Featured In This Issue

VOL 2/NO 4
1
W
WW
WW
W .. RR EE A
A SS O
ON
N SS .. O
O RR G
G
2010
F e at u r e d I n T h i s I s s u e
h um an or igins
4 Were They Real? The Scientific
Case for Adam and Eve
by Fazale Rana
biophys ics
7 Photosynthesis Reveals Quantum
g e n e tic s
14 X’s and Z’s Point to Creation
by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross
pl a n e ta ry s c i e nc e
16 Lunar Eclipse: Tool for Studying
Exoplanets
Design
by Jeff Zweerink
by Jeff Zweerink
g e ophys ica l des ign
9 The Rain Must Fall–But How
u n i v e r s e de s ig n
17 New Tool Provides a Window
to Creation
Much and Where?
by Hugh Ross
by Hugh Ross
worl dv iews
11 Three Big-Picture Philosophical
Perspectives on the Origin of
the Cosmos
c u ltu r a l a p olo g e tic s
19 Rejecting Christianity Because
of Christians
by Kenneth Richard Samples
by Kenneth Richard Samples
o educ ator’s help desk • B I B LE B O OK END p
FROM THE EDITOR
“That’s just e-waste.”
So said the technician who removed obsolete recording equipment in RTB’s studio
recently. The words recalled how the “e” prefix has evolved (oops, there’s another—often
dreaded––e-word). We’ve come a long way from that once newfangled “e-mail.” Along
came eBay and others, but e-commerce and e-communication are now commonplace
and indispensible. You’ve got e-books, e-learning, and e-gaming.­­Maybe some of you
completed a midterm election e-ballot. If you’re looking for love, eHarmony boasts of
236 marriages a day. Even smokers can get e-cigarettes. There’s no end to it. But e-nough
about that. Let’s get to the excellent content of this quarter’s e-Zine.
• Fuz Rana shows how genetic diversity studies help make the scientific case for a biblical Adam and Eve.
• Krista Bontrager complements that piece with a theological justification for a historical Adam in her Bible Bookend section.
• Jeff Zweerink and Hugh Ross explain fascinating aspects of fine-tuning in articles on photosynthesis and global rainfall.
• Kenneth Samples takes a “three-views” look at the origin of the cosmos and shows which worldview best fits the facts.
• Rana and Ross provide another example of convergence­—read, evidence for creation—in human and chicken sex chromosomes.
Rounding it up, you can read about a lunar eclipse as a proxy to study extrasolar planet atmospheres; know
how to respond when someone (in this case, Anne Rice) says, “I quit Christianity,” and get some good advice on
how to get your kids on track to becoming scientists.
Dig in. Or click in and enjoy!
And don’t forget to share the e-Zine with your friends by simply forwarding this email. They will be able to
download or view it at their leisure.
As always, we welcome your comments and suggestions ([email protected]).
Bridging the gap between science and faith, Joe Aguirre
Editor
Dynamic content key
CONTRIBUTORS
Internal Link
Krista Kay Bontrager, MA
Theologian, writer, educator, and dean of
online learning at Reasons To Believe (RTB)
Website Link
Fazale Rana, PhD
Biochemist, author, RTB executive, and former
senior scientist with Procter & Gamble
Product Link
Hugh Ross, PhD
Astronomer, author, pastor, international
lecturer, and president and founder of RTB
Audio Link
Video Link
Kenneth Richard Samples, MA
Philosopher, theologian, author, educator,
and RTB senior scholar
File Download
Jeff Zweerink, PhD
Astrophysicist, journal author, RTB scholar,
and member of the research faculty at UCLA
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
2
|
VOL 2/NO 4
2010
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Connect a n d S ha r e
We believe New Reasons to Believe is made for sharing.
1. To share your digital copy of New Reasons to Believe with friends
and associates simply forward the email that you received from RTB
with the New Reasons to Believe cover in the body. They will be
able to download or view New Reasons to Believe immediately.
2. You can also download New Reasons to Believe as a PDF and save it
to your computer and attach the file to an email if you like.
3. To post a link to your Facebook or Twitter account simply copy the
link below into the appropriate social network field.
http://www.reasons.org/files/ezine/ezine-2010-04.pdf
W e wou ld lov e to hea r how you us ed
New Rea sons to Believe so drop us a n
e m a il at ez ine@ r ea sons.org.
If you have received New Reasons to Believe in any of the above ways, you can start getting your
own subscription to New Reasons to Believe by contacting us via email at [email protected].
In Appreciat ion F or Your Gi ft T h i s M on t h
There were times early in our ministry when I thought it would be great to have
a large endowment or a few wealthy benefactors to take the major financial challenges
off my shoulders. But God knew better. In His wisdom He raised up a host of faithful
friends to participate in the ministry through their prayers and financial support—and
at the same time to be a blessing and encouragement beyond my wildest dreams.
I am thankful that our paths have crossed and that I have the
opportunity to invite you to take an active part in this ministry through your gift
today. Asking for your support has become a reason for me to praise God for bringing
friends like you into contact with RTB.
So as you are able, would you send a special gift of thanksgiving to RTB this month?
In appreciation for your gift, I would love to send you RTB’s Marvelous Are
His Works 2011 calendar with photographs I took that were inspired by my next book
on Job.
Click here to receive yours today with your gift this month.
With much gratitude,
Hugh
To donate by mail or phone use the printable form by clicking here.
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
3
|
VOL 2/NO 4
Were They Real?
The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve
By Fazale “Fuz” R. Rana, PhD
D
id Adam and Eve really exist? Did all humanity originate from a single
pair? These questions are not peripheral topics for an academic debate; they are central to the Christian faith.
Toward this end, recent advances in molecular genetics are quite provocative.
As Hugh Ross and I discuss in Who Was Adam?, numerous studies indicate that
humanity originated: (1) recently (around 100,000 years ago, plus or minus
20,000 years or so); (2) at a single location (East Africa)—close to where some
Bible scholars think the Garden of Eden was located; and (3) from a small population of individuals.
Moreover, analysis of mitochondrial DNA (which provides insight into the
origin of the maternal lineage) indicates that humanity traces back to a single
ancestral sequence that could be interpreted as a single woman. Likewise, characterization of Y-chromosomal DNA (which provides insight into the origin of the
paternal lineage) indicates that all men trace their origin back to a single ancestral sequence that could be interpreted as a single man.
These astounding results harmonize with a traditional reading of the biblical
account of human origins, and suggest that Adam and Eve likely existed as real
persons who gave rise to all of humanity.
But Did Adam and Eve Exist? Population Size
Others have challenged this interpretation, arguing that the genetic data shows
that humanity arose from thousands of individuals, not two.1 The chief basis
for this claim comes from estimates of the ancestral population size of humans
based on genetic diversity.
It is possible to estimate the effective population size of any ancestral group
from genetic diversity of present-day populations if the mutation rate is known.
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
4
|
VOL 2/NO 4
human origins
Fazale “Fuz” R. Rana
Skeptics of the traditional reading of the biblical account of human
origins uncritically accept these results. They argue that the data indicate humanity experienced a genetic bottleneck, with the population
collapsing to a relatively small number of individuals. Consequently
humanity arose from the thousands of survivors, not a primeval pair.
