You searched for Nature - Reasons to Believe

Does the Appearance of Design in Nature Point to a Designer?

Guest Writer — Thu, 08 Jun 2023 12:00:00 +0000

Nature appears to be designed and its constituent parts appear to have a purpose. There is little disagreement among scientists on this point. Famous evolutionists from Charles Darwin to Richard Dawkins accept that nature appears to be designed.¹ They even acknowledge that the biological components that make up the myriad organisms have a telos—a purpose. The real point of contention is whether purpose in nature points to a designer or is simply an artifact of a naturalistic process such as evolution by natural selection.

What, Exactly, Is the Design Debate About?
We can break down the argument for a designer from the appearance of design into two fundamental parts: the argument to complexity and the argument from complexity to design. These two arguments seek to address several questions.

Argument to Complexity: Does the world have a level of complexity that seems to demand a special kind of explanation?² This first part of the argument assesses whether or not nature is complex enough to warrant a special explanation of some kind (not necessarily a designer), which is why it is called the argument “to” complexity.

Argument from Complexity to Design: Does the level of complexity in the world demand explanation in terms of a deity?³ Must the world be the work of a deity or is organized complexity artifactual?⁴

Even Darwin and Dawkins accept the argument to complexity, but they reject the argument from complexity to design. Philosopher of science Michael Ruse says that “Darwin endorsed the argument to complexity; but he changed the argument to design forever.”⁵ Darwin believed that natural selection provided a mechanism for evolution and made the appeal to a deity/designer unnecessary to explain biological complexity.

And in spite of rejecting a mind behind the complexity in nature, evolutionary biologists have not abandoned teleological language. The idea of design is used as a metaphor. As Ruse notes, “The metaphor of design, with the organism as the artifact, is at the heart of Darwinian evolutionary biology.”⁶ In other words, adaptation via natural selection results in organisms that appear designed for a purpose, so teleological language is appropriate even though no mind/designer is posited.

A Brief History of the Design Argument
The argument from design to a designer dates back to Plato and Aristotle, though it has been intuited in many times and cultures. Plato argued that a divine craftsman was responsible for creating the universe using rational principles, and Aristotle further developed Plato’s argument. Medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas, who leaned heavily on Aristotle, repurposed this line of reasoning to argue for an intelligent creator via natural theology. Then, during the Scientific Revolution (sixteenth and seventeenth centuries), key figures such as Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton, argued that the orderliness of the universe suggests an intelligent designer as the source of order. And in 1802, William Paley, in his book Natural Theology, made his famous watchmaker argument. He posited that just as when we find a watch lying in the field we know that it was produced by an intelligence, so also the complexity and order of the universe points to an intelligent creator.

Some of the earliest challenges to the argument from design came from the Epicurean school of philosophy, a Greek movement in the 300s BC. The Epicureans argued that chance and atomic collisions, rather than design, best accounted for the complexity we see in the world. And the idea that humans evolved from a single primordial substance came even earlier, proposed in the 500s BC by the Greek philosopher Anaximander. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), philosopher David Hume echoed the Epicurean line of argument, pointing to imperfections and disorder in nature to argue against an all-wise designer.

But the real challenge came with Darwin, who provided a mechanism for naturalistic evolution. He sought to explain biology using fundamental principles like the laws of motion. Philosopher Philip Kitcher writes that “Darwin knew full well that the best kind of science is that which has a cause at its heart, one which ties all together in a unified whole. With causes, he might become the Newton of biology.”⁸Darwin thought he had achieved his aim after repeatedly observing the process of natural selection in nature, which both provided a mechanism for evolution and made the appeal to a deity/designer unnecessary to explain biological complexity.

The Danger of an Argument from Ignorance
In 45 BC, the Roman philosopher Cicero argued that natural phenomena such as storms demand a divine explanation. Epicurean poet Lucretius responded by pointing out that it is odd for the gods to spend so much effort hurling lightning bolts into uninhabited regions and, what’s worse, sometimes damaging their own temples. Cicero’s argument that thunderstorms, which the ancient Romans did not understand, must be explained by the work of gods is an example of an argument from ignorance.

Christian cell biologist Kenneth Miller provides another example of an argument from ignorance by telling the story of a Catholic priest from his youth who tried to impress the kids in the church with the fact that no scientist at the time could explain how a plant makes flowers. The priest used this gap in scientific understanding as evidence that God exists and is involved in nature. Years later Miller attended a lecture where Elliot M. Meyerowitz, a plant scientist at Caltech, explained how four genes, called floral induction genes, are turned on or off to determine if a plant will produce a leaf or a flower.⁹

Both examples illustrate the danger of arguing for God’s existence based upon a current lack of scientific understanding. Arguments from ignorance are prone to being falsified as science advances. But even if humans evolved by naturalistic processes, the God of the Bible is not ruled out.

Miller also shares the story of a student who challenged a Christian professor who held and taught an evolutionary perspective on biology after a lecture by saying that evolution and God are incompatible. The professor responded, “If you deny evolution, then the sort of God you have in mind is a bit like a pool player who can sink fifteen balls in a row, but only by taking fifteen separate shots. My God plays the game a little differently. He walks up to the table, takes just one shot, and sinks all the balls.”¹⁰

The Danger of “Seeing Through” Everything
Over the past half century, biological complexity has been replaced by the anthropic principle as the best evidence pointing toward a designer. The anthropic principle states, in the words of fifteenth Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees, “The possibility of life as we know it evolving in the Universe depends on the values of a few basic physical constants, and is in some respects remarkably sensitive to their numerical values. . . . Nature does exhibit remarkable coincidences and these do warrant some explanation.”¹¹

Secular explanations for the anthropic principle include the appeal to chance/luck, the existence of multiple universes, and the belief that fundamental physics will one day offer an explanation for the values of these constants that makes the appeal to a designer unnecessary.¹²And while it is crucial to avoid making yet another argument from ignorance, we also must avoid “seeing through” every piece of evidence for a designer.

In The Abolition of Man, C. S. Lewis argues that when humanity denies the existence of an overarching moral law by “seeing through” it (via evolutionary moral psychology, for example), we end up as slaves of our animal impulses (or to the animal impulses of others).¹³ The reductionistic attempt to explain away objective morality by positing an evolutionary history for the development of morality ultimately dehumanizes us. Our attempt to be free in fact makes us slaves.

Likewise, when we “see through” the appearance of design in nature only natural processes, we risk becoming blind to our own knowledge of God. The apostle Paul says that God’s eternal power and divine nature are evident in nature (Romans 1:20) and the Psalmist that the heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). To ignore the clear signals from our own intuitive sense of awe when we gawk under a night sky, or consider the biological complexity of life and the fine-tuned constants of the anthropic principle is just as much of an epistemological error as the argument from ignorance is a rational error.

The appearance of design in nature does point to a designer. So much so, in fact, that it required a major revolution in our understanding of biology to rationally argue otherwise. To dismiss design as an illusion due to an increase in scientific knowledge is to “see through” the evidence rather than to see it more clearly.

