You searched for Speciation - Reasons to Believe

New Speciation Model Challenges Evolution, Supports Creation

Hugh Ross — Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:00:00 +0000

Which model, naturalistic evolution or supernatural creation, best explains the pattern of life’s history on Earth? If a test produces “strikingly divergent results” for the expectations of a model, what does that tell us? A new study on speciation and extinction rates provides persuasive evidence.

Model Tenets
A fundamental tenet of all naturalistic models for the history of Earth’s life is that natural changes in the genomes of life will be responsible for the observed changes in the physical body structures (morphology) of life. Consequently, evolutionary trees (phylogenies, see figure 1) developed from the observed patterns in present-day genomes and the presumed natural rates of change of those genomes (molecular clocks). Assuming that strictly natural processes are responsible for the changes occurring throughout the history of life, the phylogenetic trees should match the morphological changes and the timing of those changes observed in the fossil record (or paleontological trees—see figure 2).

The same kind of match between the paleontology and phylogenetics can be realized if God intervened throughout life’s history. However, apparently only supernatural interventions can explain significant mismatches between phylogenetic and paleontological trees.

Figure 1: Phylogenetic Tree of Life Derived from Completely Sequenced Genomes. The center represents the presumed first life-form on Earth. The genomes denoted on the outer circle are based on actual genetic data. The branching patterns in the inner circle presume that all species are entirely related to one another through strictly natural processes. Image credit: Ivica Letunic

Figure 2: Spindle Diagram of the Presumed Evolution of Vertebrates. Width of the spindles indicates the number of extant families or the number of families represented in the fossil record. The curved (presumed) connecting lines are not supported by any physical remains. Image credit: Peter Bockman

In an open-access paperpublished in Nature Communications¹, four computational biologists and biochemists led equally by Daniele Silvestro and Rachel Warnock concede:

“The fossil record and molecular phylogenies of living species can provide independent estimates of speciation and extinction rates, but often produce strikingly divergent results.”²

Silvestro, Warnock, and their two colleagues do not concede, however, that supernatural interventions explain the “strikingly divergent results.” They attempt to offer a possible naturalistic explanation.

Divergence Is Real and Striking
Biologists use over a dozen different definitions of a species. In their paper, the Silvestro-Warnock team defines a species as “an identifiable taxonomic unit (a lineage) that can persist through time, give rise to other species, and become extinct.”³

The team first recognizes that since “extant and fossil species are samples of the same underlying diversification process,”⁴if the diversification process is by strictly natural means, researchers expect that in all cases the phylogenetic (presumed evolutionary) trees will match the paleontological (fossil record) trees. To put it another way, a match is expected since “methods used to estimate rates [of change] from fossils and phylogenies are based on the same underlying mathematical birth-death theory.”⁵The team then documents that evolutionary biologists can no longer deny the frequent and striking divergences between phylogenetic and paleontological trees.

The Silvestro-Warnock team cited a recent study of extant terrestrial Carnivora.⁶There, the estimated mean species longevity based on fossil evidence was 2.0 million years, contrasted with 9.8 million years derived from phylogenetics. They also cited a study demonstrating incongruence between phylogenies and fossils for primates.⁷They noted that, at least for mammals, the occurrences of congruence are few.⁸

Speciation rates derived from phylogenetics consistently supersede those derived from the fossil record, while derived extinction rates are consistently lower than speciation rates. Perhaps the best studied example (see featured image) is for cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises). The Silvestro-Warnock team cited research showing:

“Phylogenetic estimates of diversification rates among cetaceans suggest speciation has exceeded extinction over the past 12 Myr⁹ implying diversity has increased towards the recent. In contrast, analyses of the cetacean fossil record indicate extinction has exceeded speciation over this same interval, and that the diversity of cetaceans was in fact much higher than it is today.”¹⁰

In other words, the naturalistic biological evolution model based on phylogenetics predicts that introduction of new species has exceeded extinctions, but the fossil record shows that the reverse is true. The research team did not address the fact that the discrepancies between phylogenetics and the fossil record appear to increase with the complexity and the adult body size of the genus. By contrast, such a correlation is predicted from a biblical creation model perspective for life.¹¹

Silvestro, Warnock and collaborators do point out that several other researchers have attempted to explain the discrepancies by underestimates of the statistical and systematic errors in the two methods. However, the discrepancies in fact are much too large to be attributed to these errors.¹²

Attempted Reconciliation
The Silvestro-Warnock team suggests that many of the discrepancies between phylogenetics and the fossil record are due to sensitivities to different speciation modes. They identify three distinct modes of speciation that can leave behind fossil evidence without impacting the calculated phylogenetic trees:

Cladogenesis via budding: a speciation event that gives rise to one new species. The ancestral species persists and no extinction occurs.
Cladogenesis via bifurcation: a speciation event that gives rise to two new species, replacing the ancestral species, which becomes extinct.
Anagenetic speciation: evolutionary changes along a lineage that result in the origination of one new species and the extinction of the ancestral species.

They also point out that extinction without replacement is a frequent occurrence, where a species becomes extinct without leaving any descendants. More simply put, the fossil record includes extinct and extant (living) species; whereas phylogenetic data typically include extant species only.

Silvestro, Warnock, and their colleagues developed a model in which they unify budding, bifurcation, anagenesis, and extinction in a single “birth−death chronospecies” (BDC) process. Their BDC model shows that phylogenetic and paleontological speciation and extinction rate estimates will only be equal if all speciation has occurred through budding. Furthermore, they demonstrate that “even in an ideal scenario with fully sampled and errorless data sets, speciation and extinction rates can only be equal across phylogenetic and stratigraphic inferences if all speciation events have occurred through budding and no speciation has occurred through bifurcation or anagenesis”¹³(emphasis added). Their BDC model also reveals that phylogenetic analysis indicating extinction equal to zero does not imply that no extinction occurred.

Actual Reconciliation
The team’s BDC model establishes that relative to the fossil record, phylogenetics always underestimates extinction rates. The fossil record, which is largely incomplete, underestimates the true extinction rates. Much higher extinction rates pose a serious challenge to all strictly naturalistic models for Earth’s life because higher extinction rates require higher speciation rates to explain the increasing diversity of life observed in the fossil record throughout life’s history.

This requirement of higher speciation rates is all the more problematic for Earth’s most advanced species. For mammals, birds, and advanced plants, the observed extinction rates far exceed the observed speciation rates during the era of human existence (God’s seventh day when, according to Genesis 2, God ceased from his creation work and allowed natural processes operate).

The Silvestro-Warnock BDC model also exposes a fundamental limitation in naturalistic explanations for the history of Earth’s life. Since all naturalistic models require more than one speciation mode, and since the only way to reconcile phylogenetics and paleontology is to posit just one speciation mode, something other than strictly natural processes must operate.

Some evolutionary biologists will insist on the caveat that perhaps some unknown natural process might salvage a reconciliation between phylogenetics and paleontology. However, it is difficult to conceive how a natural process of sufficient magnitude to reconcile phylogenetics and paleontology could remain undiscovered. It appears to me that a creation model positing that the supernatural Creator intervened at several times throughout life’s history to replace life-forms driven to extinction fully reconciles this “discrepancy.” I am reminded of a verse (Psalm 104:24) from the longest of the creation psalms:

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

Featured image: Nine Different Cetacean Species. Featured image credit: Little Jerry, Creative Commons Attribution

Endnotes

Daniele Silvestro et al., “Closing the Gap between Palaeontological and Neonotological Speciation and Extinction Rate Estimates,” Nature Communications 9 (December 7, 2018): id. 5237, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07622-y.
Silvestro et al., “Closing the Gap,” 1.
Silvestro et al., “Closing the Gap,” 3.
Silvestro et al., “Closing the Gap,” 2.
Silvestro et al., “Closing the Gap,” 2.
Oskar Hagen et al., “Estimating Age-Dependent Extinction: Contrasting Evidence from Fossils and Phylogenies,” Systematic Biology 67, no. 3 (May 2018): 458–74, doi:10.1093/sysbio/syx082.
James P. Herrera, “Primate Diversification Inferred from Phylogenies and Fossils,” Evolution 71, no. 12 (December 2017): 2845–57, doi:10.1111/evo.13366.
Juan L. Cantalapiedra et al., “Congruent Phylogenetic and Fossil Signatures of Mammalian Diversification Dynamics Driven by Tertiary Abiotic Change,” Evolution 69, no. 11 (November 2015): 2941–53, doi:10.1111/evo.12787.
Daniel L. Rabosky, “Automatic Detection of Key Innovations, Rate Shifts, and Diversity-Dependence on Phylogenetic Trees,” PLoS ONE 9, no. 2 (February 26, 2014): id. E89543, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089543.
Charles R. Marshall, “Five Paleobiological Laws Needed to Understand the Evolution of the Living Biota,” Nature Ecology & Evolution 1 (May 23, 2017): id. 0165, doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0165; Lee Hsiang Liow, Tiago B. Quental, and Charles R. Marshall, “When Can Decreasing Diversification Rates Be Detected with Molecular Phylogenies and the Fossil Record?” Systematic Biology 59, no. 6 (December 2010): 646–59, doi:10.1093/sysbio/syq052; Catalina Pimiento et al., “The Pliocene Marine Megafauna Extinction and Its Impact on Functional Diversity,” Nature Ecology & Evolution 1 (June 26, 2017): 1100–1106, doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0223-6.
Hugh Ross, More Than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 149–79, https://support.reasons.org/purchase/more-than-a-theory.
Silvestro et al., “Closing the Gap,” 2.
Silvestro et al., “Closing the Gap,” 5.