Critics also point to other methods to model the size of the ancestral population that do not depend on mutations, but on other types
of processes to generate genetic diversity.3 Studies employing these
techniques also seem to indicate that humanity arose from population
sizes on the order of a few thousand individuals.
What Was the Population Size, Really?
In the face of this challenge, it is important to recognize that population sizes generated by these methods are merely estimates, not hard
and fast values. The reason: the mathematical models are highly idealized, generating differing estimates based on a number of factors. As a
case in point consider two studies discussed in Who Was Adam? One,
reported in 2003 by a Russian and U.S. research team, examined DNA
sequence elements called short tandem repeats at 377 locations in the
human genome for 1,056 individuals that represented 52 population
groups. On the basis of this analysis, they concluded that humanity
originated from a single point of origin (apparently Africa), from a
small population (~2,000 or less) between 71,000 and 142,000 years
ago.4 Although this conclusion was consistent with that of an earlier
study of short tandem repeats, the population size estimate from the
earlier study was around 500 individuals.5 The reason for the difference (of about 1,500) was due to a varying sample size and number of
locations in the human genome that were studied.
Did humanity originate from a single pair? Even though population
estimates reveal that humanity originated from several hundred to
several thousand individuals based on mathematical models, it could
well be the case that these models overestimate the original numbers
for the first humans.
And it is important to note that an origin of humanity from a small
population is consistent with the existence of a historical Adam and
Eve who gave rise to all of humanity. After their creation the biblical
text teaches that they procreated––having many sons and daughters
(Genesis 5:4). Given the limitations of the methods, could it be that the population estimates
are reporting on the population structure of humans some time after their
creation, when the population would
have been small, on the order of a few
thousand?
Additionally, skeptics who claim
that humanity came from thousands
of individuals and not two assume
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
5
|
We All Like Sheep?
In 2007 a research team reported on the
genetic diversity of wild mouflon sheep
on one of the islands that are part of the
Kerguelen sub-Antarctic archipelago.6 This
group of sheep provided researchers with
an unprecedented opportunity to study the
effects of population dynamics on genetic
diversity in small populations.
In 1957 a male and female yearling were
placed onto Haute Island (an island in the
Kerguelen Archipelago). These two sheep
were taken from a captive population in
France. By the beginning of the 1970s,
the number had grown to 100 individuals
and peaked at 700 sheep in 1977. Since
that time the population has fluctuated in
a cyclical manner between 250 and 700
members.
Given that the population began with
only two individuals (the founder effect),
has experienced cyclical changes in the
population size, and was isolated on an
island, the researchers expected very low
genetic diversity (measured as heterozygosity).
Using mathematical models, the
heterozygosity of a population can be
computed at any point in time from the
heterozygosity of the ancestral population
(which was known for the original mouflon pair) and the original population size.
What the researchers discovered, however,
when they measured this quantity directly
for the sheep on Haute Island was that
it exceeded the predictions made by the
models by up to a factor of 4. In other
words, the models underestimated the
genetic diversity of the actual population.
VOL 2/NO 4
Credit: Volker.G / Wikimedia Commons
As discussed in Who Was Adam?, a number of these types of studies
do indeed indicate that humans stem from a small population, on the
order of a few hundred to a few thousand.2
human origins
Fazale “Fuz” R. Rana
that Adam and Eve were genetically identical. Yet, there is no hint of
that idea in Scripture. When Eve is created, God takes material from
Adam’s side and rebuilds (bānâ in the original Hebrew) it. Part of this
process could have involved the introduction of genetic differences
into Eve’s genome that made Adam and Eve genetically heterogeneous.
As with the mouflon sheep, if natural selection drove an increase in
genetic diversity in humans, then the estimates of the original population sizes of humanity would be artificially high.
Lastly, the primary reason to think that humanity arose from a
single pair does not rest on population estimates, but the fact that the
Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA sequences sampled from
humans alive today trace back to single ancestral sequences. Again,
these can be understood as reflecting an origin from a single man and
single woman.
The researchers explained this discrepancy by speculating that natural selection
drives the increase in genetic diversity,
since an increase in genetic variability increases the survivability of the population.
Consequently, if these same models
were used to estimate the effective sizes
of the ancestral population from the measured genetic diversity at any point in time,
they would have overestimated the original
population size as much larger than two
individuals.
One Lucky Mother, One Lucky Father?
Even though the genetic data traces humanity’s origin back to a
single woman and man, evolutionary biologists are quick to assert
that mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam were not the first
humans. Rather, according to them, many “Eves” and “Adams” existed.7 Accordingly, mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam were
the lucky ones whose genetic material just happened to survive. The
genetic lines of the other first humans were lost over time.
While this explanation is not out of the realm of possibility, it is
highly contrived. It would work if only a few of the first humans reproduced, or were allowed to reproduce. If the data is simply taken at
face value, the biblical model is the more parsimonious explanation.
Even though evolutionary biologists offer ways to explain away the
implications of the human population genetic data, these explanations—entrenched in naturalism—are not necessarily superior to an
interpretation that fully squares with the biblical account. The scientific case for the biblical Adam and Eve stands firm.
ENDNOTES
1. For example see the blog entry by Dennis Venema and Darrel Falk, “Does Genetics Point to
a Single Primal Couple?” The Biologos Forum, accessed September 17, 2010.
2. Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross, Who Was Adam? (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2005),
55–75.
3. Venema and Falk, “Single Primal Couple?”
4. Lev A. Zhivotovsky, Noah A. Rosenberg, and Marcus W. Feldman, “Features of Evolution and Expansion of Modern Humans, Inferred from Genomewide Micro Satellite Markers,”
American Journal of Human Genetics 72 (2003)” 1171–86.
5. Lev A. Zhivotovsky et al., “Human Population Expansion and Microsatellite Variation,”
Molecular Biology and Evolution 17 (2000): 757–67.
6. Renaud Kaeuffer et al., “Unexpected Heterozygosity in an Island Mouflon Population
Founded by a Single Pair of Individuals,” Proceeding of the Royal Society B 274 (2007): 527–33.
7. For example see Darrel Falk and Francis Collins, “Who Was Mitochondrial Eve? Who Was
Y-chromosome Adam? How Do They Relate to Genesis?” The Biologos Forum, accessed September 17, 2010.
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
6
|
Today’s New Reason to
Believe in your inbox.
Receive regular scholarly commentary on the
lastest scientific discoveries and their connection to the Christian worldview.
Click for your free subscription!
VOL 2/NO 4
biophysics
By Jeff Zweerink, PhD
Photos y n t hes is Re v e a l s
Qua ntu m Des ig n
I
magine riding a “bicycle” with pedals attached to sled runner in place of wheels.
It just wouldn’t work! Wheels allow
even the most rudimentary bicycle to move
across the ground in spite of all the other
inefficiencies, like friction. In a system that
provides the bulk of the energy used by
life, biological organisms exhibit a design
far more elegant than the wheel. To achieve
a global diversity of life-forms, poor wheel
design can be tolerated; but a non-fine-tuned
photosynthetic process cannot.
All scientists agree on one essential characteristic of life; namely, that it must harvest energy from its
environment to perform biological functions. The Sun
provides the ultimate energy source for virtually all
multicellular and most single-celled organisms. Photosynthetic organisms “absorb” the light energy from
the Sun and convert it into chemical energy stored in
carbohydrates. These carbohydrates are utilized by the
photosynthetic organisms or by other life that eats the
photosynthetic organisms.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Le Centaure magazine (Paris), Sept. 1868.