Endnotes

Michael Ruse, Darwin and Design (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 7–8.
Ruse, Darwin and Design, 34.
Ruse, 34.
Ruse, 265.
Ruse, 128.
Ruse, 266.
Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983), 54.
Kitcher, Abusing Science, 97.
Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin’s God (New York: HarperCollins, 2002), 283–284.
Miller, Finding Darwin’s God, 260–262.
Bernard J. Carr and Martin J. Rees, “The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World,” Nature 278 (April 12, 1979): 605–612, doi:10.1038/278605a0.
Simon Friederich, “Fine-Tuning,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2022 edition), Edward N. Zalta, ed., https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/#IntrNatu.
C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: Macmillan, 1955), 69.

The post Does the Appearance of Design in Nature Point to a Designer? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Exploring the Mystical Connection between Math, Mind, and Nature

Guest Writer — Thu, 22 Sep 2022 12:00:00 +0000

When scientists experience “mystical moments,” such breakthroughs usually occur when a scientist discovers something remarkable about the physical world. However, some scientists attest to a different kind of mystical (aha) moment that involves the natural, elegant interplay among the human mind, mathematics, computation, and complex instruments. How do we account for this mystical connection? Can naturalism explain it, or is it more consistent with Christianity?

One Scientist’s Mystical Moment
Frank Wilczek is an American theoretical physicist and Nobel Prize winner. His expertise is in particle physics and quantum field theory—research that is as much mathematical as it is physical. He recently wrote an article where he described “My Mystical Moment” while looking at a huge particle detector used in verifying his mathematical theories.

The mystical moment came while I was visiting Brookhaven National Laboratory. . . . I wound up alone, standing on a jerry-rigged observation platform above a haphazard mess of magnets, cables, and panels. . . . And then it happened. It came to me, viscerally, that the intricate calculations I’d done using pen and paper (and wastebasket) might somehow describe this entirely different realm of existence—namely, a physical world of particles, tracks, and electronic signals, created by the kind of machinery I was looking at. There was no need to choose, as philosophers often struggled to do, between mind or matter. It was mind and matter. How could that be? Why should it be? Yet I somehow, I suddenly knew that it could be so, and should be so (emphasis added).

How did Wilczek’s paper and pencil scribblings have any connections to the unbelievably complex mass of heavy equipment that make up the accelerator ring and detectors of a particle collider, and the data that the huge contraption produced?

While on a short-term work assignment at Fermi National Lab near Chicago, I was given a personal tour of their CDF detector. I was overwhelmed by the massive three-story structure. Yet that huge machinery somehow reflected the mathematical theories that came out of the minds of a group of humans and from the numbers plugged into their mathematical equations and cranked through their computer algorithms. This process—the interplay of mind, mathematics, numerical computation, and experimental machinery—is a mystical feedback loop that lies at the heart of science and propels the accumulation of knowledge.

Figure 1: The Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF)
Image credit: Fermi National Laboratory.

Mathematical Abstractions, Numerical Computation, Mind, and the Physical World
What is the connection between the components of that mechanism, and why and how does it all work to produce useful knowledge? The equations of mathematical physics, as remarkable as they are, are only part of the story. Numbers, mathematical tools, algorithms, and computations play an equally important role.

In his book Pi in the Sky,¹ mathematical physicist John Barrow relates the long and tortuous path through human history that resulted in the development of the number systems we use today: the cardinal numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, . . .), the invention of zero and negative numbers, the set of integers, rational numbers, prime numbers, irrational numbers (√2), transcendental numbers (∏), complex numbers (¡=√−1), and so on. The study of number theory is perhaps the purest form of pure mathematics, yet it is essential.

In a famous lecture to his colleagues, physicist Richard Feynman, duly impressed with the indispensable set of numbers that were his tools, systematically explained how they arise “from the power of the process of abstraction and generalization.”² Do these number systems exist objectively in some Platonic realm? Are they just useful inventions of the human mind? Such questions have led to endless arguments. Nevertheless, scientific discovery would not occur without them.

Then there are the mathematical tools, such as calculus and its solution methods. The calculus came about through a contentious process dating back to the ancient Greeks and being rigorously completed by the nineteenth century.³ Finally, there are algorithms⁴ and computing machines that bring life to the equations of physics and produce numbers that describe our world. Why does it all work and why do we believe its results? That is the mystery that Frank Wilczek pondered.

Humans’ Unique Ability to Discern Truth and Understand the Universe
Physicist Paul Davies finds it remarkable that “the physics of the Universe is extremely special, inasmuch as it is both simple and comprehensible to the human mind” (emphasis original).⁵ In addition, the mathematics and algorithms are comprehensible and computable, and the results give us understanding of the physical realm. However, our ability to perceive these truths does not necessarily come from rational, logical, or programmable thought processes. There are some truths that we just innately come to know.

Philosopher Kenneth Samples has identified a set of truths that cannot be verified algorithmically or scientifically: logical truths, metaphysical truths, and objective moral truths.⁶ Some truths must simply be accepted to be able to do science at all. John Barrow describes physicist Roger Penrose’s view:

An interesting case study to consider is the widely publicized claim of Roger Penrose that human thinking is intrinsically non-algorithmic . . . It amounts to the claim that the process by which mathematicians “see” that a theorem is true, or a proof is valid, cannot itself be a mathematical theorem . . . Penrose concludes . . . that human mathematicians are not using a knowably sound algorithm to ascertain mathematical truth.⁷ (emphasis original)

In addition, astrophysicist Jeff Zweerink shows how we sometimes rely on intuitive and nonrational thinking to arrive at creative solutions, and he recounts his own experience in doing so.⁸ From these considerations, we arrive at this conclusion: Humans can discern the truth of a variety of abstract ideas without employing the tools of logic, formal mathematics, or even rational reasoning.

The Only Plausible Explanation: Humans Were Made in the Image of God
During my years as a student at the University of Texas at Austin, I must have walked past the main building more than a hundred times. Very prominently across the facade is the phrase: “Ye Shall Know the Truth and the Truth Shall Make You Free.” Occasionally I would marvel that this promise from Jesus in John’s gospel is thought to have meaning to the overwhelmingly secular culture on campus. Yet, some innate ability to discern truth is necessary for the accumulation of knowledge. However, the ontology (the nature of being) of materialistic naturalism, if truly believed, would lead down into a skeptical abyss. What’s the knowledge potential of a brain that’s the result of incremental and undirected evolution and is located on an arbitrary branch of the evolutionary tree, not far from that of a monkey?

Figure 3: The Main Building of the University of Texas at Austin
Image Credit: Otis Graf

What gave that “human animal” the mind and ability to merge the laws of nature with mathematics, numbers, and computation to form a deep understanding of the physical world? There is no preferred direction or outcome in evolutionary biology, yet that process (supposedly) produced that remarkable achievement. Materialistic naturalism has no plausible explanation. The Bible has the explanation and even secular scientists—while denying God’s existence—must adopt elements of a biblical worldview to do their creative work of discovery.

Endnotes

John Barrow, Pi in the Sky: Counting, Thinking, and Being (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1994).
The significance of this lecture is discussed in James Gleick’s book Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (New York: Vintage Books, Random House, 1992), 182–183. The lecture has been published in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I, Chapter 22, https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_22.html, accessed September 6, 2022.
David Berlinski, A Tour of the Calculus (New York: Vintage Books, Random House, 1995), 47–49.
A good example of a simple computational algorithm is the numerical evaluation of a square root. See “Newton’s Iteration,” Wolfram MathWorld, https://mathworld.wolfram.com/NewtonsIteration.html, last updated August 22, 2022.
Bernard Carr, ed., Universe or Multiverse (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 494.
Kenneth R. Samples, Christianity Cross-Examined: Is It Rational, Relevant, and Good? (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2021), 46–49.
Barrow, Pi in the Sky, 285.
Jeff Zweerink, “Does Human Reasoning Demonstrate Exceptionalism?,” Impact Events (blog), Reasons to Believe, June 10, 2022.

