He needs little by way of introduction. By some accounts, he is the second richest man in the world. And through his companies Tesla and SpaceX, this entrepreneur’s vision is to change humanity’s future.

Elon Musk thinks that rocket technology will allow us to one day colonize Mars and beyond. The industrial designer also thinks that gasoline-powered automobiles will soon be likened to the steam engine, a relic of past technology, as renewable sources of energy power motorized vehicles.

Musk’s motivation to pursue future-shaping technologies is fueled by a hopeful optimism. In a speech to the National Governors Association in 2017, the innovator said, “The thing that drives me is that I want to be able to think about the future and feel good about that.”

In 2016, Musk helped found Neuralink, a company with the express goal of building a neural implant that can sync with the human brain, affording us the ability to control computers, electronic devices, and machines using only our thoughts. Neuralink’s neural implants are among the latest developments in brain-computer interface (BCI) technology.

Like many others working with BCIs, Musk and his colleagues at Neuralink have a humanitarian motivation for advancing this technology. They hope that their neural implants will soon make their way into clinical settings, providing the means to treat various debilitating diseases and injuries. They also see neural implants as representing the next generation of technological advances that provide more seamless interface between the human user and all the different electronic devices that are part of our lives. Who knows, if Neuralink is successful, maybe one day we will be able to use their implants to stream music directly into our brains.

The Threat of AI
But for Musk, there is a much greater imperative for developing BCI technologies than easing human suffering or developing futuristic technology. He is concerned that if we don’t, humanity’s existence will be in jeopardy. Musk believes that by 2025, AI (artificial intelligence) will surpass human intellectual capacity. When this happens, Musk fears that we will become like pets to the very AI systems we invented, running the risk of becoming subjects to AI overlords. In short, Musk sees AI as the greatest existential threat to humanity.

For Musk, the only way to stave off the threat from AI is to develop neural implants that augment our brain’s capacity for cognition and the storage and retrieval of information and memories. Interfacing our brains with computer hardware and software will give us superhuman intellectual capacities. It would even allow our brains to use machine-learning algorithms that will meld our minds with AI technology.

Ironically, in contrast to the optimism that fuels the work of SpaceX and Tesla, for Musk it is a pessimism about a potential future shaped by AI technology that ultimately undergirds Neuralink’s mission. Because of his vision for Neuralink’s technology, Musk has become a leading advocate for the transhumanist agenda—the idea that we should use science and technology to augment human beings beyond our natural biological limits.

It almost goes without saying that Neuralink’s pursuit generates a mixture of excitement and angst in all of us. As a Christian, it prompts me to ask a number of questions about advances in BCI technology.

• Should we use this remarkable technology for biomedical purposes?
• Should we use neural implants to create a more seamless interface between humans and electronic devices?
• Should we use BCIs to enhance our cognitive capacity?
• Should we embrace the future envisioned by Elon Musk?
• Can technology save us from existential threats?
• Can technology rescue each of us as individuals from our impending death?

But before I address these concerns, I think it would be helpful to discuss BCI technology in general, and, specifically, the design of Neuralink’s neural implants.

Brain-Computer Interfaces
BCIs are electronic devices that provide an interface between the electrical activities of the user’s brain and computer and machine hardware and software. Users learn to control computer software and hardware with BCIs, directing the activity of the devices with their thoughts. Through the use of sophisticated algorithms, BCIs help extract the user’s intent from the electrical activity in their brain, establishing a collaboration between the user and the BCI.

Invasive BCIs are the most advanced form of the technology. To install these devices, biomedical researchers implant BCIs directly into the brain. This approach allows biomedical researchers to stimulate and record the average electrical activity of thousands of neurons in specific regions of the brain. Unfortunately, this capability comes with a cost. The process of inserting electrodes into the brain can damage tissue, leading to scar formation. Electrodes implanted in the brain can also trigger an immune response. And, over time, glial cells in the brain migrate to the electrodes coating them. When this happens, it leads to loss of function.

However, Neuralink’s developing neural implants may overcome many of these problems.¹

The Neuralink BCI
The key to Neuralink’s technology lies in the microelectrodes they have developed. Their microelectrodes appear to be safer, longer lasting, and more biocompatible than the electrodes currently used in BCIs. The current electrodes tend to be rigid and possess a fixed geometry. Because of their rigidity, when these electrodes are implanted in the brain they often cause damage, triggering an immune reaction and causing scarring in the brain. Their rigidity and fixed geometry also constrain their access to neuronal populations, reducing the resolution of BCIs.

Neuralink’s microelectrodes consist of a flexible gold filament coated with a biocompatible polyimide polymer. Neuralink technologists have used these microelectrodes to construct a multielectrode probe that consists of an array of either 48 or 96 threads, with each thread consisting of 32 individual microelectrodes.

The thin electrodes cause minimal brain tissue displacement when inserted into the brain. Their flexibility makes their insertion into the brain easier and less traumatic to the brain tissue.

To ensure high precision insertion of their microelectrode probes into the brain, Neuralink has also developed a microsurgical robot capable of inserting 6 threads per minute, allowing each thread to be inserted into the brain with exacting microscopic precision. This process permits the BCI to be implanted into specific brain regions, while avoiding vasculature (blood vessels). This precision process minimizes bleeding in the brain from damaged blood vessels.

The design of the Neuralink implant makes it possible to construct a BCI with 3,072 individual channels (for a 96-thread microelectrode array) that can digitize and amplify the electrical activity of neurons in specific brain regions. The full bandwidth of data is streamed using a single USB cable that can wirelessly transmit data to and from the brain using bluetooth technology.

In short, the Neuralink BCI dramatically improves upon existing BCI technology by: (1) causing less damage to the brain during implantation, (2) enhancing the working life of the BCI (from weeks and months to years), (3) increasing the resolution of the BCI, allowing the recording of the electrical activity of smaller neuron populations, and (4) offering the user greater mobility and comfort by eliminating cables that would “stick out” of their head.

Many experts believe that Neuralink’s BCI technology is a significant step forward and will move BCI technology that much closer to wide scale clinical use. As a Christian it is hard not to be excited about Neuralink’s BCI technology. These devices provide reasonable hope that in the near future the pain and suffering associated with neuromuscular disease, brain and spinal cord injuries, loss of limbs, etc. will be greatly alleviated.

Yet, the same experts question if Neuralink can achieve its grand vision for neural implants. It is one thing to generate simple movements by decoding brain activity. But it is another thing altogether to extract complex mental states from the electrical activity of neurons firing in different regions of the brain.

Neuralink’s Vision: Hope or Hype?
The chief complaint of Neuralink’s critics stems from their observation that Elon Musk and the Neuralink team seem to place an inordinate amount of attention on bioengineering and fail to give enough attention to neuroscience.

These skeptics point out that an engineering approach to neural implants incorrectly views the brain as nothing more than hardware, and our thoughts, emotions, and memories as data. And, while these analogies can be helpful, critics assert, it is important to remember that the brain isn’t hardware and memory isn’t a video playing in our minds. Science journalist Adam Rogers warns that “Neuralink might be headed to a metaphor-based failure.”²

As a case in point: no one knows what the neural substrate (foundation) for thoughts actually is. This understanding is critical for more advanced applications of neural implants. It is quite possible that when people think, the electrical activity of neurons is merely an epiphenomenon. Many neuroscientists think that neuronal activity is only an indication that the person is thinking. It cannot tell us what they are thinking, feeling, or remembering.

Likewise, when it comes to memory—though scientists are beginning to understand the biochemical processes and neurophysiology connected with memory formation, storage, and retrieval—we have no clue how these processes translate into actual memories.

Compounding these concerns is the nagging problem that we don’t know what consciousness is, how it is generated, or even if it is immaterial.

Until neuroscientists solve these problems, critics assert, Neuralink has little hope of success in accomplishing their grand design.

Still, having noted these concerns, it is possible that users could be trained to issue much more complex commands to computer systems with their thoughts, even if scientists and engineers lack basic understanding about the neurological basis for thoughts and memories. As it is now, users have to be trained to use current BCI technology to control computer software and prosthetic limbs. It is also possible that the use of sophisticated machine-learning software and AI algorithms could be coupled with BCI technology to enable neural implants to decode complex mental states. In effect, this tact appears to be the one that Musk and his Neuralink collaborators are taking with their engineering-first approach.

