As you may know from textbooks or my previous writings, the universe is filled with objects pouring out deadly radiation. A few examples include cataclysmic variable stars, novae, supernovae, pulsars, supernova remnants, black holes, and gamma-ray bursts. You’ve heard that various asteroids may be on a collision course with planet Earth. Now, a team of 52 astronomers from ten nations led by Matt Nicholl of Queens University, Belfast, has discovered yet another risk to advanced life—“extremely luminous, fast-cooling transients,” or, for the purposes of this article, ELFCTs.² (Astronomers have yet to come up with an official name for these newly discovered deadly objects/events.)  

While using the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert Survey (ATLAS), Nicholl’s team detected three of these “transient” phenomena. ATLAS, unlike most supernova survey telescopes, is specially designed to detect rapidly evolving astronomical phenomena on time scales of days, as compared to weeks or months. The three events they observed occurred in massive elliptical galaxies where star formation ceased long ago, “passive” galaxies. In terms of spatial orientation, these events occurred between 13,000 and 32,000 light-years out from the center of their galaxies. 

For the three events, the peak optical-wavelength luminosity rose to 16 times brighter than the peak luminosity of a Type Ia supernova (the optically brightest stellar objects previously observed), and yet their radio and x-ray emission levels were undetectable. Their brightness rose from undetectable to peak luminosity in a mere 9 days, and then faded by a factor of 6 within 15 days.

Not Supernovae
At first glance, these events appeared to be a new category of supernovae. However, the team of 52 astronomers quickly ruled out this possibility. First, they noted that no conceivable supernova model would explain the rapid rise and fall in optical luminosity astronomers observed for these events. Second, no conceivable supernova model would explain the lack of detectable radio and x-ray radiation from these events.

Additionally, Type Ia supernovae exhibit consistent, uniform peak luminosities; consistent, uniform rise and fade times; and consistent, uniform spectral distributions in their radiation outputs. The observed features for all three events fail, by far, to match any of these features.

As noted, the host galaxies for the three events are all passive. They ceased star formation several hundred million or even billions of years prior to the lookback time—the time it took the light from the galaxies in which the three events occurred to reach astronomers’ telescopes. Stars massive enough to become supernovae undergo star formation, nuclear burning, and a supernova eruption all in less than a few million years.

Black Hole Encounter
The team went on to consider and analyze six other possible explanations for the ELFCTs they had observed. Their work demonstrated that the only viable explanation would be a close gravitational encounter (or merger) between a relatively low-mass star with either a stellar-mass black hole (having a mass equal to a few times as large as our star, the Sun) or an intermediate-mass black hole (several hundred to several thousand times the Sun’s mass). 

Intermediate-mass black holes have been found to reside, typically, at the core of globular clusters (see figure 1).³ Gravity-wave telescopes have detected the existence of stellar-mass black holes as well.⁴ The team concluded that the three ELFCTs they observed could best be explained as encounters between low-mass stars and stellar-mass black holes. 

Figure 1: M2, a Globular Cluster 37,000 Light-Years Away
M2 contains over 150,000 stars. Credit: NASA/ESA/Hubble Space Telescope/STScI   

Further, the team provided a tentative estimate of the frequency with which ELFCT events are likely to occur within the universe. That figure: one such event per cubic gigaparsec per year. (A gigaparsec = 3.26 million light-years.) This occurrence rate is about 100,000 times lower than the supernova core collapse rate. The team closed their paper with a reminder that all conclusions drawn from their discovery must be acknowledged as tentative. They emphasized the need for future observations and survey programs to elucidate both the nature and occurrence of ELFCTs. Nevertheless, even their initial observations make clear that extremely luminous, fast-cooling transient events will occur almost exclusively in star clusters and galaxies where both the density and number of stars is high, more specifically, in large, dense globular clusters and in large, dense elliptical/spherical galaxies (see figure 2).

Figure 2: ESO 325-G004, an Elliptical Galaxy 450 Million Light-Years Away 
ESO 325-G004 contains several thousand globular clusters. Credit: NASA/ESA/Hubble Heritage Team/STScI/AURA   

Design Significance
Based on the team’s assessment of their remarkable discovery, Earth resides in a location well protected from the dangers of ELFCTs. The Milky Way Galaxy (MWG) has the lowest known ratio of stellar mass to total mass of any known large spiral galaxy. Its stellar mass to total mass ratio is only half that of the Andromeda Galaxy’s. Our galaxy also has a low number of globular clusters as compared with other large galaxies, a total of just 152 compared to several thousand. 

Our solar system resides 26,000 light-years distant from the galactic center, where stellar density is highest. In other words, our solar system exists in what’s considered an “under-dense” region of the MWG. So, in the context of ELFCT risk, Earth appears to reside in the safest location within the safest galaxy in which advanced life can conceivably exist. 

In fact, the MWG belongs to a galaxy group where no giant galaxies or large spheroidal/ellipsoidal galaxies exist. The galaxy groups in the vicinity of the MWG’s group are all relatively small and devoid of giant galaxies. The nearest galaxy clusters are the Virgo, Centaurus, Hydra, Pavo, and Fornax clusters. Of these clusters, only the Virgo and Centaurus contain more than a few giant ellipsoidal/spheroidal galaxies. Given that the giant ellipsoidal/spheroidal galaxies in the Virgo and Centaurus clusters are more than 50 million light-years away, they present little, if any, ELFCT risk to advanced life on Earth. 

The discovery of ELFCTs represents one more factor limiting the possible existence of advanced life in other regions of the universe beyond Earth. Provision of a safe space amid the countless dangers identified by astrophysicists, including Neil deGrasse Tyson, suggests to me the careful planning of a purposeful, personal Creator, more specifically, the God of the Bible.

Endnotes

1. “Neil deGrasse Tyson (caught on camera): The Universe Is Trying to Kill You,” interview outtake, Big Think Mentor (June 27, 2013), bigthink.com/big-think-mentor/neil-deGrasse-Tyson-caught-on-camera-the-universe-is-trying-to-kill-you.
2. M. Nicholl et al., “AT 2022aedm and a New Class of Luminous, Fast-Cooling Transients in Elliptical Galaxies,” Astrophysical Journal Letters 954, no. 1 (September 1, 2023): L28, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf0ba.
3. Manuel Arca Sedda et al., “The DRAGON-II Simulations – II. Formation Mechanisms, Mass, and Spin of Intermediate-Mass Black Holes in Star Clusters with Up to 1 Million Stars,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 526, no. 1 (November 2023): 429–442, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2292.
4. The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, and the KAGRA Collaboration, “GETC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run,” to be published in Physical Review X (October 23, 2023), arXiv:2111.03606.

The post One More Indication of Cosmic <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Providence</em> appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Adaptability—the capacity to manage change is an invaluable trait in today’s ever-changing work environment. Adaptable workers are resilient, curious, and resourceful. They are willing to experiment and to risk failure. Most importantly, they understand the big picture, always keeping it at the forefront of everything they do. Some people are innately adaptable; others aren’t. Still, those who aren’t adaptable by nature can develop the qualities that help them to thrive on the job. 

Adaptability is also a valuable quality in biology. In fact, many biologists believe that adaptability is one of the universally descriptive features of life. Organisms are exquisitely suited for their environments. Yet the environment changes. And like adaptable employees who can navigate workplace changes, organisms have the means to adapt to a shifting landscape. Those organisms that respond to change will persist; those that can’t will disappear. 

Biologists have discovered a variety of mechanisms that operate at a population level that enable species to adapt to: (1) changes in the environment, (2) predatory pressure, and (3) fluctuating resources. The mechanism list includes: (1) natural selection, (2) sexual selection, and (3) genetic drift. 

Recently, a large team of collaborators, headed by researchers from the University of California, Santa Cruz, highlighted another mechanism that they think contributes to organisms’ ability to adapt: introgression—the introduction of genetic material into the gene pool of another species through interbreeding or hybridization.¹ Insights like this one are often viewed as prima facia evidence for life’s evolutionary history. But this discovery can also be viewed legitimately from a creation model standpoint, where adaptability reflects God’s providential care for his creation. In other words, God has designed the world so that populations of organisms have the innate capacity to adapt and ensure that they will survive and thrive. 

Polar Bear and Brown Bear Introgression
More evidence for the connection between introgression and adaptability became available when the UC Santa Cruz-led team examined the genome of a polar bear fossil specimen that age-dates between 70 and 110 thousand years ago. This specimen consists of a jawbone recovered from the beach near the Beaufort Sea by Port McLeod in Arctic Alaska. 

From the ancient DNA extracted from one of the polar bear’s fossilized teeth, the team reconstructed high-quality sequences for the nuclear and mitochondrial genomes. The sequence data indicates that this specimen was indeed a polar bear but its genetic fingerprint falls outside the genetic diversity range for extant polar bears. 

Comparison of this ancient polar bear genome with the genomes of extant brown bears indicates that the population to which the polar bear belonged interbred with a group of brown bears, around 100,000 years ago. As it turns out, these ancient recipients of the polar bear genetic material became ancestral to all brown bears living today. In fact, about 10% of the contemporary brown bear genome comes from this ancient introgression. 

This discovery isn’t the first time that researchers have detected interbreeding between polar and brown bear populations. Around 15,000 years ago, an introgression event introduced polar bear DNA into brown bear populations in Alaska, resulting in a 6 to 8% contribution. The local population of brown bears found in Ireland harbors about 20% polar bear genetic material in their genomes, thanks to hybridization. However, these hybridizations only impacted local brown bear populations.

The most recently discovered hybridization event impacted all living brown bear populations (again, because it took place in a population of brown bears that gave rise to all brown bear groups extant today). Apart from having this newly sequenced paleogenome, researchers would not have known that this hybridization event took place. Instead, they merely assumed that the newly recognized polar bear contribution in current-day brown bear genomes was endemic to brown bears. 