According to classical physics, objects follow welldefined trajectories that are precisely specified at all
times. On the other hand, quantum physics allows
a particle to be in a combination of positions at any
given time (know as a superposition of states) and
to follow simultaneously multiple paths to the same
destination.
Two different teams of scientists have documented
how these bizarre quantum physics effects play a critical role in moving the light energy through the cell.
One team studied marine algae and found evidence
that the electronic energy is coherently shared by
regions of the proteins (those involved in photosynthesis) separated by a few billionths of a meter.1 While
a small distance in everyday experience, the sharing
clearly indicates the presence of quantum processes.
This quantum sharing means that the light energy absorbed in one location can be chemically harvested in
another location with better than 95 percent efficiency.
Overall, photosynthesis is an “inefficient” process.
Typical plants convert one to four percent of the incident sunlight into stored carbohydrates (the best crop,
sugar cane, reaches seven to eight percent efficiency).
However, one key step of photosynthesis operates so efficiently, it makes the process work despite limitations.
As a photon (the smallest unit of light) from the Sun
interacts with the light-harvesting proteins in a photosynthetic organism’s cells, an electron absorbs the
photon’s energy which then frees the electron to move
around the cell. This electron must move to a reaction
center and deposit the energy for use in making the
carbohydrate before the environment within the cell
drains the energy. If the electron moved through the
cell according to the rules of classical physics, a significant fraction of its energy might be lost before conversion. However, the latest research reveals that electron
motions exhibit remarkable quantum properties that
transport the energy from the light-harvesting proteins
to the reaction centers with extraordinary efficiency.
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
The other team ran detailed computer simulations of
the molecular components involved in harvesting the
sunlight. The simulations revealed coherent quantum
correlations similar to those found in the marine algae.2
Scientists studying these quantum effects typically
have to look at simple systems (only a few particles)
cooled to low temperatures (a few degrees above absolute zero). Yet the two discoveries confirm the opera-
7
|
VOL 2/NO 4
biophysics
Jeff Zweerink
tion of these quantum effects in large, chemically
complex proteins at much higher temperatures.
To dig deeper on so m e of
t h e topic s m e n t ion e d i n
t his i ssue:
These findings show design in two different ways. First, if the light-harvesting
machinery in the cells did not operate with such high efficiency, the entire
photosynthetic process would likely grind
to a halt. Such a stoppage would severely
curtail Earth’s ability to support a teeming,
diverse biosphere. While certain organisms
derive energy from thermal processes in Earth’s
interior, this heat reservoir contains much less
usable energy than the continual bath of energy
received from the Sun.
Beyond the Cosmos 3rd
Edition
The Extra-Dimensionality
of God
Hugh Ross agrees that
God is greater than we can
imagine, but he points out
that advances in science
have given us tools to help
us expand our view of the
Creator and His awesome
capacities.
Second, our study of how biological organisms
utilize quantum processes to convert light into
energy could lead to better human-made machines
for the same purpose. For example, scientists and
engineers could utilize this knowledge to build
faster and more powerful computers.
Who Was Adam?
Without the highly efficient transport of
converted light energy, the prime energy
supply of life on Earth disappears. By
understanding how this transport
works, scientists gain inspiration to
build better devices than before. The
quest to understand photosynthesis
has buttressed two legs of the cumulative case for God’s design of Earth
and the life it contains.
A Creation Model Approach to
the Origin of Man
Was Adam an accident of
nature or a creature designed
with significance and purpose? Did humans descend
from an ape-like ancestor,
or were the first man and
woman deliberately created,
made in God’s image?
Can human evolution be declared a fact? Or does creation
make more scientific sense? RTB’s biblically consistent
model can be tested to answer the questions, with
astounding results.
ENDNOTES
1. Elisabetta Collini et al., “Coherently Wired Light-harvesting in Photosynthetic Marine Algae at Ambient Temperature,” Nature 463 (February 4,
2010): 644–47.
2. Darius Abramavicius and Shaul Mukamel, “Quantum Oscillatory
Exciton Migration in Photosynthetic Reaction Centers,” Journal of Chemical
Physics 133 (August 14, 2010): 064510.
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
Science News Flash
Reasons To Believe’s
flagship podcast featuring
a unique Christian perspective on headline-grabbing
discoveries.
8
|
VOL 2/NO 4
geophysical design
By Hugh Ross, PhD
Th e R ain Mu s t
Fall—B u t How
Much a n d
Where?
I
n Vancouver where I grew up,
one suburb receives 20 inches
of rain a year while another just
20 miles away receives 150 inches.
The real estate agent’s mantra,
“location, location, location,” holds
huge significance in that region.
New research shows it also applies
more broadly to the arrangement of
Earth’s continental landmasses.
An international team of geophysicists has published findings that
suggest Earth’s current continental
configuration represents something
more than a random “lucky-for-life”
outcome. Their studies confirm that
the sizes, shapes, and locations of
the landmasses relative to Earth’s
oceans and seas play a critical role
in determining how much precipitation falls on the continents and
where it falls. As it turns out, Earth’s
seven continents, positioned as they
are and with the specific features
they manifest, provide optimal
rainfall distribution to support
abundant land life—human life and
civilization, in particular.
Earlier in Earth’s history, one supercontinent and a single enormous
ocean defined Earth’s surface. As
much as a billion years ago, multiple
forces both internal and external to
Earth’s thin, rocky shell caused it to
crack, and the pieces began to move.
At first the pieces moved slowly
apart, and then they came back
together again to form a major land
area called Pangaea. On this one
huge landmass, rainfall would have
drenched some coastal regions, with
a vast dry wasteland comprising
most of its total area.
PERMIAN – 225 Million Years Ago
TRIASSIC – 200 Million Years Ago
JURASSIC – 150 Million Years Ago
CRETACEOUS – 65 Million Years Ago
PRESENT DAY
Credit: United States Geological Survey
Figure 1: Continental Landmass Redistribution over the Past 225 Million Years
Earth’s fine-tuned plate tectonics has transformed Earth’s land mass from a single precipitation-starved supercontinent into seven wellseparated smaller continents where rainfall on
the continents not only has increased but also
is much more evenly distributed.
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
9
|
Approximately 225 million years
ago, the seven or eight major pieces,
or plates, of Pangaea (in addition
to multiple smaller plates) began
to split and drift slowly apart once
again. About 150 million years ago
South America was still connected
with Africa and Europe (see figure 1,
middle). Just 100 million years ago
South America finally split off from
Africa. As recently as the last ice age,
about 40–60 thousand years ago,
much or most of the Red Sea region
was dry land.
Today Earth’s surface has become the well-distributed (and yet
still slightly moving) set of seven
continents, four oceans, and some
large seas supporting several billion
people as well as other animals on
which they depend. Researchers now
recognize that this exact arrangement of continents, oceans, and seas
maximizes the amount of land area
receiving sufficient precipitation to
sustain widespread human civilization.
Not only are the continents appropriately dispersed, but they are also
oriented to provide powerful northsouth barriers to the prevailing
winds and ocean currents. This orientation evens out both temperature
and precipitation levels across the
continents. The continents’ specific
placement, with more than twenty
times as much land area between
35 and 65 degrees north latitude
as between 35 to 65 degrees south
latitude (see figure 2), also serves to
moderate continental temperatures.