BCIs: A Source of Hope? A Source of Salvation?
Whether or not Elon Musk and Neuralink can deliver on their vision for neural implants, the fact remains that they have produced some pretty impressive technology. This accomplishment inspires hope in many people that one day soon we will be able to routinely use BCI technology for human enhancement purposes. Perhaps Neuralink’s brain implants will allow us, one day, to integrate brains with computer systems and, in doing so, enhance our mental capabilities beyond our natural biological limits. Perhaps in the near future we will be able to seamlessly download information to our brains or upload and retrieve information, along with our thoughts and memories, to the cloud or to share information and our ideas and emotions with other BCI users. BCI technology may even make it possible for each of us to control electronic devices in remote locations throughout the world, any place that the internet can reach. Maybe one day we will even be able to link our minds together with the minds of others to work as a collective.

And, the thinking goes, if these types of enhancements can be achieved, then maybe it will soon be possible for us to upload our conscience into a machine framework, attaining a type of digital immortality.

In other words, for a growing number of people, science and technology may become the means of our “salvation”—allowing us to overcome our biological limitations, going one step further by even conquering death. Humans may achieve a type of immortality—even if it is a digital one.

These are the kinds of goals that fuel the transhumanism movement.

Using science and technology to mitigate pain and suffering and to drive human progress is nothing new. (And it is something that Christians can stand behind.) But transhumanists desire more. They maintain that humanity has a moral obligation to use advances in biotechnology and bioengineering to take control of our own evolution with the ultimate objective of creating new and improved versions of human beings and, as a result, ushering in a posthuman future.

In effect, transhumanists desire to create a utopia of our own design through science and technology. Though clothed in the language of science and technology—make no mistake—a strong religious undercurrent buoys transhumanism. In this regard, for those practicing the religion of techno faith, transhumanism serves as the source of hope, purpose, and density for each individual and humanity at large.

Provocatively, while many transhumanists see our inherent biological flaws and limitations as the ultimate existential threat humans face, Musk views the AI technology that we will soon develop as the greatest danger that we face as a species. And yet, in a type of tautological irony, Musk’s proposed solution to this technological threat involves the use of technology to modify humans so that we can compete with the AI systems we will inevitably design. Remarkably, Musk wants us to use AI technology to power the neural implants with the express purpose of enhancing our cognitive abilities so that we remain safe from the threat of AI systems.

But can the transhumanist agenda deliver on its promises?

Can Elon Musk achieve his objective?

I am skeptical for a number of reasons that my coauthor Kenneth Samples and I detail in our book Humans 2.0. One of these reasons is called the salvation paradox.

The Salvation Paradox
By pursuing Musk’s version of the transhumanist vision (with the hope that we will save ourselves from extinction by integrating our biology with computer systems fueled by AI technology), we may well usher in our own demise—the very thing that Musk seeks to avoid.

Like Musk, many transhumanists seek to save humanity by creating a posthuman world. But, in effect, if successful what we will wind up saving won’t be us. Philosopher Patrick Hopkins provides sobering analysis:

Suppose technology has changed me so much that I am no longer a member of the human species, no longer limited by any species-defining human cognitive characteristics. I have changed so much that the existence I now experience is incomprehensible to my former, limited, human self. As much as that language may sound wonderful, exciting, and liberating at first, thinking about it more in depth reveals that such a technological process offers far less to me than hoped…The end result will be some kind of successor entity to me, but it will not be me.³

So, for no other reason than the salvation paradox, the transhumanist agenda provides people with a false hope at best. In this sense, Musk’s version of transhumanism is a dangerous idea. In fact, transhumanism may well be one of the most dangerous ideas ever confronting humanity. For, if this agenda is accomplished in the way many transhumanists envision, it will likely accelerate our extinction. As theologian Brent Waters so aptly points out, “It [transhumanism] is counterfeit…because the cost of victory is the elimination of the very creatures that need to be saved. One has to destroy humankind to save human beings.”⁴

In short, Neuralink’s technology offers exciting biomedical applications that will mitigate much human pain and suffering. It might even open up the prospects of offering us more seamless interfacing with electronic devices. Both are worthwhile undertakings. But make no mistake, technology can never save us. It can never grant us eternal life. It should never be the source of our hope, purpose, and destiny.

Resources

• Humans 2.0: Scientific, Philosophical, and Biblical Perspectives on Transhumanism by Fazale Rana with Ken Samples (book)
• “A Christian Perspective on Living Electrodes” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “A Christian Perspective on Brain-Computer Interfaces” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Does Transhumanism Refute Human Exceptionalism? A Response to Peter Clarke” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Does Development of Artificial Intelligence Undermine Human Exceptionalism?” by Fazale Rana (article)

What is Earth’s greatest natural resource and why does it matter in the context of taking care of our planet?

When God created Earth, he filled it with “natural resources” such as water and land and vegetation and animal life. Then God created humans and provided us with a powerful brain. Was that brain the ultimate natural resource?

That’s the thesis of a 2018 article from American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) entitled “There Are No Natural Resources.” The article focuses on the philosophy of the late Julian Simon, a University of Maryland economist whose “most notable contribution is his demonstration that the human mind is, as he described it, ‘the ultimate resource.’ The human mind is the ultimate resource because it, and only it, creates all of the other economically valuable inputs that we call ‘resources.’”

Consider how human ingenuity exploited some of these “natural resources” for our benefit and advancement:

• Minerals (including petroleum): Humans developed extraction technology and found productive uses – including manufacture of tools to develop other resources.
• Soil and precipitation: Humans developed horticulture to increase productivity of wild fruits and vegetables, thus moving humanity from subsistence to bounty.
• Clay and sand: People produced bricks, glass, and even semiconductor chips.
• Trees: After burning wood to cook and combat cold, humans developed the lumber industry to build shelter and means of transportation.
• Water, including rivers and lakes: Humans use water for agriculture and use waterways for commerce and the production of electric power.

The list is endless.

In Genesis 1:28, God charges humanity to “subdue” and “rule over” creation. We concluded in a previous article that this charge means God commands and equips people—as his image-bearers—to be problem-solvers who use ingenuity to make life better. In the context of Simon’s philosophy, perhaps our creative mind––the ultimate natural resource––is the tool God provided humans to fulfill this command.

Unfortunately, Simon may represent a minority position among secular scholars. A more frequently heard viewpoint says that humanity is harming the planet and overutilizing “scarce” natural resources.

The scarcity concept goes back to Thomas Malthus’s 1798 monograph, Essay on the Principle of Population,¹ which predicted widespread famine due to population growth. Although Malthus has been proven wrong continually, his idea has endured for over 200 years. Simon relates that in 1865, social scientist W. Stanley Jevos estimated that England’s industry “must soon grind to a halt” due to exhaustion of coal and that “there was no chance that oil would eventually solve England’s problem.” Simon also observes that the US government estimated a 10 years’ supply of oil in 1914, a 13 years’ supply in 1939, and a 13 years’ supply in 1951. Human ingenuity has proven all such predictions wrong; and in modern times, “fracking” has greatly increased available reserves of oil and natural gas.

This same pattern applies to other natural resources. Canadian economist David S. Jacks has tracked real commodity prices 1850–present, and his data shows a pronounced downward trend. Credit Suisse has charted average real base metal prices over the same time period, and a 25–35% reduction is apparent. According to basic economic supply-demand principles, this means commodities are more plentiful today than they were 170 years ago despite massive utilization. Human ingenuity has consistently overcome fears of scarcity.

Our earlier article also discussed a corollary to Genesis 1:28. As God’s image-bearers, humanity is God’s steward to preserve his creation. But humans are not gods; we make mistakes that have negative consequences. For example, since industrialization brought prosperity, people did not object to a few industrial smokestacks or a small amount of waste in a river; but widespread industrialization caused problems. In 1969, the Cuyahoga River caught fire near Cleveland, Ohio. The event triggered an emphasis on cleaning up air and water pollution. Today a blogger refers to the Cuyahoga as “an incredible fishery.” People who complain about air and water pollution in the US today do not realize how much it has improved over the past 50 years—a fact that illustrates not only human effort and ingenuity to correct our mistakes, but also the self-healing that God programmed into creation.