Interestingly, life scientists have only observed the flow of genetic material in a single direction during polar and brown bear hybridization: from polar bears to brown bears. The difference between lifestyles of these two bear species provides a way to rationalize this observation. Brown bears occupy a wide range of environments and consume a variety of foodstuffs. In fact, the biogeographical distribution of brown bears is one of the most expansive of any mammal species. On the other hand, polar bears live under a highly specific set of conditions among the arctic sea ice and consume a diet limited to other arctic sea mammals. 

I suspect that the diverse lifestyle of brown bears makes their gene pool much more receptive to the introgression of new genetic information than the polar bear gene pool. The specialized nature of the polar bear lifestyle makes their gene pool much more resistant to the introduction of new genetic material, which, if it occurred, would, in principle, reduce the fitness of the polar bear population because they’re already exquisitely adapted to their surroundings.  

The researchers note that this recently discovered hybridization took place at a time of climatic instability due to warming of the earth, resulting in rising sea levels. These changing conditions likely forced the geographical ranges for polar and brown bear populations to overlap, creating opportunities for introgression.

Under these changing conditions, the introgression of polar bear genetic material into the brown bear gene pool likely offered a fitness advantage for brown bears as they encroached on polar bear territories. In other words, the introduction of genetic material through introgression helped brown bears to adapt to a new environment. 

Introgression and Adaptation 
One of Charles Darwin’s most important scientific accomplishments was to identify a mechanism to account for the origin of species. In the process, he demonstrated that species aren’t fixed entities but can change through natural and sexual selection. 

These two mechanisms, along with genetic drift, allow populations of organisms to adapt. This adaptation can occur in one of two ways: (1) through changes in standing genetic variation in the population with the frequency of the alleles in the population changing in the response to environmental changes, or (2) through mutations that introduce new alleles altogether. The former mechanism leads to rapid response to environmental changes; the latter mechanism requires much more time to effect change. 

Based on the recent work by the UC Santa Cruz-led investigators (along with other studies), introgression can be added to the list of mechanisms that serve as drivers for adaptive change.² Adaptive introgression can rapidly introduce a large amount of new genetic information into a population across multiple genetic loci. The result is a response to environmental changes that’s more rapid than mutations afford and a more comprehensive response to environmental changes than is offered by changes in the frequency of already existing alleles.

Given that we appear to be in the early stages of significant worldwide climate change, adaptive introgression may become an even more important driver of adaptation, allowing organisms to not only survive but even thrive in a rapidly changing world. As climate change intensifies, it will undoubtedly alter the habitat range for many species—bringing populations of closely related species into close contact with one another and creating opportunities for introgression to take place. As a result, species populations that lack the innate genetic information to adapt to a rapidly changing climate can get a boost by the introgression of the genetic material of closely related species that are inherently suited to the emerging environmental conditions—in the same way that an employee not innately inclined to be adaptable can learn skills to manage change in the workplace.

Research team member Beth Shapiro states, “We shouldn’t be surprised to see admixture happening again today as the climate changes and these species are overlapping and encountering each other again in the wild . . . Climate change allows gene flow to occur between what we think of as different species.”³

Evolutionary Adaptation and God’s Providence
From a creation model perspective, the adaptability of organisms is understood as part of the design God ordained in the biological realm. In line with Christian theology, the RTB model maintains that God not only created the world, but he also actively and continually preserves and governs all that he has made. God’s governance of the creation includes the natural processes he instituted when he brought the universe into existence. It is through these processes that he sustains the universe and everything in it. 

For Christians, given what life scientists have learned about how these mechanisms provide the means for organisms to adapt to their surroundings, it makes sense to include evolutionary processes in the list of the natural processes that God providentially uses to sustain life on Earth. 

Evolutionary Adaptation Is Not Evidence for the Evolutionary Paradigm
On the other hand, just because one embraces organisms’ ability to adapt through evolutionary processes, it doesn’t mean they are obligated to accept the totality of the evolutionary paradigm. I don’t. 

While abundant evidence exists for microevolution and adaptation (driven by natural and sexual selection, genetic drift, and, now, introgression), it isn’t clear that merely extrapolating these mechanisms over vast time periods can explain large-scale evolutionary change (macroevolution). To put it another way, it isn’t clear if natural and sexual selection, genetic drift, and even adaptive introgression can account for biological novelty and innovation—particularly when life transitions from one regime of complexity to another. 

Biologists Doug Erwin and James Valentine make this point (with respect to the origin of body plans). They write, “One important concern has been whether the microevolutionary patterns commonly studied in modern organisms by evolutionary biologists are sufficient to understand and explain the events of the Cambrian or whether evolutionary theory needs to be expanded to include a more diverse set of macroevolutionary processes. We strongly hold to the latter position . . . The move from micro to macro forms a discontinuity.”⁴ 

These concerns have prompted some biologists to call for an extended evolutionary synthesis, acknowledging that current evolutionary theory is incomplete.⁵ While these calls don’t necessarily invalidate the evolutionary paradigm (which some creationists and ID proponents claim), they do mean that we currently don’t have valid mechanistic explanations for macroevolution and the origin of biological innovation and novelty. 

These issues also mean that life scientists cannot legitimately enlist the sound and well-evidenced explanations for microevolution and adaptation in support of macroevolution. They also justify the skepticism that some ID proponents and creationists express about the capacity of evolutionary mechanisms to fully account for the origin, design, and history of life.

I wonder if modern-day biology will be adaptable enough to make a place at the table for ID and creation models—particularly in the face of the shortcomings of current evolutionary theory.

Resources 

Thinking about Evolution by Anjeanette Roberts, Fazale Rana, Sue Dykes, and Mark Perez (book)

“Evidence that Humans Are Evolving Is Not Evidence for Human Evolution” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Do Plastic-Eating Bacteria Dump the Case for Creation?” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Does the Evolution of Caffeine-Eating Bacteria Stimulate the Case for Biological Evolution?” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Long-Term Evolution Experiment: Evidence for the Evolutionary Paradigm? Part 1″ by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

1. Ming-Shan Wang et al. “A Polar Bear Paleogenome Reveals Extensive Ancient Gene Flow from Polar Bears into Brown Bears,” Nature Ecology and Evolution 6 (June 16, 2022): 936–944, doi:10.1038/s41559-022-01753-8.
2. For example, see Philip W. Hedrick, “Adaptive Introgression in Animals: Examples and Comparison to New Mutation and Standing Variation as a Source of Adaptive Variation,” Molecular Ecology 22, no. 18 (September 2013): 4606–4618, doi:10.1111/mec.12415.
3. News Staff, “Scientists Sequence Genome of 100,000-Year-Old Polar Bear,” Sci News, June 17, 2022, http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/polar-bear-paleogenome-10914.html.
4. Douglas H. Erwin and James W. Valentine, The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity (Greenwood Village, CO: Roberts and Company, 2013), 10–11.
5. Gerd B. Müller, “Why an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis Is Necessary,” Interface Focus 7 (August 18, 2017): 20170015, doi:10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015.

The post Bear Species Hybridization Shows God’s <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Providence</em> appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post The COVID-19 Vaccines and God’s <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Providence</em> appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post God’s <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Providence</em>, Man’s Dominion, and Synthetic Biology appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post Viruses and God's <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Providence</em> Revisited appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post Viruses and God's <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Providence</em> appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

But it’s common to wonder—or even doubt in moments of difficulty or sorrow—if we can really believe that. What does being “good” actually mean? For many people, questions about God’s goodness linger in their hearts and minds.

Together, we’re going to dig deeper into this idea. What does it mean to say God is a good God? How can we see his goodness in our lives and in the world around us?

Whether you’ve always believed this truth or are currently wrestling with it, this is an opportunity to approach the question with fresh eyes.

God Is Good

Some people have raised a famous question called the Euthyphro dilemma, which asks, “Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it’s good?” It’s a tough-sounding question, but the Christian answer can simplify it.

God is good by his very nature. He doesn’t conform to some external standard of good, nor does he make up good arbitrarily. Instead, his very essence, nature, or character is good and defines what goodness is. That’s why we can trust him as the ultimate guide for morality and living a meaningful life.

What Does It Mean That God Is Good?

When we say God is good, what do we really mean? The word “good” is used in many different ways and it requires context for understanding.

We might talk about a “good dog” when it behaves or performs well, or a “good movie” when it moves us emotionally. But these examples highlight an important distinction. For objects or creatures, “good” might mean useful or effective. But when we say a person, or even God, is good, we move into the realm of morality and ethics.

Applying “good” to God is more than saying he’s effective at what he does—it’s about his perfect moral character. God is loving, just, and merciful.

These traits give depth to what we mean by his goodness. God’s goodness isn’t even just about what he does—it’s who he is. It can be comforting to know that goodness is part of God’s very nature, with his actions reflecting that perfect goodness.

What Makes God Good?

Here’s the incredible thing about God’s goodness. From a Christian perspective, God isn’t good because he meets some higher standard—God himself is the standard.

He’s the source, the foundation, and the very definition of what goodness is and means. Everything we call “good” can trace its roots back to him.

How Do We Know God Is Good?

If God is good, how do we know it for sure? One way is through his self-revelation in the Bible.

The Bible teaches us about God’s character, and it’s filled with stories of his goodness. We read about his faithfulness to his people, his compassion for the brokenhearted, and the ultimate sacrifice he made for us through Jesus.

Bible verses like Psalm 34:8 invite us to “taste and see that the Lord is good,” encouraging us to experience his goodness firsthand.