Because Earth’s (current) orbit
VOL 2/NO 4
geophysical design
Hugh Ross
brings the planet closest to the Sun during the northern hemisphere’s winter, summer–winter temperature
differences for the vast majority of humans remain
relatively mild. (Seasonal differences are minimal for
latitudes closer to the equator, regardless of when Earth
passes closest to the Sun.)
The Indian subcontinent
receives precipitation from
as many as six ocean regions,
and this rich supply is one
reason it can support such a
large number of humans and
other animals. Yet it wasn’t
always this way. Ninety million years ago the Indian
subcontinent was located
in the southwest region of
the Indian Ocean. Not until
ten million years ago did the
Indian subcontinent make
contact with the south central Asian plate (see figure 3).
To their surprise, the research team discovered that
the largest oceans, including the North Pacific, the
Southern Indian, and the South Atlantic, deliver far
less precipitation to the continents than do the smaller
oceans and seas. About 90 percent of ocean precipitation falls back into the ocean, rather than onto the
land. The subtropical North Atlantic and the Mediterranean and Red Seas supply most of what’s needed on
the populated continents.
It’s worth noting that
despite how widely dispersed
the continents are, the lowered sea levels resulting from
the last ice age exposed land
bridges that joined Britain, Sri Lanka, Indonesia,
Japan, and the Philippines
to the Eurasian continental
mainland, Australia to New
Guinea, and Siberia to Alaska. These bridges facilitated
the global spread of humanity from their starting point
near the junction of Africa
and Eurasia.
Credit: Reto Stöckli/GSFC/NASA
Figure 2: The World’s Continents
Credit: United States Geological
Survey
Figure 3: Movement of
the Indian Subcontinent over the Past 70
Million Years
The Indian Plate is the
fastest moving of all Earth’s
tectonic plates. After breaking off from Antarctica and
Madagascar, it proceeded
at a rate of eight inches
per year toward Asia. Since
colliding with Asia about
ten million years ago, it is
continuing to move in a
northeast direction at a rate
of two inches per year. This
ongoing movement will
push up the Himalayas to
even greater heights.
Given the number of these positioning “coincidences” and the fact that all of them provide specific
benefits to humanity for the launch and sustenance of
global civilization, to infer the Creator’s hand on the
forces that shaped Earth’s crust seems entirely reasonable—more reasonable than to attribute the outcome
to chance.
Notice how little land area is located between 35-65°S compared to
that located between 35-65°N.
unscripted answers for your
toughest questions — listen now
endnotes
1. Luis Gimeno et al., “On the Origin of Continental Precipitation,”
Geophysical Research Letters 37 (July 2010): CiteID L13804.
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
10
|
VOL 2/NO 4
worldviews
By Kenneth Richard Samples
Th r e e Big - Pict u re Ph i lo s oph ic a l
Pe r spect iv es on t h e Or igi n of
th e Co s mo s
O
ver 300 years ago German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried
Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716)
asked what may still be the ultimate
metaphysical question: “Why is there
something rather than nothing?”1
Leibniz’ profound interrogative
leads to other important metaphysical
inquiries such as “How is the existence
of the cosmos best explained?” and
“Which philosophical worldview system
seems to best comport with modern scientific cosmology?”
Three basic philosophical positions concerning the origin of the cosmos compete to
explain the reality of the universe. These three viewpoints are: (1) creation ex materia; (2) creation ex deo;
and (3) creation ex nihilo.2
Second, secular materialists, or naturalists, have held
the creation ex materia position dating from ancient
times to the present. Viewing the universe in materialistic and physicalistic terms was affirmed by, among
others, the ancient Atomists, the contemporary Marxists, and other advocates of naturalism (the view that
the physical cosmos is the exclusive reality).
Philosophically, is one position to be favored over
the others? And how does each match with modern
scientific cosmology?
Creation ex materia
Today’s advocates of creation ex materia believe
that the material cosmos consists of a closed physical
system that somehow self-sustains and self-generates.
These thoroughgoing naturalists believe that matter
is either eternal in some form or that it emerged from
nothing without a cause (with the latter idea being
hard to square with the idea of the cosmos as a brute
reality). Even advocates of the multiverse theory would
likely fit under the category of creation ex materia.
This view asserts that matter (and its constituent
parts) is eternal in some form. Thus the universe has
always existed in some manner. Accordingly, to the
extent that the universe was actually created (or better
yet “formed”) it came “out of preexisting materials.”
Those who affirm God’s existence and those who deny
a divine reality have both adopted the creation ex materia position.
First, the ancient Greek and dualistic philosopher
Plato (427–347 BC) proposed that a divine craftsman (the Demiurge) shaped an orderly cosmos into
existence out of disorderly matter. This divine builder
formed matter but did not originate it because matter is eternal. Thus, the divine craftsman simply gave
shape to the eternal stuff of the universe. Interestingly
enough, Plato, who some view as a proto-theist, saw
value in the argument for God’s existence from design
in the cosmos (the teleological argument).
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
Contemporary secular advocates of this position affirm the following philosophical tenets.
1. Matter is eternal in some form.
2. No supernatural creator exists.
3. Human beings are purely physical entities and,
thus, mortal.
4. Humans evolved by purely naturalistic means
from lower animals; thus, humans are different
only in degree (instead of kind) from the animals.
11
|
VOL 2/NO 4
worldviews
Kenneth Richard Samples
Creation ex deo
called all things (material and spiritual) into existence
out of nonexistence.
This metaphysical perspective reflects the worldview
position of pantheistic monism (all reality is one and
that single reality is God). Pantheistic monism takes
two forms in attempting to explain the cosmos in relationship to the ultimate reality of God.
The implication is that all of creation had a singular
beginning and is completely dependent upon God for
coming into being and for its continued existence.
Since God is an eternal and necessary being, he
brought all things into existence through his wisdom
and power alone. However, the God of historic Christianity cannot create either ex materia or ex deo. Here’s
why:
The first form of pantheistic monism is called
absolute pantheism. It affirms that only mind or spirit
exists; therefore, matter is an illusion (maya). Hindu
philosopher Shankara (c. AD 788–821) proclaimed
that ultimate reality is God and the physical cosmos is
then an illusion. Consequently, one may think of the
illusory cosmos coming forth from God as analogous
to a dream coming forth from a mind.
First, the God of historic Christian theism cannot
create ex materia because if matter were eternal then
it would compete with God’s sovereign ontological
status. In other words, God would have an eternal
competitor.
The second stripe of this Eastern mystical philosophy
is called nonabsolute pantheism. It can be thought of as
having a more flexible, or elastic, approach to ultimate
reality. While holding that all is one in God, this perspective accepts a form of multiplicity within the ultimate unity. Accordingly, this position views the cosmos
as genuinely springing from the essence of God.
Second, God cannot create ex deo for God is a simple
being (without division or parts); he cannot take a
part of himself and make the universe. The historic
Christian perspective of creation ex nihilo views God
as a necessary reality (a being that cannot not exist)
whereas the creation is a contingent reality that could
conceivably not exist.
Pantheistic monism either asserts that the cosmos is
an illusory entity or that it somehow emanates from
the being of God. Either way, all is God and God is all.