The post Exploring the Mystical Connection between Math, Mind, and Nature appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Information and Nature

Guest Writer — Thu, 28 Apr 2022 21:40:57 +0000

The question of the significance of human existence comes sharply into focus as we consider the origin of life itself. Do the laws of nature support the origin of life from nonlife, or do they argue against it? In order to address this question, it is helpful to consider a defining characteristic of all living things, namely their phenomenal information content. Naturalistic explanations attempting to reach the heights of information content found in even the simplest living thing have appealed to “dumb luck” or to some unobserved natural law. However, consideration of the known and observed laws of physics in conjunction with the finite limits of “chance” within our universe appear to rule out any natural origin of the vastly complex biomolecular metropolis found within the cells of life.¹

The science of information theory, formed in the early 1950s, allows the quantification of the information content of physical systems such as stars, rocks, molecules, and books.² The information content of a system composed of many parts, such as atoms, is low if the various parts don’t have to be in a specific relation to one another. In nature, examples of low-information systems would be a cloud of water molecules or a pile of dirt. Rearranging the particles of water or dirt doesn’t ruin the system; if an airplane flies through a cloud, stirring it up, it’s still a cloud. Another type of system found in nature is an ordered system, such as a snowflake or a salt crystal. These also have a low information content because the regular, repetitious pattern of the atoms composing the crystal can be easily specified with only a few instructions or decisions. “Stirring up” a crystal will ruin it, but it can be easily re-formed since its ordered structure follows a simple pattern, governed by specific interatomic bonds. Thus, both complex but random systems, like clouds, and specific ordered systems, like snowflakes, have low information content. Either of these systems can form naturally since they have lower information content than the precursors (dispersed water droplets or vapor) out of which they formed.

Our discussion of the information content of physical systems has so far neglected the question of how this information will change over time as a result of natural processes. The appropriate law of nature that governs this change is known as the generalized second law of thermodynamics. In Concepts in Statistical Mechanics, Arthur Hobson gives a description of this law in terms of entropy, uncertainty, and information.³ Given an initial measurement of a system, predictions of the system at a later time “cannot contain more information (but may contain less information)” than the initial measurement.⁴ This conclusion remains true no matter how the initial constraints of the system are changed. Since the information content of the entire physical universe has always been lower than that found in even the simplest living organism, we can conclude that no scientific examination of the initial conditions of the universe or of planet Earth could yield a naturalistic prediction of life (with its fantastically high information content) at any later time in the history of the universe. In consequence, since life came into existence on Earth, a reasonable conclusion is that the source of this exponential jump in information content comes from beyond nature—from a super-natural source.

Some have posited that the information required for a living system was simply borrowed from a low-entropy source within the environment. In principle, information can be coalesced out of the environment, but not to a degree any greater than already contained within the environment. It has been repeatedly shown that the information content of even a single large protein molecule far exceeds that of the entire nonliving universe,⁵ and the information content of even the simplest living thing is so much higher that were our universe 10⁵⁰⁰ times bigger it would not come even close to sufficing for a naturalistic origin of life.⁶

Others have tried to suggest that certain natural processes can, in fact, generate new biological information. At times, this opinion comes from misidentifying increasing information with decreasing thermodynamic entropy.⁷ Decreasing thermodynamic entropy can only be leveraged into information if a design template and the mechanism to employ it already exists. In this case, the desired information is not being created by the action of the low-entropy energy source; it is merely being transferred from the template to an output product. An example of such a system is a printing press—it takes energy to make it run, but the energy produces no information beyond what preexists in the type-set template of the press.

Our sun is a low-entropy source of thermal energy that Earth receives via electromagnetic radiation. This thermal energy is useful energy in the thermodynamic sense because it can be used to do work. The same is true of gravitational potential energy being converted into kinetic energy or heat. Waterfalls and solar collectors can produce energy for useful work, but they are sterile with respect to generating information. In fact, sources of natural energy (sunlight, fire, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.) universally destroy complex specified information, and never create it. What will happen to a painting if left outside in the elements? What happens to a newspaper tossed into a ditch? Information-rich systems always degrade by the actions of nature, until all trace of information disappears.

What kind of structures is nature good at producing? Stars! Astronomers estimate that the universe contains at least 10 billion trillion stars, formed through the gravitational collapse of primarily hydrogen and helium gas clouds. Stars, however, have a relatively low information content. We can understand this conceptually by imagining sticking a giant spoon into a star and stirring it up. After you pull the spoon out, what has become of the star? Have you permanently destroyed it? No, its internal fusion energy production will only be temporarily interrupted, because the laws of nature will cause it to settle back down into its former state, and it will shine just like before. Compare this to what would happen if you stirred up a living thing, even a single cell, in such a way that you rearranged all its atoms. Doing so would irreparably destroy the intricate internal chemical structures within the cell, and no matter how long you waited, it would not settle into its former state. The laws of nature could not recreate what your stirring destroyed.

The information content of the universe exponentially increased with the formation of the first living organism. Since natural processes always work to lower the information content of any closed (or effectively closed) system over time, the origin of life represents an unnatural event in the history of our universe. And yet, it obviously came to pass! If life’s origin defies natural causes, then a supernatural Cause becomes a plausible explanation. If a skeptic demands a miracle as a reason to believe, consider that God has provided just such a confirmation of his reality in the abundance of life abounding on planet Earth.

Note: This article is excerpted and adapted from Eric Hedin, Canceled Science: What Some Atheists Don’t Want You to See (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2021).

Endnotes

Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (New York: HarperCollins, 2009), 236.
C. Shannon, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” Bell System Technical Journal 27, no. 3 (1948): 379–423, reprinted in The Mathematical Theory of Communication (Urbana: Illinois University Press, 1949); Robert Gange, Origins and Destiny (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1986), 54.
Arthur Hobson, Concepts in Statistical Mechanics (New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1971), 139–140.
Hobson, Concepts in Statistical Mechanics, 142–145.
Gange, Origins and Destiny, 164.
Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: Granada Publishing, 1981), 20.
Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality (New York: Vintage Books, 2004), 175.

The post Information and Nature appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Nature's Designs Inspire Anti-Icing Surfaces

Hugh Ross — Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:00:00 +0000

One of the joys I experience as a scientist comes from reading how researchers have discovered features in nature that can help humanity. Mechanical engineers have learned that wheat leaf surfaces are designed to shed large water droplets and remain dry and unfrozen in cold, humid conditions. I’ll explain the discovery and its exciting potential applications in a moment.

Learning from Nature’s Superior Designs
One line of scientific evidence for the Creator-God of the Bible comes from the repeated observations that the designs in Earth’s life-forms are consistently superior to the best designs in humanly manufactured goods. These observations imply that Someone more knowledgeable, intelligent, and powerful than humans must have designed the characteristic features in the different species of Earth’s life. They also imply that copying designs we see in Earth’s life-forms is an efficient way to advance engineering and technology.