Another way we can know God is good is through personal experiences. Maybe you’ve felt peace during a hard time or seen a prayer answered that felt like a gift from God. Such moments remind us that God’s goodness isn’t distant or theoretical—it’s something we can experience in a real and personal way.

And even when we struggle to see it, God’s goodness doesn’t change.

Why Is God Good?

Why is God good? It all comes back to his nature. God’s goodness isn’t something he chooses to turn on or off. It’s part of his perfect, unchanging character.

God is good because he is love.

He is good because he is just.

He is good because he is merciful.

These aren’t questionable or separate parts of who he is—they’re all wrapped up in his perfect character and are why we can trust him even when life feels uncertain. God’s goodness gives us a foundation, a reason to hope, and a reason to keep moving forward.

God’s Goodness Explained

God Is Always Good

It’s comforting to know that God’s goodness doesn’t waver. While our feelings and circumstances change, God is always good. Think about it—when life is tough, it might be hard to sense his goodness, but God isn’t tied to how we feel and if we seek him, we can find him. His goodness is steady, like a rock we can hold onto during life’s storms.

This consistency is one of the qualities that makes God trustworthy. We don’t have to wonder if he’ll be kind or compassionate today but harsh tomorrow. His eternal promise is that he’s the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8).

Even when circumstances seem unfair or difficult, we can know God’s goodness is still at work, often in ways we can’t yet see.

God, Alone, Is Good

Unlike us, God’s goodness is perfect and without flaw. There’s no trace of selfishness, cruelty, or wrongdoing in him. God is light and in him there is no darkness (1 John 1:5). Everything he does is rooted in goodness—pure, holy, and righteous. This may be hard for us to fully wrap our minds around because as human beings, even our best intentions can fall short of true goodness. But with God, there’s no hidden agenda or shortcoming to his character.

This truth is reassuring because it means our belief in him is well-founded. Knowing that God alone is good gives us confidence that his plans for us stem from love and care.

Only God Is Good

When we say “only God is good,” we’re recognizing that all goodness originates in him. Humans can reflect his goodness—we can be kind, loving, and just—but those qualities come from God. He’s the source of everything good in the world, and without him, goodness wouldn’t exist.

Jesus reminds us of this truth in the Bible. When someone calls him “good teacher,” he responds, “Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone” (Mark 10:18). (Jesus doesn’t deny his divinity in this verse, but rather points to his goodness as stemming from his divinity.)

This isn’t to diminish our ability to do good things, but it points us back to the ultimate source. Any goodness we experience or share is a reminder of God’s generosity and grace. It’s a humbling, yet uplifting truth: only God is good, and yet he invites us to reflect his goodness in our lives.

How Does God Show His Goodness?

God’s Goodness in the Universe

When you look at the world around you, have you ever paused to appreciate its beauty or complexity? There are countless examples—and many times personal ones as different people find different things amazing—where creation reflects God’s goodness everywhere.

The order and precision in the universe, from the way planets orbit the Sun to the way our bodies work and heal, testify to a Creator who is brilliant and benevolent.

Think about it. The universe didn’t have to be this beautiful or enjoyable for us. We didn’t need flowers that bloom with vibrant colors or stars that light up the night sky. Yet, God chose to fill creation with wonders as his way of giving us a glimpse of his goodness and seeing that he cares about beauty, joy, and life.

God’s Goodness to All Humanity

God’s goodness extends far beyond the beauty of creation to all humanity. This idea is often referred to as his “common grace,” the blessings he gives to all people regardless of their beliefs or actions. Think about the air you breathe, the food you eat, and the love you experience. These simple yet profound blessings are gifts from God.

The Bible reminds us that “He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45).

In other words, God’s goodness isn’t limited to a select few. He provides for everyone, giving us what we need to live and thrive. Even in a broken world, his goodness shines in acts of kindness, in moments of joy, and in the everyday provisions we so often take for granted.

God’s Goodness Through Jesus

While creation and providence reveal God’s goodness, Jesus is the ultimate expression of it. Through Jesus’s obedient life and sacrificial death, God showed us just how far his goodness goes. Jesus came into a broken world, lived a perfect life, and laid down his life so we could experience forgiveness and hope.

His death wasn’t just a good act—it was the greatest act of goodness the world has ever known. Even now, 2,000 years later, Christians everywhere discuss and cherish Christ’s atonement on behalf of sinners.

But God’s goodness didn’t stop there. Jesus’s resurrection demonstrates his power over sin and death, offering us eternal life. When we look at Jesus, we see the very heart of God’s goodness—his love for us, his desire to rescue us from sin, and his commitment to restoring what’s broken. It’s through Jesus that we can truly understand how deep, how wide, and how unchanging God’s goodness is (Ephesians 3:16–19).

God’s Goodness to You

God’s goodness isn’t just something out there in creation or history—it’s something personal for each of us now.

Take a moment to reflect on your own life. How have you seen God’s goodness? Maybe it’s in the love of a friend or family member, the beauty of a calm morning, or a silent prayer answered. Perhaps it’s in the strength you’ve found during tough times or the peace that surprised you when life felt chaotic.

God’s goodness to you is real and tangible. It might show up in big, miraculous ways or in quiet, everyday moments. Either way, it’s a reminder that he sees you, he cares about you, and he’s actively at work in your life. When you recognize these glimpses of his goodness, they become opportunities to draw closer to him and trust in his unchanging character.

How Is God Good?

How Is God Good if Evil Exists?

This question has challenged Christians and skeptics alike. If God is all-good, how can evil exist? To answer this challenge, we can start by clarifying a common misconception; namely, that the only way to be aware of evil is to know the good.. But the Christian view describes it differently.

Before creation, only God existed, and with him existed only perfect goodness. Evil was not necessary for goodness to be real.

St. Augustine famously described evil as a “privation,” or a lack of goodness. Think of darkness—it isn’t a thing in itself, but rather the absence of light. Evil is like that. It’s not a substance or force; it’s a corruption or failure of something that should be good. When God created the world, he declared it “good” and “very good.” Evil didn’t appear until later, as a result of his creatures choices.

God’s design for creation included the expectation for humans to enhance the good he made, like an artist carving beauty from a block of marble. While we sometimes add to the brokenness instead, God’s goodness continues to shine through his work to redeem and restore what has been damaged.

How Does a Good God Send Someone to Hell?

This question can feel uncomfortable, but it’s important to look at it through the lens of God’s justice and love. Hell isn’t an arbitrary punishment—it’s the natural consequence of rejecting God. He’s given us free will and the ability to choose whether to reject or accept him through Christ Jesus. And because God respects our freedom, he honors our choice, even when it leads away from him.

Hell isn’t about God being cruel; it’s about God being just. Imagine a world without justice—where evil goes unaddressed and wrongdoing has no consequence. A truly good God must be perfectly just, ensuring that sin and rebellion are dealt with.

But here’s the amazing part of God’s goodness: he offers us a way out of our predicament. Through Jesus, he extends forgiveness and grace, sparing us from the consequences we deserve. Hell simply reflects the reality of a choice to live apart from the source of all goodness.

How Is God Good if He Allows Suffering?

Suffering is one of the hardest experiences we face, and it’s natural to wonder why a good God would allow it. While we may not always understand the reasons, we can see glimpses of how suffering fits in God’s plan. Sometimes, it’s through suffering that we grow stronger, wiser, more compassionate, or closer to God himself. Challenges refine us, much like fire refines gold.

God’s goodness doesn’t mean he shields us from all pain—it means he works through it to bring about good. The Bible offers countless examples of how God uses suffering for a higher purpose. Joseph, who was sold into slavery by his brothers, later realized that God used his hardship to save many lives (see Genesis 37–50). And, of course, the greatest example is Jesus himself. Through his suffering and death, God brought redemption to the world.

Suffering doesn’t mean God is absent or uncaring. On the contrary, he walks with us through it, offering comfort and hope. More than that, he promises to one day wipe away every tear (Revelation 21:4), restoring all that’s been lost. Until then, we can trust in his unchanging goodness, even when life hurts.

Our God Is a Good God

As we’ve explored, God’s goodness is woven into every part of who he is and what he does. His unchanging nature means he is always good, purely good, and the ultimate source of all goodness. From the beauty of creation to his provision for all humanity, from the sacrifice of Jesus to his personal care for each of us, God’s goodness is constant and limitless.

No matter the questions or challenges we face, we can rest in this truth: our God is a good God. His goodness is a foundation we can stand on, a reason to trust, to hope, and to give thanks. May you hold tightly to this comforting thought, knowing that his goodness never fails and he is always working for your good (Romans 8:38–39).

Scriptures on God’s Goodness

God’s Goodness in His Nature

• Exodus 34:6 – “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness.”
• Psalm 34:8 – “Taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the one who takes refuge in him.”
• Psalm 100:5 – “For the Lord is good and his love endures forever; his faithfulness continues through all generations.”
• Nahum 1:7 – “The Lord is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in him.”
• James 1:17 – “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.”

God’s Goodness in Providing for Us

• Philippians 4:19 – “And my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus.”
• Matthew 7:11 – “If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!”
• Psalm 23:1 – “The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.”
• Psalm 145:9 – “The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made.”

God’s Goodness in His Love and Mercy

• Lamentations 3:22–23 – “Because of the Lord’s great love we are not consumed, for his compassions never fail. They are new every morning; great is your faithfulness.”
• Romans 8:28 – “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”
• Psalm 86:5 – “You, Lord, are forgiving and good, abounding in love to all who call to you.”
• Titus 3:4–5 – “But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.”

God’s Goodness in Strengthening and Protecting Us

• Deuteronomy 31:8 – “The Lord himself goes before you and will be with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged.”
• Isaiah 41:10 – “So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.”
• Psalm 27:13–14 – “I remain confident of this: I will see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. Wait for the Lord; be strong and take heart and wait for the Lord.”
• 2 Samuel 7:28 – “Sovereign Lord, you are God! Your covenant is trustworthy, and you have promised these good things to your servant.”