Advocates of this mystical viewpoint hold to the following philosophical tenets.
Creation ex nihilo affirms the following philosophical
tenets.
1. God (as an eternal and necessary tri-personal
being) created all things out of nothing.
1. All reality is one and that single reality is God.
2. There is an ontological distinction between the
Creator (necessary being) and the creation (contingent being).
2. There is no absolute distinction between creator
and creation; thus, creator and creation are one.
3. The cosmos is either an illusion from God or is
an emanation of God’s being.
3. The created order had a beginning and is completely dependent upon God for its continuing
existence.
4. The true human “self” (atman) is God (Brahman).
4. Humans were created in the image of God and
therefore have inherent dignity and moral worth.
Creation ex nihilo
Historical theologian Richard Muller defines the
Latin term ex nihilo as a reference “to the divine
creation of the world not of preexistent, and therefore
eternal, materials, but out of nothing.”3 This biblical
doctrine teaches that originally nothing existed but
God (an infinite, eternal, and tri-personal Spirit). By
means of his incalculable wisdom and infinite power,
God alone brought the universe (all matter, energy,
time, and space) into existence from nothing, not from
any preexistent physical reality such as matter and its
connected realities.
Creation ex nihilo and
modern scientific cosmology
In the second half of the twentieth century, a new
cosmological theory called the “big bang” theory
gained acceptance. This new theory has undergone extensive testing and emerged among other cosmological
views as the prevailing scientific model for the origin
of the universe. According to the big bang theory, the
universe (including all matter, energy, time, and space)
came into being about 14 billion years ago. This amazing inception involved an actual singular beginning to
all things. Furthermore, the big bang also postulates an
expanding universe. The scientific conclusion, then, is
that the universe is not eternal, nor is it static.
To elucidate further, nothing should not be understood as being an actual something. In other words,
nothing is not itself an entity; it is literally no thing.
Creation out of nothing means that God spoke or
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
12
|
VOL 2/NO 4
worldviews
Kenneth Richard Samples
Thus, the standard big bang cosmological model has
now replaced the steady-state (eternal universe) theory.
And while the big bang is constantly being polished as
a scientific theory, most leading astrophysicists argue
that it is definitely here to stay. Any expected changes
to the model will likely be mere refinements, not revolutionary changes.
Biblical Support for
Creation ex Nihilo
A universe with a singular beginning to all things
from nothing also carries with it staggering religious
implications. If the cosmos had an actual beginning,
then inquiring about its cause seems appropriate, if not
fundamentally necessary. Even secular scientists now
talk casually about a “creation event” or “a moment of
creation.” But big bang cosmology’s resemblance to
the biblical doctrine of creation ex nihilo possesses a
problem for the atheistic naturalist. Leibniz’ probative
question seems to echo through an endless canyon:
“Why is there something rather than nothing?”
Genesis 1:1
Romans 4:17
Psalm 33:6
Colossians 1:16
Proverbs 3:19
Hebrews 11:3
Jeremiah 32:17
Revelation 4:11
Three Competing Views on the
Origin of the Cosmos
Materialism’s ex materia (out of preexisting materials)
Panteism’s ex deo (out of God)
Theism’s ex nihilo (out of nothing)
Of the three big-picture philosophical perspectives
on the origin of the cosmos, only the Bible’s doctrine
of creation ex nihilo corresponds well with modern
scientific cosmology. That correspondence gives us
confidence in the veracity of the Christian worldview.
ENDNOTES
1. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, The Principles of Nature and of Grace,
Based on Reason, in Philosophic Classics: Bacon to Kant, ed. Walter Kaufmann (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1961), sec. 7, 256.
2. For a discussion of these three views, see Norman L. Geisler, Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), s.v.
“creation, views of,” 172–77.
3. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms:
Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1985), s.v. “ex nihilo.”
R
is
g
e
day
o
T
r
te
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
13
|
VOL 2/NO 4
genetics
By Fazale (Fuz) R. Rana, PhD and Hugh Ross, PhD
X’s a n d Z ’s P oi n t
to Cr e at ion
M
any people claim that the case for biological
evolution is unassailable; that overwhelming
evidence exists for common ancestry. Yet,
if life’s history is explicable exclusively through evolutionary processes, then scientific observations should
match evolutionary expectations.
Yet this appears to be the case. As evolutionary biologist Simon Conway Morris points out in his book Life’s
Solution, convergence is a widespread feature in the
biological realm. And The Cell’s Design documents
and describes over one hundred examples of convergence at the biochemical level.
One example of failed expectations is the phenomenon known as convergence. And scientists from MIT
and the Washington University School of Medicine
have uncovered another troubling example of convergence: the X and Z chromosomes of humans and
chickens, respectively.1
This recent work concerned the origin of the sex chromosome. In mammals, females have two copies of the
X chromosome (XX) and males have one copy of the X
and one copy of the Y chromosome (XY). The opposite
is the case for birds, with males having two copies of the
Z chromosome (ZZ) and females possessing one copy of
the Z and one copy of the W chromosome (ZW).
Convergence describes instances in which unrelated
organisms possess nearly identical anatomical and
physiological characteristics. Evolutionary biologists
assert that convergence results when natural selection
channels the random variations believed to be responsible for evolutionary change along similar pathways to
produce similar features in unrelated organisms.
According to the traditional evolutionary model, sex
chromosomes evolved from one of the other chromosomes (autosomes) with the Y and W chromosomes,
respectively, undergoing deterioration and the loss
of genes. The X and Z chromosomes were thought to
remain relatively unchanged.
Yet, this explanation doesn’t make sense from within
the evolutionary paradigm. 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 finetuning of biological systems, it seems improbable that
disparate evolutionary pathways would ever lead to the
same biological feature in organisms manifesting different
biological structures and/or living in different habitats.
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
Detailed characterization of the human and chicken
X and Z chromosomes, however, reveals a different scenario. When viewed from an evolutionary standpoint,
it looks like both the X and Z chromosomes underwent
several identical changes independently:
(1) gene acquisition, increasing the number of genes
on the chromosome;
(2) acquisition of noncoding DNA (LINE DNA),
decreasing the gene density; and
(3) increased expression of genes in the testes.
14
|
VOL 2/NO 4
genetics
Fazale (Fuz) R. Rana and Hugh Ross
In this context, it is noteworthy that one of the
changes to the X and Z chromosomes is the increased
content of LINE DNA. Molecular geneticists have
shown that [this class of noncoding DNA plays a role
in controlling gene expression in mammalian females
through Barr Body formation.
PR E- OR DER
In other words, it appears as if the X and Z chromosomes in mammals and birds followed the same evolutionary pathway, yielding virtually the same outcome, a
result that doesn’t make sense within the evolutionary
paradigm.
C re ati ng Li fe i n th e L a b
by Rea son s to Bel i ev e Schol ar Fa za le R a na
Convergence and the Case for
Intelligent Design
Though the idea of convergence fits awkwardly within the evolutionary framework, it makes perfect sense
if a Creator is responsible for life. Instead of convergent
features emerging through repeated evolutionary outcomes, they could be understood as reflecting the work
of a Divine mind. The repeated origins of biological
features equate to the repeated creations of an intelligent Agent who employs a common set of optimal
solutions to address a common set of problems facing
unrelated organisms.