The post New Speciation Model Challenges Evolution, Supports Creation appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Q&A: Where Does Speciation Fit in Creation?

Hugh Ross — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 04:04:00 +0000

From David—South Korea

Hello scholars!

I am a supporter of your ministry and appreciate the hard work you guys put into this effort. I have a question about your creation model. I understand that your model refutes the idea that all life-forms have a common ancestor. However, your scholars have also stated that limited speciation fits into your model. So, where do you draw the line on speciation? For example, does your model state that all cats (from saber-toothed tigers, lions, Bengal tigers, and pumas, down to the domestic short-hair) were created separately by God on a specific “day” of creation? Or does your model state that God created a “cat” and that it speciated into all the varieties of cat we see today?

****

Thank you for your question, David. We do believe that God, through His miraculous interventions, created various species during the creation week. The term “speciation” has at least sixteen different definitions in the scientific literature. Some of these definitions are so narrow that certain breeds of dogs and gray parrots would qualify as separate species. So, RTB’s understanding of speciation is based on the Hebrew word mîn, which means “biological kind.”

Specific texts within Scripture argue for a narrow definition of mîn. For example, the book of Leviticus 19:19 implies that different mîn can mate, but then states that “different kinds of animals” should not mate. In both Leviticus 11:13–18 and Deuteronomy 14:11–18 the horned owl, screech owl, little owl, great owl, and white owl are all referred to as separate mîn. Only these kinds of owls are described as “unclean,” while eating “any kind” of raven or hawk is declared unclean (emphasis added). Therefore, at least for birds, the definition of mîn appears roughly analogous to “species.” Also, in Leviticus 11:22, the text states “any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper” as separate mîn. In this passage the definition of mîn may have a meaning as broad as a genus.

What all this implies concerning God’s direct involvement in speciation is that God frequently intervened throughout the creation days to design new kinds of life. However, He created each new species with a built-in ability to adapt to changing environments. Because definitions of “species” are so varied and broad, many so-called speciation events may merely be examples of adaptation.

How does one know the difference between what is a miraculous speciation event and what is an example of adaptation? Biblically speaking, we can start by determining when the life-form in question appeared. Did it appear before or during the human era? Genesis 1 and 2 tell us God ceased creating new kinds life on the seventh day. Thus, during the human era only natural processes will occur in evolutionary biology. Before the human era (the six creation days), evolutionary biology will feature a combination of both natural and supernatural processes.

You can find a more detailed explanation of RTB’s perspective on speciation in my book Navigating Genesis.

The post Q&A: Where Does Speciation Fit in Creation? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Extinction Risks and Speciation Models

Hugh Ross — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:00:00 +0000

When human beings first arrived on the terrestrial scene, more than 8,000 species of mammals and more than 21,000 species of birds existed. Today, the number of extant species of mammals stands at 5,020 and fewer than 11,000 species of birds remain.

Ecologists have long known that birds and mammals face high extinction risks. Much evidence indicates that most, though not all, of the recent mammal and bird annihilations are caused by human activity. By examining what specific human activity resulted in extinction events, ecologists can gain an increased understanding of the natural (nonhuman) environmental processes that lead to extinction and the time scale over which such processes generate extinction events. This kind of research can determine whether or not evolutionary mechanisms are capable of generating new species at a rate adequate to compensate for extinctions. In this manner, competing creation/evolution models can be put to the test.

Three European evolutionary biologists examined geographical variation as a predictor of mammalian extermination risk.¹ They showed that extinctions were highest where large-scale land conversion (development) occurred, especially for high body mass species. In the process of their research, they found evidence for two correlations. First, the greater the degree and size of the land conversion the higher the rate of extinction. Second, the greater the body mass the higher the extinction rate. The biologists also discovered that the smaller the habitat size for a particular species, the higher its risk of imminent extinction. In terms of the immediate ecological situation, the researchers found that large body mass species “are at higher risk only in tropical regions.”² There are three obvious reasons for this result. First, land conversion as a result of human activity occurred decades and centuries ago in Earth’s temperate zones, whereas presently such conversion is most aggressive in the tropics. Second, habitat sizes for mammals tend to be smaller in the tropics than they are in temperate regions. Third, mammals follow Bergmann’s Rule, which states that the number of large-bodied animals and the average weight of those animals increases with higher latitudes.

The three evolutionary biologists concluded that “the interactions we describe between biological traits and anthropogenic threats increase understanding of the processes determining extinction risk.”³ In their paper the three decline to comment on exactly what strictly natural extinction risks are implied or on how these risks challenge evolutionary models.

In biology there is no agreed upon definition of a species. Some definitions are so narrow that the different breeds of dogs and cows would qualify as distinct species. If such extremely narrow definitions are discounted (as is the case for the species numbers quoted above), then it is true that humans have never directly observed the appearance of a new mammalian species. That is, during the human era, 3,000 species of mammals have gone extinct but no new ones have appeared.

While the rates at which strictly natural land conversion occurs are typically slower than the those generated by modern human activities, they are not so slow as to give even the most optimistic evolutionary models opportunities to produce enough new species to counterbalance the animals driven to extinction. For example, ice ages occur every hundred thousand years, super-volcanoes every half million years, and super-wildfires every thousand years. As for the degree of land conversion change, human impact is certainly no greater than the impact produced by strictly natural causes.

Thus, at least for mammals, some kind, or kinds, of supernatural interventions are needed to explain how thousands of different species have been maintained upon Earth for the past sixty-five million years. As for the lack of such maintenance over the past fifty thousand years, Genesis 1 explains that after God created Adam and Eve He rested, that is ceased, from His work of physical creation.

Endnotes

. Susanne A. Fritz et al., “Geographical Variation in Predictors of Mammalian Extinction Risk: Big is Bad, But Only in the Tropics,” Ecology Letters 12 (June 2009): 538–49.
Fritz et al., 538.
Ibid.

The post Extinction Risks and Speciation Models appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Evidence Favoring RTB’s Speciation Model

Hugh Ross — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 06:00:00 +0000

TNRTB Archive – Retained for reference information

A team of European and American conservation biologists has developed the most powerful and comprehensive field evidence to date for a major tenet of RTB’s speciation model. RTB’s model posits that large-body-sized species manifest a high probability for rapid extinction and a very low probability for speciation and, thus, are not candidates for natural evolution. The biologists’ study of 4,000 land mammal species spanning a body mass range from 2 grams to 4,000 kilograms showed that the slope of extinction risk against six established predictors of extinction becomes steeper with increasing body mass. In particular, a sharp increase in extinction risk occurs at a body mass of three kilograms. Above this size body mass “extinction risk begins to be compounded by the cumulative effects of multiple threatening factors,” the authors note. The team’s study establishes that land mammals with large body sizes possess extinction rates that are orders of magnitude larger than the most optimistic speciation rates. Consequently, mammals with large body sizes cannot be the product of natural process evolution.

Marcel Cardillo et al., “Multiple Causes of High Extinction Risk in Large Mammal Species,” Science 309 (2005): 1239-41.
https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5738/1239?rbfvrToken=889137c7a6a29669d5ad17e4b579ea78f4f81e0b

Related Resource

Hugh Ross, “The Faint Sun Paradox”

The post Evidence Favoring RTB’s Speciation Model appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Can Christians Believe in Evolution?

Reasons to Believe — Fri, 23 Jan 2026 17:54:58 +0000

Perhaps you’ve heard that science and the Christian faith are at odds. This rumored conflict between evolution vs. faith is often posed in the form of this question, “Can Christians believe in evolution?”

