earth’s history. At the mid-ocean
ridges (“spreading centers”), new sea floor is produced when molten rock
upwells from the hot mantle below. When the molten rock solidifies it
records the state of the earth’s magnetic field at that time. By studying
these sea-floor records at varying distances from the spreading centers,
oceanographers can “read” the history of fluctuations in Earth’s magnetic
field. A phenomenon so subtle as to be unnoticeable in everyday life is
reliably recorded and preserved for later discovery and deciphering.

Ancient “tidalites” (tidal sediment layers) and coral, mollusk, and
stromatolite growth layers record the lunar and solar tidal cycles, giving
us unique data on the length of terrestrial days and lunar months in
ancient times. Such data tell us that 500 million years ago, a day was
about 20 hours long and a month was about 27.5 (present-epoch)
days.4

Meteorites that have hit the earth provide another treasure trove of
data (preserved for billions of years) waiting to be unlocked. Many
meteorites come from the asteroid belt, where collisions between asteroids
send shards hurtling throughout the inner solar system (planets from Mars
inward) and occasionally to the earth. Fragments falling on the ice fields
of Antarctica are the best preserved ones, and their dark appearance makes
them easy to distinguish against the uniform blue-white background. Today,
a meteorite’s individual grains, each measuring less than a millimeter in
width, can be separately analyzed. These grains yield invaluable clues to
the sources of short-lived (now extinct) “radionuclides” present in the
gas-and-dust cloud from which our sun and solar system formed. They also
give us clues to the timing of certain key events in the formation of
neighboring planets.

Even more amazing is the discovery that meteorites carry what appear to
be individual interstellar dust grains, each from a different star that
existed before the Sun. These dust particles give us rare and important
data on the chemical history of the Milky Way. It appears that as part of
God’s grand design of the cosmos, He has provided a method of collecting,
preserving, and delivering to our doorstep tiny bits of distant (both in
the spatial and temporal sense) stars. What more could an astronomer ask
for?

On a less grand scale, small bits of the moon and Mars have been
blasted to the earth by large impacts. The most famous of these is the
Martian meteorite, ALH 84001 that stirred much media attention a few years
ago. The Moon probably contains a rich reserve of unaltered planet shards
from the early history of the solar system. One might think of the Moon as
the earth’s attic, where ancient artifacts are stored and forgotten,
perhaps to be retrieved one day.

The Measurability of the Sun

Total eclipses of the Sun as seen from the surface of the earth may be
described as both “useful” and “exceptional.”5 Apart from the
deep awe they inspire in every people group from remote tribes to
astrophysicists, these eclipses allow us to study the Sun’s corona, test
general relativity, and calculate the slowdown of the earth’s rotation.
They are exceptional in that they are nearly “perfect;” that is, the earth
and Moon are similar in size, the solar and lunar profiles on the sky are
nearly perfect circles, and the Sun appears to be larger when it is viewed
from Earth than when it is viewed from any other planet with moons. The
likelihood of finding this combination of features is remote. Of the
roughly 65 natural satellites (moons) in the solar system, none even comes
close to producing such clear and spectacular eclipses.

What’s more, humans live at a special time with respect to the
observability of total solar eclipses. Since the Moon is spiraling away
from Earth and the Sun is swelling due to its changing internal structure,
such eclipses are possible only for a relatively brief time span. They
will continue only for about 250 million years. That may seem like a long
time, but it constitutes only approximately 5% of Earth’s history.

The Sun’s radiation conveys a wealth of information. By observing its
spectrum, researchers learn about the Sun’s composition, surface
temperature, and surface gravity. This “readable” spectrum is not unique
to the Sun, but the Sun’s spectrum is nearly optimal in terms of
measurability and the number (and abundances) of chemical elements it
reveals.

This optimal quality of the Sun’s measurability derives from
characteristics other than its proximity to Earth and the large number of
photons arriving at Earth-based instruments. In comparison to the spectra
of other stars with similar “signal-to-noise ratio” (data quality), the
Sun’s spectrum contains more extractable information. The Sun’s particular
surface temperature and its relatively low luminosity allow for the
extraction of more information. The remarkable convergence of these
just-right characteristics maximizes its readability.

The Astronomical Realm

The light sent to Earth from sources outside the solar system contains
a wealth of information about stars, nebulae, galaxies, and even the
intervening matter. Using various techniques and instruments, astronomers
have used that light to map out most of the Milky Way disk, clearly
delineating its spiral arm structure.

The measurement of the three-dimensional space motions of stars in the
Milky Way is possible only because stars can be treated as if they were
mathematical points. This feature allows astronomers to measure the
relative positions of stars very precisely, and it means that stars can be
used as simple probes of the Milky Way’s gravitational field. If stars
were larger and the distances between them smaller––like nebulae, for
example––then the mathematics would be much more complex. Stars’ positions
and other features would be far less measurable, because their light would
be spread over a larger volume of space. Also, if the Milky Way contained
fewer stars, it would yield fewer and more obscure clues about its history
and structure.

Astronomers have discovered that certain light sources are particularly
useful as “standard candles” (see sidebar). Examples of standard candles
are Cepheid and RR Lyrae variable stars. The pulsation period of a Cepheid
variable is related to its intrinsic luminosity in a simple way. By
measuring the period and mean apparent brightness of a particular Cepheid
variable star, one can easily calculate its distance. Because of the
simplicity and consistency with which these objects operate, they provide
invaluable reference points, or units of measure. Astronomers rely on this
important data to reveal some of the fundamental constants of the
universe.

The cosmic microwave background radiation, first detected in 1965, has
enabled cosmologists to extract information on enormous size- and
time-scales. With the launch of the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE)
satellite in 1989, astronomers were able to make measurements precise
enough to confirm several predictions of the Big Bang theory (a theory
consistent with the Bible) and effectively kill both the Steady State
hypothesis and the oscillating universe hypothesis. Atheistic cosmologists
as a way to avoid a beginning for the universe had favored these
hypotheses. Two upcoming space missions, the NASA Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (MAP) and the European Space Agency (ESA) Planck Surveyor, promise
orders of magnitude improvement over the measurements the pioneering COBE
satellite recorded. The background radiation is sufficiently intense that
we can measure it precisely with modern instruments, but not so strong
that it is unaffected by processes shortly following its creation.
Therefore, we can learn about certain parameters of the universe at very
early times, constrain some aspects of fundamental physics, and garner a
glimpse at early large-scale structure and formation.

As the universe ages, the background radiation will become less
measurable. First, the continued expansion of space-time will cause it to
become less intense and more redshifted. Second, as stars continue to form
in the Milky Way, they will contribute to greater foreground
contamination, resulting in greater difficulty in measuring the
ever-fading background.