Zoologist and author Matt Ridley recalls how human ingenuity solved environmental problems over the past half century:

In the 1970s, the future of the world was bleak. The population explosion was unstoppable. Global famine was inevitable. A cancer epidemic caused by chemicals in the environment was going to shorten our lives. The acid rain was falling on the forests. The desert was advancing by a mile or two a year. The oil was running out, and a nuclear winter would finish us off. None of those things happened. . . . [Instead] the average per-capita income of the average person on the planet, in real terms, adjusted for inflation, has tripled. Lifespan is up by 30 percent in my lifetime. Child mortality is down by two-thirds. Per-capita food production is up by a third. And all this at a time when the population has doubled. . . . [humanity is] the only species that becomes more prosperous as it becomes more populous.²

Most people over 60 remember these problems. God-given human ingenuity fixed them, even if they were self-inflicted. Back in the nineteenth century, it is widely believed that development of kerosene as a cheap, plentiful replacement for whale oil saved the whale from extinction. These and similar human efforts seem to illustrate the stewardship aspect of Genesis 1:28.

Ridley’s recollections also highlight an oft-heard secular viewpoint that humans are an evolutionary accident that is destroying the planet. The apocalyptic predictions he cites represent a pattern of doomsday forecasts evident since the Ban the Bomb movement, which warned about nuclear war and fallout in the 1950s.

Apocalyptic predictions continue today. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns of disastrous consequences unless carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions are drastically reduced. Unlike industrial air pollution, CO₂ is neither toxic nor poisonous.³ It is naturally occurring—exhaled by humans and animals and absorbed by green plants via photosynthesis, which God created for ecological balance. Yet CO₂ is also a byproduct of the industrialization that has so improved the human condition—and that is perceived as the problem.

This is not an article about the science of global warming or “climate change”; it is about human ingenuity. Let’s consider some basic principles. Christians believe God is in charge of history, and that God has a plan. We believe in God’s benevolent providence, and in the promise of the Noahic covenant that God will not destroy humanity (Genesis 9:8–17). The IPCC’s computer models should be taken seriously, but they are not hard scientific data. The models can be wrong, but even if they are right, is it possible that human ingenuity can address these problems without draconian measures? Many secular authorities believe we can. Prominent environmentalist Michael Shellenberger echoes Genesis 1:28 when he says, “Richer countries are more resilient, so let’s focus on making people richer and more resilient.”⁴

The real issue comes down to worldview: do people believe the Bible or not? Is human progress God-inspired, or is it not? If it is God-inspired, we need not panic and be stampeded into drastic action which will roll back those advances. We can trust God and continue to move forward as his image-bearers and as commanded by Genesis 1:28. That mandate includes using Earth’s greatest natural resource, the human mind, to make life better by responsibly managing God’s creation.

As a graduate student and a postdoc, I spent countless hours in the lab doing research. Part of my work involved performing biochemical assays—laboratory procedures designed to measure the activities of biomolecules and biochemical systems.

To get our assays to work properly, we had to carefully design and optimize each test before executing it with exacting precision in the laboratory. Optimizing these assays was no easy feat. It could take weeks of painstaking effort to get the protocols just right.

My experiences working in the lab taught me some important lessons that I carry with me today as a Christian apologist. One of these lessons has to do with optimization. Optimized systems don’t just happen, whether they are laboratory procedures, manufacturing operations, or well-designed objects or devices. Instead, optimization results from the insights and efforts of intelligent agents, and therefore serves as a sure indicator of intelligent design.

As it turns out, nearly every biochemical system appears to be highly optimized. For me, this fact indicates that life stems from a Mind. And as life scientists continue to characterize biochemical systems, they keep discovering more and more examples of biochemical optimization, as recent work by a large team of collaborators working at the Earth-Life Science Institute (ELSI) in Tokyo, Japan, illustrates.¹

These researchers uncovered more evidence that the twenty amino acids encoded by the genetic code possess the optimal set of physicochemical properties. If not for these properties, it would not be possible for the cell to build proteins that could support the wide range of activities required to sustain living systems. This insight gives us important perspective into the structure-function relationships of proteins. It also has theological significance, adding to the biochemical case for a Creator.

Before describing the ELSI team’s work and its theological implications, a little background might be helpful for some readers. For those who are familiar with basic biochemistry, just skip ahead to Why These Twenty Amino Acids?

Background: Protein Structure

Proteins are large, complex molecules that play a key role in virtually all of the cell’s operations. Biochemists have long known that the three-dimensional structure of a protein dictates its function. Because proteins are such large, complex molecules, biochemists categorize protein structure into four different levels: primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures.

Figure 1: The Four Levels of Protein Structure. Image credit: Shutterstock

• A protein’s primary structure is the linear sequence of amino acids that make up each of its polypeptide chains.
• The secondary structure refers to short-range three-dimensional arrangements of the polypeptide chain’s backbone arising from the interactions between chemical groups that make up its backbone. Three of the most common secondary structures are the random coil, alpha (α) helix, and beta (β) pleated sheet.
• Tertiary structure describes the overall shape of the entire polypeptide chain and the location of each of its atoms in three-dimensional space. The structure and spatial orientation of the chemical groups that extend from the protein backbone are also part of the tertiary structure.
• Quaternary structure arises when several individual polypeptide chains interact to form a functional protein complex.

Background: Amino Acids

The building blocks of proteins are amino acids. These compounds are characterized by having both an amino group and a carboxylic acid bound to a central carbon atom. Also bound to this carbon are a hydrogen atom and a substituent that biochemists call an R group.

Figure 2: The Structure of a Typical Amino Acid. Image credit: Shutterstock

The R group determines the amino acid’s identity. For example, if the R group is hydrogen, the amino acid is called glycine. If the R group is a methyl group, the amino acid is called alanine.

Close to 150 amino acids are found in proteins. But only 19 amino acids (plus 1 imino acid, called proline) are specified by the genetic code. Biochemists refer to these 20 as the canonical set.

Figure 3: The Protein-Forming Amino Acids. Image credit: Shutterstock

A protein’s primary structure forms when amino acids react with each other to form a linear chain, with the amino group of one amino acid combining with the carboxylic acid of another to form an amide linkage. (Sometimes biochemists call the linkage a peptide bond.)

Figure 4: The Chemical Linkage between Amino Acids. Image credit: Shutterstock

The repeating amide linkages along the amino acid chain form the protein’s backbone. The amino acids’ R groups extend from the backbone, creating a distinct physicochemical profile along the protein chain for each unique amino acid sequence. To first approximation, this unique physicochemical profile dictates the protein’s higher-order structures and, hence, the protein’s function.

Why These Twenty Amino Acids?

Research has revealed that the set of amino acids used to build proteins is universal. In other words, the proteins found in every organism on Earth are made up of the same canonical set.

Biochemists have long wondered: Why these 20 amino acids?

In the early 1980s biochemists discovered that an exquisite molecular rationale undergirds the amino acid set used to make proteins.² Every aspect of amino acid structure has to be precisely the way it is for life to be possible. On top of that, biochemists concluded that the set of 20 amino acids possesses the “just-right” physical and chemical properties that evenly and uniformly vary across a broad range of size, charge, and hydrophobicity (water resistance). In fact, it appears as if the amino acids selected for proteins seem to form a uniquely optimal set of 20 amino acids compared to random sets of amino acids.³

With these previous studies as a backdrop, the ELSI investigators wanted to develop a better understanding of the optimal nature of the universal set of amino acids used to build proteins. They also wanted to gain insight into the origin of the canonical set.

To do this they used a library of 1,913 amino acids (including the 20 amino acids that make up the canonical set) to construct random sets of amino acids. The researchers varied the set sizes from 3 to 20 amino acids and evaluated the performance of the random sets in terms of their capacity to support: (1) the folding of protein chains into three-dimensional structures; (2) protein catalytic activity; and (3) protein solubility.