The very first verse in Genesis 1 tells us: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

This opening to God’s Word declares that there certainly was a beginning and, therefore, a Cause (or Beginner) to the universe. Christians believe that God created everything and that God’s hand can be seen throughout all the amazing architecture in our natural world—from the smallest cell to the vastest galaxies and beyond.

But how did God create the heavens and the earth?

People have asked this question for thousands of years and have come up with many different ideas, including the theory of evolution.

Before we get into this topic, it’s important to remember that each person’s belief regarding evolution is a secondary issue in theology. Thankfully, no matter what your viewpoint is on evolution, it does not dictate if you are (or can be) saved by Jesus Christ. Yes, it’s an important and relevant topic, but it doesn’t impact our salvation.

As a curious person, you might be wondering . . .

Can Christians Believe in Evolution?

Christians can believe in a number of scientific concepts that aren’t explicitly outlined in the Bible, such as cells, molecules, photosynthesis, gravity, etc.

However, some scientific concepts—like evolution—can both align with and challenge the Christian worldview in different ways. When it comes to evolution, the question becomes: Which worldview best lines up with the evidence in nature and the truth of the Bible? Both will give us clues.

Christians hold different views when trying to understand how God created.

The three most common views are:

Young-earth creationism (YEC)
Theistic evolution / evolutionary creation (TE)
Old-earth creationism (OEC)

Each view engages the topic of evolution differently, but all three accept at least portions of evolutionary theory. Reasons to Believe holds an old-earth creationism position and believes it offers the best explanation for what we see in the record of nature and the words of Scripture. RTB also remains skeptical of the extent to which the evolutionary paradigm explains the history of life.

But . . . What Exactly Is Evolution?

The concept of evolution emerged in the mid-19th century to help explain our ever-changing natural world. When it comes to the origin of the universe and life on Earth, evolution remains the predominant idea being taught in schools.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the definition of evolution is “any change in the frequency of [gene variants] within a population from one generation to the next.”This means that any change in a living organism’s genetics from one generation to the next is within the realm of “evolution” (i.e., plants, animal breeds, eye color, etc.).

More simply put, evolution = changes over time.

The concept of evolution predates Charles Darwin. However, Darwin progressed and popularized the term “evolution” and the theory in connection to natural selection in the 1800s through his writings On the Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871).

Images from your high school textbook are probably coming to mind!

Darwin’s ideas led to something called the evolutionary paradigm, which many scientists use in an attempt to explain any biological change or even the emergence of life in the universe. The problem is, this paradigm is a mixture of proven concepts and unproven theories.

Let’s unpack it so you can clearly see which parts are well-supported by science and which ones are not.

Breaking Down the Evolutionary Paradigm

Within the evolutionary paradigm, there are five categories:

Microevolution: the idea that gene frequencies can change in a population (like peppered moths changing wing color in response to environmental pollution)
Speciation: the idea that one species gives rise to a closely related sister species (like the Galapagos finches changing into types of species via reproduction)
Microbial evolution: the idea that microorganisms can evolve (like bacteria acquiring resistance to antibiotics)
Chemical evolution/“origin of life”: the idea that molecules can self-organize into the very first cells via repetitive production (like simple chemicals assembling into complex molecular systems on early Earth)
Macroevolution: the idea that one major group can give rise to another group (like an ape-like creature giving rise to humans)

The first three categories are well-evidenced and noncontroversial. We see them working in our everyday lives when we go to the zoo or are given a flu vaccine at the doctor’s office. Many of us even take delight in microevolution when considering which dog or cat to choose as our beloved family pet!

But the last two, chemical evolution and macroevolution, are proposed concepts and lack full scientific rigor and support. This is why RTB remains skeptical of the full evolutionary paradigm.

Chemical evolution tries to explain how life on Earth began using only natural processes. The main idea behind it is that the basic building blocks of life—the “essential stuff” that’s loaded with detailed information (like DNA, proteins, and cells)—supposedly came together through natural processes, without any outside help. Scientists working in this field are hoping to find a way to explain how this could happen all on its own, to avoid the need for a miracle.

However, current evidence doesn’t support the idea of chemical evolution. Even with experiments in labs trying to recreate the conditions of early Earth, scientists can’t produce life without stepping in and guiding the process. This shows that natural processes alone might not be enough to explain how life started

In What Darwin Didn’t Know, biochemist Dr. Fazale “Fuz” Rana explains:

While early, sudden, and complex life makes little sense from an evolutionary perspective, a creation explanation seems reasonable. If God introduced first life on Earth, it would appear instantaneously and abundantly in a complex form.

When we look at the origin of life, it seems that a divine hand is more likely than chemical evolution.

Macroevolution similarly falls short. There’s not enough data to support this idea. For example, macroevolution fails to explain:

the sudden emergence of complex cells (the Eukaryotic big bang)
the rapid diversification of multicellular organisms (the Cambrian explosion)
the rapid diversification and expansion of numerous new species including fish, birds, and mammals (radiation events in vertebrate history)
the sudden emergence of art, language, and technology (origin of social consciousness)
And much more

Many supporters of macroevolution suggest that humans evolved from ape-like creatures through a line that may have included Neanderthals or Denisovans. In this model, scientists attempt to explain the origin of humans without the need for a Creator. But there’s not enough evidence to support human evolution, either.

Learn more about the evidence (or lack thereof) for microevolution vs. macroevolution and watch below to hear how Dr. Fazale Rana briefly responds to macroevolution:

So, to respond to the question “Do Christians Believe in Evolution?,” the simple answer is yes and no.

Evolution, at best, can offer explanatory power for the development of much of the life we see on Earth.
Evolution, at worst, attempts to explain away a Creator who seems not only probable but necessary!

Evolution and the Bible

A similar question to the one above is: Can Christianity and evolution coexist? Earlier, we presented three common Christian views on the creation of the universe: young-earth creationism (YEC), theistic evolution (TE), and old-earth creationism (OEC).

Can a Christian hold any of these positions and embrace at least a form of evolution?

Concept	Young-Earth Creationism (YEC)	Theistic Evolution (TE)	Old-Earth Creationism (OEC)
Microevolution	+	+	+
Speciation	+	+	+
Microbial Evolution	+	+	+
Chemical evolution (Origin of Life)	–	+	–
Macroevolution	–	+	–

Young-earth creationism

Generally speaking, YEC rejects much of modern science concerning the antiquity (ancient nature) of the universe, Earth, and life’s history in order to fit a six 24-hour day reading of the Genesis 1 creation events. YEC would not be compatible with chemical evolution or macroevolution.

Without diverting from the primary purposes of this article, there are many robust biblical and theological reasons to question if YEC is the most accurate reading of Genesis 1–11 as well. We suggest exploring the days of creation or looking at how old the earth is according to the Bible.

Theistic evolution

Theistic evolution (also referred to as evolutionary creationism) accepts the scientific evidence for the antiquity of the universe, Earth, and life’s history and views the fossil record as a reflection of life’s history. But just as the name suggests, this view accepts evolution (including macroevolution), arguing that God created through evolutionary processes. Theistic evolutionists see no conflict between the evolutionary paradigm and Christianity because they believe the biblical creation account is symbolic or allegorical.

Theistic evolution also sees the Bible and nature as separate domains. Though adherents consider both to be valuable, they believe these realms should not necessarily be integrated.

Old-earth creationism

OEC accepts the antiquity of the universe, Earth, and life’s history, viewing the fossil record as a proxy (a representative tool for dating) for a real history of life on Earth. OEC expresses skepticism about the claim that all of biology can be explained as the outworking of evolutionary processes (think back to our conversation about chemical evolution and macroevolution). In other words, OEC would not be compatible with chemical or macroevolution.

Alternatively, this perspective argues that key transitions in life’s history require the Creator’s intervention. Features of biological systems seem to reflect intelligent design and the hand of an all-powerful Creator. OEC sees the Bible and nature as harmonious forms of revelation from God to humanity. When accurately interpreted, both sources point to the same truths since those truths originate from he who is truth.

Biblically speaking, the primary contention between TE and OEC is in regards to the mode of divine action. Does God intervene occasionally when he creates or does he create through natural processes alone?

Fazale Rana shares part of his testimony, why he believes OEC offers the best explanation for life, and why he does not subscribe to the TE position:

This is all well and good, but . . .

What Does the Bible Say About Evolution?

In Genesis 1, we read of key moments in the creation events. Eight times the text expresses that God spoke and then creation responded. Those phenomena include the appearance of light, separation of waters, land and sea, vegetation on the land, separation of day and night, creatures of the sea and air, creatures of the land, and, finally, man and woman.