COMING FEBRUARY 2011!
ENDNOTES
1. Daniel W. Bellott et al., “Convergent Evolution of Chicken Z and
Human X Chromosomes by Expansion and Gene Acquisition,” Nature 466
(July 29, 2010): 612–16.
In this highly anticipated book, biochemist Fuz Rana
shows that as scientists proceed to create life in the
lab, they simultaneously undermine the evolutionary explanation for the origin of life. They clearly
demonstrate that undirected chemical processes
cannot produce a living entity and, thus, forcefully
seal the case for life’s creation by the direct activity
of an intelligent Agent!
An e-Zine Published by
Reasons To Believe
President Hugh Ross
Editor Joe Aguirre
Design Fluid Communications, Inc.
To pre-order this timely book, visit
our webstore at www.reasons.org
Reserve your copy now!
(800) 482-7836 • www.reasons.org
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
15
|
VOL 2/NO 4
pl a n e ta ry s c i e nc e
By Jeff Zweerink, PhD
Lunar E c l i p s e : To ol f or
Study ing Exopl a n e t s
T
he Moon has fascinated every one of my kids.
Sometimes they would look out the window
with their favorite stuffed animal. Often they
made sure everybody knew the Moon’s location if they
found it in the sky. My oldest son witnessed his first
lunar eclipse at the age of four. This intriguing cosmic
body has not only captivated my children’s imagination, but also provides a tool to help researchers find
more detailed signatures that could tell us whether or
not life exists on the Earth-sized planets astronomers
are beginning to soon detect.
from the Sun and light that passes through Earth’s
atmosphere—a situation similar to when a planet
transits across the disk of its host star. By training the
spectrograph (a detector that senses the amount of
light at a given wavelength) on this light, the telltale
signs of oxygen, ozone, and other important gases can
be seen.1
This research demonstrates the feasibility of applying
more definitive tests for the existence of extraterrestrial
life. In the next decade, astronomers should find many
planets similar in size to Earth and located in the habitable zone (i.e., the region around a star where liquid
water can exist). However, finding a planet that meets
these minimum requirements does not mean that the
planet hosts any sort of life.
For billions of years, life-forms have played a key
role in maintaining Earth’s habitability. Specifically, life
dramatically altered the gases surrounding primordial
Earth to ensure that the biosphere thrived until the
present. Today, biological organisms transfer carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere to the ocean floor, they
produce all the oxygen (including the ozone that
shields Earth’s surface from the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation) that comprises one fifth of the atmosphere, and
they provide the seeds necessary for rain to fall.
RTB’s cosmic creation model contends that Earth’s
capacity to support life arises from a Creator’s care, not
from strictly natural processes. Thus, we contend that
the more scientists learn about the five-hundred-plusand-counting exoplanets, the more that evidence will
point to supernatural creation.
While not conclusive, finding signatures of oxygen
(specifically ozone) and other biologically produced
gases in the atmospheres of exoplanets would provide a
strong test of whether or not they support life. A team
of astronomers used
a lunar eclipse to
simulate the challenges of seeing
these gases around
an exoplanet.
ENDNOTES
1. A. Vidal-Madjar et al., “The Earth as an Extrasolar Transiting Planet,”
Astronomy and Astrophysics, preprint.
During a lunar
eclipse, Earth blocks
much of the sunlight headed toward
the Moon. However, the edge of the
shadow that moves
across the Moon’s
surface (called the
penumbra) contains
a mix of direct light
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
16
|
VOL 2/NO 4
universe design
By Hugh Ross, PhD
New To ol Prov ides a W i n d ow
to Creat ion
R
esearch advances of recent months and years
have allowed astronomers to develop a remarkably detailed model for the origin and history
of the universe, called the LCDM inflationary hot big
bang, or simply the standard cosmological model. The
LCDM stands for a big bang universe with dark energy
as the primary component and exotic dark matter as
the second most dominant component—more specifically cold exotic dark matter, its particles moving at low
velocities relative to the velocity of light.
of research data, one from the Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy Probe2 (which mapped the temperature
of the cosmic background radiation) and the other
from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (which mapped the
distribution of nearby galaxies), astronomers were able
to observe both signatures.3
The Sloan Digital Sky Survey yielded a three-dimensional map of all the galaxies within 330 million
light-years of Earth. It revealed what the model had
predicted, a weblike structure of galaxies and galaxy
clusters (see figure 1). To provide any greater precision would require mapping that cosmic web out to a
distance of ten billion light-years, a task demanding a
Despite the predictive and explanatory success of
the LCDM model, which I often refer to as the biblically predicted big bang creation model1 , a handful
of opponents still dispute the
scientific evidence supporting
it. Though their numbers may
be small, these nontheists and
recent-creationists wield considerable influence over their
respective constituencies. So the
search continues for yet more
rigorous supporting evidence.
For testing purposes, the
LCDM big bang model makes
two important predictions. First,
it predicts that sound waves
propagated throughout the hot
plasma of photons, protons, and
electrons when the universe was
less than 0.003 percent of its
current age (<380,000 years old)
would leave their unique signature on the temperature map
of the cosmic microwave background radiation—the visible radiation left over from the cosmic
origin event. Second, it predicts
that the echo from these early
cosmic sound waves would leave
an imprint on the distribution
of galaxies and galaxy clusters
throughout the universe. With
the help of two spectacular sets
Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Richard Powell
Figure 1: Distribution of Nearby Galaxies and Galaxy Clusters
This three-dimensional map of the universe out to nearly 500 million light-years
from Earth reveals a web like structure of filaments and voids.
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
17
|
VOL 2/NO 4
universe design
Hugh Ross
large team of astronomers several life times and some
yet-to-be funded super-telescopes to complete. In the
last few months, however, an international team of four
astronomers has proven the viability of a much more
accessible measuring technique, one based on the combined light of thousands of closely clustered galaxies.4
The team successfully tested the viability of their new
technique on a knot located about seven billion lightyears away. With the availability and viability of this
new technique, astronomers have gained the potential,
using existing telescopes, to create three-dimensional
maps of the cosmic web as far out as twelve or thirteen
billion light-years. Such an extensive map will further
unveil the nature of dark energy and provide a much
more detailed view of cosmic creation. Based on the
trend established over several decades now, this closer
look will likely yield more indicators of cosmic design
for the benefit of life, and of humanity, in particular.
Thanks to this new technological advance, the promise
of even more compelling evidence for the biblical account of cosmic creation is at hand.
The team has dubbed their technique “intensity
mapping,” and it applies to measuring distant “knots”
in the cosmic web (see figure 2). A knot in the cosmic
web is a point on the web where ten thousand or more
galaxies are bunched up. By measuring the combined
light of all the galaxies in the knot and determining the
intensity of the 21-centimeter neutral hydrogen spectral line, astronomers can determine the knot’s mass.
Meanwhile, the wavelength of the line helps determine
both the position and the distance of the web.
Endnotes
1. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd ed. (Glendora, CA: Reasons To Believe, 2001): 23–29.
2. E. Komatsu et al., “Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
(WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretations,” Astrophysical Journal Supplement 180 (February 2009): 330–76.
3. Daniel J. Eisenstein et al., “Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in
the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies,”
Astrophysical Journal 633 (November 10, 2005): 560–74; Enrique Gaztañaga,
Anna Cabré, and Lam Hui, “Clustering of Luminous Red Galaxies – IV.
Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Line-of-Sight Direction and a Direct Measurement of H(z),” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 399
(November 2009): 1663–80.
4. Tzu-Ching Chang et al., “An Intensity Map of Hydrogen 21-cm Emission at Redshift z ≈ 0.8,” Nature 466 (July 22, 2010): 463–65.
Credit: Springer et al., Virgo Consortium
Figure 2: Model of the Cosmic Web
Clusters of galaxies are expected to develop at the intersection points
of the web.
creation as Science
by Hugh Ross
Development of the scientific creationmodel concept represents one of Hugh
Ross’s most significant contributions to
Christian apologetics. This new book
explains why a testable model is essential,
and includes predictions about the direction
of future research.
SPECIAL PROMOTION! $10 for 2
Purchase RTB Live Volume 9 (Who’s Your Daddy?) and
Volumne 10 (Skeptics Forum) together for $10.
A NEW REASONS
PRODUCT PICK
Place both items into your cart and use
coupon code “newlive”
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
18
|
VOL 2/NO 4
c u lt u r a l a p o l o g e t i c s
By Kenneth Richard Samples
R ejecti ng C h r i s t i a n i t y Be c au s e
of Chr is t ia n s
I
ndia’s political and spiritual leader Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) once bluntly commented on what
he thought of Christ and his followers:
Some of Rice’s comments give evidence that she’s
rejecting a particular sociopolitical perspective and
arguably a caricature at that. She categorically states:
“I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I
refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be
anti-Democrat…. I refuse to be anti-science.”3
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your
Christians are so unlike your Christ.”1
Bestselling novelist
Anne Rice recently
repeated Gandhi’s
sentiment. Twelve
years ago, Rice left
atheism and embraced
Catholic Christianity, but she recently
announced on her Facebook page, “Today I
quit being a Christian.
I’m out.” Elaborating
further, she stated: “I
remain committed to
Christ as always but
not being ‘Christian’
Credit: newsrealblog.com
or to being part of
Christianity...It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’
to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group.”2
Surely conservative Catholicism, as led by Pope
Benedict XVI, is critical of the gay and feminist political agendas and especially of the plague of abortionon-demand. But that doesn’t mean that Catholicism
is antigay and antifeminist. And the Catholic Church,
especially in America, is hardly anti-Democrat or antiscience.
2. Sin Is a BIG Problem
Although far too many people view sin as just a bad
deed or habit, the Bible describes sin as a debilitating
force that permeates the core of every human being
(Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Proverbs 20:9). The truth is, humans
are not sinners simply because they happen to sin. The
problem is much deeper. Human beings sin because
they are sinners by nature.
Scripture diagnoses humanity’s condition as suffering from original sin, having inherited a sin nature
from its progenitor, Adam (Romans 5:12, 18–19). This
inherited sin nature resides at the very heart (inner being) of humankind (Jeremiah 17:9; Matthew 5:19), and
thus affects the entire person—including the mind,
will, affections, and body (Ephesians 2:3; 4:17–19). In
theological terms, human beings suffer a total depravity.
This rejection of Christ or Christianity because of
the attitudes, actions, and beliefs of Christians is an
important apologetics challenge. The so-called “hypocrisy excuse” may be the most common reason cited for
rejecting the truth-claims of the faith.
I offer three points in response to this provocative
objection.
Although all Christians experience a moral transformation caused by the saving grace of God, the work of
sanctification is never perfect in this life. The reality is
that Christians still suffer the effects of a fallen nature
(1 John 1:8). As C. S. Lewis candidly notes: “We are all
fallen creatures and all very hard to live with.”4 Upon
extended reflection, Rice will likely recognize that she
too is part of that infamous group she describes as
“quarrelsome, hostile, and disputatious.”
1. What Are You Actually
Rejecting?
In Rice’s case is she rejecting Roman Catholicism?
Or is she rejecting traditional orthodox Christianity
in favor of what she perceives to be a more politically
tolerant and progressive expression of the faith? In
other words, is her beef chiefly theological in nature or
sociopolitical?
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
19
|
VOL 2/NO 4
RTB
c u lt u r a l a p o l o g e t i c s
Kenneth Richard Samples
3. Human Beings Need a Savior,
Not a Guru or a Therapist or
a Counselor
As a Hindu, Gandhi failed to realize that humankind’s condition is not one of being god yet suffering
from divine amnesia. No, mankind’s problem is not
merely lack of spiritual enlightenment. Rather, human beings are moral lawbreakers who have a corrupt
nature (Romans 8:7). People are fallen sinners in need
of a Savior (Titus 2:13). And at the heart of the historic
Christian gospel is the proclamation that God saves
sinners through the life, death, and resurrection of
Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:18–19).
c hri stm a s g i f t sug g est ion s
Fingerprint of God
Commemorative Edition
One of Hugh Ross’s most
recognized titles, considered to
be foundational to the growth
of the ministry of RTB.
There’s at least one bumper sticker that gets the
gospel message right: “Christians aren’t perfect, just
forgiven.”
Certainly Christians should constantly seek to live
lives of gratitude to God by striving to love God and
their neighbor (Titus 2:11–12). But hypocrisy, while
always regrettable, is inevitably part of the slow process
of being fully transformed by the grace of God.
10 Breakthroughs of 2010
This booklet packs a powerful
punch as our scholars explain
how research findings in the
past twelve months provide
new evidence for the Creator’s
handiwork.
The bad news is that sin is a bigger problem than
even most Christians realize. The good news is that
Christ is an even greater Savior than we all realize.
ENDNOTES
Reasons To Believe brings you
cutting-edge scientific research
that affirms the Christian faith.
1. Wikipedia, s.v. “Mahatma Ghandi,” last modified October 11, 2010.
2. Alison Flood, “Anne Rice ‘Quits Being a Christian,’” guardian.co.uk.,
July 30, 2010.
3. Ibid.
4. C. S. Lewis, Letters to an American Lady (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1967), 110.
Bring Straight Thinking
Right to Your Computer
Breakthrough Bundle
For the first time, get all five
editions of 10 Breakthroughs
(2006–2010) assembled in a
convenient, attractive case.
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
20
|
VOL 2/NO 4
educator’s help desk
By Krista Kay Bontrager
How Ca n I H e l p My C h i l d Be co m e
a R esea rch S cien t i s t ?
S
ome children are naturally curious about science
and want to become scientists. What can parents
do to sustain that curiosity and equip children
to achieve their life goals? More importantly, what can
parents do to prepare their children to become distinctly Christian research scientists?
act as a mentor. This step might not be as hard
as you think. If you attend a good-sized church,
chances are it has a scientist who might be
thrilled by such an invitation. Many scientists are
hesitant to express themselves in church settings,
so your request may be a personal encouragement to him or her as well.
6. Sign up for Reasons Academy. By the age of 15 or
16, it might be time to consider enrolling him or
her in Reasons To Believe’s online school, Reasons
Academy. This program combines information
that students have learned in their science textbooks with the best biblical research. When students head off to the university, they––especially
those who choose scientific professions­­––will face
a direct assault on their faith and will need a rigorous framework to answer those attacks.
7. Sign up for a college-level science class. Many
community colleges allow high school students
to not only take science classes, but also to earn
college credit. This approach will help your
budding scientist figure out whether his or her
interest has genuine career potential.