Teleological Implications

In terms of its mass, the Sun is among the top 10% most massive stars
in the solar neighborhood. 6 Aside from obvious questions of
habitability, what if humans were attempting to scan the skies from a
planet orbiting one of the less massive stars, one of those among the 90%
majority? What would they be able to detect and measure? The most
fundamental ruler in their astronomical “tool chest” would be less
effective. It is the method called stellar parallax. Earth’s inhabitants
can use the changing position of the earth in its orbit around the Sun to
detect the apparent reflex motion of nearby stars relative to distant
background stars. By this method they can measure the distance from the
earth to those nearer stars.

M dwarfs are the most common type of star in the Milky Way. The
habitable zone comprises the place around a star where liquid water can
exist on the surface of a terrestrial-like planet continuously. The
estimated diameter of the habitable zone around an M dwarf is only about
10% that of the zone around the Sun, the zone in which Earth resides.
Therefore, for a planet orbiting an M dwarf, the effectiveness of the
stellar parallax method would be severely diminished. In fact, astronomers
on such a planet would be able to observe only one-thousandth the volume
of space Earth-bound astronomers can observe. The distances to many rare
types of stars, such as O and B stars, and Cepheid and RR Lyrae variables,
would remain a mystery, and information they provide would be
inaccessible. Clearly, M dwarfs would be less hospitable for life, and the
cosmos far less measurable from their environs.

Since measurability is not a requirement for habitability, one cannot
invoke the Anthropic Principle7 to make the remarkable
measurability of the universe seem less remarkable. Evidence suggests that
the universe was designed not only for human habitability but also for
human measurability and comprehensibility. The same processes and features
that make Earth habitable also make and preserve a record of activity and
provide a means for measurement. Those very places in the Milky Way that
would be most dangerous to humans (e. g., the galactic center, globular
clusters, and spiral arms) also offer the poorest visibility and
opportunity to make measurements. Does it seem a mere coincidence that
Earth’s location in the Milky Way affords an optimal view of most of the
universe? Humanity’s home planet is a comfortable porch from which curious
humans can gaze out to the ends of time and space.

This argument allows us to ascribe purpose to any fine-tuned,
measurable aspect of the universe, such as stars and galaxies,
earthquakes, neutrinos, and the Moon. If anyone asks, “Why are there so
many stars and galaxies in the universe?”  One can respond with
double impact: Not only is a universe as big as this one required for any
kind of life, but only a vast number of stars and galaxies permits
intelligent creatures to measure (reliably) the basic parameters of the
universe. Earthquakes are important not only because life needs the
effects of plate tectonics but also because they allow us to probe the
internal structure of the Earth, which could not be done any other
conceivable way. Neutrinos give us a way to measure the temperature of the
sun’s core and to study the details of neutron star formation in
supernovae explosions. The Moon records some of the early history of the
solar system and takes part in producing wonderful eclipses. And so
on.

Of course, this consideration brings us to the deeper, theological
question: Why would the Creator make the universe so measurable? What’s
the point of allowing humans to measure the characteristics of the
universe? To those who hold a Christian worldview, the answer is clear. In
fact, the Bible explicitly states it: “For since the creation of the world
God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been
clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are
without excuse” (Romans 1:19-20).

Sidebar: Standard Candles

Astronomers employ some types of stars as “standard candles.” These
are stars that have luminosities that are in some way standard. As a
simple everyday example of a standard candle, consider an ordinary
100-watt light bulb. Because a light bulb has a constant luminosity (or
intrinsic brightness) we can estimate its distance from us if we can
measure its apparent brightness. This technique only works if we have good
reason to believe the luminosity of a given light source is some standard
value. For a distant light bulb, one can verify its luminosity by
observing it with a telescope and looking for the phrase “100 watts.” Of
course, this does not work with stars, but the principle is
similar.

References:

See Stanley L. Jaki, The Savior of Science (Washington, D.C.:
Regnery Gateway, 1988).

J. P. Moreland, The Creation Hypothesis (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1994), 17.

J. R. Petit, et al., “Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past
420,000 Years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica,” Nature
399(1999): 429-36.

C.P. Sonett and M.A. Chan, “Neoproterozoic Earth-Moon Dynamics:
Rework of the 900 Ma Big Cottonwood Canyon Tidal Laminae,”
Geophysical Research Letters  25 (1998): 539-42.

Guillermo Gonzalez, "Wonderful Eclipses," Astronomy &
Geophysics, (June 1999): 3.18-3.20.

Guillermo Gonzalez, “Is the Sun Anomalous?” Astronomy &
Geophysics 40 (October 1999): no. 5, 25-29.

Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos 2d ed. (Colorado
Springs, CO: Navpress, 1995), 92, 121-25, 128.

First Detection
of Earth-sized Planet?

By Hugh Ross

A team of 41 astronomers from Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and the
United States took advantage of a naturally occurring telescope to image a
small planet orbiting a star somewhere between us and the Galactic Bulge
(the dense concentration of stars that exists at the core of our Milky Way
galaxy).1 The natural telescope consisted of a large star
functioning as a gravitational lens. According to general relativity, a
sufficiently massive body can bend the path of a beam of light that passes
close enough to it. Therefore, if  such a body lies between us and
another object located directly behind it, it can magnify for us the image
of the more distant object (see diagram).  The more massive the lense
object is, the more it will magnify.

Gravitational lenses that astronomers are  fortunate enough to
find exhibit widely varying magnifying properties. In this particular case
the magnification exceeded twenty times.

The team’s results demonstrate that relative to the star, MACHO
98-BLG-35, that provided the gravitational lens phenomenon, the planet
orbiting it is between 0.004 and 0.02 percent of the mass of the star. For
star masses that could possibly give rise to such a spectacular
magnification, the planet mass orbiting it would fall between 3 and 35
times the mass of the Earth (or, 0.17 and 2.0 Neptune masses).

While not so small as an Earth-sized planet, the discovered object does
rank as the smallest extrasolar planet yet found. The next smallest is
about ten times more massive.

Can this gravitational lens technique ever find planets as small as
Earth? Yes, but probably not more than a handful and never with any
certainty as to the mass of the planet, its distance from its star, or any
of the features of its orbit. That job must be left to the space
interferometer project discussed in the accompanying article.

The apologetic significance of the planet discovered orbiting MACHO
98-BLG-35 is that the data demonstrates the planetary system is lacking in
large gas-giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn. Since such gas-giants,
located where they are in our solar system and manifesting stable
near-circular orbits, are essential ingredients for the support of life on
Earth,2 we know that the MACHO 98-BLG-35 system is not a
candidate for a possibly life-supporting planet. Indeed, not one of the 42
extrasolar planetary systems discovered so far offers any possibility of
harboring a planet with the capacity to support life.