It’s helpful to understand the verbiage of the original text of Genesis 1. The Hebrew verb bārā’ means “created” and is used three times in the chapter. In its basic form, it refers to only one subject—God—and refers to a type of creation that only God could do. It’s called creation ex nihilo or creation out of nothing. In chapter 1, this term is used when God creates the heavens and the earth, the sea creatures and the birds, and humans (Adam and Eve). In other places in the text, other verb forms are used for the act of creation such as: ‘āśâ (make, fashion, create, execute, manufacture); hāyâ (be, happen, come about); dāshā’ (sprout, bring forth, produce, or spring forth); and others. This means that there are at least three acts of special creation. One involves God creating from nothing (bārā’). A second points to other acts of creation where God’s hand guides the continued development of the earth according to the laws of nature that he had established (dāshā’). And in a third, ‘āśâ, God is directly and personally involved in his creative acts.

Creation Event	Hebrew Verb	Meaning of Verb
Creation of the heavens and earth	Bārā’	Creation ex nihilo (out of nothing, only God can do)
Creation of sea creatures and birds	Bārā’	Creation ex nihilo
Creation of humans (Adam and Eve)	Bārā’	Creation ex nihilo
Creation of vegetation	Dāshā’	God’s guidance through natural processes
Creation of land and sea	Dāshā’	God’s guidance through natural processes
Creation of creatures of the land	Dāshā’	God’s guidance through natural processes
Creation of light	‘Āśâ	Direct personal involvement of God
Separation of waters	‘Āśâ	Direct personal involvement of God
Separation of day and night	‘Āśâ	Direct personal involvement of God

We can see this principle (of God’s intervention) demonstrated by findings in the fields of chemistry, biology, physics, and astronomy. A special hand of intervention from a Designer was needed to get the necessary elements for life (such as hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen). From there, other basic chemical structures would appear.

As revealed in geology, paleoanthropology, and biology, creation’s response to God’s divine action resulted in the proliferation and complexity of life. Otherwise, it would be impossible to get the diversity of creatures we see today in a short (from an evolutionary perspective) time.

Creation and evolution (God’s hand guiding continued development) together are fulfilling God’s plan. Evidence reveals the literal “spark” of creative action from God and the guided outflow of natural processes that continue his work. The result is an exquisitely designed, flourishing universe.

Also, Genesis speaks of the personal nature of God’s creation of humanity. The creation of humans is the only time that God creates “in his own image” (1:27) and with his “breath” (2:7). God then gives humans a commission (1:28). This account presents a significant challenge to the evolutionary paradigm since it implies that humans were a special creation, not a continuation of other evolved forms. For more information on the creation of Adam and Eve and the insufficiency of the evolutionary explanation, we recommend Who Was Adam?

How Should I Talk About Evolution with My Friends and Family?

Evolution is a complex subject with a long history and a variety of definitions.

Great conversations start with curious questions. Start by figuring out what your family or friends think “evolution” means and what categories they’re aware of. (For example, some people have no idea that microevolution and macroevolution are two very different concepts.)

Always define your terms—it helps everyone stay on the same page. And recognize that, as truth seekers, we want to follow the evidence.

If you express skepticism toward evolution, you can introduce a discussion based on wanting the “best evidence.” That approach will go much further than a hard statement or closed-minded attitude. If we believe “all truth is God’s truth,” we can be confident in this approach.

And remember, your friends and family may believe the rumor that the conversation is about evolution vs. faith. But you can help uncover the hand of God and separate fact from fiction.

To help you even further in this conversation, download our free ebook What Darwin Didn’t Know, where you’ll learn how 150 years of scientific advancements have impacted Darwin’s theory. Or, if you’re ready for a comprehensive deep dive into this topic, check out our online course, Creation vs. Naturalism, through Reasons Institute.

The post Can Christians Believe in Evolution? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Current Science: A Counter to Atheism and a Basis for Faith

Guest Writer — Thu, 11 May 2023 12:00:00 +0000

In the 2009 BCS National Championship Game, Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow inscribed John 3:16 on his eyeblack, inspiring some 90 million people to search the verse—evidently for the first time.¹ This is a remarkable contrast to the early days of our nation, when cultural literacy would have included at least a rudimentary knowledge of the Bible and verses like John 3:16 would have been familiar, if not memorized. In that era, belief in a God who created the universe, the earth, and every living thing on it was the norm. Clearly there has been a huge cultural shift.

Both then and now, John’s words are an ageless call for personal reflection. Yet it would seem that the message of eternal life and deliverance from a perishing world is not vital today. Priority for a seemingly distant God has fallen well below the “urgencies” of daily living. And who would honestly place themselves in spiritual peril? For some, their unpracticed faith has gone cold. Others stress that they have no need for religion, or for God. Spiritually tone-deaf, they may find a refuge in Nietzsche’s lament: “God is dead.”

Science and Secularism
Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was one of several powerful voices in the nineteenth century responsible for the cultural shift. His oft-quoted mantra was hardly a boast. It was a statement of despair, rooted in his observation that a world reduced and compartmentalized through empirical science, enlightened thinking, and modern philosophy had eliminated the need for a sovereign transcendent creator. He also predicted the consequential emergence of a nihilistic worldview absent of meaning or purpose—trending to social and civic tyranny.² Does this seem prophetic?

How did we get here? Is there a counter to a godless worldview: a path to refresh lost faith? It appears Nietzsche had it right. The march of science and increasingly secular ideas from the mid-nineteenth century forward has framed a mainstream worldview absent of God, where religious belief has been marginalized to myth.

Adding to Nietzsche’s views, it’s been said that Charles Darwin gifted atheism with a scientific foundation. If natural, random processes can account for the diversity of life and all speciation, then what intellectual space remains for a creator?

Soon after Darwin’s ideas went public, astronomers³ discovered a breathtaking, expansive universe, with countless galaxies far beyond our Milky Way. Did these findings reinvigorate belief in supernatural creation? No. Intellectuals characterized Earth as an insignificant, accidental dust speck in the immensity of space. With these presumptions it is understandable that twentieth-century writers and philosophers would consider humanity as just another species thrown into an uncaring, godless universe with no hope beyond the grave.

In a complimentary vein, renowned scientists such as Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and Richard Dawkins leveraged their platforms to argue that the universe is all there is, all there ever was, and all we need to know. It appears that secular science—“all there is to know”—has displaced theology. God has been deemed unnecessary; John 3:16 is irrelevant.

These subjective, lingering narratives are pervasive in our culture, and one could argue that they have fostered religious doubt and apathy, cast a shadow over individual meaning and purpose, spawned nihilism, seeded agnosticism, and promoted atheism. The normalization of secular science within our education systems may well account for the lack of self worth expressed by many young people.

Perhaps the “death” or irrelevance of God (to man) has been an off-ramp to our polarized culture. Instead of a God human beings will answer to, it seems that a godless universe and behavior without ultimate consequences are reflected in spiking crime rates, disrespect for tradition, silencing of opposing beliefs, shaming, bullying, runaway drug-related deaths, human trafficking, gender confusion, corrupt and weak leadership, increased depression, escalating suicide rates, and school massacres. It’s all evidence of a deeply fallen and menacing world.

Science in Transformation
I believe we have reached a major turning point. In recent decades, discoveries in both the life and physical sciences have radically transformed our understanding of the universe’s origin and its purpose: a world designed for advanced civilization. The implications of these discoveries counter the atheistic premises of scientists, philosophers, and intellectuals bounded within a naturalist worldview. In a kind of scientific coup, Darwinism has been neutered and Sagan dethroned.

Biological Complexity
Darwin’s core theories, built on random natural mechanisms and extensive time, struggle to account for:

The (geologically) sudden appearance of new, complex fossils exhibiting advanced body structures in the Cambrian geological era.⁴
Examples of extreme biological complexity; for example, biological coding and information processing.

In DNA replication, an ensemble of proteins unwinds DNA strands (lengthy, four-bit coded sequences), then reads, replicates, error checks, corrects, and generates new DNA code and winds up a copy strand.⁵ In a Darwinian world, the codependence of the DNA strands and the protein ensembles would require their independent, concurrent evolution, including their mutual functionality—hardly the signature of an unguided process.

Cosmic Singularity
General relativity (1915) predicted the hot big bang origin of matter, energy, space and time, and the physical laws governing the universe.⁶ This prediction was validated empirically by cosmic microwave background measurements in the mid 1960s. Soon after, physicists Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose published theorems that affirmed the notion that the universe had an origin.⁷ Though some people retain doubt due to the lack of a quantum theory of gravity, that singular moment in which everything natural came into existence from nothing is, by definition, a transcendent event, implying a cause apart from our universe.