In a recent example of a bioinspired technological advance, researchers mimicked the texture in wheat leaves to develop surfaces that remain ice-free even under cold, humid conditions. When I saw the published paper demonstrating how the designs in wheat leaves could be incorporated into manufactured surfaces,¹ I immediately thought of a number of benefits that would make my life and the lives of millions of others more productive and enjoyable.

Ice Formation Prevention
Twelve mechanical engineering researchers from the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Beijing), the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign carefully studied how wheat leaves prevent the formation and buildup of ice under cold and humid environments. The team cited research² that established wheat leaves “display self-propelled jumping of micro-droplets and self-removal of contaminants through droplet mutual coalescence, leaving more clean and dry-leaf surface area available for photosynthesis.”³ The microstructure of wheat leaf surfaces possesses a design that causes microdroplets of water to coalesce into large water droplets. The droplets are large enough that surface energy in the wheat leaves, generated through the droplet coalescence, forcefully ejects the coalesced droplets off the wheat surface. The wheat leaf surface design simultaneously elevates the temperature of the leaf surface. Consequently, wheat plants are able to maintain photosynthesis and minimize leaf damage under frost-forming conditions.

Inspired by their studies on wheat leaves, the engineers used an ultrafast pulse laser technology to deposit a thin layer of iron oxide nanoparticles onto a copper surface that perfectly mimicked the porous patterns on wheat leaf surfaces. They then performed a number of experiments that demonstrated that their manufactured surface, under artificial sunlight, stayed dry and kept its surface temperature above water’s freezing point even under humid conditions at –50°C! The previous best lowest temperature water repellency for a manufactured surface was –15°C.⁴

Applications
The 35°C improvement in prevention of ice formation and ice buildup will make possible several technological breakthroughs. One that was touted in the published paper is the development of aircraft wings and tails that would stay ice-free under all commercial flight conditions. Imagine never having a flight delayed because of the need to remove ice from the wings and tail. Imagine the reduced flight fares resulting from lower fuel consumption. Imagine fewer flight accidents.

In reading the paper, my mind flashed back to all the telescope time I lost because of ice buildup. In the radio astronomy observations I was conducting (in Canada) I noticed that the quality of the data improved by a factor of 3–4 times when the temperature fell below –40°C. Consequently, I applied for all the telescope time I could get during the months of January and February. However, ice buildup on the antenna, and especially on the telescope drive motors, either compromised the data quality or made the telescope inoperable. The metal surfaces manufactured by the twelve mechanical engineers would eliminate these problems.

The new surface technology could make for safer sidewalks, roads, and highways under harsh winter conditions without the use of salt or sand. I recall how in some Canadian cities winter road highway salt would completely corrode the bodies of vehicles in just 4–5 years. Not needing to replace vehicles every 4–5 years would save drivers thousands of dollars and be a boon to the economy.

Anyone who has walked or hiked significant distances under below-freezing conditions will recall the annoyance of frost and ice building up on one’s glasses, parka hoods, and backpacks. I remember, after one long winter hike, not being able to get into my parked car because of ice buildup on the car lock. The new surface technology can eliminate such annoyances and dangers.

More technological applications are certain to be discovered and manufactured. They all provide examples of how the Creator has shown us his designs in nature that we can copy for our benefit and for the rapid fulfillment of the purposes⁵ for which he created us.

Endnotes

Hongqiang Zhang et al., “Solar Anti-Icing Surface with Enhanced Condensate Self-Removing at Extreme Environmental Conditions,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 118, no. 18 (May 4, 2021): id. e2100978118, doi:10.1073/pnas.2100978118.
Saurabh Nath et al., “‘Sneezing’ Plants: Pathogen Transport via Jumping-Droplet Condensation,” Journal of the Royal Society Interface 16, no. 155 (June 2019): id. 20190243, doi:10.1098/rsif.2019.0243.
Zhang et al., “Solar Anti-Icing Surface,” 2.
Jonathan B. Boreyko and C. Patrick Collier, “Delayed Frost Growth on Jumping-Drop Superhydrophobic Surfaces,” ACS Nano 7, ~~vol. 7,~~ no. 2 (January 3, 2013): 1618–1627, doi:10.1021/nn3055048; Qiaolan Zhang et al., “Anti-Icing Surfaces Based on Enhanced Self-Propelled Jumping of Condensed Water Microdroplets,” Chemical Communications 40 (April 2013): 4516–4518, doi:10.1039/C3CC40592C; Qian Xu et al., “Energy-Effective Frost-Free Coatings Based on Superhydrophobic Aligned Nanocones,” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 6, ~~vol. 6,~~ no. 12 (June 2014): 8976–8980, doi:10.1021/am502607e.
I list and describe eleven such purposes in Why the Universe Is the Way It Is (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2008), 154–162.

The post Nature's Designs Inspire Anti-Icing Surfaces appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Is Cruelty in Nature Really Evil?

Fazale “Fuz” Rana — Wed, 08 Jul 2020 09:00:00 +0000

How many are your works, Lord!
In wisdom you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.

Psalm 104:24

I don’t remember who pointed out thedarksideofnature Instagram account to me, but their description was intriguing enough that I had to check it out. After perusing a few posts, I ended up adding myself to the list of followers.

I can’t say I enjoy the photos and videos posted by thedarksideofnature—which depict nature “red in tooth and claw”—but I do find them mesmerizing. Their website states that it is “all about showing the world a different side of nature. A side that may not be the prettiest, but it is the realist.”

The posts from thedarksideofnature are a stark reminder of the dichotomy in the animal kingdom, simultaneously beautiful and brutal, highlighting the majesty and the power—and danger—of the world of nature. For many people the beauty, majesty, and power of nature evince a Creator’s handiwork. For others, nature’s brutality serves as justifiable cause for rejecting God’s existence. Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God create a world in which animal pain and suffering appears to be gratuitous?

Perhaps nothing exemplifies the seemingly senseless cruelty of nature more so than the widespread occurrence of filial (relating to offspring) cannibalism and filial abandonment among animals. Many animals eat their young or consume eggs after laying them. Others abandon their young, condemning them to certain death.

What an unimaginably cruel feature of nature. Why would God create animals that eat their offspring or abandon their young?

Is Cruelty in Nature Really Evil?

What if there are good reasons for God to permit pain and suffering to exist in the animal kingdom? Scientific research seems to offer several reasons.

For example, some studies reveal purpose for animal pain and suffering. Others demonstrate that animal death promotes biodiversity and ecosystem stability. There are even studies that provide reasons for filial cannibalism and offspring abandonment (see the Resources section, below). Most recently, a team of investigators from Europe and Australia provide additional reasons why animals would consume their own offspring.¹

These researchers didn’t set out to study filial cannibalism. Instead, they sought to understand why the comb jelly, native to the Atlantic coast of North America, has been so successful at colonizing new habitats. For example, this invasive species has made its way into the Baltic Sea, which has longer periods of low food availability compared to the comb jelly’s native habitat. The comb jelly has adapted to the food shortage by engaging in behavior that, at first blush, is counterintuitive and seems to be counterproductive. As it enters into the late season, when the prey field begins to empty, the comb jelly makes a massive investment in reproduction, even though the larval offspring have virtually no chance of survival. In fact, after three weeks the comb jelly progeny stop growing, then shrink in size, and die.