They discovered that if a random set of amino acids included even a single amino acid from the canonical set, it dramatically out-performed random sets of the same size without any of the canonical amino acids. Based on these results, the researchers concluded that each of the 20 amino acids used to build proteins stands out, possessing highly unusual properties that make them ideally suited for their biochemical role, confirming the results of previous studies.

An Evolutionary Origin for the Canonical Set?

The ELSI researchers believe that—from an evolutionary standpoint—these results also shed light as to how the canonical set of amino acids emerged. Because of the unique adaptive properties of the canonical amino acids, the researchers speculate that “each time a CAA [canonical amino acid] was discovered and embedded during evolution, it provided an adaptive value unusual among many alternatives, and each selective step may have helped bootstrap the developing set to include still more CAAs.”⁴

In other words, the researchers offer the conjecture that whenever the evolutionary process stumbled upon one of the amino acids in the canonical set and incorporated it into nascent biochemical systems, the addition offered such a significant evolutionary advantage that it became instantiated into the biochemistry of the emerging cellular systems. Presumably, as this selection process occurred repeatedly over time, members of the canonical set would be added, one by one, to the evolving amino acid set, eventually culminating in the full canonical set.

Scientists find further support for this scenario in the following observation: some of the canonical amino acids seemingly play a more important role in optimizing smaller sets of amino acids, some play a more important role in optimizing intermediate size sets of amino acids, and others play a more prominent role in optimizing larger sets. They argue that this difference may reflect the sequence by which amino acids were added to the evolving set of amino acids as life emerged.

On the surface, this evolutionary explanation is not unreasonable. But more careful consideration of the idea raises concerns. For example, just because a canonical amino acid becomes incorporated into a set of amino acids and improves its adaptive value doesn’t mean that the resulting set of amino acids could produce the range of proteins with the solubility, foldability, and catalytic range needed to support life processes. Intuitively, it seems to me as a biochemist, that there must be a threshold for the number of canonical amino acids in any set of amino acids for it to have the range of physicochemical properties needed to build all the proteins needed to support minimal life.

I also question this evolutionary scenario because some of the amino acids that optimize smaller sets would not have been the ones present initially on the early Earth because they cannot be made by prebiotic reactions. Instead, many of the amino acids that optimize smaller sets can only be generated through biosynthetic routes that must have emerged much later in any evolutionary scenario for the origin of life.⁵ This limitation also means that the only way for some of the canonical amino acids to become incorporated into the canonical set is that multi-step biosynthetic routes for those amino acids evolved first. But if the full canonical set isn’t available, then it is questionable if the proteins needed to catalyze the biosynthesis of these amino acid would exist, resulting in a chicken-and-egg dilemma.

In light of these concerns, is there a better explanation for the highly optimized canonical set of amino acids?

A Creator’s Role?

Optimality of the universal set of protein amino acids finds explanation if life stems from a Creator’s handiwork. As noted, optimization is an indicator of intelligent design, achieved through foresight and preplanning. Optimization requires inordinate attention to detail and careful craftsmanship. By analogy, the optimized biochemistry epitomized by the amino acid set that makes up proteins rationally points to the work of a Creator.

Is There a Biochemical Anthropic Principle?

This discovery also leads to another philosophical implication: It lends support to the existence of a biochemical anthropic principle.

The ELSI researchers speculate that no matter the starting point in the evolutionary process, the pathways will all converge at the canonical set of amino acids because of the acids’ unusual adaptive properties. In other words, the amino acids that make up the universal set of protein-coding amino acids are not the outworking of an historically contingent evolutionary process, but instead seem to be fundamentally prescribed by the laws of nature. To put it differently, it appears as if the canonical set of amino acids has been preordained in some way.⁶ One of the study’s authors, Rudrarup Bose, suggests that “Life may not be just a set of accidental events. Rather, there may be some universal laws governing the evolution of life.”⁷

Though I prefer to see the origin of life as a creation event, it is important to recognize that even if one were to adopt an evolutionary perspective on life’s origin, it looks as if a Mind is responsible for jimmy-rigging the process to a predetermined endpoint. It looks as if a Mind purposed for life to be present in the universe and structured the laws of nature so that, in this case, the uniquely optimal canonical set of amino acids would inevitably emerge.

Along these lines, it is remarkable to think that the canonical set of amino acids has the precise properties needed for life to exist. This “coincidence” is eerie, to say the least. As a biochemist, I interpret this coincidence as evidence that our universe has been designed for a purpose. It is provocative to think that regardless of one’s perspective on the origin of life, the evidence converges toward a single conclusion: namely that life manifests from an intelligent agent—God.

Resources

• The Cell’s Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator’s Artistry by Fazale Rana (book)

The Optimality of Biochemical Systems

• “The Genetic Code: Simply the Best” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “The Optimal Design of the Genetic Code” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Biochemical Synonyms Optimized, Part 1” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Biochemical Synonyms Optimized, Part 2” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Protein Amino Acids Form a “Just-Right” Set of Building Blocks” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Why These 20 Amino Acids” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Optimal Design of Metabolism” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Metabolism: A Cascade of Design” by Fazale Rana (article)

The Biochemical Anthropic Principle

• “How the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology Points to Design” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “The Logic of DNA Replication Makes a Case for Intelligent Design” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Protein Amino Acids Form a “Just-Right” Set of Building Blocks” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Why These 20 Amino Acids” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “A Periodic Table for Protein Structures Reveals Biochemical Design” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Biochemical Grammar Communicates the Case for Creation” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Molecular Logic of the Electron Transport Chain Supports Creation,” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Fatty Acids Are Beautiful” by Fazale Rana (article)

Imagine you’re flying over the desert, and you notice a pile of rocks down below. Most likely, you would think little of it. But suppose the rocks were arranged to spell out a message. I bet you would conclude that someone had arranged those rocks to communicate something to you and others who might happen to fly over the desert.

You reach that conclusion because experience has taught you that messages come from persons/people—or, rather, that information comes from a mind. And, toward that end, information serves as a marker for the work of intelligent agency.

Image credit: Shutterstock

Recently, a skeptic challenged me on this point, arguing that we can identify numerous examples of natural systems that harbor information, but that the information in these systems arose through natural processes—not a mind.

So, does information truly come from a mind? And can this claim be used to make a case for a Creator’s existence and role in life’s origin and design?

I think it can. And my reasons are outlined below.

Information and the Case for a Creator

In light of the (presumed) relationship between information and minds, I find it provocative that biochemical systems are information systems.

Two of the most important classes of information-harboring molecules are nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) and proteins. In both cases, the information content of these molecules arises from the nucleotide and amino acid sequences, respectively, that make up these two types of biomolecules.

The information harbored in nucleotide sequences of nucleic acids and amino acid sequences of proteins is digital information. Digital information is represented by a succession of discrete units, just like the ones and zeroes that encode the information manipulated by electronic devices. In this respect, sequences of nucleotides and amino acids form discrete informational units that encode the information in DNA and RNA and proteins, respectively.

But the information in nucleic acids and proteins also has analog characteristics. Analog information varies in an uninterrupted continuous manner, like radio waves used for broadcasting purposes. Analog information in nucleic acids and proteins are expressed through the three-dimensional structures adopted by both classes of biomolecules. (For more on the nature of biochemical information, see Resources.)

If our experience teaches us that information comes from minds, then the fact that key classes of biomolecules are comprised of both digital and analog information makes it reasonable to conclude that life itself stems from the work of a Mind.

Is Biochemical Information Really Information?

Skeptics, such as philosopher Massimo Pigliucci, often dismiss this particular design argument, maintaining that biochemical information is not genuine information. Instead, they maintain that when scientists refer to biomolecules as harboring information, they are employing an illustrative analogy—a scientific metaphor—and nothing more. They accuse creationists and intelligent design proponents of misconstruing scientists’ use of analogical language to make the case for a Creator.¹

In light of this criticism, it is worth noting that the case for a Creator doesn’t merely rest on the presence of digital and analog information in biomolecules, but gains added support from work in information theory and bioinformatics.