The hope expressed by many non-theists before all this research got
started was that planetary systems like ours would prove to be
common.  This hope appears to be dashed. Our solar system so far
remains alone in exhibiting the extraordinary properties necessary for the
maintenance of a planet with the capacity to support life.

References:

S. H. Rhie, et al, “On Planetary Companions to the MACHO 98-BLG-35
Microlens Star,” Astrophysical Journal, 533 (2000), pp. 378-391.

Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, second edition
(Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1995), pp. 137-138.

Protein
Structures Reveal Even More Evidence for Design

By Fazale (Fuz) R. Rana, Ph.D.

Recent structural characterization of three proteins, RNA polymerase
II, thioredoxin reductase (from E. coli), and chloroplast
F1-F0 ATPase, provides exciting additional evidence
for Design at the subcellular level.1, 2, 3  These three
proteins possess, as part of their architectural make-up, components that
are literally machine parts.   These new discoveries add to the
growing list of molecular motors (enzyme assemblies responsible for
cellular movement) and other enzyme systems that are direct analogs to
man-made devices.4, 5, 6

A team of researchers from Stanford University has recently solved the
structure of the RNA polymerase II backbone at 3.5 Å resolution.7
RNA polymerase II is a 12-protein subunit complex that
synthesizes messenger RNA using DNA as a template. Messenger RNA produced
this way contains the information needed to direct the synthesis of
proteins at subcellular particles called ribosomes. For this reason, RNA
polymerase II plays a central role in gene expression.

The structural analysis of RNA polymerase II has been nearly 20 years
in the works.8   This has been due to such factors as
the small amount of it in the cell, as well as its fragility, its large
size, and its complexity. Diligent effort over the years coupled with
technological advances has finally allowed the team from Stanford
University to visualize the structure of RNA polymerase II.

The results of this work have been well worth the wait. The molecular
basis for understanding RNA polymerase II function is now in place.
Equally as exciting are the theological implications of this work.

RNA polymerase II has remarkable machine-like
character.9  RNA polymerase II subunits form a channel
that houses the chain-like DNA template. “Jaws” help grip the DNA template
holding it in place during RNA synthesis. The newly formed RNA chain locks
into place a hinge clamp as it exits the RNA polymerase II channel. A
funnel-like pore delivers the small subunit molecules to the RNA
polymerase II channel. Then the small subunit molecules in the channel are
added to the growing end of the RNA chain.

In a similar vein, structural characterization at 3.0 Å resolution
reveals that thioredoxin reductase function is built around a ball and
socket joint.10  This enzyme, isolated from the bacterium
E. coli, assists in the transfer of electrons between
molecules.  During the catalytic cycle, the enzyme undergoes a
conformational rearrangement that involves the 67° rotation of one of its
domains around a clearly defined swivel surface.

Finally, recent image analysis by a team from Germany and Switzerland
using atomic force microscopy has revealed structural information about
chloroplast F1-F0 ATPase.  On the basis of this
work, we can now add this enzyme to the growing list of ATPase enzymes
that are rotary motors.11  As with the other rotary motor
ATPases, chloroplast ATPase has a rotor, stator, and turbine.

The recent recognition that these three enzymes have machine-like
domains, along with previous structural characterization of other enzymes
with machine parts (such as F1-F0 ATPase,
V1-V0 ATPase, bacterial flagellar proteins and
myosin) serve to revitalize the Watchmaker argument.12
Popularized by William Paley in the 18th century, this argument
states that as a watch requires a watchmaker, so too, nature requires a
Creator.

This simple, yet powerful, argument has been challenged by skeptics
like David Hume, who asserts that the necessary conclusion of a Creator,
based on analogical reasoning, is only compelling if there is a high
degree of similarity between the objects that form the
analogy.13  Skeptics have long argued that nature and a
watch are sufficiently dissimilar so that the conclusion drawn from the
Watchmaker argument is unsound.

The discovery of enzymes with domains that are direct analogs to
man-made devices addresses this concern, because of the striking
similarity between the machine parts of these enzymes and man-made
devices.  Furthermore, as the list of enzymes with machine parts
grows, the conclusion of the Watchmaker analogy grows even more certain.
Experts in inductive thinking will point out that the more objects taking
part in an analogy, the more sound the conclusion arrived at through
analogical reasoning.14

References:

Patrick Cramer, et al., “Architecture of RNA Polymerase II and
Implications for the Transcription Mechanism,” Science 288
(2000): 640-49.

Brett W. Lennon et al., “Twists in Catalysis: Alternating
Conformations of Escherichia coli Thioredoxin Reductase,”
Science 289 (2000): 1190-94.

Holger Seelert et al., “Proton-Powered Turbine of a Plant,”
Nature 405 (2000): 418-19.

Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge To
Evolution (New York: The Free Press, 1996), 69-72.

Hugh Ross, “Small Scale Evidence of Grand-Scale Design,” Facts
and Faith 4, no. 2 (1997): 1.

Fazale Rana and Micah Lott, “Hume vs. Paley: These ‘Motors’ Settle
the Debate,” Facts for Faith 1, No. 2 (2000): 34-39.

Patrick Cramer et al., 640-49.

Joan Weliky Conaway and Ronald C. Conaway, “Light at the End of the
Channel,” Science 288 (2000): 632-33.

Conaway and Conaway, 632-33.

Lennon et al., 1190-94.

Holger Seelert et al., 418-19.

Rana and Lott, 34-39.

Rana and Lott, 34-39.

Patrick J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction To Logic,
6th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing,1997), 494-96.

Problem of Evil (Part
Two)

By Ron Nash

In the last installment of this series, I noted that the problem of
evil is for most people the toughest question to deal with.  I also
pointed out the importance of breaking the problem of evil down into
several smaller components.  If we know how to break the problem of
evil into several smaller difficulties, at least we are no longer facing
an enormous issue, and we have a chance of explaining the smaller
components.  In this issue, we’ll consider three of them.

Moral Evil and Natural Evil

A good place to begin our downsizing of the problem of evil is
recognizing the difference between two kinds of evil: moral evil and
natural evil.  Moral evil results from the choices and actions of
human beings.  When the question why is asked about some moral
evil, the answer will include a reference to something that humans did or
did not do.  Moral evil sometimes results when a human acts, for
example, by shooting a gun.  But moral evil may also occur as a
result of human inaction, the failure to do something.  Perhaps
someone could have prevented the person from getting the gun and
didn’t.  So moral evil results from human choices and actions; any
other kind of evil is what we call natural evil.  The class of
natural evils includes such things as earthquakes, tornadoes, and diseases
not resulting from human choices.  Many wise people believe questions
about the two kinds of evil require different kinds of answers.  I
hope to consider examples of these different answers in future
columns.