God’s Goodness in Salvation and Eternal Life

• John 3:16 – “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
• Psalm 103:2–5 – “Praise the Lord, my soul, and forget not all his benefits—who forgives all your sins and heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from the pit and crowns you with love and compassion, who satisfies your desires with good things so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s.”
• Ephesians 2:4–5 – “But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.”
• Romans 2:4 – “Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?”

The post Is God Good? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The story of human origins is filled with the movement of populations from one region to another over thousands of years. These migrations shaped societies and cultures across continents.

Beginning possibly as early as 70,000 years ago, driven by environmental changes and the pursuit of new horizons, this epic journey saw our ancestors navigate challenges and pursue opportunities.

But how and when did Homo sapiens spread and become a global population?

Coupled with scientific insights and enriched by biblical narratives, this exploration will offer a comprehensive view of when, where, and how these migrations occurred.

What Is Human Migration?

Human migration is the movement of people from one location to another. This process has led to the development of communities, cultures, and civilizations throughout history. Migration includes not only physical relocation but also the exchange of ideas, technologies, and beliefs that occur as populations settle in new regions.

Scientists use three main ways to study the timeline and paths the earliest humans took when they migrated around the world. A brief look at these can give us a clearer picture of how researchers piece together the history of humans and how we came to exist across the globe.

Theories on the Migration of Humans

When we consider modern theories of human migration, the Out of Africa theory is the primary scientific explanation for humanity’s migration. This model, often referred to as the replacement model, suggests that humanity began roughly 150,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa.

Then, around 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, humans first migrated from East Africa, reaching the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and eventually North and South America. This grand movement wasn’t just a journey of distance but also of replacement. As early humans ventured into new territories, they gradually replaced existing Neanderthal populations.

In full, this theory suggests a dynamic and transformative period in the history of humans, where our species spread and adapted to the different environments around the earth.

The Out of Africa theory lets us see how interconnected our past is and sets the stage for exploring the finer details of the story of our early ancestors.

How Does the Bible Support This Theory?

While the Out of Africa theory is primarily rooted in evolutionary science, it also aligns with several details in the Bible and in the human origins model we hold at Reasons to Believe.

This model suggests that humanity emerged recently from a single location—consistent with the biblical account of the Garden of Eden. The RTB model places the Garden of Eden at the bottom of the Persian Gulf today and may have extended into East Africa. This location fits well with the scientific understanding of early human migration.

In Genesis 10, after the flood, the Bible describes the spread of humanity from a central point. This idea mirrors the migration patterns hypothesized by scientists of movement from Africa to the Middle East and beyond. This surface-level connection between the Out of Africa model and biblical texts invites us to further consider how ancient Scriptures and modern science can complement each other.

Other Relevant Theories

For a wider view on the topic, let’s consider other migration theories, even if some have fallen out of favor. Considering other views helps to solidify our positioning and broaden our thinking.

One such theory is multiregionalism. This model suggests that modern humans evolved simultaneously in different regions of the world from earlier hominin populations. However, as our understanding of human genetics, the fossil record, and archaeology has deepened, anthropologists have largely set aside multiregionalism. 

Another theory to consider is the assimilation model. This hypothesis suggests that as Homo sapiens moved out of Africa, they interbred with other hominin populations, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans, rather than entirely replacing them, modern humans and these ancient groups merged into a single population. It is clear that full assimilation didn’t happen. While it is true that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans, they remained distinct with only trace amounts of genetic material present in modern human DNA. (Genetic traces of these ancient groups found in modern human DNA).

Overall, growing evidence strongly supports a more singular origin that aligns with both the Out of Africa theory and the Bible.

Early Human Migration

Where Did Humans Begin?

The question of human origins has intrigued scientists and historians alike for centuries and has driven considerable research and investigation. Current scientific agreement holds that humans emerged near East Africa, in an area referred to as the cradle of humanity.

The East African Origin

East Africa is widely recognized and supported as the birthplace of humankind due to the wealth of fossil discoveries there that trace human existence back thousands of years. Key sites in countries like Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania have provided some of the oldest known humanlike fossils, supporting the scientific theory that modern humans (Homo sapiens) began in this region between 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Insights from Who Was Adam?

For those interested in diving deeper into the origins of humanity, the book Who Was Adam? offers a comprehensive examination of the scientific and theological perspectives on human beginnings as well as the genetic and fossil evidence that contributes to the belief in humanity’s East African roots.

Genetic Evidence

Advancements in genetics have further reinforced the East African origin theory. Studies of mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome data trace the lineage of all modern humans back to a common ancestor in Africa, often referred to as “Mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-chromosomal Adam”—a throwback to the Bible.

These genetic markers are used as pivotal evidence for piecing together the human family tree and tracing our dispersal across the globe.

The Global Journey

From African origins, humans migrated out of this cradle and eventually populated every corner of the world. This exodus is believed to have occurred in multiple waves, with early humans developing distinct cultures along the way.

Who Was the First Human Being?

The first human beings appeared in Africa, as supported by extensive genetic and archaeological evidence, but science has yet to determine the origin site of the very first human.

While the Bible doesn’t mention a specific location for humanity’s beginnings, it emphasizes that the first humans were Adam and Eve. They and all humans have been created in the image of God. Everyone who has ever lived descended from Adam and Eve.

When Did Early Humans Migrate to New Places?

The great human migrations are believed to have begun around 50,000 to 70,000 years ago when early humans began to move out of East Africa and embark on an adventure that would span continents and millennia.

Evidence for the first leg of this migration saw our ancestors travel through the Middle East. From there, they went into Europe and Asia, gradually spreading across these vast landscapes.

The final stages of this epic journey saw humans crossing into the Americas, a monumental feat that marked the culmination of a long and expansive migration process starting from East Africa.

Why Did Early Humans Migrate?

Scientists think the early migrations were not primarily about survival (forced migration) but about voluntary migration. Researchers believe humans embarked on a journey of discovery, change, and expansion that led to the occupation of new lands.

The Scientific Perspective: Environmental Changes

From a scientific perspective, human migrations out of Africa were predominantly driven by cultural challenges, such as disease and significant environmental changes. Africa, at the time, was thought to be marked by severe drought conditions that pushed early humans to seek more fertile land.

This period coincided with the “greening” of the Middle East, where ample resources awaited those bold enough to venture out. This shift provided both an escape from worsening conditions and an opportunity for a better life in new territories.

Geographical conditions were also highly favorable for human migration. Earth was in an ice age, and water levels were lower, which made it possible for humans to travel between regions that today are disconnected by water.

Due to lower sea levels, it was possible to walk across the Persian Gulf, which is where some scholars believe the biblical Garden of Eden was located. The Rub’al Khali, now a desert, was once a humid and cool passageway with rivers and streams that allowed migration from Africa to the Middle East.

The Biblical Perspective: Divine Providence

From a biblical perspective, migration flows are seen as an act of divine providence. According to Scripture, human movement was either “commanded”—in the form of a decree—or “forced” directly by God’s hand.

Initially, at the point of creation and again after the flood, humans were instructed to “multiply and fill the earth.” How can they fill the earth unless they migrate?

Yet, in one account, they resisted, choosing instead to settle and build the Tower of Babel. It was here that God intervened by confounding human language and compelling people to scatter across the globe:

This biblical account aligns with the rapid migrations suggested by scientific evidence. The idea that accessible routes with abundant resources were part of God’s providence offers a profound understanding of how these great migrations were undertaken. Humans moved not just by necessity but also by divine design.

A Combination of Forces

The migration of the human species was influenced by multiple environmental and spiritual pressures. The challenges our ancestors faced were lessened by how accessible routes and resources were, which suggests a remarkable synergy between natural and supernatural forces.

Scientific Evidence for Early Human Migration

It’s fascinating to consider how scientific evidence can complement and support the biblical perspective of both human creation and migration.

The RTB Model: A Biblical Perspective

The Reasons to Believe (RTB) model provides a framework that aligns with biblical narratives and is supported by scientific data. This model suggests that after God’s intervention at the Tower of Babel, humans began to scatter across the globe.

This scattering was not just spiritual—it also entailed a physical journey. God’s scattering required them to move. RTB’s model holds that migration started in the Middle East, occurred rapidly, and spread outward from this region.

Rapid Migration and Coastal Superhighways

One of the striking aspects of the migration was its rapidity, which is backed by evidence. The coastal routes, often referred to as “coastal superhighways” provided the passageways for these migrations.

Coastal highways played a significant role in speeding up migrations. These routes were stable environments that removed the need for complex clothing or new tools. Coastal highways also provided reliable food sources from the sea and fresh water from rivers leading into the coasts.

The journey to distant lands, such as Australia, points to how quickly early humans could adapt and move across vast distances.

For example, anthropologists estimate that the migration to Australia could have been completed in less than 1,000 years if groups moved at an average pace of just over 10 miles per year. In the grand scheme, this amount of time and distance per year is not excessive and could be easily accomplished.

Archaeological and Fossil Evidence

Archaeological and fossil discoveries reveal important insights into the migration patterns of early humans. Fossilized remains and artifacts found in regions like East Africa, the Middle East, and Asia trace the journey of Homo sapiens as they spread across the globe. Key sites such as Jebel Faya in the United Arab Emirates and the Levant (today’s Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) have evidence of human presence dating back over 100,000 years—supporting the idea of early migrations through these regions.

The coastal superhighways are believed to have played a significant role in human dispersal. While much of the evidence along these routes has been lost to rising sea levels, inland archaeological sites provide a glimpse into the lives of early humans who followed rivers away from the coasts. Tools, skeletal remains, and other artifacts found along river systems like the Tigris-Euphrates and the Indus River further show how early humans adapted to the different environments during their migrations.