For example, information theorist Bernd-Olaf Küppers points out in his classic work Information and the Origin of Life that the structure of the information housed in nucleic acids and proteins closely resembles the hierarchical organization of human language.² This is what Küppers writes:

The analogy between human language and the molecular genetic language is quite strict. . . . Thus, central problems of the origin of biological information can adequately be illustrated by examples from human language without the sacrifice of exactitude.³

Added to this insight is the work by a team from NIH who discovered that the information content of proteins bears the same mathematical structure as human language. To this end, they discovered that a universal grammar exists that defines the structure of the biochemical information in proteins. (For more details on the NIH team’s work, see Resources.)

In other words, the discovery that the biochemical information shares the same features as human language deepens the analogy between biochemical information and the type of information we create as human designers. And, in doing so, it strengthens the case for a Creator.

Further Studies that Strengthen the Case for a Creator

So, too, does other work, such as studies in DNA barcoding. Biologists have been able to identify, catalog, and monitor animal and plant species using relatively short, standardized segments of DNA within genomes. They refer to these sequences as DNA barcodes that are analogous to the barcodes merchants use to price products and monitor inventory.

Typically, barcodes harbor information in the form of parallel dark lines on a white background, creating areas of high and low reflectance that can be read by a scanner and interpreted as binary numbers. Barcoding with DNA is possible because this biomolecule, at its essence, is an information-based system. To put it another way, this work demonstrates that the information in DNA is not metaphorical, but is in fact informational. (For more details on DNA barcoding, see “DNA Barcodes Used to Inventory Plant Biodiversity” in Resources.)

Work in nanotechnology also strengthens the analogy between biochemical information and the information we create as human designers. For example, a number of researchers are exploring DNA as a data storage medium. Again, this work demonstrates that biochemical information is information. (For details on DNA as a data storage medium, see Resources.)

Finally, researchers have learned that the protein machines that operate on DNA during processes such as transcription, replication, and repair literally operate like a computer system. In fact, the similarity is so strong that this insight has spawned a new area of nanotechnology called DNA computing. In other words, the cell’s machinery manipulates information in the same way human designers manipulate digital information. For more details, take a look at the article “Biochemical Turing Machines ‘Reboot’ the Watchmaker Argument” in Resources.)

The bottom line is this: The more we learn about the architecture and manipulation of biochemical information, the stronger the analogy becomes.

Does Information Come from a Mind?

Other skeptics challenge this argument in a different way. They assert that information can originate without a mind. For example, a skeptic recently challenged me this way:

“A volcano can generate information in the rocks it produces. From [the] information we observe, we can work out what it means. Namely, in this example, that the rock came from the volcano. There was no Mind in information generation, but rather minds at work, generating meaning.

Likewise, a growing tree can generate information through its rings. Humans can also generate information by producing sound waves.

However, I don’t think that volcanoes have minds, nor do trees—at least not the way we have minds.”

–Roland W. via Facebook

I find this to be an interesting point. But, I don’t think this objection undermines the case for a Creator. Ironically, I think it makes the case stronger. Before I explain why, though, I need to bring up an important clarification.

In Roland’s examples, he conflates two different types of information. When I refer to the analogy between human languages and biochemical information, I am specifically referring to semantic information, which consists of combinations of symbols that communicate meaning. In fact, Roland’s point about humans generating information with sound waves is an example of semantic information, with the sounds serving as combinations of ephemeral symbols.

The type of information found in volcanic rocks and tree rings is different from the semantic information found in human languages. It is actually algorithmic information, meaning that it consists of a set of instructions. And technically, the rocks and tree rings don’t contain this information—they result from it.

The reason why we can extract meaning and insight from rocks and tree rings is because of the laws of nature, which correspond to algorithmic information. We can think of these laws as instructions that determine the way the world works. Because we have discovered these laws, and because we have also discovered nature’s algorithms, we can extract insight and meaning from studying rocks and tree rings.

In fact, Küppers points out that biochemical systems also consist of sets of instructions instantiated within the biomolecules themselves. These instructions direct activities of the biomolecular systems and, hence, the cell’s operations. To put it another way, biochemical information is also algorithmic information.

From an algorithmic standpoint, the information content relates to the complexity of the instructions. The more complex the instructions, the greater the information content. To illustrate, consider a DNA sequence that consists of alternating nucleotides, AGAGAGAG . . . and so on. The instructions needed to generate this sequence are:

1. Add an A
2. Add a G
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2, x number of times, where x corresponds to the length of the DNA sequence divided by 2

But what about a DNA sequence that corresponds to a typical gene? In effect, because there is no pattern to that sequence, the set of instructions needed to create that sequence is the sequence itself. In other words, a much greater amount of algorithmic information resides in a gene than in a repetitive DNA sequence.

And, of course, our common experience teaches us that information—whether it’s found in a gene, a rock pile, or a tree ring—comes from a Mind.

Resources

• “Digital and Analog Information Housed in DNA”
• “Biochemical Grammar Communicates the Case for Creation”
• “DNA Barcodes Used to Inventory Plant Biodiversity”
• “iDNA: The Next Generation of iPods?”
• “Harvard Scientists Write the Book on Intelligent Design—in DNA”
• “DNA: Digitally Designed”
• “Biochemical Turing Machines ‘Reboot’ the Watchmaker Argument”
• “Does New Approach Solve the Origin-of-Life Problem?”

I was recently fascinated while watching the biopic about innovator and activist, Temple Grandin. This groundbreaking animal behaviorist exemplifies high-functioning autism (also called Asperger’s syndrome). Grandin’s unique perceptions of the world, often facilitated by her autism, resulted in a fresh approach to more-humane slaughter techniques. Hugh Ross shares an interesting commonality with Temple Grandin: he is also a high-functioning autistic.

Today, much of the discussion about educating high-functioning autistic people focuses on helping them overcome their social challenges, which can be formidable. But Grandin and Ross have both expressed their hope that educators also provide an environment where those who are uniquely gifted in science and/or math—autistic or not—can flourish. Certainly, it can be a struggle to know how to channel the energies of any child with a high interest in a particular discipline of science or math. These students often need a constant stream of new information to engage their minds, and providing it can present a challenge for the adults in their lives.

I sat down with Hugh and discussed some practical ideas to help Christian educators nurture this precious intellectual resource for the Kingdom of God.

1. Provide library access. Hugh buzzed through the entire astronomy section of the children’s library before the age of nine. Rather than allowing his mind to languish, however, his parents wisely gained the librarian’s approval to move him along to the adult section. Today, parents and educators may want to direct motivated students to quality resources on the Internet, such as the NASA website and reputable university websites and iTunesU, which provides many college-level science courses for free.

2. Provide a forum to stimulate deeper conversations. More than a few kids attend Hugh’s “Paradoxes” Sunday school class each week. Even though this class is geared for adults, kids with a high interest in science often need high-level intellectual stimulation. This need might require parents to go beyond the normal church youth group experience and find (or start) an apologetics-focused class or small group. You can also check to see if there is an RTB chapter in their area.

3. Broaden exposure to scientific disciplines. Encourage these students to read and study beyond the (typically) narrow scope of their primary interests. They may discover connections that others would miss. Also, if possible, introduce them to researchers in the areas of their interest who can provide a vision of future career options.

One of Temple’s favorite sayings is that “the world needs all kinds of minds.” Children highly interested in science have the potential to be tomorrow’s innovators. Both Hugh and Temple offer amazing examples of what’s possible when gifted children are encouraged to excel in their area of interest, allowing them to be a little “nerdy” as they dig into scientific research, even if it’s off the beaten path.

For more on this topic, listen to the related podcast, “Engaging Kids with a High Interest in Math and Science.”

Are big-picture belief systems or worldviews—like fighters in boxing—vulnerable to knockout blows? Can certain issues or problems prove so intractable that they render a worldview unviable as a belief system?

Christian thinkers over the centuries have generally viewed the deductive problem of evil¹ as a potential defeater for Christian theism. Thus Christian philosophers and apologists have worked vigorously to show that the presence of evil is not logically incompatible with God’s attributes of omnibenevolence and omnipotence. Even today some atheist philosophers concur.