The Theoretical versus the Personal Problems of Evil

It is one thing to deal with evil on a purely theoretical or
philosophical level.  It is something quite different to encounter
evil in a personal way.  Sitting in a philosophy classroom and
thinking about the problem of evil is obviously different from struggling
with the news that a loved one has just died in an automobile
accident.  At the moment when one is being hammered existentially by
some particular instance of evil or pain, it is easy to forget a
philosophical argument that once seemed to suggest answers as to why evil
exists.  Someone troubled by aspects of the theoretical or
philosophical problem of evil may find help from a respected philosopher
or apologist.  But when one confronts a personal problem of evil,
that person may need a wise and caring friend, pastor, or counselor.

The distinction before us at this point reminds me of an important
lesson we can learn from the life of C.S. Lewis.  One of Lewis’s more
influential books, The Problem of Pain, offers his answers to the
theoretical problem of evil.  Many believe there are some very good
arguments in that book.  However, after Lewis met and then married
Joy Gresham, he learned the painful truth about the difference between the
theoretical and personal problems of evil.  His wife’s eventual death
from cancer after a long period of painful suffering plunged Lewis into a
time of doubt and depression.  At that time he was confronted by the
personal problem of evil, and the philosophical arguments in his earlier
book were of no help to him.  What he needed and obtained was help
from one of Joy’s sons and from his pastor.

Evil in General versus Specific Instances of Evil

My last distinction notes the difference between evil in general and
particular cases of evil.  Like most philosophers and apologists, I
know a number of arguments that I believe help to explain why moral and
natural evil exist.  I hope to look at some of those arguments in a
future column.  But when I or someone else is confronted by a
specific instance of evil such as a loved one diagnosed with terminal
cancer or a person killed in a car crash, we’re dealing with an entirely
different matter.

Conclusion

It should be clear that this short essay does not solve the problem of
evil in any of its forms.  That was not my intention.  Rather, I
have sought to show that our first efforts to deal with the problem of
evil should attempt to cut it down to size, reduce it to smaller parts of
the larger problem.  After we have done this, our next steps may be
slightly easier.

Dr. Ronald Nash is Professor of Philosophy at Reformed Theological
Seminary in Orlando, Florida and also at Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He is the author of 35 books including
Life’s Ultimate Questions (Zondervan), The Meaning of History (Broadman
& Holman) and The Word of God and the Mind of Man (Presbyterian and
Reformed).  All are easily available from http://www.barnesandnoble.com/
and http://www.amazon.com/.

Thinking About The
Incarnation:
The Divine Word Became Flesh

By Kenneth Richard Samples

At the very heart of historic Christianity is a truly astounding
truth-claim that is celebrated all around the world at Christmas. This
central article of the Christian faith is known as the doctrine of the
Incarnation: God became man in Jesus of Nazareth. It is this truth
that sets Christianity apart from all other religions of the world
(including Judaism and Islam). For it is unique to Christianity to
discover a God who takes the initiative in becoming flesh in order to
redeem sinful human beings. As C. S. Lewis aptly put it, “The Son of God
became a man to enable men to become sons of God.”1

The Christian teaching that the Savior of the world is both divine and
human is certainly a mysterious and unfathomable doctrine. For that reason
it is often misunderstood and misrepresented. This article will briefly
explain the doctrine of the Incarnation, and respond to some critical
questions concerning its origin, importance, historical development, and
coherence.

The Historic Christian Doctrine of the Incarnation

The most important creedal statement concerning the Incarnation is the
Creed of Chalcedon. It was the Council of Chalcedon (the fourth ecumenical
council) in A.D. 451 that laid down the basic boundaries concerning the
orthodox view of Christ’s person and nature. According to this council,
Jesus Christ is one divine Person in two natures (divinity and humanity).
Thus the Chalcedon Creed became, and continues to be, the normative
standard for the orthodox doctrine of Christ. All of Christendom (Roman
Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) affirms the Chalcedonian
formula that Jesus Christ is both God and man. This creed enunciates the
orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation (specifically Christ’s two natures)
in the following manner:

We all with one voice confess our Lord Jesus Christ to be one and the
same Son, perfect in divinity and humanity, truly God and truly human,
consisting of a rational soul and a body, being of one substance with
the Father in relation to his divinity, and being of one substance with
us in relation to his humanity, and is like us in all things apart from
sin. He was begotten of the Father before time in relation to his
divinity, and in these recent days was born from the Virgin Mary, the
Theotokos [God-bearer], for us and for our salvation. In relation
to the humanity he is one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the
Only-begotten, who is to be acknowledged in two natures, without
confusion, without change, without division, and without separation. The
distinction of natures is in no way abolished on account of this union,
but rather the characteristic property of each nature is preserved, and
concurring into one Person and one subsistence, not as if Christ were
parted or divided into two persons, but remains one and the same Son and
Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as the Prophets from
the beginning spoke concerning him, and our Lord Jesus Christ instructed
us, and the Creed of the Fathers was handed down to
us.2

The Chalcedonian formulation does not explain just how the two
natures are united in one person, but it sets the crucial theological
parameters for orthodox biblical Christology (doctrine of the person and
nature of Christ).

The Christian Theistic View of God and the Incarnation

The doctrine of the Incarnation should properly be understood within
the broader context of the Christian theistic view of God. The God
unveiled in the Bible and later expressed in the historic creeds and
confessions of Christendom is the one sovereign and majestic Lord.
Historic Christianity thus affirms belief in one infinitely perfect,
eternal, and personal (or superpersonal) God, the transcendent Creator and
sovereign Sustainer of the universe. This one God is Triune, existing
eternally and simultaneously as three distinct and distinguishable
persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.3 All three persons in
the Godhead, or Divine Being, share equally and completely the one divine
nature, and are therefore the same God, coequal in attributes, nature, and
glory. The doctrine of the Incarnation then properly emerges doctrinally
from this explicit Trinitarian teaching.

The term “incarnation” is of Latin origin, and literally means
“becoming in flesh” (Lat. in carne, Gk. en sarki). While the
term is not contained in Scripture per se, the Greek equivalent is (John
1:14: Kai ho logos sarx egeneto -- “And the Word became flesh”).
The doctrine of the Incarnation is at the heart of the biblical message
for it reveals the person and nature of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
The Christian doctrine of the Incarnation teaches that the eternal
Logos (Word), the second person of the Trinity, without diminishing
His deity took to Himself a fully human nature. Specifically, this
doctrine teaches that a full and undiminished divine nature, and a full
and perfect human nature were inseparably united in the one historical and
divine person of Jesus of Nazareth. According to Holy Scripture, Jesus
Christ is God the Son in human flesh (theanthropos, the
God-man).