Other discoveries have revealed that advanced human life depends on hundreds of extremely fined-tuned physical properties of the cosmos. Examples include the detailed external and internal structures of the universe, such as (1) its size, mass, and age; (2) the size, shape, and stability of the Milky Way Galaxy (MWG); (3) the location of our solar system in the MWG; (4) a multitude of unique solar system features such as our sun’s structure, material content, stability; and (5) the precise number, types, and orbits of the planets.⁸

This growing aggregation of staggeringly precise, life-critical, physical properties strongly points to this: the universe appears to be singularly intended for human habitation.⁹

Science and Belief
I contend that 170-plus years of atheistic bias built on a limited understanding of the cosmos and the life sciences has lost its rational foundation. Moreover, the evidence of pervasive intentional design suggests a designer apart from this universe. In our time, scientific rigor is providing reasons to believe in a transcendent Creator of all that is and all that ever was.

Over 3,000 years ago, before telescopes, spectroscopes, interferometers, and other advanced technology, when cloudless nights would reveal a breathtaking panoply of stars and galaxies, David, the Jewish king and psalmist, wrote these inspired words:¹⁰

The heavens declare the glory of God;

the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Day after day they pour forth speech;

night after night they reveal knowledge.

Yet for many today, the cloud of secular science has been an intimidating barrier, and a source of doubt to belief in God. But now, we can confidently push aside its spiritually suffocating tenets. A search for spiritual meaning and purpose in a deeply fallen world can start with understanding that the natural world we depend on has supernatural meaning and purpose. That knowledge can open a fresh perspective and provide a solid foundation on which to build personal faith in a loving Creator who grants everlasting life to all who trust in him.

Endnotes

Patrick Pinak, “Relive Tim Tebow’s John 3:16 ‘Coincidence’ That Creeped Everyone Out,” Fanbuzz, August 12, 2022.
Jordan B. Peterson, Beyond Order (New York: Penguin Portfolio, 2021), Rule VI, 162.
For example, Edwin Hubble, Henrietta Leavit, Georges LeMaître, and Vespo Sipher, circa 1910–1927.
Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2013), Kindle Edition. During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about 20 of the roughly 26 total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on Earth.
Fazale R. Rana with Kenneth R. Samples, Humans 2.0 (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2019).
Jeff Zweerink, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?”, RTB publication, July 1, 2016.
Jeff Zweerink, “Hawking’s Final Word on the Beginning,” Impact Events (blog), Reasons to Believe, May 11, 2018.
Hugh Ross, Designed to the Core (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2022).
Ross, Designed to the Core.
Psalm 19:1–4.

The post Current Science: A Counter to Atheism and a Basis for Faith appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Is Scientific Naturalism Dead?

Guest Writer — Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:00:00 +0000

Scientific naturalism or materialism is the worldview that the universe is the extent of all reality. Thus, all that occurs is the result of natural processes and laws.¹ The prominent atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel affirms, “among the scientists and philosophers who do express views about the natural order as a whole, reductive materialism is widely assumed to be the only serious possibility.”² But is the confidence often found in the academy for naturalism as a worldview justified? The emerging data and converging lines of reasoning show that confidence in naturalism is misplaced.

In my recent book, Jesus Is God and Savior, I explain and critique what naturalists affirm about important existential questions. In this post, I will briefly discuss six things naturalists affirm and show how the evidence and reasoning contradict these views.

Figure 1: Complex aquatic creatures of the Cambrian period appeared without signs of evolution from previous animals. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

Naturalist Affirmation 1: God does not exist.
In Does God Exist? philosopher William Lane Craig presents several arguments for God’s existence.

Craig casts the teleological argument in terms of the fine-tuning that is observed in the universe. What is the source of the fine-tuning? Is it necessity, chance, or design? Craig concludes that the fine-tuning is not due to necessity since the physical constants of the universe could be other than they are.³ Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has shown that the probability that the constants of the universe could be set as they are on a random basis is virtually zero. Ross writes, “Unless the number of electrons is equivalent to the number of protons to an accuracy of one part in 10³⁷ or better, electromagnetic forces in the universe would have overcome gravitational forces so that galaxies, stars, and planets would never have formed.”⁴ Yet the probability of finding a life-supporting planet in the entire universe is even more remote. Ross has compiled a list of 676 parameters that must be fine-tuned to permit life on a planet. He estimates that the probability of finding a life-permitting planet, apart from divine intervention, is one in 10⁵⁵⁶.⁵

Thus, necessity and chance are ruled out and design emerges as the only reasonable explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. The Designer (God) must be immensely powerful and knowledgeable. If God exists, it cannot be the case that only the universe exists.

Naturalist Affirmation 2: Life arose by naturalistic means.
In a now-famous letter from February of 1871, Charles Darwin wrote to Thomas Hooker and suggested that the production of a living organism might have taken place “in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity” present.⁶ Darwin’s letter to Hooker fanned the flames of the chemical evolution movement, asserting that the origin of the first living cell was the result of random and chemical processes. Without the first living cell, evolution by natural selection (ENS) could not commence. But did the first living cell arise by chemical evolution? According to Nobel laureate Jack Szostak and Harvard-affiliated researcher Alonso Ricardo, “It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell’s machines, which are mostly protein-based catalysts called enzymes, could have formed spontaneously as life first arose from nonliving matter around 3.7 billion years ago.”⁷

Stephen Meyer, philosopher of science and author of Signature in the Cell, estimates the probability of a minimally complex cell arising by random chance and chemical evolution is one in 10^41,000.⁸ Thus, Meyer concludes, “The probability of producing the proteins necessary to build a minimally complex cell—or the genetic information necessary to produce those proteins—by chance is unimaginably small.”⁹

Naturalist Affirmation 3: The present diversity of life is the result of evolution by natural selection.
If the theory of evolution by natural selection is correct, the present observed diversity of life should be preceded by almost countless transitional forms as mutations gradually accumulated to form new species. Perhaps the most conspicuous failure of ENS is the rapid speciation during the Cambrian era recorded in the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies. The Cambrian explosion of life began about 540 million years ago and, by one estimate, lasted only 410,000 years.¹⁰ During this period, most of the 30 animal phyla present today appeared in a period too short to allow for the gradual ENS envisioned by Darwin. Cambrian-era creatures contained trillions of cells. In contrast, Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould noted that the creatures of the Precambrian period found just below Cambrian shale layers were mere bacteria and blue-green algal cells devoid of nuclei and mitochondria.¹¹ In recognition of the Cambrian fossil problem, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins opines, “the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation.”¹² Dawkins rejects that alternative without providing rationale for his rejection.¹³

Naturalist Affirmation 4: The mind is a product of the brain which ceases to exist upon death.
Naturalists often argue that the mind is a product of the brain and the physiological processes in the central nervous system. Thus, they would affirm that when the body dies, the mind dies, and no afterlife is possible. However, evidential near-death experiences (NDEs) show that the mind continues to function even after clinical death (pulse and breathing have stopped) or brain death (flat-line EEG). In contrast to heavenly NDEs (in which the person claims they saw heaven), evidential NDEs take place on Earth, as those who are resuscitated from clinical and brain death provide verifiable and correct information regarding the events occurring during their incapacitated state.¹⁴ According to the radiation oncologist and recognized NDE researcher Jeffrey Long, “Near-death experiences (NDEs) are reported by about 17% of those who nearly die.”¹⁵

In their book, Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality, professors Gary Habermas and J. P. Moreland give numerous examples and reference large studies of corroborated evidential NDEs occurring in individuals who were comatose, clinically dead, or had flatline EEGs. Yet, upon resuscitation, these individuals are often able to provide details of their treatment, events in the hospital outside of the treatment setting, and sometimes events occurring in their homes or elsewhere. Evidential NDEs demonstrate that the mind can function apart from the body, showing that the mind is distinct from the body.¹⁶

Naturalist Affirmation 5: Humans are the ultimate source of morality.
Christian thinkers such as C. S. Lewis and William Lane Craig have defended the moral argument for the existence of God, stating that humans are imbued with a universal moral code or objective moral values that transcend time and location. Societies in recorded history have prohibited stealing, the murder of innocents, rape, bearing false witness, and other injustices. If God does not exist, there are no objective moral values. In the Darwinian framework, survival of the fittest is incompatible with the altruism and longing for justice found in all human beings. But in a theist framework, altruism and a desire for justice make perfect sense. If there are universal moral laws, there must be a universal moral Lawgiver (God) who is the source of morality. Some have argued that the universal moral code is a result of ENS. Yet, if that were the case, there would be morals, but not objective morals. That is to say, under different evolutionary pressures, a culture might have evolved where the murder of innocents, rape, and injustice were viewed positively, which is hard to conceive.¹⁷

Naturalist Affirmation 6: Jesus was a mere mortal.
Finally, contrary to naturalists’ skepticism, the best explanation for the historical events which occurred in the first century is that Jesus rose from the dead. Resurrection scholars Gary Habermas and Michael Licona defend the resurrection on the basis of four minimal facts. Their argument does not presume the truth of the Bible since it only uses facts accepted by virtually all New Testament scholars—conservative, liberal, skeptical, and agnostic. The facts are as follows:

Jesus died by crucifixion.
Jesus’s disciples believed he rose from the dead and appeared to them.
The church persecutor Paul was suddenly converted.
The skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, was suddenly converted.