8. Choose a college with a strong science department
in your child’s area of interest. If your child
wants to be the next Einstein, but four years
of tuition at CalTech or MIT doesn’t seem
financially realistic for you, don’t fret.
There are many other fine physics programs in the country that can provide
an adequate undergraduate education. Ask your friendly neighborhood
scientist for suggestions on good, more
reasonably priced, alternatives.
Here are some general principles that may help.
1. Help your child explore options. The public
library and television documentaries present
excellent ways to investigate different scientific
disciplines. As you explore various topics together, your child will likely focus on an aspect
of science he or she particularly enjoys.
2. Foster a learning environment in the home. When
parents show that learning about God’s creation
is exciting and fun, their children will likely catch
the spirit too. Even if you don’t know much
about science, your enthusiasm can spark your
child’s sense of discovery and encourage him or
her to learn more.
3. Consider registering for a Reasons Institute
course. You’ll be setting a good example of lifelong learning, as well as equipping yourself to ask
better questions and provide better answers.
4. Get out of the house. We like to include
museums and national parks in our
family summer vacation plans.
Some places offer free or discounted days for families. Many city
recreation departments sponsor
summer science day camps where
kids can participate in fun handson activities. Check with your local
museum of natural history or planetarium for short classes for teens.
Some even allow eager students to
become docents or help prepare
displays.
5. Find positive Christian role
models. As your child enters
the teen years, it is a good
time to find a local research scientist who can
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
Christians are uniquely positioned
to transform our culture for Christ
as they engage it at the highest
academic levels, especially in
science. Reasons To Believe is
praying that God will raise up an
army of Christian young people
who are committed to developing
their minds to the glory of God.
21
|
VOL 2/NO 4
bible bookend
By Krista Kay Bontrager
| A de e pe r b i b l ic al/the olo gic a l lo ok at t h e l e a d s c i e nc e a rt ic l e
In Search of t he R e a l A da m
A
Was the Fall a historical event?
question frequently posed to Reasons To Believe is, how does RTB’s model differ from that
of theistic evolution? One fundamental difference lies in each model’s view of Adam.
Most theistic evolutionists view the early chapters of
Genesis as merely a literary device and, therefore, stress
that readers should not look for historical information
in the creation narrative.4 Yet if the first two chapters
in Genesis do not depict actual history, then why compare a historical person (Jesus) to a nonhistorical person (Adam)?5 Paul specifically contrasts the pervasive
effects of Adam’s fall with the pervasive effect of Jesus’
atonement. The heart of Paul’s broader argument in
1 Corinthians 15 rests on linking the truthfulness of
Christianity to key historical events. Why then would
Paul use a mythological figure or symbolic event to
support his point? Paul and other biblical authors give
no indication that they considered the early chapters of
Genesis to be anything other than real history, including the existence of Adam.6
RTB affirms Adam was the first true human being,
he lived approximately 100,000 years ago, and was responsible for bringing sin to humanity.1 Proponents of
theistic evolution (TE, or BioLogos, as one prominent
organization prefers) hold no universal position about
Adam but share general consensus on two points: (1)
Adam was not the first human being; and (2) Adam
was not a historical person.2
A number of concerns arise when considering these
statements on Adam.
Was Adam the first human?
From a TE perspective, humans lived for probably hundreds of thousands of years before Adam and
are the products of common descent. However, in
the biblical creation account (Gen. 2:7) “the man” is
described as being made from the “dust of the ground”
followed by God breathing into him the “breath of life.”
Later, Eve is formed from Adam’s side. Neither of these
descriptions seems consistent with the idea of humans
evolving from preexisting hominids. In addition, Adam
calls Eve the “mother of all the living” (Gen. 3:20) and
the apostle Paul in Acts 17:26 describes “every nation
of men” being made from “one man.”
Admittedly, there is a delicate dance between general revelation (God’s world) and special revelation
(God’s word) on matters concerning human origins.
And allowing general revelation to guide our steps by
correcting or augmenting our understanding of special
revelation must be approached with caution. However, the integrity of either source of truth can be
maintained by carefully considering as much data
as possible.
RTB’s creation model as it pertains to human
origins and early migration does not (yet) answer every question, but it avoids the significant
problems of the TE model. Rather than reject a
historical Adam, we strive to allow such questions
to lead to deeper and greater exploration. It is our
belief that both revelations remain in agreement
and advances in understanding will ultimately
answer all outstanding
questions.
Was Adam a real person?
Adam3 is specifically mentioned in several Old Testament passages. He fathers many children (Gen. 5:4)
and is listed as the fountainhead of key genealogies
(Gen. 5:1; 1 Chron. 1:1). Luke traces Jesus’ lineage back
to Adam (Luke 3:38), and Paul makes an important
theological connection between Adam and Jesus—just
as Adam brought sin to humanity, so Jesus has brought
salvation (Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45). Such statements make the best sense if Adam was a historical
person.
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
22
|
VOL 2/NO 4
endnotes
article or inseparable preposition and is most accurately translated as “the
man.” Only 4:25; 5:1–5, and 1 Chronicles 1:1 actually refer to the personal
name of “Adam.” For the purpose of this article, I will use the term “Adam”
as a proper noun to refer to the first human being. See R.S. Hess, “Adam” in
Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 2003), 18–21
1. Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross, Who Was Adam? (Colorado Springs:
NavPress, 2003).
2. A minority of TEs affirm a historical Adam with certain qualifications:
(1) Adam refers to a specific human being chosen or specially created by
God approximately 7,000–10,000 years ago in Mesopotamia; (2) Adam gave
rise to the nations of the ancient Near East (Gen. 10), and eventually the
Jewish Messiah; and (3) Adam was not the first human being, but the first
human with whom God directly interacted. See Carol A. Hill, Worldview
Approach to Creation, ch. 7 (unpublished manuscript).
4. Howard J. Van Till, The Fourth Day (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1986),
90.
5. Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45.
3. In Genesis 1:26–27, ’ādām refers to the entire human race. The term
’ādām in Genesis 2:7, 15–17; 3:6; 16; and 4:1 appears with either a definite
6. Peter uses a similar tactic. See Krista Kay Bontrager, “The History of
the Universe in a Nutshell: Reflections on 2 Peter 3,” Perspectives of Science
and Faith (2005) 318–24.
A n inv itation to joi n a n i mp orta n t
group in s u pport of RTB.
RTB has been blessed by a faithful group of supporters who stand with us through their
commitment to the ministry each month. Over the years this group of supporters has
become the very foundation of our ability to minister effectively.
Having the consistent and dependable support of our Monthly Partners allows RTB to
plan ministry in a more effective manner and keeps us on track to financially meet the
recurring expenses of our outreach efforts.
In recognition of their faithfulness and as an expression of our gratitude to these critical
partners in ministry, we have put together some exciting Monthly Partner benefits that
will equip you and keep you up-to-date and connected on all that’s happening at RTB.
In addition, all Monthly Partners receive a special message from our scholars each
month on a timely and important subject.
Click the button to find out more about becoming a Monthly Partner or call
(800) 482-7836 to speak to someone in our ministry care department.
w w w. r ea son s. org
Bridging the gap between science and faith.
Discover Reasons To Believe today.
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE
|
23
|
VOL 2/NO 4