The Hypostatic Union

As the Incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ is one person with two
natures. In accord with the Chalcedonian definition, these two natures
(divinity and humanity) “remain distinct, whole, and unchanged, without
mixture or confusion so that the one person, Jesus Christ, is truly God
and truly man.”4 Christ is one in substance (homoousios)
with the Father in regard to His divine nature, and one in substance with
humanity in regard to His human nature. The two natures are perfectly
united forever in the one person (hypostasis) of Jesus Christ. The
hypostatic union refers therefore to the union of the two distinct natures
in the one person of Jesus Christ (neither dividing the person nor
confounding the natures). Philosophically speaking, as the God-man, Jesus
Christ is “two Whats”(i.e., a divine “what” [or nature] and a human “what”
[or nature]) and “one Who”( i.e., a single “person” or “self”).

Ten Essential Points about the Incarnation

The following ten points convey essential information about the
Incarnation, and will help one think through the most important elements
concerning the doctrine.5

Jesus Christ is one person possessing two distinct natures: a fully
divine nature and a fully human nature (a unity of person and a duality
of natures). The historic person of Jesus of Nazareth is therefore the
God-man.

While Christ has two natures, He nevertheless remains a single
unified person (not two different persons). Christ’s human nature
subsists only for the purpose of this union; it has no independent
personal subsistence of its own. Christ is the same person both before
and after the Incarnation. The difference is that before the Incarnation
Christ had but one nature, namely divine. After the Incarnation, this
very same Christ added to Himself an additional nature – a human one –
that subsists together with the divine nature that He had and continues
to have. While Christ has a divine and a human consciousness (and two
wills as part of the two natures), He nevertheless remains one person.
Christian orthodoxy rejected the Nestorian heresy that taught that there
were two separate persons in Christ.

Through His divine nature, Jesus Christ is God the Son, second
person of the Trinity, who shares the one divine essence fully and
equally with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Christian orthodoxy
rejected the Arian heresy that viewed Jesus merely as a God-like
creature.

Through His human nature, Jesus Christ is fully human, possessing
all the essential attributes of a true human being. Christian orthodoxy
rejected Docetism,  which denied the true humanity of Christ.

The properties or attributes of both natures may be properly
predicated of the one Person. In other words, the one person of Jesus
Christ retains all of the attributes of both natures (e.g., through His
divine nature He is omniscient while simultaneously through His human
nature He may lack knowledge).

The union of the two natures is not an indwelling, nor a mere
contact or occupancy of space, but a personal union. This is similar to
the union of body and soul in human beings.

The two natures coinhere or interpenetrate in perfect union so that
the human is never without the divine or the divine without the human,
but the natures do not mix or mingle.

The two natures, divine and human, are distinct, but inseparably
united in the one person. The two natures retain their own attributes or
qualities and are thus not mixed together. Christian orthodoxy rejected
the Eutychian heresy that blended the two natures of Christ together to
form one hybrid nature (monophysitism: one nature).

The human nature is not deified, and the divine nature does not
suffer human limitation.

The word nature refers to essence or substance, and these two
natures are inseparable, unmixed, and unchanged.

With these essential points in mind about the person and natures of
Christ, one can now consider four important questions about the doctrine
of the Incarnation.

Four Critical Questions about the Incarnation

I. Since there is no passage in the New Testament where Jesus Christ
actually says “I am God,” how did Christianity come to formulate the
doctrine of the Incarnation?

The doctrine of the Incarnation is the result of the Christian church’s
sustained and critical reflection upon the overwhelming Scriptural
evidence that Jesus is indeed both God and man. Jesus’ apostles were
thorough-going Jewish monotheists; they nevertheless became convinced that
while Jesus was indeed a man, He was far more than just a man. In fact, in
various ways these same apostles placed Jesus on the level of Yahweh in
their Scriptural writings. The apostles came to the astounding conviction
that to encounter Jesus of Nazareth was to encounter none other than God
in human flesh. While it is true that there is no specific passage where
Jesus actually says in so many words “I am God,” there are at least seven
(and possibly as many as ten) specific New Testament references where
Jesus is called or referred to as God (Gk. theos).6 The
Bible thoroughly supports both the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ.

While literally hundreds of passages could be marshaled to support the
doctrine of the Incarnation,7 the following is merely a brief
survey of the biblical support for this distinctive and essential
Christian doctrine.

A.  Biblical Support for the True Deity of Jesus Christ

The Bible attests in numerous ways to the full and undiminished deity
of Jesus Christ. Consider the following outlined material in support of
Christ’s deity (this outline was derived from the works of Murray J.
Harris and John Jefferson Davis).8

Divine titles proclaimed by or attributed to Jesus
Christ9

God (John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet.
1:1)

Lord (Mark 12:35-37; John 20:28; Rom. 10:9-13; 1 Cor. 8:5-6; 12:3;
Phil. 2:11)

Messiah (Matt. 16:16; Mark 14:61; John 20:31)

Son of God (Matt. 11:27; Mark 15:39; John 1:18; Rom. 1:4; Gal.
4:4; Heb. 1;2)

Son of Man (Matt. 16:28; 24:30; Mark 8:38; 14:62-64; Acts 7:56;
cf. Dan. 7:13-14)

Characteristics or actions of Yahweh proclaimed by or attributed to
Jesus Christ

Worship of Yahweh applied to Jesus Christ (Isa. 45:23 / Phil.
2:10-11)

Salvation of Yahweh applied to Jesus Christ (Joel 2:32 / Rom.
10:13)

Judgment of Yahweh applied to Jesus Christ (Isa. 6:10 / John
12:41)

Nature of Yahweh applied to Jesus Christ (Exod. 3:14 / John 8:58)

Triumph of Yahweh applied to Jesus Christ (Ps. 68:18 / Eph. 4:8)

Divine names, actions, or prerogatives proclaimed by or attributed
to Jesus Christ

Creator (John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2, 10-12)

Sustainer (1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3)

Universal Ruler (Matt. 28:18; Rom. 14:9; Rev. 1:5)

Forgiver of sins (Mark 2:5-7; Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31; Col. 3:13)

Raiser of the dead (Luke 7:11-17; John 5:21; 6:40)

Object of prayer (John 14:14; Acts 1:24; 7:59-60; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2
Cor. 12:8-9)

Object of worship (Matt. 28:16-17; John 5:23; 20:28; Phil.
2:10-11; Heb. 1:6)

Object of saving faith (John 14:1; Acts 10:43; 16:31; Rom.
10:8-13)

Image and Representation of God (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3)