A fifth fact would be affirmed by about 75% of the same group of scholars: The tomb of Jesus was empty on Sunday morning.¹⁸ In The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Habermas and Licona consider all naturalistic explanations for the minimal facts and they show, one by one, why they all fail. Thus, they conclude that the best explanation for the minimal facts is that Jesus rose from the dead. Since a dead man could not raise himself, the minimal facts point to a transcendent God who controls natural processes and Jesus as his divine agent who entered space-time.

Naturalism Is a Failed Worldview
This brief presentation of evidence and reasoning contradicts six naturalists’ affirmations while affirming the Christian theist worldview. How many strikes must naturalism be afforded before it is ruled out as a viable worldview? Insight into the lengths that atheists and naturalists will go to preserve the possibility of a purely material world is found in Thomas Nagel’s candid revelation.

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.¹⁹

The retreat from the Christian theist worldview has been hasty and ill-founded in light of the evidence. As Paul writes in Romans 1:18, men suppress the truth in unrighteousness. One day, all the unrighteousness and desires of humans will be swept aside as Jesus, the King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:11–16), returns on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Matthew 24:29–31). Thus, the urgency to the share the gospel of Jesus Christ has never been greater.

Endnotes

Steven Schafersman, “Naturalism is Today an Essential Part of Science,” Conference on Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise, accessed August 14, 2022, https://holtz.org/Library/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Naturalism%20by%20Schafersman%201997.html.
Thomas Nagel, Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 4.
William Lane Craig, Does God Exist? (Pine Mountain, GA: Impact 360, 2014), 496-704, Kindle.
Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2018), 170.
Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 216–218.
Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 7471,” accessed March 4, 2023, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-7471.xml.
A. Ricardo and J. W. Szostak, “Origin of Life on Earth,” Scientific American, September 1, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0909-54.
Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (New York: Harper One, 2009), 213.
Meyer, Signature in the Cell, 213.
Ulf Linnemann et al., “New High-Resolution Age Data from the Ediacaran-Cambrian Boundary Indicate Rapid, Ecologically Driven Onset of the Cambrian Explosion,” Terra Nova 31, no. 1 (February 2019): 49–58, doi:10.1111/ter.12368.
Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (New York: Norton, 1980), 139.
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1996), 230.
Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 230.
Daniel Cote, Jesus Is God and Savior: How Prophecy, Science, and History Affirm the Truth of Christianity (Watertown, CT: Multimedia Apologetics, 2022), 193.
Jeffrey Long, “Near-death Experience. Evidence for Their Reality,” Missouri Medicine 111, no. 5 (September–October 2014): 372–380, doi:.
Gary R. Habermas and J. P. Moreland, Beyond Death (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1998), 155–172; Cote, Jesus Is God and Savior, 193–200.
Cote, Jesus Is God and Savior, 31–34.
Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2004), 48–76.
Thomas Nagel, The Last Word (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 130.

The post Is Scientific Naturalism Dead? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

What Darwin Didn't Know about the Sun

Hugh Ross — Mon, 03 Apr 2023 12:00:00 +0000

Charles Darwin is widely acknowledged as “one of the most influential figures in human history.”¹ The New Scientist credits Darwin’s seminal books, On the Origin of Species² and The Descent of Man,³ as doing the most “to knock man off his pedestal.”⁴

Darwin’s proposition that all life on Earth is descended by strictly naturalistic mechanisms from a common ancestor—the first microbe—fundamentally rested on the assumption that the Sun’s energy output has not changed throughout the entire history of life on Earth. In Darwin’s day, scientists presumed that the Sun’s radiation output was constant. Therefore, the Sun did not factor into Darwin’s hypothesis for the origin of species. He is not alone. Evolutionary biologists, geneticists, and paleontologists today likewise do not factor possible changes in the Sun into their explanations for life’s history.

During Darwin’s lifetime, the only known source for the Sun’s radiation output was gravitational collapse. Physicists, notably Lord Kelvin, calculated that the Sun’s energy output must have remained unchanged throughout the existence of life.

It is now indisputably established that 99% of the Sun’s energy output arises from the nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium and the remaining 1% from the nuclear fusion of helium into carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen.⁵ Helium, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen are all much denser than hydrogen. Therefore, ongoing nuclear fusion causes the density in the Sun’s core where nuclear fusion occurs to increase continuously. This increasing solar core density results in the Sun’s nuclear furnace burning ever more efficiently. Today, the Sun is 19–24% more luminous (brighter) than it was at the time of life’s origin 3.8 billion years ago (see figure).

Figure: Sun’s Luminosity History
Diagram credit: Hugh Ross

Normally, a 2% change in solar luminosity would wipe out all life, either through a runaway freezing or a runaway evaporation of all surface water. A 1% change would mean the end of advanced plants and animals. What prevented such a catastrophe from occurring was a perfectly measured and timed drawdown of Earth’s greenhouse gases, combined with a perfectly measured and timed alteration of Earth’s albedo (reflectivity). As the Sun kept getting brighter and brighter, the quantity of atmospheric greenhouse gases decreased and Earth’s albedo altered so that the planet’s temperature remained optimal for life.

The drawdown of greenhouse gases plays, by far, the biggest role in compensating for the Sun’s increasing luminosity. That drawdown occurs through two processes: the silicate-carbonate cycle and the burial of organic carbon. The silicate-carbonate cycle is where rain and dew, acting as a catalyst, falls on exposed silicates (the continents are predominantly silicate rock), generating a chemical reaction of converting silicates and carbon dioxide (a powerful greenhouse gas) from the atmosphere into carbonates and sand.⁶

Different life-forms regulate how much silicate rock gets exposed to liquid water, how much dew forms, and how much rain falls from clouds. For example, shrubs and trees possess root systems capable of penetrating the upper 6 meters (20 feet) of bedrock,⁷ thereby greatly expanding the silicate surface area that is exposed to liquid water. These same shrubs and trees are able to access and use water stored in bedrock, converting most of this water into transpiration (exhalation of water vapor to the atmosphere through their stomata). This transpiration increases rates of precipitation. The increased precipitation accelerates the silicate-carbonate cycle, which draws more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Microbes, plants, and animals all take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, either directly or indirectly, to manufacture organic carbon compounds. The burial of the bodies of these organisms by floods, landslides, volcanic eruptions, or other tectonic events prevents the decay of the bodies and the release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Ensuring that the just-right kinds, diversity, and abundance of life exist at just-right times and places guarantees that greenhouse gases are removed from the atmosphere at just-right rates to compensate for the Sun’s increasing luminosity. Furthermore, life is so abundant and ubiquitous that it substantially affects Earth’s albedo, both altering the cloud cover and the reflectivity of Earth’s surface. Thus, organisms compensate for the Sun’s increasing luminosity in four different ways: (1) by regulating the silicate-carbonate cycle, (2) by altering the organic carbon burial rate, (3) by changing the atmospheric chemistry and cloud cover, and (4) by changing Earth’s reflectivity.

It is not just the Sun’s luminosity that changes over time. The kinds of radiation emitted by the Sun also change in dramatic ways. Similarly, solar flaring activity and luminosity variability change, too. These alterations affect which kinds of life can thrive on Earth at which times. Such changes pose a challenge to ensuring that just-right life is present to compensate for the Sun’s increasing luminosity.

Unless all four of life’s compensating factors are at just-right levels at all times throughout the past 3.8 billion years, then life no longer thrives and most likely becomes extinct. The naturalistic processes affecting change in Earth’s life—natural selection, mutations, gene exchange, and epigenetics—possess no inherent knowledge of future solar physics.

Only a Mind who knows the future physics of the Sun, Earth, and Moon will know which life must be present on Earth at which times. For life to persist for 3.8 billion years on Earth, Someone who knows and understands the present and future physics of the Sun, Earth, and Moon must periodically remove certain life-forms that are no longer able to compensate for the changes in the Sun and replace that life with new just-right life-forms at just-right times in just-right amounts, diversity, and locations.