Figure: Comb Jelly. Credit: Shutterstock

As it turns out, the late season wave of reproduction explains the comb jelly’s success as an invasive species. The researchers learned that the bloom of offspring serve as a food source for the comb jelly adults, replacing the disappearing prey. In other words, as the comb jelly’s available prey begins to decline in number, the jellies reproduce on a large scale with the juveniles serving as a nutrient store that lasts for an additional three weeks beyond the collapse of the prey fields. While this short duration may not seem like much, it affords the comb jelly an opportunity to outcompete other marine life during this window of time, ecologically making the difference between the flourishing and the decline of the species.

Instead of viewing the filial cannibalism among the comb jelly in sinister terms, the investigators found it to be an ingenious design. They argue that the comb jelly population appears to be working together as a single organism. According to research team member Thomas Larsen:

“In some ways, the whole jelly population is acting like a single organism, with the younger groups supporting the adults through times of nutrient stress. Overall, it enables jellies to persist through extreme events and low food periods, colonizing further than climate conditions and other conditions would usually allow.”²

In effect, the filial cannibalism observed for the comb jelly is no different than the autophagy and apoptosis observed in multicellular organisms, in which individual cells are consumed for the overall benefit of the organism.

Filial Cannibalism and the Logical Problem of Evil

These insights into the adaptive value of filial cannibalism for the comb jelly help address the logical problem of natural evil. As part of the problem of natural evil, questions arise about God’s existence and goodness because of brutality in the animal kingdom. Many skeptics view the problem of evil as an insurmountable challenge for Christian theism:

God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.
Therefore, we would expect good designs in nature.
Yet, nature is brutal, with animals experiencing an undue amount of pain and suffering.
Therefore, God either does not exist or is not good.

Skeptics argue that this final observation about nature is logically incompatible with God’s existence, or, minimally with God’s goodness. In other words, because of natural evil either God doesn’t exist or He isn’t good. Either way, Christian theism is undermined. But what if there is a good reason—as research shows—for pain and suffering to exist in nature? We could modify the syllogism this way:

God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.
Therefore, we would expect good designs in nature.
There are good reasons for God to allow pain and suffering in the animal realm.
Animal death, pain, and suffering are part of nature.

In other words, if there are good reasons for animal pain and suffering, then God’s existence and goodness are logically coherent with animal pain and suffering. Also, who is to say that pain and suffering in the animal kingdom is excessive? How could anyone possibly know?

The God of Skepticism or the God of the Bible?

When considering the problem of natural evil, it is important to distinguish between the God of naturalistic philosophy and the God of the Bible. Though some philosophers may see pain and suffering in the animal realm as a reason to question God’s existence and goodness, the authors of Scripture had a different perspective. They saw animal death as part of the good creation and a reason to praise and celebrate God as Creator and Provider.³ The insights from science about the importance of animal death to ecosystems, and the adaptive value of pain and suffering provide the rationale for calling these features of nature “good.”

All creatures look to you
to give them their food at the proper time.
When you give it to them,
they gather it up;
when you open your hand,
they are satisfied with good things.

When you hide your face,
they are terrified;
when you take away their breath,
they die and return to the dust.
When you send your Spirit,
they are created,
and you renew the face of the ground.

Psalm 104:27–30

Resources

Animal Death and the Problem of Evil

“Why Would God Create a World Where Animals Eat Their Offspring?” by Fazale Rana (article)
“Why Did God Create the Thai Liver Fluke?” by Fazale Rana (article)
“Of Weevils and Wasps: God’s Good Purpose in Animal Death” by Maureen Moser (article)
“Animal Death Prevents Ecological Meltdown” by Fazale Rana (article)
“Scientists Uncover a Good Purpose for Long Lasting Pain in Animals” by Fazale Rana (article)
“Animal Death before the Fall: What Does the Bible Say?” by Lee Irons (article)
“Animal Death and the Atonement” by Krista Bontrager (article)
“Life from Death” by Fazale Rana (article)

The Argument from Beauty

“God as the Best Explanation of Beauty” by Kenneth Samples (article)
“Fatty Acids Are Beautiful” by Fazale Rana (article)
“Frog Choruses Sing Out a Song of Creation” by Fazale Rana (article)
“Biological Rules Affirm Creation” by Fazale Rana (article)
“Whale Vocal Displays Make Beautiful Case for a Creator” by Fazale Rana (article)
“The Argument from Beauty: Can Evolution Explain Our Aesthetic Sense?” by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

Jamileh Javidpour et al., “Cannibalism Makes Invasive Comb Jelly, Mnemiopsis leidyi, Resilient to Unfavorable Conditions,” Communications Biology 3 (2020): 212, doi:10.1038/s42003-020-0940-2.

The post Is Cruelty in Nature Really Evil? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Worshippers by Nature

Kenneth Samples — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Virtually every human being seeks to find an overarching purpose in life. As part of this common pursuit, people naturally attach themselves to belief systems, values, causes, interests, and even physical things in order to give their lives meaning and fulfillment. Philosophers talk about the idea of worldview, which is understood as a person’s big-picture view of reality and consists of a cluster of beliefs about such critically important realities as God, the world, knowledge, values, and beauty. This purpose-seeking characteristic and need to grasp reality seems to set humans apart from the animals.

But why are humans uniquely purpose-seeking creatures?

Scripture tells us. I’ll provide a brief biblical explanation as to why people instinctually look for meaning in life and align themselves to something of enduring significance.

The Image of God = Worshippers

One way of thinking about the biblical truth of being made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27) is that to bear God’s image makes people worshippers. As finite creatures, humans have been brought into existence by an infinite God. And to be made by God means that people were made for God. By their contingent creaturely nature, humans were meant to know, love, and worship their Creator. Thus, human beings are uniquely dependent upon God for their existence, meaning, and ultimate spiritual fulfillment.

Yet humankind’s fundamental problem is that original sin (a corrupt nature inherited by all people from their progenitor Adam: Romans 5:12) has cut people off from their Creator. However, creatures who were made to be worshippers can’t stop worshipping. Despite the vacuum of being separated from God by sin, people naturally look for something to replace God. Such worship today isn’t like the ancient formal worship of various deities (polytheism), but rather takes the form of associating oneself with a defining belief, value, cause, or interest.

So the imago Dei (divine image) makes humans worshippers, yet the spiritual vacuum caused by sin makes the creatures natural idolaters (Romans 1:18–23). The worship replacements that humans commonly seek instead of the true and living God manifest as egotism (self), sensualism (sex), and materialism (money). However, more developed and refined worship replacements consist of the natural world, politics, and the idea of beauty. Interestingly, all the common replacements are good things instead of bad things. But those good things have become disordered (functionally misused) in fallen creatures.

The existential problem with life in a fallen world is that all common worship replacements, though good, are finite realities that can’t provide ultimate purpose and fulfillment for human beings. St. Augustine (354–430), a wayward soul for the first half of his life, provided this penetrating spiritual insight: “You [God] made us [humanity] for yourself and our hearts find no peace until they rest in you.”¹ In other words, true meaning and purpose can’t be found in worship replacements. God has created human beings in such a way (imago Dei) that ultimate fulfillment (rest and peace) can’t be found apart from him.