Divine attributes or qualities proclaimed by or attributed to Jesus
Christ

Eternal existence (John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5; 1 Cor. 10:4; Col. 1:17;
Heb. 13:8)

Self-existence (John 1:3; 5:26; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2)

Immutability (Heb. 1:10-12; 13:8)

Omnipresence (Matt. 18:20; 28:20; Eph. 1:23; 4:10; Col. 3:11)

Omniscience (Mark 2:8; Luke 9:47; John 2:25; 4:18; 16:30; Col.
2:3)

Omnipotence (John 1:3; 2:19; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2)

Sovereignty (Phil. 2:9-11; 1 Pet. 3:22; Rev. 19:16)

Authority (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:22)

Life in Himself (John 1:4; 5:26; Acts 3:15)

B. Biblical Support for the True Humanity of Jesus Christ

The Bible attests in numerous ways to the full and essential humanity
of Jesus Christ. Consider the following outlined material in support of
Christ’s humanity.10

Jesus Christ calls Himself or others call Him a man

During His earthly ministry (John 8:40; Acts 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:21;
Phil. 2:7-8)

After His resurrection (Acts 17:31; 1 Cor. 15:47; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb.
2:14; 4:15)

Jesus Christ was conceived supernaturally, but born naturally (Matt.
1:25; Luke 2:7; Gal. 4:4)

Jesus Christ had ancestors (Matt. 1; Luke 3)

Jesus Christ experienced normal growth and development (Luke
2:40-52; Heb. 5:8)

Jesus Christ was subject to real physical limitations

Weariness (John 4:6)

Hunger (Matt. 21:18)

Need for sleep (Matt. 8:24)

Thirst (John 19:28)

Sweat (Luke 22:44)

Temptation (Matt. 4:1-11)

Lack of knowledge (Mark 9:21; 13:32)

Jesus Christ experienced physical pain and death (Mark 14:33-36;
Luke 17:25; 22:63; 23:33; John 19:30)

Jesus Christ exhibited the full range of human emotions

Joy (Luke 10:21; John 17:13)

Sorrow (Matt. 26:37)

Love (John 11:5)

Compassion (Matt. 9:36)

Weeping (John 11:35)

Astonishment (Luke 7:9)

Anger (Mark 3:5; 10:14)

Loneliness (Mark 14:32-42; 15:34)

Jesus Christ has all the essential qualities of a human being

Body (Matt. 26:12)

Bones (Luke 24:39)

Flesh (Luke 24:39)

Blood (Matt. 26:28)

Soul (Matt. 26:38)

Will (John 5:30)

Spirit (John 11:33)

Incarnational Passages

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us….” (John
1:14)

“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being
in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be
grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.” (Phil. 2:5-6)

“For in Christ all the fullness of Deity lives in bodily form…” (Col.
2:9)

“This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that
acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God…” (1
John 4:2)

The passages cited above specifically and explicitly teach the doctrine
of the Incarnation  (see also Rom. 1:2-5; 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb.
2:14; 5:7; 1 John 1:1-3).

II. Why is the doctrine of the Incarnation important?

It has been said that “Christianity is Christ.” The meaning behind this
statement is, of course, that Christ is the center and heart of historic
Christian truth. The Christian gospel message is all about the person,
nature, and work of Jesus Christ. British theologian Alister E. McGrath
articulately describes Christianity’s unique Christocentric focus:

If Christianity has a center, it is Jesus Christ. It is impossible
for the Christian to talk about God, salvation, or worship without
bringing Jesus into the discussion, whether explicitly or implicitly.
For New Testament writers, Jesus is a window onto the nature, character,
and purposes of God. Jesus is the ground of salvation. Since the time of
the New Testament onwards, Christians have worshipped Jesus as the risen
Lord and Savior of the world.11

In light of this Christocentric focus, the doctrine of the Incarnation
has enormous significance for Christians. Through examining the
Incarnation Christ’s person and nature are clearly revealed, and it is
directly because of His identity (as the God-man) that He is able to
perform His work of redemption. God the Son, second person of the Trinity,
assumed a human nature and entered the time-space world. Living and acting
here in a way that is open to actual historical investigation, he provided
redemption for sinful mankind. As the God-man, He alone was able to
represent both God and mankind and to provide redemption through His
perfect life, sacrificial death, and glorious bodily resurrection from the
dead.

Since Christ is the center of Christian doctrine and truth, His
identity is of vital importance. It follows therefore that the doctrine of
the Incarnation that reveals His identity is the foundation on which all
Christian doctrine is built. This is clearly seen when one begins to
analyze closely some of the central tenets of the Christian
faith.12 For example, consider the following:

God’s existence and characteristics: While one may know many
important things about God via general revelation (i.e., through the
created order, the providential ordering of history, and the human
conscience), without the Incarnation, talking about God is highly
speculative and knowing God personally is virtually impossible.

The Trinity: The two other persons of the Godhead, the Father
and the Holy Spirit, are uniquely understood and appreciated in light of
the revealed person and nature of Christ. The Incarnation illumines the
great truth about the triune nature of God.

The Atonement: Only Jesus Christ, who is both God and man, is
able to offer Himself as a sacrifice that reconciles a holy God with
sinful mankind. Christ can do what He did redemptively (Savior) because
He is what He is ontologically (God-man).

Resurrection: A bodily resurrection that conquers death is
only possible for the God-man (Rom 1:3-4).

Justification: Human beings are justified before God through
faith (personal trust) in the person of Jesus Christ. The basis of
humanity’s acquittal before the Father is directly tied to the actions
of the divine-human Savior on the cross.

The doctrine of the Incarnation touches and influences every area of
Christian theology. To change or distort the identity of Jesus Christ is
to destroy the essence of the Christian faith (2 Cor. 11:3-4; Gal. 1:6-9).
Jesus specifically instructs His disciples and others to consider and
reflect upon His true identity (Matt. 16:13-16; 22:41-46, cf. Ps. 110).
Jesus warned some of the Jewish leaders of His time that their eternal
destinies rested on whether they would acknowledge and accept Him for who
He really was (John 8:23-24, 28, 52-53, 57-58). Jesus and the apostles
also warned the church about the ever present danger of counterfeit
Christs (Matt. 24:4-5, 11, 23-24; 2 Cor. 11:3-4, 13-14; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Tim.
4:1-2; 2 Tim. 4:3; 2 Pet. 2:1-2; 1 John 2:22-23; 4:1-3; Jude 3).

III. Historically speaking, weren’t there theological positions held
by individuals and various groups that challenged and/or rejected the
orthodox position concerning the person and nature of Christ?

The central doctrinal controversies of the first several centuries of
Christian church history focused on Christological issues (questions
concerning the person and nature of Christ). What follows is a brief
explanation of the major Christological heresies,13 including
what they taught about Christ, how it differed from orthodoxy, and how
Christian orthodoxy responded.