Genetic Evidence: Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosomal DNA

Science further supports RTB’s model through genetic evidence. Both mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA research support the idea of human migration starting from a common point. These genetic markers trace the lineage and movement of human populations and highlight a pattern that aligns with the RTB model.

Genetic data not only reinforces the idea of a rapid spread but also illustrates the interconnectedness of human populations—that we are all one people—as they migrated and settled across different continents.

Great Human Migrations: Europe

Genetic markers in European populations show that their origins can be linked back to East African (Ethiopian) groups, especially those close to the Middle East.

Mitochondrial DNA studies show the genetic traits of people living outside Africa have subparts of African mitochondrial DNA sequences, called haplotypes. Two important haplotypes, known as M and N, have been key to understanding these migrations. M haplotypes are usually found in Asia, while N haplotypes are mainly seen in western Asia and Europe.

The Route Through Central Asia

The journey from the Middle East to Europe wasn’t a straight path. Instead, it took a winding route through central Asia. Y-chromosomal data helps create a more detailed map. Two dominant Y-chromosome haplotypes in Europe, M173 and M17, seem to come from the M45 type—common in central Asian populations—and traces back to the M89 type found in the Middle East.

Studies place the origin of M173 about 30,000 years ago, and it serves as a significant milestone in the migration timeline.

The third prominent Y-chromosomal haplotype in Europe is known as M172 and it emerged about 10,000 years ago. It also came from M89 and likely represents human migrations due to the rise of agriculture as it changed the culture and economy of Europe.

Great Human Migrations: Asia

Genetic markers from Asian populations reveal a deep connection to East African origins. This African link is foundational, as all genetic markers found among Asian groups trace back to these early populations.

Mitochondrial DNA variants, haplotypes C, D, E, and G, are strong among groups with historical ties to South and East Asia, and even the Americas. They all descend from the M haplotype variant rooted in East African populations. Studies estimate that the M haplotype originated between 25,000 and 80,000 years ago.

Y-chromosome data matches these findings closely. Prominent Y-chromosome haplotypes in East Asia, notably C and D, can be traced back to M168, which also originated in East Africa and provides more evidence for migration from a common ancestor.

Studies estimate that M168 appeared between 31,000 and 79,000 years ago, with other estimates ranging from 56,000 to 81,000 and 36,000 to 109,000 years ago.

The Journey Through Asia

Early human migration routes into Asia appeared to have followed along the southern coast (including what is now India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) before turning northward. This path provided temperate climates, abundant resources, and steady expansion into new lands. Some groups are thought to have continued the coastal migration into Indonesia and Australia.

Great Human Migrations: Australia

The Y-chromosomal DNA from indigenous Australian populations reveals a significant genetic connection to African ancestors. This genetic link is shared among various Asian and Oceanic groups, connecting the paths taken by our ancestors.

One unique Y-chromosomal variant, known as haplotype M130, is particularly telling. It occurs with remarkable frequency among aboriginal Australians—over 60 percent—and is also found in populations from New Guinea, Malaysia, and India, although at lower frequencies.

This haplotype doesn’t appear in any other global populations and can also be traced back to the M168 haplotype from East Africa.

Crossing the Waters to Sahul

During the last ice age, the landmass known as Sahul—made up of modern-day Australia, New Guinea, and Tasmania—was separated from Asia by a strait over 50 miles wide, even with the lower sea levels.

To reach Sahul, early humans had to have the knowledge and skill to build and navigate seaworthy vessels. This requirement for sea travel suggests they had advanced cognitive abilities and technological understanding.

Anthropologists propose that the first Australians embarked on numerous voyages and hopped from island to island to complete their journey.

The First Human Migration to America

Scientists generally agree that the initial settlers of the Americas came from Asia and likely crossed the Bering Strait on a land bridge that once connected the two continents. This crossing was a significant milestone in human migration, yet the exact timing and route of these migrations remain the subject of ongoing debate.

The fossil record provides some clues. The oldest human remains in the Americas date between 13,500 and 9,500 years ago. However, these findings do not necessarily point to a single mass migration event. Instead, many scholars believe settling the Americas involved multiple migratory waves, possibly from both northeast and southern Asia.

The Clovis Culture and Beyond

The Clovis culture, a people group identified by unique stone tools, is often considered the earliest well-documented human presence in North America. This culture suggests a rapid spread of humans across the continent. Around 12,000 years ago, other groups like the Folsom culture began to emerge and show a diverse and complex pattern of settlement.

Some researchers think the Clovis people were among the first to reach North America, while others believe there were people before them. Limited and incomplete evidence from early humans in the Americas drives this debate and makes it difficult to clearly understand the early migration patterns.

Genetic Insights into Native American Origins

Native American groups have lower genetic diversity than other populations, which suggests they went through a genetic bottleneck from a small founding group. Five key mitochondrial DNA haplotypes (A, B, C, D, and X) help us trace their ancestry. Most of these haplotypes link back to Siberia and East Asia, but the rare haplotype X, interestingly, points to European roots.

Y-chromosomal DNA studies also add to the understanding and show that haplotypes unique to Native Americans trace back to Siberian ancestors. This genetic evidence supports the theory that multiple waves of migration into the Americas occurred around 12,000 to 15,000 years ago.

Debating Migration Routes

The routes taken by the first American migrants remain debated. Traditionally, it was believed that people traveled through an ice-free corridor between the massive ice sheets covering Canada and Alaska. However, this theory is challenged by the idea that migrants could have followed the Pacific coastline as this route might explain the rapid settlement of South America.

Human Migration Patterns

The Homo sapiens  migration story is a blend of genetic discoveries and archaeological findings that show how early humans ventured into new territories, adapted environmentally, and interacted with other hominid species.

Timeline of Human Migration

The following timeline captures the key milestones of human migration and highlights the significant genetic and archaeological evidence that supports the Out of Africa model.

What Does the Bible Say About Human Migration?

As we conclude our exploration of humanity’s historical migration, let’s also consider some spiritual and moral points that may be relevant to us today. The Bible offers several insights we can apply to human migration that emphasize unity, law and borders, and our shared heritage.

Unity and Shared Heritage

Scripture emphasizes that we are all connected—a truth science supports through genetic ancestry. As the saying goes, “We are all Africans under our skin.” This commonality reminds us of our shared lineage and the fundamental unity of humankind. We are all the descendants of immigrants that bear the image of God.

Compassion and Hospitality

The Bible stresses that fellow human beings should treat strangers and migrants with compassion and kindness. Exodus 22:21 says, “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.” This passage calls us to remember our own pasts and to treat others with the grace and empathy we would wish for ourselves.

Ephesians 2:11–22 expands on this theme by inviting all people to become part of God’s family. It reminds us that, spiritually speaking, we were all once strangers and aliens until Jesus Christ welcomed us as citizens in his kingdom.

Borders and Laws

While the Bible emphasizes unity and hospitality, it also acknowledges the importance of borders and laws for national protection.

The challenge is to balance security with compassion. The Bible encourages us to seek wisdom and justice and strive for solutions that honor both our shared humanity and the unique identities of nations.

Embracing Our Shared Journey

Reflecting on what the Bible says about human migration, we’re encouraged to embrace our shared journey with humility, love, and wisdom. As descendants of those who crossed great distances in search of safety, opportunity, or community, we inherit a legacy based on movement and change.

It’s a reminder that in the grand weave of human history, we are united by the common threads of migration, faith, and hope.

If we acknowledge this shared heritage, we can better appreciate the richness of the human experience and strive to build connections that reflect the values of compassion, unity, and order that the Bible so profoundly advocates.

The post Migration of Humans: When, Where, and How? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Turducken, a blended word combining turkey, duck, and chicken, consists of a deboned chicken stuffed into a deboned duck that, in turn, is stuffed into a deboned turkey. The cavity of the chicken and the gaps between the birds is filled with a bread crumb and sausage mixture. Alternatively, some cooks add pork or veal roast to the chicken cavity instead of traditional stuffing.

Turducken epitomizes our love affair with meat and demonstrates that there is no distance a true meat lover won’t traverse to satisfy his or her cravings. More and more people around the world are becoming meat lovers. But this love affair may not last long because many experts believe that the world’s meat producers won’t have the wherewithal to satisfy the ever-increasing demand.

Global Growth of the Demand for Meat
The yearning for meat (and other animal products such as milk and eggs) has grown worldwide. In 1960, 71 million tons of meat was produced (and consumed), globally. By 2022, that number had swelled to 340 million tons. Some projections put global meat production between 460 million and 570 million tons by 2050.¹

The increased demand for meat is due to two main factors: (1) a growing worldwide human population, and (2) increased affluence in the developing world. As people acquire more wealth, their diets include more meat. At this current pace, there’s a growing concern that farmers won’t have the production capacity to satisfy the worldwide demand.

Environmental Impact of Meat Production
Another problem concerns the now widely held belief that the growing demand for meat will inevitably cause increasing harm to the environment. 

By some estimates, animal agriculture generates about 18% of the worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Waste from animal agriculture also leaches into water supplies, particularly when a lot of animals are raised in a concentrated space. This waste runoff creates dead zones in the affected water supplies. 

Animal agriculture also requires extensive land use. The increased demand for meat has become one of the drivers of deforestation. According to some estimates, about 1 acre of forest land is cleared every second. And much of it is used for animal agriculture. About 91% of the deforested land of the Amazon rainforest is now used to raise livestock for meat production. 

Land use for meat production is inefficient. The amount of land it takes to produce a gram of edible beef protein is about 20 times greater than what it takes to produce a gram of edible proteins from beans and lentils.