Given the pace at which the Sun’s luminosity is increasing, mass extinction events quickly followed by mass speciation events must occur at a rate of about once every 30–35 million years. The fossil record bears witness to this rate of extinction and speciation.⁸ In each mass extinction event just-right organisms are removed at the just-right time and in each mass speciation event just-right life appears at the just-right time.

Endnotes

Editors, “Special Feature: Darwin 200,” New Scientist, February 11, 2009, https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/darwin-200/.
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (London, John Murray, 1859).
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (London, John Murray, 1871).
“Special Feature: Darwin 200.”
Hugh Ross, “Solar Design: Resolving the Solar Abundance Problem,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, January 11, 2021.
Hugh Ross, I mprobable Planet (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2016), 160–162.
Erica L. McCormick et al., “Widespread Woody Plant Use of Water Stored in Bedrock,” Nature 597, no. 7875 (September 9, 2021): 225–229, doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03761-3.
Adrian L. Melott and Richard K. Bambach, “Do Periodicities in Extinction—With Possible Astronomical Connections—Survive a Revision of the Geological Timescale?” Astrophysical Journal 773, no. 1 (August 2013): id. 6, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/6.

The post What Darwin Didn't Know about the Sun appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Does Naturalism Explain the Fossil Record?

Hugh Ross — Mon, 20 Mar 2023 11:00:00 +0000

Any scientific model that seeks legitimacy must explain the origin and history of life. And thanks to mounting evidence, much is known about life’s history. Does that knowledge support naturalism or does supernatural creation seem more reasonable?

Darwin’s Claim
Naturalism is the hypothesis that strictly natural processes explain the origin and history of all species of life that have ever existed on Earth. With the publication of Charles Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species¹ (1859) naturalism eventually became mainstream science. Darwin claimed that all life arose by common descent through a gradual branching pattern of evolution driven by natural selection from an original microbial species. He predicted that future fossil discoveries would affirm his hypothesis.

Darwin’s book (see figure 1) shook the world from its theistic complacency. Within a few decades, naturalism replaced theism as the dominant worldview among research biologists studying the history of Earth’s life. This tsunami continues to this day. In 2015, evolutionary biologist and University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne declared in his book, Faith Versus Fact, “The greatest scripture-killer ever penned [On the Origin of Species] demolished an entire series of biblical claims by demonstrating that purely naturalistic processes—evolution and natural selection—could explain patterns in nature.”²

Figure 1: Cover of the First Edition of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species
Credit: public domain

Naturalistic Drivers of Biological Evolution
Darwin proposed that natural selection was the sole driver of the evolution of life. Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries demonstrated in 1901 that mutations are another significant factor. In the last few decades, evolutionary biologists have discovered two additional natural mechanisms that drive changes in life-forms: gene exchange and epigenetics.

Of the four mechanisms, natural selection and mutations play the dominant role. Gene exchange and epigenetics play minor roles, with gene exchange playing a bigger role for microbial species than it does for large-bodied organisms.

Evolutionary biologists and geneticists have searched in vain for a fifth naturalistic mechanism. If one exists, it must play a very minor role.

Fossil Record Challenges
The four known naturalistic mechanisms for generating changes in life-forms all make relatively small step changes. Mutations are capable of generating the biggest changes but the vast majority of mutations are neutral. That is, the changes they generate are neither harmful nor beneficial. Of those that are nonneutral, harmful mutations outnumber beneficial mutations by at least 10,000 to 1 and sometimes by 10,000,000 to 1. The high ratio of harmful (or deleterious) to beneficial mutations explains why ecologists observe far more extinction events than speciation events in their field studies.³

Naturalistic processes—natural selection, mutations, gene exchange, and epigenetics—all require long time periods to produce significant changes. Such changes, however, require a stable or gradually changing environment. Catastrophic environmental events will either negate the changes or result in extinction. Plus, all of these natural processes predict a bottom-up development of taxonomic hierarchy (see figure 2). That is, natural processes predict that over time they will first produce a proliferation of species, which, in much more time, will produce a proliferation of genera—and so on until one or more phyla finally appear.

Figure 2: Hierarchical Classification of the Body Structures of Organisms
Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The problem with these predictions is that the fossil record reveals the opposite: a top-down hierarchy. As paleontologists Douglas Erwin, James Valentine, and John Sepkoski have observed with respect to the Avalon and Cambrian explosions, “The major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, and orders before that of families.”⁴

The Cambrian explosion refers to the sudden appearance, 538.79 ± 0.21 million years ago,⁵ of animals with digestive tracts, circulatory systems, skeletons, and internal and external organs. These animals require a minimum atmospheric oxygen level of 10%, and they appear in the fossil record at the very moment that level is reached.⁶

The Cambrian phyla do not appear in a time-separated sequence. The most advanced phylum, chordata, the phylum to which all humans and all vertebrates belong, appears at the same time as the most primitive Cambrian phyla. It’s at the beginning, not the middle or the end of the Cambrian period. Furthermore, it is not just the nonvertebrate chordates that appear at the beginning of the Cambrian. Vertebrate fish also appear at that time.

For many decades, paleontologists were convinced that among present-day animal phyla the bryozoa phylum (animals with body sizes ranging from 0.1 to 0.9 millimeters) was exceptional in that it did not appear during the Cambrian period. Rather, the earliest bryozoa fossils appeared 60 million years later during the Tremadocian stage of the Ordovician period. However, this claim was overturned by recent discoveries of bryozoa fossils on Kangaroo Island, Australia, and in Southeast China.⁷ These discoveries establish that bryozoa animals appeared much earlier, at the beginning of the Cambrian period.

At that time 50 or more animal phyla appeared.⁸ Thirty animal phyla exist on Earth today. Of these 30, at least 28 were present during the Cambrian period with most, if not all, present at the beginning of the Cambrian.

Creation Implications
As paleontologists Kevin Peterson, Michael Dietrich, and Mark McPeek state in a review paper, “Elucidating the materialistic basis for the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself.”⁹ They are not alone in drawing such conclusions. Nearly all paleontologists who have written reviews on the Cambrian explosion in the peer-reviewed scientific literature have made this concession.¹⁰

While naturalistic models cannot explain the proliferation of phyla before classes, of classes before orders, and of families before orders, a biblical creation model can. Psalm 104 implies that the God of the Bible is “on a mission” to pack Earth with as much life as possible, as diverse as possible, and for as long as possible. Such a mission ensures that when God finally creates Adam and Eve they and all their offspring will possess all the biodeposits they need to launch and sustain civilization at a level that makes the redemption of untold humans possible.¹¹

God’s mission also requires that he ensures that just-right life is present on Earth at just-right abundances and at just-right times to perfectly compensate for the Sun’s ongoing increase in brightness and changes in its flaring activity. Today, the Sun burns 19–24% more brightly than it did at the time of life’s origin 3.8 billion years ago (see figure 3).

Figure 3: Sun’s Luminosity History
At its birth the Sun brightened quickly as it accumulated mass. During its youth, however, the Sun lost 15% or more of its mass, enough to cause more than an 80% loss of its luminosity (light emission). As it aged, its nuclear furnace converted more and more hydrogen into helium, increasing the Sun’s core density. This increasing core density results in more efficient nuclear burning. The increasingly efficient nuclear burning causes the Sun’s brightness once again to increase, gradually. The Sun’s brightening continues to this day and will one day generate so much heat energy as to make Earth uninhabitable. The dotted line indicates the current era. Credit: Hugh Ross

Normally, even a 1% alteration in solar luminosity would cause advanced plants and animals to go extinct. Avoiding such extinction requires sequentially replacing life on Earth with life-forms that more efficiently remove greenhouse gases from Earth’s atmosphere through accelerating the silicate-carbonate cycle at just-right rates.¹² However, only a Mind who knows the future physics of the Sun and who possesses the power to create whatever life-forms he pleases, in whatever amounts and diversity he chooses, would be capable of ensuring that just-right life is present on Earth at just-right times.

Therefore, for multiple scientific reasons, naturalistic mechanisms are not adequate to explain the history of life on Earth. Far from “Scripture-killing,” the fossil record supports a model positing that miraculous interventions by the God of the Bible must play the predominant role.