A. Ancient Christological Heresies

Docetism: A branch of Gnosticism, this view affirmed a type
of dualism (the belief that matter is evil and spirit is good).
Docetists insisted that Jesus only seemed to be human (Gk. Dokeo
– “to seem”), even asserting that Jesus had a “phantom-like body.”
Docetism denied the true humanity of Christ. The apostles encountered
this heresy in the first century (1 John 4:1-3).

Ebionism: According to this view, Jesus is a mere man, a
prophet but the natural son of Joseph and Mary (no virgin birth).
Ebionism denied the true deity of Christ. This view is traced to the
second century.

Arianism: Arius of Alexandria (A.D. 256-336) argued that
Jesus was of like substance (homoiousios) with the Father, but
not the same substance (homoousios). Jesus was viewed as the
first and greatest creation of God, thus denying the true deity of
Christ. This influential heresy, which the ancient church father
Athanasius (ca. 296-373) successfully battled, was first condemned at
the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325).

Apollinarianism: Following Apollinarius (born ca. 310), the
Bishop of Laodicea, this view taught that in the Incarnation the divine
Logos took the place of the human soul and psyche of Christ. Jesus'
humanity was restricted to his physical body, thus reducing his
humanity. Apollinarianism denied the true humanity of Christ. This
heresy was condemned at the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381).

Nestorianism: This view affirmed both Christ’s deity and
humanity, but saw the union between the natures as only a moral and/or
sympathetic union, not a real personal union. This position represents
an overemphasis upon the distinctiveness of the natures. As a result,
Jesus became two persons in two natures, rather than the orthodox
position of one person in two natures. This heresy was condemned at the
Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431).

Eutychianism: Following Eutyches (ca. A.D. 378-454) this view
held that Christ had one mixed or compound nature. The two natures
merged to form a single nature that was neither divine nor human (a
third substance). This position represents an overemphasis upon the
unity of the natures. This heresy was condemned at the Council of
Chalcedon (A.D. 451), and at the third Council of Constantinople (A.D.
680).

Monophysitism: This view held that Christ had only one
nature. Usually, it was argued that the human nature was absorbed into
the divine nature. This heresy was condemned at the third Council of
Constantinople (A.D. 680).

Monothelitism: This view held that Christ had only one will.
The orthodox position is that if Christ had two natures He must have had
two wills, though the human will conforms in every way to the divine
will. Monothelitism was also condemned at the third Council of
Constantinople.

IV. Isn’t the very concept of the Incarnation (one person as God and
man) logically incoherent?

Christians embrace the doctrine of the Incarnation as an indispensable
truth of divine revelation. God coming in the flesh to redeem lost sinners
is at the very heart of historic Christianity’s gospel proclamation.
However, just how Jesus Christ is both God and man (two natures united in
one person) is an unfathomable mystery. In fact, this may indeed be the
most profound Christian mystery of all. But while the Incarnation is
incomprehensible to the finite mind, it should not be rejected as
incoherent or absurd. Divinely revealed truth may indeed move above
reason, but never against reason, for God is the source and ground of
rationality itself. The following two points briefly address two logical
challenges to the Incarnation.

Some have argued that the Incarnation is absurd because it asserts that
the infinite (divine nature) is contained in the finite (human nature).
But the Incarnation does not imply that the infinite is contained in the
finite.14 This criticism is clearly a straw man. The divine
nature of Christ was not confined or limited to the human nature (or to
the body of Christ). While the divine nature is in union with the human
nature in the one person, the divine nature certainly extends beyond the
bounds of the human nature.15 Biblical scholar and Protestant
Reformer John Calvin explains:

For even if the Word in his immeasurable essence united with the
nature of man into one person, we do not imagine that he was confined
therein. Here is something marvelous: the Son of God descended from
heaven in such a way that without leaving heaven, he willed to be born
in the Virgin’s womb, to go about the earth, and to hang upon the cross;
yet he continuously filled the world even as he had done from the
beginning.16

The Incarnation should be understood as “God plus” (God the Son plus a
human nature), not as “God minus” (loss of deity or divine attributes) or
“God limited” (the infinite limited in the finite). The Incarnation should
be thought of as the divine Logos, a preexistent (eternal) person,
assuming a human nature unto Himself, without laying His deity aside.

Some think that since God is unlimited (omnipotent, omniscient,
omnipresent, eternal, uncreated) but humans are limited
(non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, non-omnipresent, time bound, created),
then the very concept of someone being both God and man is logically
contradictory and therefore impossible. But could there be another way to
look at this proposed logical dilemma? Some contemporary Christian
philosophers definitely think so.17 They argue that ordinary
human beings are fully human (possessing the essence of humanity)
but are also merely human (possessing the previously mentioned
limitations). Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is fully human but
not merely human. These Christian thinkers have suggested that the
limitations of human nature may be common human properties (common
to members of a particular kind) but not essential human properties
(indispensable to a particular kind). If this is correct, Jesus Christ
could have a human nature that makes Him fully human (possessing
the essence of humanity) without being merely human (possessing the
above mentioned limitations). Therefore Christ’s fully human nature
(essential humanity without limitation) is not at odds with His fully
divine nature.

The True Meaning of Christmas

During the Christmas season, Christians celebrate the great truth of
the Incarnation. For in the Christ child of Bethlehem, God enters into
human history and reveals Himself up close and personal. The astounding
truth is that in Jesus Christ, God is encountered in a real, personal,
historical, and tangible way. Alister E. McGrath reflects upon the
ultimate significance of Christmas:

What sorts of things does the incarnation tell us about the ‘God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’? Perhaps most obviously, it tells us
that the God with whom we are dealing is no distant ruler who remains
aloof from the affairs of his creatures, but one who is passionately
concerned with them to the extent that he takes the initiative in coming
to them. God doesn’t just reveal things about himself –- he
reveals himself in Jesus Christ…. The incarnation speaks to us of
a God who acts to demonstrate his love for us. That ‘God is love’
(1 John 4:8) is a deep and important truth—but far more important is the
truth that God acted to demonstrate this love. ‘In this the love
of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the
world, so that we might live through him’ (1 John 4:9). Actions, as we
are continually reminded, speak louder than
words.18

References:

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952),
154. In this quote, Lewis slightly rephrases a statement made by the
ancient church father Athanasius (ca. 296-373).

As cited in Alister E. McGrath, An Introduction To
Christianity (Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell, 1997), 131-32.

With regard to the Trinity, see Kenneth Richard Samples, “Thinking
About The Trinity: ‘One What and Three Whos,’” Facts For Faith,
Quarter 3 (2000): 8-13.

Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), s.v. “Hypostatic Union.”

These points were influenced by Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of
Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), s.v.
“incarnatio,” “persona Christi,” “unio personalis”;
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1994), 529-67; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology vol. 2 (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, reprint 1986), 387-89; Louis Berkhof, Systematic
Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1938), 321-30.

See Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God: The New Testament Use of
Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992).

For a thorough and substantive treatment of the Scriptural support
for the Incarnation (especially the deity of Christ), see Murray J.
Harris, Jesus As God; and Robert L. Reymond, Jesus, Divine
Messiah: The New Testament Witness (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed, 1990). For a detailed theological exploration of the
doctrine of the Incarnation, see Benjamin B. Warfield, The Person and
Work of Christ (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950), and
Millard J. Erickson, The Word Became Flesh (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1991).

The outline material in support of the deity of Jesus Christ was
derived from Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, 315-17; and John
Jefferson Davis, Handbook of Basic Bible Texts (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1984), 68-74.

All of these titles in their appropriate Scriptural context support
the notion that Jesus Christ is a divine person. See McGrath, 108-15;
and Reymond, 44-126.

Millard J. Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine, L.
Arnold Hustad (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 214-23.

McGrath, 75.

Bruce Milne, Know the Truth (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1982), 125-49.

H. Wayne House, Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 55-56.

Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian
Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), s.v. “Logic.”

Elwell, s.vv. “Hypostatic Union.”

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press) 2.13.4.

For a philosophical defense of the doctrine of the Incarnation, see
Thomas D. Senor’s “The Incarnation and the Trinity,” in Michael J.
Murray ed., Reason for the Hope Within (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1999), 238-252; and Thomas V. Morris, Our Idea of God (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 159-84.

Alister E. McGrath, Understanding Jesus (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1987), 113-14.

Finding Darwin’s
God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution.

By Kenneth R. Miller. New York, NY: Cliff Street Books/Harper Collins,
1999. 338 pages, index. Hardcover; $25.00.

Reviewed by Fuz Rana

Finding Darwin’s God defends Darwinian evolution, responds to
evolution’s most widely known critics, and attempts to communicate what
author Ken Miller sees as a false dichotomy between evolution and
traditional western monotheism. Miller, a cell biologist and professor at
Brown University, has published numerous articles in peer-reviewed
journals, and co-authored widely used high school and college biology
textbooks. Miller has long been active in the creation/evolution debate
and is a highly vocal critic of the growing Intelligent Design movement.
Because of his involvement in the Origins debate, it behooves those
interested in science apologetics to become familiar with his perspective
and to contemplate his ideas.

Miller begins Finding Darwin’s God by introducing the reader to
the “ins and outs” of Darwinian evolution. He fully embraces
methodological naturalism in his approach to biology and intertwines his
explanation of the evolutionary process with his case for why natural
processes are sufficiently endowed and solely responsible for life’s
diversity. After this introduction, Miller seeks to refute: 1) young-earth
proponent’s views on creationism;  2) Phillip Johnson (author of
Darwin on Trial, Reason in the Balance, The Wedge of Truth) and the
Intelligent Design movement’s attack on the evolutionary paradigm; and 3)
Michael Behe’s (author of Darwin’s Black Box) biochemical argument
for design embodied in the concept of irreducible complexity.

Having addressed these critics of evolution, Miller then takes on
strict atheistic materialism. He finds atheistic biologists out of line
when they equate the success of evolution to the death of theism.  In
no uncertain terms, he blames these atheists for the negative perception
much of the public holds of the theory of evolution. He sees the
challenges to biological evolution not as scientifically warranted, but
motivated by a deep-seated emotional response to the implications attached
to evolutionary theory by atheists.

In the final three chapters, Miller devotes his efforts to dispelling
the commonly held view that biological evolution represents a threat to
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  Instead, he argues that Darwinian
evolution can and should play a central role in rightly shaping our
understanding of God’s grandeur.

In general, Finding Darwin’s God is readily accessible to the
nonscientist. Ever articulate, Miller comes across as objective and
fair-minded. When evaluating his arguments, however, the reader should be
wary of his apparent even-handedness, winsome approach, and passion for
Darwinian evolution.  For example, his defense of Darwinian evolution
and his response to Johnson’s assertion that the fossil record is
inconsistent with biological evolution is unconvincing—even though Miller
argues his point with great zeal. He repeatedly points to examples of
micro-evolutionary changes (variations within species) as
supporting evidence for macro-evolutionary changes (origins of new
groups of organisms at the genus level and higher).

Miller’s response to Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity appears
to be quite effective on the surface. Miller cites several examples from
the scientific literature that seem to describe the emergence of
irreducibly complex systems strictly by natural processes. If this is the
case, Behe’s Design argument comes completely unglued.  However, a
careful reading of the original papers, in each case, turns up crucial
details that Miller has neglected to convey.  In each instance, the
omitted “fine points” highlight the inability of natural processes to
generate irreducibly complex biochemical systems.  In fact, the
papers he cites describe extensive researcher intervention¾without which
the “evolution” of the irreducibly complex biochemistry under
investigation would not have been possible.  Ironically, when this is
taken into account, Miller’s argument against Behe’s biochemical evidence
for Intelligent Design actually provides powerful support for Behe’s
position.

Miller’s attempt to accommodate biological evolution within western
theism fails, too.  Miller can only make evolution and traditional
Christian theism co-exist by rejecting central tenets of orthodox
Christianity¾such as God’s sovereignty and omniscience, and mankind’s
original sin¾and by viewing Genesis 1 as Hebrew mythology.

Still, Miller should be commended for writing Finding Darwin’s
God. It is refreshing to see a critic of Intelligent Design seriously
grapple with the relationship between science and religion and attempt to
discover God’s glory in His creation. Those with a serious interest in
science apologetics should take the time to read Finding Darwin’s
God.  Several skeptics have touted this book as one of the best
responses to the Intelligent Design movement.  If this is the case,
then Christian apologists should become familiar with Miller’s arguments
and tactics and make every effort to prepare thoughtful responses. For
non-believing skeptics will undoubtedly bring up his arguments as they
dialogue with believers.  After taking Miller’s assault head on, it
is comforting to realize that “one of the best” so-called rebuttals to the
scientific evidence for Intelligent Design falls far short of being
convincing.

How to Print,
Download, and More Help ...
Home | About Us | Events | F.F.F. | Donate | RTB
Radio | Web Store | Resources |
FAQs

Kids
Space | Worldwide | Contact Us | Search
RTB Conference

© 1988-2003 Reasons To Believe, Glendora,
CA, All Rights Reserved
No content from this site may be physically
kept on any other Web site without the express written permission of
Reasons To Believe.