C. S. Lewis makes the same point by using the analogy of an automobile’s need for the correct fuel:

God made us: invented us as a man invents an engine. A car is made to run on gasoline, and it would not run properly on anything else. Now God designed the human machine to run on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other. That is why it is just no good asking God to make us happy in our own way without bothering about religion. God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.²

From a biblical perspective of the imago Dei, when people fail to worship the true God they replace him because they must worship something. Today the replacement might take the form of a perceived ultimate or reason for being. But these and all other alternatives to God are finitely inadequate and leave humans existentially unfulfilled.

In the New Testament Jesus Christ uniquely offers rest for weary and burdened souls:

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light (Matthew 11:28–30).

The biblical perspective seems to offer a plausible explanation concerning both humankind’s search for purpose and dissatisfaction with finite goods. If Scripture can explain the complexity of the human condition, it seems worthy of careful consideration as a true revelation from God himself.

Reflections: Your Turn

What worship replacements have you used in your pursuit of meaning and purpose? What was the result? Visit Reflections on WordPress to comment with your response.

Resources

- For more on the human quest for purpose in life, see my article: The Insatiable Search for Peace and Rest

Endnotes

Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (NY: Penguin, 1961), 1, 1.
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952), 54.

The post Worshippers by Nature appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Quest to Discover the Nature of 70 Percent of the Universe

Hugh Ross — Mon, 28 May 2018 09:00:00 +0000

How would you feel if you purchased a house and you knew the total square footage of the home, but were locked out from access to 70 percent of the house? Wouldn’t you be curious about the nature of that 70 percent? Wouldn’t you attempt to enlist the assistance of a locksmith to gain access to that 70 percent?

How you would feel and respond to being locked out of 70 percent of a house describes well the drive and curiosity astronomers express about the nature of dark energy. As I described in my blog post on April 23, astronomers’ recent analysis of measurements on 1,133,326 galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey showed that dark energy makes up 69.9 percent of all the stuff of the universe.¹ What astronomers know so far about the stuff that comprises 69.9 percent of the universe is that it is an unknown form of energy that permeates the universe’s entire space surface so as to tend to accelerate the universe’s expansion rate. However, even though astronomers are now convinced that dark energy is the dominant component of the universe and that it is the factor either entirely or mostly responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe, they still know little about its fundamental properties and nature. Hence, a massive search is underway to discover the specific nature of dark energy.

In my April 23rd blog post, I reported on how an analysis of the sample of 1,133,326 galaxies indicated that the acceleration of the cosmic expansion rate was consistent with dark energy being governed by a single nonvarying constant, otherwise known as the cosmological constant. Specifically, the analysis determined that w = -1.042 ± 0.067, where w = P/ρ, where P and ρ denote dark energy’s pressure and energy density respectively, and w exactly = -1.0, which means that dark energy is governed by a single nonvarying constant.

In a paper published in the April 10 issue of the Astrophysical Journal, a team of ten astronomers (including one I knew personally from my time at Caltech), based on measurements of 1,364 supernovae, determined that w = -0.989 ± 0.057.² Both this determination and the one I reported on in my April 23 blog post were predominantly based on cosmic expansion rate measures of galaxies closer to us than 10 billion light-years. That is, they were determining the properties of dark energy for the last 9 billion years of cosmic history, but not so much for the first 5 billion years of cosmic history.

In the same issue of the Astrophysical Journal, three Chinese astronomers—Ji-Ping Dai, Yang Yang, and Jun-Qing Xia—reconstructed w from the latest observations that included type Ia supernovae, the cosmic microwave background radiation (radiation left over from the cosmic creation event), the universe’s large-scale structure (go here for a mind-blowing video clip of the development of the cosmic large-scale structure), measurements of the cosmic expansion rates based on objects nearer than 9 billion light-years, and baryon acoustic oscillations.³ They found that this reconstruction was consistent with w = -1.0. However, when they added in the baryon acoustic oscillation determinations based on measurements of the Lyman α forest of spectral lines seen in quasars at distances ranging from 9 to 13.5 billion light-years, they noted “a strong preference for the time-evolving behavior of dark energy.”⁴

In other words, Dai, Yang, and Xia’s study indicates that while dark energy appears to show no evolution over the past 9 billion years, dark energy may indeed be evolving over the first 4.8 billion years of cosmic history. They close their paper with an appeal for astronomers to use the next generation of telescopes to gain more accurate and comprehensive observations of the Lyman α forest of spectral lines in distant quasars to determine the true nature of dark energy.

A team of five astronomers in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom used an entirely different method to constrain w. They used measurements of the thermal Sunyaev Zel’dovich power spectrum to establish that w = -1.10 ± 0.12.⁵ Three other astronomers explained how the Square Kilometre Array radio telescope (construction to begin in 2019), through measurements of the 21-cm spectral line of neutral hydrogen in very distant quasars and galaxies, will definitely provide an accurate measure of the nature of dark energy during the first few billion years of cosmic history.⁶

Figure: Artist’s Impression of the South African Half of the Square Kilometer Array. Image credit: SKA Project Development Office and Swinburne Astronomy Productions

In the last few months, astronomers have made significant progress in determining the nature of dark energy. The new generation of optical telescopes (e.g., the Extremely Large Telescope), infrared telescopes (e.g., the James Webb Space Telescope), and radio telescopes (e.g., the Square Kilometre Array) promises to accurately nail down the properties of dark energy. When that happens, we will know what is going with 70 percent of the universe. That knowledge undoubtedly will unveil yet even more evidence for the fine-tuning design of the universe that makes the existence of physical life, and human life in particular, possible.

Endnotes

Hugh Ross, “Million Galaxy Study Yields Improved Cosmic Creation Model,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, April 23, 2018, https://www.reasons.org/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/todays-new-reason-to-believe/2018/04/23/million-galaxy-study-yields-improved-cosmic-creation-model.
D. O. Jones et al., “Measuring Dark Energy Properties with Photometrically Classified Pan-STARRS Supernovae. II. Cosmological Parameters,” Astrophysical Journal 857 (April 10, 2018): id. 51, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab6b1.
Ji-Ping Dai, Yang Yang, and Jun-Qing Xia, “Reconstruction of the Dark Energy Equation of State from the Latest Observations,” Astrophysical Journal 857 (April 10, 2018): id. 9, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab49a.
Dai, Yang, and Xia, “Reconstruction of the Dark Energy Equation,” page 1 of id. 9.
Boris Bolliet et al., “Dark Energy Constraints from the Thermal Sunyaev Zeldovich Power Spectrum,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Published ahead of print, March 29, 2018. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty823.
Bikash R. Dinda, Anjan A. Sen, and Tirthankar Roy Choudhury, “Dark Energy Constraints from the 21-cm Intensity Mapping Surveys with SKA1,” eprint arXiv:1804.11137 (April 2018), https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.11137.

The post Quest to Discover the Nature of 70 Percent of the Universe appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Can Science Detect the Creator’s Fingerprints in Nature?

Fazale “Fuz” Rana — Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:00:00 +0000

Which of these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?

Job 12:9

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

The organizers charged me with the responsibility of describing Old-Earth Creationism (OEC) from a scientific vantage point, while also providing the rational for my views.