In the US, 67% of the crops produced on farmland goes to feed animals raised for meat production. Only 27% of crop production provides calories directly consumed by human beings. In addition, half of the water used in the US is for animal agriculture.

In short, animal agriculture puts a strain on limited natural resources and causes environmental damage. This strain and damage will only get worse as more and more people consume meat.

Meat Production and Animal Cruelty
There’s also an ethical dimension to the increased global demand for meat. To sustain the current demand, around 70 billion land animals and trillions of marine animals are slaughtered each year. The most efficient way to grow this number of animals is through factory farming, which many people find to be cruel and inhumane. 

Lab Meat as an Alternative
In the face of the limited resources available to increase meat production, concerns for the environment, and concerns about animal welfare, some biotechnologists are exploring another option: the production of meat in the laboratory from stem cells. 

Advocates claim that lab meat would be friendlier to the environment than factory farming and would bring an end to the cruelty of factory farming. And it could help supply the world’s growing desire to consume more meat with a healthier, more versatile product than meat produced from animal agriculture.

Thanks to advances in synthetic biology and tissue engineering, researchers can now “grow” meat in the laboratory from a few stem cells recovered from tissue biopsies taken from animals. This lab-grown tissue is called lab meat, cultured meat, or synthetic meat. But most advocates prefer the less unpleasant label, clean meat.²

Technologists working in this field hope that they can refine laboratory protocols to be efficient enough that lab meat can be produced at large scales and low enough cost that it could be sold in grocery stores and other food markets. If this objective can be achieved, then this emerging biotechnology may become one of the most economically advantageous technologies, impacting the agriculture, grocery, and food service industries. 

Growing Meat in the Lab³
A source of stem cells is required to grow meat in the lab. Because stem cells can be cultured into “immortal” cell lines, once established, the cell line can serve as an ongoing source of cells for meat production. Estimates communicated in popular media outlets routinely claim that one biopsy could generate tons of meat products. More measured estimates indicate that with current technology, lab meat production will dramatically reduce the number of animals required for meat production, but not to the extent popularly claimed. A recent study focusing on beef indicated that wide-scale lab meat production could reduce the number of cattle needed to produce beef globally by a factor of four hundred.⁴ By optimizing the biopsy process and improving the efficiency of stem and progenitor cell recovery from the biopsies, researchers hope the advances could lead to an even greater reduction in animals used for meat production. 

Investigators have tried several different types of stem cells to culture meat, and the most promising have been muscle stem cells (called myosatellite cells). These cells are humanely isolated by taking a muscle biopsy from an anesthetized animal, causing the creature minimal discomfort. Once the tissue biopsy has been secured, the structure of the tissue is disrupted by an enzymatic treatment. The tissue disruption frees the cells from other tissue components, making it easier to isolate and recover them. 

Figure 1: The Growth of Meat in the Lab
Credit: Shutterstock

Biotechnologists have a good understanding of the growth and development process that turns myosatellite cells into muscle fibers. Myosatellite cells have the capability of dividing and proliferating in cell culture. Under the right culture conditions, these cells can be encouraged to transform into myogenic progenitor cells (or myoblasts). In turn, the myoblasts can be coaxed further to differentiate into myocytes. Afterward, these cells fuse together to form a fibrous-like “supercell” that possesses multiple nuclei. This fused cellular structure, called a myotube, can mature into a myofiber that interacts with other myofibers to form a muscle fiber. (See figure 2.) 

Figure 2: The Growth of Muscle Fibers from Myosatellite Cells
Credit: Shutterstock

With myosatellite cells in hand, researchers first culture them in two-dimensional cell cultures using fetal bovine serum (FBS) as the cell culture medium. (One area of active research involves finding a suitable replacement for the controversial use of FBS.) Researchers use precise culture conditions to induce the myosatellite cells to develop into myoblasts, which includes the addition of the right growth factors (a collection of proteins that regulate specific stages of cell growth and differentiation). Next, the myoblasts are transferred into bioreactors designed to grow three-dimensional cell cultures that will eventually form the lab meat.

During this stage, scaffolding is introduced to provide the three-dimensional framework for the lab meat. Scaffolding refers to edible material that supports the organization of meat cells into the desired shape. The design of the scaffolding is key. It must possess the just-right porosity. The pores allow for cellular waste products to diffuse away and allow nutrients and growth factors to reach the growing cells. If the porosity isn’t right, necrotic (dead zones of cells) will develop in the cell culture interior. The scaffolding must have the just-right biochemical properties as well. The cells must adhere to the scaffolding through chemical interactions between the scaffolding material and the cell surface. The scaffolding also needs to be capable of retaining water. It also must have the just-right rigidity to ensure that the three-dimensional shape of the cell culture is maintained. And, of course, the scaffolding must not detract from the flavor and texture of the lab meat.

Several different materials have been studied for scaffolding use, including cellulose, chitin, and collagen, which is the component that forms connective tissue that is naturally associated with living muscle. 

As the myoblasts fuse to form myotubes in the bioreactors and then grow into myofibers, researchers must electrically and mechanically stimulate the myofibers. This stimulation helps promote cell proliferation and differentiation and the maturation of the myofibers.

During this stage, researchers also add other components (vitamins, minerals, colorants) to the cell culture, including adipocytes (fat-producing cells). The addition of adipocytes is particularly important because fat plays an important role in the flavor and texture of meat. Other added materials improve the aesthetics of the lab meat. 

Once the growth of the cell culture is completed, researchers process the cell culture to mimic meat products (ground meat or sausages). The entire process takes between 2 to 8 weeks,  depending on the type of meat being grown.

Commercial Viability
Even though the technology is in place, one of the big hurdles that has stood in the way of bringing lab meat to market is the cost. In 2013, the first burger made from lab meat—the creation of Mark Post of Maastricht University—was served at a press conference in London. The cost of that burger was estimated at over $300,000. But in the last decade, the cost of producing lab meat has plummeted. As of spring 2022, Post and his company, Mosa Meats, had reduced the cost to less than $10 per burger.⁵

Today, there are nearly 100 biotech companies around the world working to bring lab meat products to market. According to the Mackenzie Report, some estimates place the value of the global market for cultured meat at $25 billion by 2030, which, according to cost projections, will be the time when the cost of lab meat reaches parity with conventional meat.

A critical step in achieving this economic milestone came in the early summer of 2023, when food technology companies GOOD Meat and UPSIDE Foods received approval from the USDA to sell the first-ever lab meat poultry product made from animal cells.⁶

Health Benefits
Nutritional Value
Apart from the environmental benefits and the humane treatment of animals, some experts claim that lab meat would be healthier overall to consume than conventional meat. Lab meat would contain most of the nutrients of conventional meat products (proteins and fats). And those nutrients that are missing can be added to augment the nutritional value of lab meat. In addition, genetic engineering techniques could be used to modify the myosatellite cells or the adipocytes so that they produce a greater proportion of healthier fats (unsaturated fats and omega-3 fatty acids). Also, other nutrients that don’t naturally occur in meat could be added as well.

Fewer Antibiotics
Because animals are confined in small spaces during factory farming, farmers and ranchers must give the creatures antibiotics to curtail the spread of bacterial infections, thereby preventing animal suffering and sustaining meat production at high levels. These antibiotics make their way into the meat products. They also leach into the environment and contribute to the rise of antibiotic-resistant superbugs. It may be possible to produce lab meat without antibiotics, though some experts think that antimicrobials might be needed to prevent lab meat from being contaminated by bacteria and fungi during lab meat production. 

Reduction in Food-Borne Illnesses
Lab meat should also dramatically reduce food-borne illness. When conventional meat is produced, it is exposed to intestinal contents and animal waste during animal slaughter and the early stages of meat processing. This exposure contaminates the meat with pathogens that can cause food poisoning in consumers.

Despite the potential health benefits, one concern that has been raised by critics is the use of hormones and growth factors to culture the lab meat. It is unknown if these added compounds will have negative short- and long-term effects on human health if lab meat is consumed on a regular basis. Today, the European Union prohibits the use of hormones to promote growth in animals raised for conventional meat production.⁷

Lab Meat and the Culinary Arts
Lab meat has also piqued the interest of chefs. Many are willing to serve lab meat in their restaurants for a variety of reasons, including food safety and environmental friendliness. But they’re also interested in lab meat because of the ability to control the flavor and texture of the product by changing culture conditions.⁸

Lab meat also holds the prospect of making exotic meats widely available. Because lab meat doesn’t require the destruction of an animal, biopsies of animals that are nondomesticated or on the verge of extinction can be used to culture meat. It’s also possible to produce meat by combining cells from different animal sources to produce a high-tech version of turducken. 

Critics have pointed out that lab meat will likely disappoint, at least in the near term, by failing to provide chefs and consumers with the diversity of meats that comes from different animal breeds and the different cuts of meat currently available for conventional meat products. For now, lab meat will be sold and consumed primarily as a ground product.

Is Lab Meat Too Good to Be True? The Environmental Impact
Most of the publicity surrounding lab meat has been positive. Yet, a number of scientists and technologists have questioned if lab meat will deliver the benefits its advocates tout. A critical review article published in 2020 by two French scientists presents a balanced assessment of the benefits and costs of lab meat production. Their analysis shows that the claimed environmental benefits that come from producing lab meat compared to conventional meat offerings have been overstated.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
For example, these scientists cite a study published in 2019 that demonstrates switching to lab meat and reducing conventional beef production will, indeed, reduce methane emissions by replacing them with carbon dioxide release.⁹ In the short term, this change will reduce global warming because methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. However, methane is much more short-lived in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, meaning that in the long term lab meat production will raise, not lower, global temperatures.