Endnotes

Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: John Murray, 1859).
Jerry Coyne, Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible (New York: Viking, 2015), 2.
Field studies are conducted by humans during the era of human existence. According to Genesis 1 and Psalm 104:29–30, previous to the first appearance of humans God actively created new life-forms to replace those that went extinct. However, after God created humans he ceased from creating new forms of life. This cessation explains why the appearances of new life-forms exceeded those going extinct during the prehuman era while the extinction rate greatly exceeds the speciation rate during the human epoch. The mechanisms of natural selection, mutations, gene exchange, and epigenetics can explain the few speciation events observed to occur during the human epoch.
Douglas H. Erwin, James W. Valentine, and J. John Sepkoski Jr., “A Comparative Study of Diversification Events: The Early Paleozoic versus the Mesozoic,” Evolution 41, no. 6 (November 1, 1987): 1183, doi:10.2307/2409086.
Ulf Linnemann et al., “New High-Resolution Age Data from the Ediacaran-Cambrian Boundary Indicate Rapid, Ecologically Driven Onset of the Cambrian Explosion,” Terra Nova 31, no. 1 (February 2019): 49–58, doi:10.1111/ter.12368.
Michael Tatzel et al., “Late Neoproterozoic Seawater Oxygenation by Siliceous Sponges,” Nature Communications 8 (September 20, 2017): id. 621, doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00586-5; Yuntao Ye et al., “Tracking the Evolution of Seawater Mo Isotopes through the Ediacaran-Cambrian Transition,” Precambrian Research 350 (November 2020): id. 105929, doi:10.1016/j.precamres.2020.105929; Hugh Ross, “Where Did the Cambrian Oxygen Come From?” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, January 24, 2022.
Zhiliang Zhang et al., “Fossil Evidence Unveils an Early Cambrian Origin for Bryozoa,” Nature 599 (November 11, 2021): 251–55, doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04033-w.
Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241, no. 4863 (July 15, 1988): 291–93, doi:10.1126/science.241.4863.291.
Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich, and Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and Metazoan Macroevolution: Insights into Canalization, Complexity, and the Cambrian Explosion,” BioEssays 31, no. 7 (July 2009): 737, doi:10.1002/bies.200900033.
Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Cambrian Explosion: How Do We Use the Evidence?” BioScience 58, no. 9 (October 2008): 855, doi:10.1641/B580912; Gregory A. Wray, “Rates of Evolution in Developmental Processes,” American Zoologist32, no. 1 (January–February, 1992): 131, doi:10.1093/icb/32.1.123.
Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2016), 168–69, 192, 196, 223–24; Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy, 2nd ed. (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2015), 95–97, 232–33.
Hugh Ross, “Weathered Bedrock: Key to Advanced Life on Earth,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, May 7, 2019; Ross, Improbable Planet, 159–64.

The post Does Naturalism Explain the Fossil Record? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Did Life Originate on Earth or in the Cosmos? Part 1

Hugh Ross — Mon, 13 Jun 2022 12:00:00 +0000

During the last several months, I have written three articles on new discoveries that reveal that the Cambrian explosion of life is more extensive and explosive than previously thought.¹ I also showed how these new discoveries make naturalistic explanations for the Cambrian explosion more intractable.

Alternate Models for Earth’s First Life
As that case becomes more untenable, some scientists have posited that life was transported to Earth. Even before the latest discoveries, a team of 33 researchers from multiple scientific disciplines acknowledged the difficulty of attempting to explain the Cambrian explosion from a naturalistic terrestrial source. Therefore, they published a 21-page paper in the journal, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, in which they proposed that the origin and evolution of life on Earth was crucially facilitated by life-bearing comets.² Their specific proposal is that life at different stages in Earth’s history was brought to Earth from elsewhere in the universe via comets and meteoroids.

This proposal is generally known as panspermia. It is a Greek term meaning “seeds everywhere.” Panspermia posits that physical life exists throughout the universe and is distributed by space dust, comets, asteroids, and meteoroids. It was first proposed in writing in the fifth century BC by the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras.³ Three of the 33 researchers published a subsequent paper in which they claim that infrared spectra of several solar system comets “points to cometary biology and interstellar panspermia as being inevitable.”⁴

In this article, I will describe the case the researchers made against a naturalistic origin and history of life that is Earth-based. In a sequel to this article, I will make a case against the alternate model proposed by the team and briefly describe a remaining viable model, one that is consistent with the biblical model for the origin and history of Earth’s life.

Case against Life’s Origin on Earth
The researchers base their 21-page paper on the central dogma of origin-of-life research—abiogenesis (the origin of life from nonliving matter). Abiogenesis asserts that sometime in the past, favorable natural conditions for the formation of complex organic molecules—namely amino acids, nucleobases, and ribose sugars—occurred that, in turn, gave rise to the self-organization of these molecules into proteins, DNA, RNA, and lipid membranes. Abiogenesis goes on to propose a naturalistic pathway where the proteins, DNA, RNA, and lipid membranes self-assemble into primitive living cells. The researchers also assume the central dogma of biological evolution that all life has evolved naturalistically from the first primitive living cells.

Although the 33 researchers champion abiogenesis and the central dogma of biological evolution, that does not mean they are all atheists. Many are deists. They all agree, however, that if God exists, God does not intervene beyond allowing the natural processes he established to bring about everything that exists in the universe.

The scientists begin their paper with the claim that the origin of life could not possibly have occurred on the early Earth. They point out that there simply isn’t adequate time for a naturalistic origin of life on Earth. The earliest evidence for permanently existing life on Earth dates back to 3.825 ± 0.006 billion years ago.⁵ This date is only a few million years or less after the moment in Earth’s history when permanent rocks and liquid water first appeared.

The team cites isotope evidence for an even earlier, fleetingly temporal existence of life on Earth. Ancient zircons discovered in Western Australia⁶ and northern Canada⁷ reveal episodes about 4.1 billion years ago when liquid water, solid rocks, and isotope signatures of life briefly existed. This evidence for the sudden appearance of life on Earth caused evolutionary biologist Niles Eldredge to write, “One of the most arresting facts that I have learned is that life goes back as far in Earth history as we can possibly trace it. . . . in the very oldest rocks that stand a chance of showing signs of life, we find those signs.”⁸

The researchers’ conclusion is similar to what Carl Sagan taught in a course I attended in 1970 at the University of Toronto. He explained that Charles Darwin’s warm little pond was a grossly inadequate explanation for life’s origin. He avowed that abiogenesis was impossible in anything less than a billion years in a concentrated soup of prebiotic molecules any smaller than all Earth’s oceans. The researchers explain that based on what we know about the chemistry needed for a naturalistic origin of life, Sagan’s estimates on the minimum time and the minimum prebiotic soup size are many orders of magnitude too small.

Alternate Naturalistic Model
The 33 researchers point out that additional time problems exist for the Cambrian explosion and for other mass speciation events in Earth’s history. They explain why it is not possible for pre-Cambrian Earth-based life to evolve, without any measurable history, into so many phyla simultaneously at the beginning of the Cambrian period. To get around Earth’s space and time limitations for a naturalistic origin and history of life, the researchers propose a cosmic biology model. I will describe and critique their model and propose an alternate model next week, but for now, we may conclude that the progress of science does not affirm Earth-based naturalistic evolution.

Endnotes

Hugh Ross, “Cambrian Explosion Becomes More Explosive,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, January 17, 2022, /creation/evolution/cambrian-explosion-becomes-more-explosive; Ross, “Where Did the Cambrian Oxygen Come From?” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, January 24, 2022, /creation/earth/where-did-the-cambrian-oxygen-come-from; Ross, “Cambrian Creatures’ Diverse Complex Eyes Reinforce Creation Narrative,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, January 25, 2021, /creation/life/cambrian-creatures-diverse-complex-eyes-reinforce-creation-narrative.
Edward J. Steele et al., “Cause of Cambrian Explosion—Terrestrial or Cosmic?” Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 136 (August 2018): 3–23, doi:10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.03.004.
Margaret R. O’Leary, Anaxagoras and the Origin of Panspermia Theory (Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2008).
N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Dayal T. Wickramasinghe, and Edward J. Steele, “Chapter Two: Cometary Panspermia and Origin of Life?” Advances in Genetics 106 (July 7, 2020): 5, doi:10.1016/bs.adgen.2020.03.003.
Craig E. Manning, Stephen J. Mojzsis, and T. Mark Harrison, “Geology, Age and Origin of Supracrustal Rocks at Akilia, West Greenland,” American Journal of Science 306, no. 5 (May 2006): 303–366, doi:10.2475/05.2006.02.
Elizabeth A. Bell et al., “Potentially Biogenic Carbon Preserved in a 4.1 Billion-Year-Old Zircon,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 112, no. 47 (October 19, 2015): 14518–14521, doi:10.1073/pnas.1517557112.
Matthew S. Dodd et al., “Evidence for Early Life in Earth’s Oldest Hydrothermal Vent Precipitates,” Nature 543 (March 2, 2017): 60–64, doi:10.1038/nature21377.
Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism (New York: W. H. Freeman, 2000), 35–36.

The post Did Life Originate on Earth or in the Cosmos? Part 1 appeared first on Reasons to Believe.