As part of my presentation, the organizers asked me to discuss the assumptions that undergird my views. One of the foundational tenets of OEC is an important idea taught in Scripture: God has revealed Himself to us through the record of nature. According to passages such as Job 12: 7-9, part of that revelation includes the ‘fingerprints’ He has left on His creation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These astronomers maintain that the transmitter would have to continually focus its beam on the light sails. FRBs originate when the transmitter and light sails briefly point in Earth’s direction due to the relative motion of the transmitter and light sail.

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

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

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

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

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

Resources:

Fast Radio Bursts: E. T. Is Not Calling Home by Hugh Ross (article)

Fast Radio Bursts Update by Hugh Ross (article)

A Biochemical Watch Found in a Cellular Heath by Fazale Rana (article)

Can Science Identify the Intelligent Designer? by Fazale Rana (article)

The Cell’s Design By Fazale Rana (book)

Endnotes

Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism (New York: Holt and Company, 200) p. 13.
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “Could Fast Radio Burst Be Powering Alien Probes?” ScienceDaily (March 9, 2017), sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170309120419.htm
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “Could Fast Radio Burst Be Powering Alien Probes?” ScienceDaily (March 9, 2017), sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170309120419.htm
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “Could Fast Radio Burst Be Powering Alien Probes?” ScienceDaily (March 9, 2017), www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170309120419.htm

The post Can Science Detect the Creator’s Fingerprints in Nature? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Does Nature Today Reveal More or Less About God? Part 2

Hugh Ross — Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:15:00 +0000

Image credit: European Southern Observatory

In my previous blog article, I explained and described how science today reveals exponentially more about God, his attributes, and his plans for humanity than it did just a century ago. This exponential increase in revelation from the book of nature provides the fuel for the ministry of Reasons to Believe. Because of this increase, we are seeing unprecedented numbers of skeptics becoming faithful followers of Christ.

Still, many more people are turning away from faith, raising a paradox. Why, if there is so much more revelation of God coming from the scientific disciplines, do we see in several parts of the world such a rise in the percentage of the population that identifies themselves as atheists, agnostics, or deists?

In this blog article I will explain and describe how, in a different context, science reveals much less about God than it did a century ago. I will explain why, consequently, in some parts of the world atheists and agnostics today make up a still small but larger percentage of the population than in the past. Below, I will address three different arenas where nature reveals less about God.

Less Revelation from the Heavens

In a recent issue of Science Advances, an international team of 10 light-pollution scientists reported that more than 80 percent of the world’s population and more than 99 percent of the US and European populations live under artificial light–polluted skies.¹ Figure 1 shows the current status of light pollution for the world.

Figure 1: World Map of Artificial Sky Brightness at 1 A.M. Local Time

The intensity of light pollution is such that today a third of the world’s population is unable to see the Milky Way when they look up at the sky on a moonless night.² For Europe, the percentage of humans unable to see the Milky Way is 60 percent, and for North Americans, the percentage is 80 percent.³

Even in the least light-polluted parts of the world, artificial-light pollution is noticeable. The featured image for this article shows the Milky Way from the European Southern Observatory in a northern mountain range of Chile. As spectacular as this view of Milky Way is, it is diminished by artificial lighting.

In their research paper, the team of 10 scientists showed that artificial-light pollution is about to become much worse. Light-emitting diode (LED) lighting is rapidly replacing high-pressure mercury and sodium lighting. LED lighting for equal photopic flux increases light pollution by 2.5 times. Figure 2 shows the anticipated increase in artificial-light pollution for Europe.

Figure 2: Maps of Europe’s Artificial Night Sky Brightness
Map A shows the present light pollution for Europe at 1 a.m. local time. Map B shows the expected light pollution when LED lighting replaces high-pressure mercury and sodium lighting.

Personally, I have found the large cities of Asia to be the worst for light pollution. Not only was I unable to see the Milky Way on a clear moonless night in Seoul, Shanghai, or Hong Kong, but I was unable to see a single star in the night sky.

Psalm 97:6 states,

The heavens proclaim his [God’s] righteousness, and all peoples see his glory. (NIV)

This Bible text presumes that people can see the heavens. If they cannot see the Milky Way or any stars at all, how can they possibly perceive, from viewing the heavens, God’s righteousness and glory?

On a positive note, I have witnessed, several times, the impact that a first-time sighting of the Milky Way can have on human beings. Without exception, people are awestruck. I have heard non-Christians in such circumstances tell me that they were having a spiritual experience. In such settings it is so much easier to engage people in meaningful spiritual conversations than it is in light-polluted cities.

Less Revelation from Birds and Mammals

Job 12:7 encourages us to let animals reveal truth to us:

But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you. . . . (NIV)

“Animals” in the verse above refers to land mammals. Much of the rest of the book of Job explains how our contact with wild birds and mammals teaches us important spiritual lessons—lessons about ourselves, about God, and about how we can enter into a relationship with God.

A few of those lessons include the following:⁴

As birds and mammals were designed to relate to a higher species (us humans), we humans were also designed to relate to a higher Being.
As birds and mammals are motivated to serve and please a higher species, so too are we humans motivated to serve and please a higher Being.
As our sin and evil causes birds and mammals to flee from us rather than to seek us out and relate to us, serve, and please us, our sin and evil also causes us to run away from God or pretend he does not exist.
As it takes a higher being to tame a bird or mammal, it similarly takes a higher Being to tame a human being.
As the full potential and capability of a bird or a mammal is only manifested when the bird or mammal is strongly bonded to a higher being—namely, a human being—only when a human is strongly bonded to God is the full potential and capability of that human realized.

The problem faced by humans living in the twenty-first century is that the majority of the world’s humans live in huge metropolitan cities where they are cut off from significant contact with wild birds and mammals. They are especially cut off from birds and mammals that have never been abused by humans. Thus, they are not being exposed to the spiritual lessons provided through regular contact with wild birds and mammals that have never been threatened, hunted, or abused by humans.

On another positive note, I have experienced the impact of taking highly educated people out of the city and into a pristine natural environment where I encourage them to take time to be still and calmly observe wildlife. Seeing how motivated certain wild birds and mammals are to hang around us can be spiritually impactful. In such settings I have seen scientists, who in their university offices were very resistant to discussing Christianity, suddenly become eager to discuss spiritual matters.

Less Revelation from Natural Beauty

As I explained in my most recent book, Improbable Planet, we are living during a very narrow window of time in which the surface of Earth possesses more stunning, spectacular natural beauty than it ever has before.⁵ Spending time in such beautiful natural settings can be spiritually uplifting. It appeals to our aesthetic senses. It compels contemplation about why such beauty exists and what it means for our purpose in life. An example of how spiritually impactful beautiful nature scenes can be is what I saw happen to my colleagues in the astronomy department when I was a research fellow at the California Institute of Technology. In the hallways of the Robinson Laboratory of Astronomy and Astrophysics, all but a few of my fellow research astronomers were resistant to any kind of meaningful spiritual dialogue. However, when I would take some of them into the high alpine meadows of the Sierra Nevada mountain range not far from the Owens Valley Radio Observatory, everything changed.