Work by investigators from the University of California, Davis, draws a similar conclusion.¹⁰ Lab meat manufacture requires production facilities and an ongoing supply of raw materials (growth media, additives, and scaffolding). These raw materials must be manufactured, packaged, and transported to the production facility. The production of lab meat and its raw materials will require water and power. And it will generate waste.

Assuming current technology, the UC Davis team determined the carbon dioxide equivalents per kilogram of meat produced as lab meat and as conventional meat using animal agricultural practices. By determining the energy usage for each step of the process, they discovered that lab meat production generated 4 to 25 times more carbon dioxide than the production of conventional beef. 

The UC Davis team determined that one of the chief culprits contributing to the environmental stress caused by lab meat production is the growth medium used to culture the cells and induce them to form myofibrils. This growth medium contains sugars, growth factors, salts, amino acids, and vitamins. Each of these components must be produced. The sugars come from crops. The growth factors must be extracted and purified from biological sources in a laboratory setting. All the components must be a high-purity pharmaceutical grade (approved by the FDA). This process requires expensive and energy-intensive purification steps. 

Culturing animal cells is tricky business. These cell cultures are fastidious, making the purity grade of these materials essential. It’s the only way to ensure that no microorganisms and toxins find their way into the growth medium from the raw materials. If cell cultures become contaminated with microorganisms, the contaminating cells will outgrow the animal cells and overrun the cell culture with unwanted microbes. There’s no way to bypass the need for pharmaceutical-grade raw materials to culture cells for lab meat production.

Land Usage
The French scientists agree that the land required for animal agriculture far exceeds that needed for lab meat production. But they point out that livestock production provides beneficial environmental services. The manure generated from livestock provides organic matter, nitrogen, and phosphorus that maintains soil fertility. Also, much of the land used to raise cattle isn’t useful for any other purpose. So, while some of the land used for animal agriculture comes at a real environmental cost (for example, the conversion of Amazon rainforest to land used to raise cattle), much of it is nonarable grassland that is ideally suited for livestock production.

Is Lab Meat Too Good to Be True? The Economic Impact
Without question, lab meat production has the potential to be an economically beneficial technology. It will create a variety of new jobs. But these new jobs will come at a cost. The French scientists suggest that the switch away from conventional agriculture to lab meat production will likely devastate rural communities that rely mostly on agriculture as the primary source of income. 

They also point out that animal agriculture may not diminish as much as people might hope. Even if laboratory operations become the primary means of meat production, livestock will still be needed to produce eggs, milk, wool, fiber, and leather.

Is Lab Meat Too Good to Be True? The FBS Problem
One of the primary justifications for lab meat production is the desire to mitigate animal cruelty through the reduction of factory farming and animal slaughter. Unfortunately, the use of FBS as the medium to culture myosatellite cells into muscle fibers all but eliminates any gains in animal welfare from lab meat production.

FBS is ideal as a cell culture medium because it contains vitamins, hormones, and growth factors needed to convert stem cells into differentiated cells. But FBS comes from the blood of cow fetuses. To harvest this blood, not only is the cow fetus destroyed but often the mother is slaughtered as well. 

Currently, 800,000 liters of FBS are produced each year and that amount requires the destruction of 2 million cow fetuses. Of course, if wide-scale production of lab meat ensues, much more FBS would be required.

FBS is also expensive. A half-liter costs about $700 dollars. The need for FBS is one of the reasons lab meat costs so much to produce. For context, hundreds of liters of FBS are needed to generate just over 2 pounds of lab meat, which is enough to make 20 fast food hamburgers.

Other problems plague FBS usage for lab meat production, including batch-to-batch variations and the risk of microbial contamination.

The good news is that numerous biotech companies have found ways to reduce the amount of FBS required to produce lab meat or eliminate it altogether.¹¹ This advance will undoubtedly contribute to the commercial viability of lab meat and truly make it a cruelty-free product.

Tentative Steps Forward?
As things stand now, the dish with lab meat is still in the oven. Nobody knows if it will be a half-baked biotechnology or not. It is unclear if consumers will accept lab meat as an alternative to conventional meat. And it is even less clear if lab meat will have the positive impact on the environment many of its advocates claim. Lab meat does hold the potential to be an economically rewarding technology. It will create jobs and open new economic opportunities. However, it will also change the face of animal agriculture, which may well harm some rural communities.

Even when it comes to animal cruelty, it’s not clear that lab meat will lead to the outcome everyone hopes—even if the FBS problem is solved. Meat is only one of the products produced by animal agriculture. Efficient egg and milk production, too, lends itself to factory farming. And other animal products like leather require animal sacrifice.

Still, it is a biotechnology well worth exploring. If it can realize—even in part—some of its promises, it will improve animal welfare and help us better care for the environment.

A Christian Perspective on Lab Meat
One final point of concern for Christians is, What should our response be to biotechnologies such as lab meat? 

• Are we overstepping our God-given bounds when we develop biotechnologies such as lab meat?
• Are we operating outside God’s design?
• Are we playing God?

The biblical passages most relevant to these questions are the human creation accounts found in Genesis 1 and 2. This section of Scripture teaches that human beings are uniquely made in God’s image. With this special status comes certain responsibilities, including:

• Subduing the world and bringing it under our control
• Ruling over the world by exercising dominion over the creation
• Serving as caretakers of the planet 

God has granted his creation to us. This responsibility entails that we use God’s creation and its abundant resources so that human beings can flourish. Yet human flourishing should not include a wanton disregard for the world in which we live. We are to exercise care for the planet and the life that inhabits it. 

These mandates provide the motivation for science and technology. Fulfilling each of these responsibilities requires that humanity understands the world. That insight, in turn, should be used to develop technologies that allow humanity to thrive while ensuring the planet’s health and protecting Earth’s ecosystems.

Because we have dominion over creation, we are free to engage in biotechnology and synthetic biology, including projects such as the creation of lab meat. Creating and using lab meat to satisfy the growing worldwide demand for meat is not outside of God’s will or design. Advances such as these are exactly the very thing God expects of us as rulers over his creation. When we create lab meat, we are exercising the authority over creation that he granted us. 

We also have an obligation as Christians to vigorously explore the potential of lab meat production to mitigate harm to the environment and to improve animal welfare. We also have an obligation to ensure that those who might be economically harmed by this technology are not marginalized, but protected. 

Assuming that we can overcome all obstacles, then lab-grown meat may be an ethically viable alternative to animal agriculture. I don’t know about you, but I would be willing to serve lab meat at my Thanksgiving table one day in the near future. And I can’t help but wonder what John Madden would think of a turducken dish made from meat cultured in the lab. 

Resources

Should We Play God?

“A Theology for Synthetic Biology, Part 1” by Fazale Rana (article)

“A Theology for Synthetic Biology, Part 2” by Fazale Rana (article)

“God’s Providence, Man’s Dominion, and Synthetic Biology” by Fazale Rana (article)

Lab Meat

Stars, Cells, and God: Lab Meat and Photosynthetic Zones by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross (video)

Endnotes

1. Martin Armstrong, “The Growing Global Hunger for Meat,” Statista (July 3, 2023).  
2. Alison George, “Lab-Grown Meat,” New Scientist, accessed August 24, 2023.
3. Isam T. Kadim et al., “Cultured Meat from Muscle Cells: A Review of Challenges and Prospects,” Journal of Integrative Agriculture 14, no. 2 (2015): 222–233, doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60881-9; Tom Ben-Arye and Shulamit Levenberg, “Tissue Engineering for Clean Meat Production,” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 3 (2019): 46, doi:10.3389/fsufs.2019.00046.
4. Lea Melzener et al., “Cultured Beef: From Small Biopsy to Substantial Quantity,” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 101, no. 1 (January 15, 2021): 7–14, doi:10.1002/jsfa.10663.
5. Tom Brennan et al., “Cultivated Meat: Out of the Lab, into the Frying Pan,” The Mackenzie Report (June 2021); Lana Bandoim, “Making Meat Affordable: Progress Since the $330,000 Lab-Grown Burger,” Forbes (March 8, 2022). 
6. Allison Aubrey, “‘No Kill’ Meat, Grown from Animal Cells, Is Now Approved for Sale in the U.S.,” NPR (June 21, 2023). 
7. Sghaier Chriki and Jean-François Hocquette, “The Myth of Cultured Meat: A Review,” Frontiers in Nutrition 7 (February 7, 2020): 7, doi:10.3389/fnut.2020.00007.
8. Grace Galler, “What Do US Chefs Think of Cultured Meat?,” New Food (October 28, 2022).  
9. John Lynch and Raymond Pierrehumbert, “Climate Impacts of Cultured Meat and Beef Cattle,” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 3 (February 19, 2019): 5, doi:10.3389/fsufs.2019.00005.
10. Derrick Risner et al., “Environmental Impacts of Cultured Meat: A Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Assessment,” bioRxiv(April 21, 2023), doi:10.1101/2023.04.21.537778.
11. For example, see Tobias Messmer et al., “A Serum-Free Media Formulation for Cultured Meat Production Supports Bovine Satellite Cell Differentiation in the Absence of Serum Starvation,” Nature Food 3 (January 2022): 74–85, doi:10.1038/s43016-021-00419-1.

The post Should We Eat Lab-Grown Meat? A Christian Perspective appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Sadly, Walter Payton died in 1999 at the age of 46 while waiting for a liver transplant. He had a rare liver disease called primary sclerosing cholangitis. This condition can lead to cirrhosis of the liver, liver cancer, and cancer of the bile duct, which is what ultimately took Payton’s life. The most important facet of Payton’s legacy extends far beyond football. His premature death focused attention on the need for organ donations. Now, strange as it sounds, researchers have discovered that a leprosy-causing bacterium may point to a treatment that may make liver transplants unnecessary altogether.