What is known as “the hard or intractable problem of consciousness,” however, may now stand as a potential defeater for the secular worldview of naturalism. A number of leading naturalistic philosophers have candidly admitted that the so-called mental phenomena of the cosmos are quite mysterious and pose substantive challenges to a purely physicalist explanation of nature.²

In his most recent book, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False, eminent philosopher Thomas Nagel concludes that Darwinian materialism has failed as a comprehensive scientific explanation for reality. Nagel rejects both reductionistic and emergent physical explanations for consciousness, stating that “consciousness is the most conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism that relies only on the resources of physical science.”³ An ardent atheist with no predilection toward theism, Nagel also states: “On a purely materialist understanding of biology, consciousness would have to be regarded as a tremendous and inexplicable extra brute fact about the world.”⁴

Thomas Nagel is a notable academic scholar at New York University and an authority on the philosophy of mind. His words carry weight. Concerning the grand evolutionary theory that purports to explain all life through solely natural means (appealing to the workings of physics, chemistry, and biology), Nagel declares: “It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis.”⁵ Later he says about materialistic Darwinism: “I find this view antecedently unbelievable—a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense.”⁶ And he insists: “I would be willing to bet that the present right-thinking consensus will come to seem laughable in a generation or two…”⁷

Theism’s Better Explanation

Unwilling to entertain a theistic explanation for consciousness, Nagel instead prefers the rather mystical view of panpsychism––the mind or soul are universal features in all things.⁸ However, a powerful theistic case for consciousness can be made. Contrary to physicalism and mysticism, Christian theism and the existence of the biblical God provide a rational explanation for the presence of conscious beings in the universe.

Assuming the worldview of atheistic naturalism, one must conclude that the conscious mind of human beings (with capacities such as personal mental states and intentionality) ultimately came from a source that is (in and of itself) mindless and nonconscious. From this view, the natural cause of humans’ mind, personhood, reason, and conscious awareness itself lacked these qualities. In other words, humans, the personally conscious effect, can reflect back on the nonpersonal, nonconscious universe (the cause), but it cannot reflect on us. Thus we can know the cosmos in a way that it cannot know us. This effect would be exponentially greater than its cause.

One can see why the attempt to explain personal self-awareness from a naturalistic perspective has apparently reached a dead end. As Nagel’s book informs us, naturalistic philosophers of mind admit they have no idea how personal consciousness emerged from nonconscious matter. Therefore, it is safe to say that consciousness—whether conceived as reductionistic or emergent—does not fit in the purely physical world of naturalism.

How does the Christian theistic worldview better account for consciousness? Christian philosopher Gregory Ganssle offers a succinct explanation:

“If God exists, then the primary thing that exists is itself a conscious mind of unlimited power and intellect. This mind has its own first-person perspective, and it can think about things. The notion that such a mind, if it creates anything, would create other conscious minds that have their own first-person perspectives and can think about things is not a great mystery.”⁹

Thus, while naturalism faces the inexplicable mystery of consciousness, in a theistic world self-conscious awareness is an anticipated and common feature. In fact, the God of historic Christianity is understood as being super-personal (one divine What [essence] and three distinct Whos [persons]). He is the source of all personal consciousness—which is a far more robust explanation than nonpersonal physicalism or impersonal mysticism.

When considering the human mind, personhood, reason, and selfawareness, it is much more reasonable to conclude that these features ultimately stem from a source that possesses all these incredible qualities exponentially. And it is important to recognize that this proposed theistic explanation for the world’s conceptual realities is not a god-of-the-gaps form of reasoning. Rather, it is an inference drawn from the worldview that best fits the data and possesses greater explanatory power and scope.¹⁰

Table – Explaining the Mind-Related Features of the Cosmos

Naturalistic Worldview	Christian Worldview
Personhood Persons emerged from impersonal and unintelligent natural processes and forces.	Personhood As a super-personal (Triune) being, God created human beings as personal and intelligent creatures.
Mind Mindless and/or nonconscious natural processes produced beings with minds that are self-conscious.	Mind God’s infinite, eternal, and self-conscious mind produced the finite self-conscious minds of his creatures.
Rationality Human rational faculties and sensory organs came from a blind, nonrational survival mechanism.	Rationality Human rational faculties and sensory organs were created in the image of the all-wise God.
Morality Blind, impersonal, and nonmoral natural forces are the sources of human moral conventions.	Morality God is a perfect moral being, and his holy character is the source and foundation of all moral goodness.
Epistemological Content Information, knowledge, and truth emanate from a blind, impersonal, and unintelligent natural source.	Epistemological Content Information, knowledge, and truth emanate from an infinitely wise and rational God who is Truth.
Aesthetics Beauty and elegant theories came from blind, purposeless, and accidental natural processes.	Aesthetics Beauty and elegant theories came directly from God’s creative power and infinitely wise mind.
Human Value Humans are the product of valueless, purposeless, and accidental natural processes.	Human Value Humans have inherent dignity, moral worth, and absolute rights because they bear God’s image.
Human Volition People emerged from mechanistic natural forces beyond their personal volitional control.	Human Volition People were created with free agency by a God who has supreme freedom of choice and action.
Human Meaning While there is no ultimate meaning to life, there may be subjective meaning in life by choice.	Human Meaning Human beings find their ultimate meaning, purpose, and significance in their Creator and Redeemer.

For a fuller comparison of the worldviews of naturalism and Christian theism, see Kenneth Richard Samples, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 214.

A sense of God’s majesty combined with desire for deep spiritual intimacy characterizes one of America’s greatest evangelical thinkers.¹ Known as the theologian of God’s sovereignty, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) made enduring contributions in the fields of theology, philosophy, and the psychology of religion. A nurturing pastor, frontier missionary, and bold revivalist preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Edwards exemplifies a man who integrated reason (the mind) and personal devotion (the heart) in unwavering dedication to the sovereign God revealed in creation and Scripture. These convictions helped Edwards stand firm during a time when a new “enlightenment” threatened Christianity, much as it does today.

Puritan Prodigy

Born October 5, 1703 in East Windsor, Connecticut (part of New England in colonial America), Jonathan Edwards descended from a family of highly regarded clergymen. His father, Timothy Edwards, was a Congregationalist pastor as was his mother’s father. The fifth of eleven children, Jonathan was his parents’ only son. He “grew up in an atmosphere of Puritan piety, affection and learning.”²

Vigorous academic instruction at home led a precocious preteen Edwards to write a sophisticated essay on the immateriality of the human soul. At this same tender age, he also penned essays on the flying spider and on the rainbow—the first written expressions of a lifelong interest in the natural world. Scholars have noted that these writings “reveal remarkable powers of observation and deduction.”³ Edwards’ writing concerning rainbows clearly implies his early mastery of the optical theories set forth by Sir Isaac Newton.⁴

As a child, Edwards began jotting down his reflections and observations on various topics in a notebook––a practice that continued throughout his entire life. He later incorporated these notes in his writings. Upon his death, he left nine volumes of notebooks entitled “Miscellaneous Observations,” containing some 1,360 entries.

At age 13 Edwards entered a school considered a bastion of Christian education. This school later became Yale University. After receiving a master’s degree and serving a short stint in pastoral ministry, Edwards returned to Yale as a senior tutor. While there, he experienced a profound spiritual awakening later described in his Personal Narrative. This event gave Edwards a renewed awareness of God’s absolute sovereignty and mankind’s utter dependence upon God’s power and grace. These central theological truths influenced Edwards’ entire understanding of Christian theology and his approach to ministry.

Subsequent to his profound experience, Edwards married Sarah Pierrepont, the deeply pious daughter of one of New England’s prominent Puritan families. Over the years, Sarah and Jonathan had eleven children of their own.

Theologian of Sovereign Grace

By the age of 24, Edwards had become the assistant pastor of a Congregational church in Northampton, Massachusetts. He worked under the supervision of his maternal grandfather, Solomon Stoddard. Upon his grandfather’s death two years later, Edwards took over the pastoral leadership of the church. For more than twenty years at this parish (which became one of the most significant outside of Boston), Edwards preached and wrote. He set forth a body of theological work that included A Treatise on Religious Affections, Freedom of Will, and Original Sin and which earned him a reputation as one of the most influential evangelical theologians of all time.