I would ask them for their impression of the scene before us. They would say it was beautiful beyond description. I would then ask them why the scene was so beautiful. That question consistently led to an hour or several hours of discussion about God, Christianity, the universe and Earth’s design and purpose, and God’s purpose in creating human beings.

On one occasion in those high alpine meadows, I didn’t need to say a word. The atheist astronomer I was hiking with stopped and said to me, “Something weird is happening to me. I think I am having a spiritual experience.”

Explaining the Rise of Atheism
Throughout the latter part of the twentieth century and on into the twenty-first century, there has been a steady rise in the percentage of the world’s population who identify themselves as either atheists, agnostics, or deists. This steady rise is correlated with the increasing percentage of the world’s population who live in cities with inhabitants exceeding 1 million.

People living in cities of population sizes exceeding 1 million rarely, if ever, see the Milky Way, much less a hundred stars in the nighttime sky, wild birds and mammals in their natural environments, or beautiful natural scenic wonders. Much of the book of nature is cut off from them, especially those parts of the book of nature that most clearly reveal God, his attributes, and his plans for his creation and humanity. No wonder so many city dwellers struggle to find God. They may possess PhDs in the scientific disciplines from the top universities in the world, but because they are cut off from nature, in some respects they are more ignorant about science than people who lived thousands of years ago.

Many of you have asked me why I post so many of my nature photos on my Facebook page. It is because I not only want to show people God’s increasing revelation through emerging scientific discoveries in the scientific literature, but also want to show people the revelation from wild, unspoiled nature. My prayer is that the few photos I post will help reverse the trend of people living in the twenty-first century seeing less of God’s natural creation.

Endnotes

Fabio Falchi et al., “The New World Atlas of Artificial Night Sky Brightness,” Science Advances 2 (June 2016): e1600377, doi:10.1126/sciadv.1600377.
Ibid., 1.
Ibid.
I describe and explain these lessons and others in more depth in my book Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job: How the Oldest Book in the Bible Answers Today’s Scientific Questions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 119–73,
Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016), 211–12.

The post Does Nature Today Reveal More or Less About God? Part 2 appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Does Nature Today Reveal More or Less about God? Part 1

Hugh Ross — Mon, 14 Nov 2016 21:09:00 +0000

I get a lot of questions about how effectively science reveals God. One of the most common is, does science reveal more about God today than it did a century ago? Another question I receive is, if science reveals much more about God than it did in the past, why are there so many more atheists today than in the past?

My quick answer to these questions is that in one context, science indeed reveals much more about God, his attributes, and his plans than it did a century ago. In another context, however, science reveals much less about God, his attributes, and his plans than it did a century ago. In this blog article I will explain and describe how science reveals much more. In my next blog article I will explain and describe how science reveals much less, and why, consequently, in some parts of the world atheists and agnostics today make up a larger percentage of the population.

God’s Two Books

The Bible declares that God has revealed himself through two books. One is the book of Scripture; the other is the book of nature. Theologians often refer to these books, respectively, as special revelation and general revelation. Psalm 119 and 2 Timothy 3:15–16 are two of several biblical texts declaring the value, trustworthiness, and power of Scripture in revealing and establishing God’s existence, his attributes, and his plan for humanity. Psalm 19:1–4, Psalm 97:6, and Romans 1:18–20, likewise, are three of several Bible passages proclaiming the value, trustworthiness, and power of the realm of nature in revealing and establishing God’s existence, attributes, and plan and purpose for creating everything, and us human beings in particular.

In one context, the database of the book of Scripture has remained static for more than 19 centuries. The last of the 66 books of the Bible was penned sometime during the last decade of the first century AD.¹ In another context, it is far from static. Scholars from each successive generation of church history, in researching biblical texts, gleaned additional insight and understanding. This progression of biblical insight and understanding is in keeping with 1 Peter 1:12:

It was revealed to them [Old Testament prophets] that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things. (NIV)

The book of nature’s database has changed and continues to change in all contexts. Every day, scientists and others make new discoveries that add to humanity’s knowledge and understanding of the realm of nature. Daniel 12:4 prophetically declares that at the time of the end,

many will go here and there to increase knowledge. (NIV)

Most Bible scholars interpret this text as implying that in the epoch before the return of Jesus Christ, humanity will experience both a travel explosion and a knowledge explosion and that much of the travel will be motivated by the quest to expand knowledge.

Nature Revealing More

It is hard to deny that we are presently in the epoch Daniel spoke of. In my lifetime the published scientific research literature has expanded exponentially. For example, I started my subscription to the Astrophysical Journal when I was in my late teens. At that time, the page count for that journal was about 2,400 pages per year. Today, the pages for the journal are twice the size, and the page count runs about 36,000 pages per year.

That 30-fold expansion (15 times as many pages, times pages twice as large) is very conservative. When I was a teenager there were 15 major journals publishing research papers in astronomy and astrophysics. Today, there are more than 60.

Astronomy and astrophysics are not exceptional among the scientific disciplines. Every discipline of science has seen similar exponential increases in research findings. Furthermore, the number of scientific disciplines has greatly expanded.

What does this scientific information explosion say about nature’s revelation of God, his attributes, and his plans? It means that where several decades ago scientific discoveries that added to the weight of evidence for the Christian faith occurred on average about once a month, today they occur at a rate averaging several per day.

Just by myself, I post an average of four tweets per day alerting our constituents and others to recently published research papers that add to the body of evidence for the Christian faith and the Reasons to Believe biblical creation model. If you are not already a follower, I encourage you to check out my Twitter page. In each tweet I attempt to describe the discovery in 140 characters or less and always include a link to the actual research paper. That link gives you free access to the paper abstract, and most research paper abstracts give you the bottom line result of the research study in language that laypeople can understand. In some cases the entire paper is made available for free.

I am not alone. All of the scientist-evangelists on staff at Reasons to Believe regularly tweet about scientific discoveries adding to the weight of evidence for the Christian faith, and, like me, they write blog articles on the more significant of these discoveries.

Another dramatic demonstration of exponential growth in revelation about God from nature’s book is the increase in evidence for fine-tuning in the universe, solar system, and Earth that is needed to make possible the existence of life and of human beings (or their functional equivalent). In the first, second, and third editions of my book The Creator and the Cosmos—dated 1993, 1995, and 2001, respectively—I presented tables where I estimated the probability for attaining the necessary physical characteristics to make the existence of life possible somewhere in the universe without invoking divinely activated miracles. In 2006, I also updated a table on our website. A comparison of the four tables shows that the evidence for supernatural intervention to explain the fine-tuning needed to make life possible rises by more than a factor of 1,000 times per month. In other words, the measurable degree of fine-tuning design necessary to make long-lasting life possible increases by an average of more than a thousand times per month. For skeptics who struggle to believe in the Christian faith, we can challenge them to wait one month and observe how the fine-tuning evidence for God multiplies.

So, yes, today the book of nature is revealing much, much more about God, his nature, and his plan than in previous decades and centuries. That dramatically increased revelation from nature is what fuels the ministry of evangelism here at Reasons to Believe, in our chapters across the nation, and with all our volunteers and constituents. That exponential increase is what personally gives me hope that we may be able to complete the commission that Christ gave us to make disciples of all people groups within a few decades rather than several centuries.

Endnotes

Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 758.

The post Does Nature Today Reveal More or Less about God? Part 1 appeared first on Reasons to Believe.