Because many Puritan Christians had migrated from England to enjoy religious freedom in the new world, colonial America embraced Puritanism as a major theological, social, and political force. Edwards’ Puritan theology represented a version of Reformed orthodoxy—one with special emphasis upon the evidence of a changed life and the pastoral elements of the Christian faith.⁵ Remaining clearly within the Augustinian-Calvinistic theological tradition, Edwards became well known for his defense of three Reformed distinctives: the sovereignty of God, original sin, and salvation solely by grace. Imperative to Edwards’ overall theology and ministry, these theological principles warrant consideration, especially today, in an age when evangelical denominations tend to neglect them.

1. Sovereignty of God: The doctrine of God’s sovereignty permeates Edwards’ sermons and writings—his entire theological system.⁶ The way Edwards viewed God as both the transcendent Creator and the absolute Ruler of the world is especially well-developed in his book End for Which God Created the World. God foreordains and perfectly controls all things, which can by no means be frustrated by the will of the creature. The world exists in complete and utter dependence upon God, and God’s sovereign purposes extend to His acts in creation, providence, and redemption. Edwards, in keeping with the historic Reformed tradition, viewed the simultaneous truth of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility as paradoxical and humanly incomprehensible but not contradictory in nature.

2. Original Sin: Edwards believed that the entire human race sinned in Adam’s fall (Gen. 3). All humanity inherited sinfulness, guilt, and moral corruption through relationship with Adam.⁷ The Fall eradicated humanity’s original righteousness in creation and distorted the image of God in people.

Humanity (in its state of sin) suffers from a depraved nature and is therefore alienated from a holy and just God. Edwards stressed that the sinner’s heart becomes hardened and his or her will enslaved to wrongdoing. Thus, the sinner often shows open antagonism and contempt towards God. This sober and pessimistic view of human nature stood in sharp contrast to the optimistic view of human nature that emerged in the colonies just prior to the American Revolution, and that persists to this day. Edwards’ sermons, especially his later evangelistic messages, clearly reflect this diagnosis of the fallen human condition. A formal defense of his view of human nature appears in his work Original Sin, published posthumously.

3. Salvation Solely by Grace: Edwards’ view of the absolute necessity of divine grace in salvation flows naturally from his view of mankind’s state of sinful depravity. In his book Freedom of Will, he argues that the human will is not an independent faculty. Rather, the will of man responds according to its nature (i.e., according to its prevailing motives or character), which for all humans since the Fall is marred by sin. Therefore, Edwards concludes that man is helpless to save himself or even to cooperate in the process.

Edwards reasons that the sinner by nature never chooses God unless God intervenes with a special efficacious and irresistible grace. This sovereign grace illumines the mind, inclines the will, and implants (in Edwards’ own words) a “sense of the heart.” As in Reformed theology, Edwards asserts that regeneration (the spiritual rebirth) logically precedes and is the necessary basis for a person’s ultimate repentance, faith, and conversion. Thus salvation is solely a work of God’s grace.

The changed human heart in redemption became a frequent theme as Edwards spoke and wrote. As theologian Mark Noll notes, for Edwards “true Christianity involved not just an understanding of God and the facts of Scripture but a new ‘sense’ of divine beauty, holiness, and truth.”⁸ Edwards expressed a keen appreciation for the importance of integrating both head and heart in the Christian’s service to God.

Apologist in the Enlightenment

Edwards’ lifetime overlapped the eighteenth-century philosophical movement called the Enlightenment period.⁹ According to one of its best known advocates, Immanuel Kant, “enlightenment” meant critically scrutinizing, no longer blindly trusting in the authorities of the past—such as the Bible, the church, and the state. Everything must stand before the bar of human reason and conscience. Enlightenment thinkers affirmed innate human goodness and the intrinsic rationality of the human mind. This powerful paradigm shift posed a direct challenge to historic Christianity by declaring the supremacy of human reason over divine revelation.

As a philosophizing divine (philosophical theologian) Jonathan Edwards’ wrote a body of apologetic work that is largely a Christian theistic response to the advancing claims of the Enlightenment.¹⁰ Edwards argued that all realities of life and being uniquely depend upon God, including the world, knowledge, moral virtue, and of course, salvation from sin. The Enlightenment view of human autonomy was the very antithesis of Edwards’ theological description of fallen humans as desperate, weak, depraved, and utterly dependent creatures. Edwards strongly critiqued the Enlightenment’s “new moral philosophy” and the movements toward it within Christianity. He argued that morality is rooted and grounded in God and in His revealed Word.

True morality then flows, he asserted, from God’s gracious acts toward humanity. In Edwards’ own words: “Nothing is of the nature of true virtue, in which God is not the first and the last.”¹¹ His posthumously published work, Nature of True Virtue, explores this relationship between God and human virtue.

Revival Leader

When colonial America experienced the profound revivalist movement known as the First Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards held center stage. Church historian Williston Walker called this revival event (lasting approximately 20 years) the “most far-reaching and transforming movement in the eighteenth century religious life of America.”¹² The breezes of revival began blowing in sections of New England in the late 1720s and early 1730s and then gusted throughout colonial America, impacting tens of thousands of people with the gospel of Jesus Christ during the 1730s and 1740s.

These revival winds blasted through Edwards’ own town of Northampton beginning in 1734-1735, when evangelistic services led to the mass conversion of hundreds of people to Christianity. And, the numbers steadily increased. Through the preaching of George Whitefield, an itinerant Anglican, the number of converts swelled into the thousands throughout the colonies. The large crowds attracted by Whitefield in Philadelphia even impressed Benjamin Franklin, Edwards’ contemporary.¹³ On some occasions, when Edwards and Whitefield combined their fire-and-brimstone-type preaching, they drew several thousand people a day for weeks on end.

Writing about the effects of the Awakening in his hometown, Edwards noted: “There was scarcely a single person in the town, old or young, left unconcerned about the great things of the eternal world . . . souls did, as it were, come by flocks to Jesus Christ.”¹⁴

Edwards preached a bold and uncompromising message of “justification by faith alone.” His most famous sermon, however, the one that appears in American literature anthologies, is entitled “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Considered a terrifying message by some for its vivid metaphors and explicit references to divine punishment, the sermon displays Edwards’ remarkable rhetorical skills. It also demonstrates his profound insights into the human psyche.

Astutely aware of the psychology of religion, Edwards not only shaped the preaching of the First Great Awakening, but he also provided a fair-minded psychological/theological analysis of this extraordinary religious phenomenon. He strongly criticized the various excesses of the movement—emotionalism, hysteria, disorder, and ecclesiastical and civil disruptions. Seeking to correct these problems, Edwards confronted evangelist George Whitefield for occasionally encouraging their practice. Ultimately Edwards concluded that the Awakening was a genuine work of God because it produced enduring change in peoples’ lives, intense worship, and long-term community and social change.

Edwards wrote a book describing the spiritual happenings in Northampton entitled A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God. Extremely popular throughout the colonies, the book brought international attention to the Awakening through three editions and twenty printings. The Awakening so strongly impacted Edwards that he began to believe that a latter-day millennial dawn was beginning in colonial America.¹⁵

Edwards later wrote a classic work addressing the psychology of religion, A Treatise on Religious Affections. Considered one of the two best books yet written on this subject (along with William James’ Varieties of Religious Experience), Edwards’ work provides a penetrating analysis of the phenomenon of religious experience.¹⁶ In it, he defines the “marks of the true religion,” which include both virtuous attitudes and practices.

More than a Preacher

The Northampton church dismissed Edwards (then in his late 40’s) when a contentious ecclesiastical dispute arose concerning the proper qualifications for those receiving the Lord’s Supper (holy communion). Edwards differed with his church, arguing that only those who clearly exhibited signs of Christian faith and virtue should partake. Leaving Northampton, he chose to oversee a congregation in the frontier town of Stockbridge, Massachusetts. Several hundred Indians lived near the settlement, and Edwards also carried the gospel to them. Along with discharging his pastoral and missionary duties, he finished some of his most important writings during this period.

Hampered by language barriers and ill health at Stockbridge, Edwards accepted a call (at age 54) to serve as president of New Jersey College (later Princeton University). Shortly after his inauguration the next year, he contracted smallpox from an inoculation. Jonathan Edwards died from the disease in Princeton on March 22, 1758.

By his example, Jonathan Edwards challenges Christians today. This man fully engaged his head and his heart as he sought to live according to the gospel of Jesus Christ. With the coming of the American Revolution and its optimistic view of human nature, Edwards’ staunch Puritanism began to lose significant ground to Arminianism (with emphasis on the human will) and Unitarianism (with emphasis on inclusivism), which hold large territory to this day. And yet, Edwards’ legacy as an extraordinary Christian thinker who stood close to God—in awe of His majesty and ever aware of His sovereignty—gives Christians (both then and now) someone worthy to emulate.

Glossary:

• Arminianism: A theological tradition traced back to Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) that reacted to certain Reformed (Calvinistic) theological distinctives concerning divine election and salvation. Among other things, Arminians strongly emphasize human freedom asserting that salvation is both “graspable and resistible.”
• Augustinian–Calvinistic Tradition: A historical theological tradition (or consensus) that strongly emphasizes such doctrinal distinctives as original sin, salvation solely by God’s grace, divine election, and the absolute sovereignty of God. See also Reformed.
• Puritanism: A dynamic Christian movement that began in the sixteenth century and sought to reform the Church of England along biblical lines. Many Puritans came to colonial America after experiencing significant persecution in England. Puritanism was staunchly Calvinistic in theological orientation and laid special emphasis upon preaching and pastoral care. The Puritan approach to the Christian life emphasized hard work, excellence in education, and deep personal piety. Puritan thinkers played an important role in the emergence of modern science in the middle of the seventeenth century and also influenced the formation of democracy in colonial America. In modern times Puritans have been unfairly maligned as “dour killjoys.”
• Reformed: A theological tradition traced back to the Protestant reformer and biblical scholar John Calvin (1509-1564) that emphasizes the absolute sovereignty of God in creation and in salvation. Reformed theology strongly emphasizes mankind’s enslavement to sin and God’s autonomous and gracious acts in salvation. For the Reformed, salvation is “neither graspable (in sin) nor resistible (by grace).”
• Unitarianism: A religious tradition that rejects the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the authority of the Bible. Unitarians affirm the strict unity of God’s nature and person as well as the inherent goodness and rationality of man.

References:

1. For introductory articles on the life and thought of Jonathan Edwards, see Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 8, s.v. “Edwards, Jonathan;” Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), s.v. “Edwards, Jonathan;” Paul Edwards, ed., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 1 (New York: Macmillan, 1967), s.v. “Edwards, Jonathan;” Ian P. McGreal, ed., Great Thinkers of the Western World (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1992), 261-65.
2. Encyclopaedia Britannica.
3. Paul Edwards.
4. Paul Edwards.
5. Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1998), 174.
6. McGreal, 262-63.
7. Edwards’ own distinctive theological approach to the doctrine of original sin was known as “constituted identity.”
8. Elwell, ed., s.v. “Edwards, Jonathan.”
9. Elwell, ed., s.v. “Enlightenment, The.”
10. Trevor A. Hart, gen. ed., The Dictionary of Historical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), s.v. “Edwards, Jonathan.”
11. As cited in Walter A. Elwell, s.v. “Edwards, Jonathan.”
12. Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970), 464.
13. Alister E. McGrath, An Introduction to Christianity (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1997), 309.
14. As cited in Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, 2d ed. (Dallas: Word, 1995), 346.
15. Millennial dawn signifies the beginning of the millennium. For Edwards, the First Great Awakening might have been the possible beginning of God’s gracious reign evidenced by the mass conversions to Christ.
16. Hart.

Sidebar: Jonathan Edwards’ Writings

Edwards’ most famous sermon, “Sinners In the Hands of an Angry God,” is too long to publish here in its entirety, but this excerpt provides a window to his fiery preaching style.

-Their foot shall slide in due time- Deut. xxxii. 35

There is no want of power in God to cast wicked men into hell at any moment. Men’s hands cannot be strong when God rises up. The strongest have no power to resist him, nor can any deliver out of his hands.-He is not only able to cast wicked men into hell, but he can most easily do it. Sometimes an earthly prince meets with a great deal of difficulty to subdue a rebel, who has found means to fortify himself, and has made himself strong by the numbers of his followers. But it is not so with God. There is no fortress that is any defense from the power of God. Though hand join in hand, and vast multitudes of God’s enemies combine and associate themselves, they are easily broken in pieces. They are as great heaps of light chaff before the whirlwind; or large quantities of dry stubble before devouring flames. We find it easy to tread on and crush a worm that we see crawling on the earth; so it is easy for us to cut or singe a slender thread that any thing hangs by: thus easy is it for God, when he pleases, to cast his enemies down to hell. What are we, that we should think to stand before him, at whose rebuke the earth trembles, and before whom the rocks are thrown down? . . .

They are already under a sentence of condemnation to hell. They do not only justly deserve to be cast down thither, but the sentence of the law of God, that eternal and immutable rule of righteousness that God has fixed between him and mankind, is gone out against them, and stands against them; so that they are bound over already to hell. John iii. 18. “He that believeth not is condemned already.” So that every unconverted man properly belongs to hell; that is his place; from thence he is, John viii. 23. “Ye are from beneath.” And thither he is bound; it is the place that justice, and God’s word, and the sentence of his unchangeable law assign to him. . . .

All wicked men’s pains and contrivance which they use to escape hell, while they continue to reject Christ, and so remain wicked men, do not secure them from hell one moment. Almost every natural man that hears of hell, flatters himself that he shall escape it; he depends upon himself for his own security; he flatters himself in what he has done, in what he is now doing, or what he intends to do. Every one lays out matters in his own mind how he shall avoid damnation, and flatters himself that he contrives well for himself, and that his schemes will not fail. They hear indeed that there are but few saved, and that the greater part of men that have died heretofore are gone to hell; but each one imagines that he lays out matters better for his own escape than others have done. He does not intend to come to that place of torment; he says within himself, that he intends to take effectual care, and to order matters so for himself as not to fail.
But the foolish children of men miserably delude themselves in their own schemes, and in confidence in their own strength and wisdom; they trust to nothing but a shadow. The greater part of those who heretofore have lived under the same means of grace, and are now dead, are undoubtedly gone to hell; and it was not because they were not as wise as those who are now alive: it was not because they did not lay out matters as well for themselves to secure their own escape.

Notes on the Created World

Edwards’ legacy of unpublished notes gives us a picture of his appreciation for the natural world.*

57. It is very fit and becoming of God who is infinitely wise, so to order things that there should be a voice of His in His words, instructing those that behold him and painting forth and showing divine mysteries and things more immediately appertaining to Himself and His spiritual kingdom. The works of God are but a kind voice or language of God to instruct intelligent beings in things pertaining to Himself. And why should we not think that he would teach and instruct His words in this way as well as in others, viz., by representing divine things by His works and so painting them forth, especially since we know that God hath so much delighted in this way of instruction. . . .

70. If we look on these shadows of divine things as the voice of God purposely by them teaching us these and those spiritual and divine things, to show of what excellent advantage it will be, how agreeably and clearly it will tend to convey instruction to our minds, and to impress things on the mind and to affect the mind, by that we may, as it were, have God speaking to us. Wherever we are, and whatever we are about, we may see divine things excellently represented and held forth. And it will abundantly tend to confirm the Scriptures, for there is an excellent agreement between these things and the holy Scripture. . . .

156. The book of Scripture is the interpreter of the book of nature in two ways, viz., by declaring to us those spiritual mysteries that are indeed signified and typified in the constitution of the natural world; and secondly, in actually making application of the signs and types in the book of nature as representations of those spiritual mysteries in many instances. . . .

211. The immense magnificence of the visible world in inconceivable vastness, the incomprehensible height of the heavens, etc., is but a type of the infinite magnificence, height and glory of God’s world in the spiritual world: the most incomprehensible expression of His power, wisdom, holiness and love in what is wrought and brought to pass in the world, and the exceeding greatness of the moral and natural good, the light, knowledge, holiness and happiness which shall be communicated to it, and therefore to that magnificence of the  world, height of heaven. These things are often compared in such expression: Thy mercy is great above the heavens, thy truth reacheth; thou hast for thy glory above the heavens, etc.

* Yale University houses the collection of Edwards’ notes.