The Need for Liver Transplants
As of 2021, over 105,000 people were waiting for an organ donation. Seventeen people die each day waiting for organ transplants. Even though 40,000 transplants are performed each year, a new person is added to the transplant waiting list every 10 minutes.

The need for liver transplants is pressing. Just over 10% (11,891) of the current organ transplant waiting list consists of people in need of a liver. Fortunately, 9,236 liver transplants were performed in 2021. Still, a significant gap exists between the need and the availability of suitable livers.

Patients can receive one of two types of liver transplants. One uses livers from deceased donors. The other makes use of a portion of a liver from living donors. This type of donation is possible because of the remarkable ability of the liver to regenerate. Once the patient’s diseased liver is removed, the surgeons replace it with about 50 to 70% of the right lobe of the donor’s liver. Astonishingly, within 4 to 6 weeks the donor’s liver will completely regenerate.

Liver Regeneration
The liver’s capacity to regenerate sets it apart from the other solid organs. Its regenerative abilities allow this organ to function as the body’s detoxification site. The liver experiences chronic exposure to toxins, which damages the liver. But because this organ can regenerate itself, it can overcome the aftereffects of these chemical assaults.

Despite its ability to regenerate, repetitive injury to the liver can still lead to long-term damage. Exposure to toxins, viral infections, and disease can all take their toll. When this level of damage occurs, the liver’s regenerative capacity can’t keep pace and the only recourse is a liver transplant.

Life scientists work to understand the mechanisms involved in liver regeneration. With this understanding, they hope to one day develop techniques to stimulate diseased and damaged livers to regenerate at an accelerated rate, obviating the need for liver transplants. They also hope to apply this insight to stimulate other solid organs to regenerate, thereby alleviating the growing need for organ donors.

Unexpected Insight from Leprosy
The potential to make progress toward these two goals comes from a surprising place—the mechanism that the leprosy-causing bacterium, Mycobacterium leprae, uses to spread in humans once they have been infected by this microbe.  

Leprosy is an infectious disease that isn’t highly contagious and spreads only through extensive contact. Leprosy causes damage to the nerves, skin, eyes, and respiratory tract. Due to the nerve damage, patients lose the ability to feel pain. The loss of pain sensation can result in a loss of extremities because of severe injury or infection (by another microbe) that goes unnoticed and untreated.

Researchers interested in studying M. leprae have long used armadillos (one of the few animals that can harbor M. leprae) as a type of incubator to grow the bacteria so that they can be harvested and studied. Because M. leprae infects liver cells in armadillos, researchers often harvest the bacteria from the armadillos’ livers.

A research team from the University of Edinburgh discovered that M. leprae infections of nine‑banded armadillos cause their livers to become enlarged without any evidence of damage or tumors.¹ They wondered if M. leprae might be causing the armadillos’ livers to undergo accelerated regeneration by altering the liver cells in the same way they alter cells called Schwann cells in humans.

The M. leprae Infection Mechanism
M. leprae attacks Schwann cells when this microbe infects humans. Schwann cells are a type of glial cell. In fact, they are the primary glial cell type in the peripheral nervous system (the part of the nervous system that lies outside the brain and spinal cord). As part of the nervous system, glial cells support neurons. They also serve a structural role, a regulative role (for the firing of neurons), and an immune role.

Schwann cells produce the myelin sheath that surrounds the neurons of the peripheral nervous system. They also help maintain the neurons and play a role in the regeneration of peripheral nerves.

The loss of leprosy patients’ ability to feel pain makes sense because M. leprae targets Schwann cells. Harboring M. leprae cells compromises the Schwann cells’ capacity to support the neurons of the peripheral nervous system. 

M. leprae is described as an obligate intracellular parasite. It can survive only inside the host cell it infects. M. leprae has a relatively small genome because it relies on host cell biochemistry to survive. This dependency raises the question of how M. leprae cells disseminate throughout the host.

In 2013, the University of Edinburgh team pursued this question and discovered that when M. leprae infects Schwann cells, the bacteria reprogram the Schwann cells’ genomes so that they revert to a stem-cell/progenitor cell stage.² M. leprae appears to inactivate genes that lead to cellular differentiation when they are expressed and to activate genes that lead to a dedifferentiated cell state, similar to the state of early-stage embryo cells. 

The Schwann cells in the stem cell/progenitor cell state migrate into other tissues. When these cells find their way into muscles, the dedifferentiated Schwann cells transform into muscle cells, becoming part of the muscle tissue. Because these cells harbor M. leprae cells, the infection spreads.

The Effect of M. leprae on Armadillo Livers
To understand M. leprae behavior in armadillo livers, the investigators infected nine-banded armadillos with M. leprae. After waiting between 10 to 30 months, the researchers removed the livers from the armadillos. They noted that the livers had become enlarged yet appeared to be healthy. The livers displayed normal microanatomical features and showed no evidence of fibrosis, tumors, or other anomalies. 

The team also noted that the liver cells displayed increased cell division. The gene expression profile of these cells displayed similar characteristics to liver progenitor cells.

Potential Biomedical Applications
The researchers hope that by elucidating the molecular mechanisms involved in reprogramming liver cells, they might be able to apply this insight to treat liver disease by coaxing the cells of diseased livers to regenerate at a faster rate. If they can achieve this objective, it may make liver transplant procedures largely unnecessary. They also hope that this newfound understanding will provide the means to stimulate regeneration in solid organs that lack the capacity to regenerate. Perhaps biomedical researchers could one day leverage this understanding to grow organs in the lab from stem cells.

It’s fascinating—and a bit ironic—to think that the very mechanisms that M. leprae uses to spread within the human host are the same mechanisms that biomedical researchers may one day leverage to regenerate livers and, possibly, other organs. As a Christian and a biochemist, I attribute this irony to God’s providence.

God’s Providence
In Christian theology, providence refers to God’s continual role in: (1) preserving his creation, (2) ensuring that everything happens, and (3) guiding the universe. The concept of divine providence also posits that when God created the world, he ordained the laws and natural processes that preserve and sustain his creation. He also built into nature everything humans (and other living organisms) would need. Accordingly, every good thing that people possess has been provided by God, either directly or indirectly, through the world he made.

Because human beings have been made in God’s image, we’re able to develop and use science to characterize the world that God has made, and we possess the wherewithal to use science to develop technologies that benefit humanity (and all life on Earth). As image bearers, we’ve been given the command to subdue Earth and to exercise dominion over the planet and all its life. We’re also commanded to be stewards and caretakers of God’s creation. These commands provide the motivation to pursue science and develop technologies. So, too, does our recognition of God’s providence. 

As Christians we are motivated to pursue science so we can learn about the world and develop technologies that make it possible for humans (and other life-forms) to flourish. Part of these efforts includes working to mitigate human pain and suffering.  

In this vein, scientific and biomedical research has helped us to understand the cause of leprosy and has led to development of treatments for the disease. (Leprosy is treated with a cocktail of antibiotics called a multidrug treatment regime.) Today, leprosy is rare. There are only about 200,000 people worldwide who live with leprosy, and these cases are mostly in resource-poor countries.

If poverty and corruption didn’t complicate things, many experts think that we could eradicate leprosy from the world in short order. 

Of course, this leads to the question: Why would God create M. leprae in the first place? 

I’ve addressed this question in detail elsewhere (see “Did God Create Flesh-Eating Bacteria? A Creation Model for the Origin of Human Disease”), and RTB has developed a creation model for the origin of human infectious diseases. We take the view that God created humans to be free from the threat of human pathogens. Over time, however, some of the microbes that were part of humanity’s natural microbial flora underwent mutations that rendered them pathogenic. We also suggest that microbes that naturally infect other animals could be another source of human pathogens, as these microbes experienced mutations that allowed them to jump from an animal to a human host. This explanation could account for the origin of leprosy in humans, given that there are natural animal hosts (such as armadillos) for leprosy. 

It’s interesting to note that a team of international collaborators discovered that leprosy appears to have originated in East Africa close to the time that modern humans originated.³ In fact, the genetic variability of M. leprae can serve as a proxy for human genetic variability, because its origin and spread closely tracks humanity’s origin and migration around the world.

Without question, leprosy is devastating for those who contract the disease. It has caused significant human pain and suffering. But God’s providential care for humanity is still on full display. Even a disease-causing microbe like M. leprae reflects God’s provision for us in that it holds the key for biomedical researchers to one day regenerate livers and, possibly, other organs.

Indeed, God does work in all things to bring about good.

Maybe one day soon, when we remember people like Walter Payton, it will be for their accomplishments in life and not their tragic deaths while they waited for a liver.

Resources

• “Viruses and God’s Providence” by Fazale Rana (blog)
• “Viruses and God’s Providence Revisited” by Fazale Rana (blog)
• “A Cornucopia of Evidence for Intelligent Design: DNA Packaging of the T4 Virus” by Fazale Rana (blog)
• “The COVID-19 Vaccines and God’s Providence” by Fazale Rana (blog)
• “Did God Create Flesh-Eating Bacteria? A Creation Model for the Origin of Human Disease” by Fazale Rana (blog)
• “Why Did God Create the Thai Liver Fluke?” by Fazale Rana (blog)

Endnotes

1.  Samuel Hess et al., “In vivo Partial Reprogramming by Bacteria Promotes Adult Liver Organ Growth without Fibrosis and Tumorigenesis,” Cell Reports Medicine 3, no. 11 (November 15, 2022): 100820, doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100820.

2. Toshihiro Masaki et al., “Reprogramming Adult Schwann Cells to Stem Cell-Like Cells by Leprosy Bacilli Promotes Dissemination of Infection,” Cell 152, no. 1–2 (January 17, 2013): 51–67, doi:10.1016/j.cell.2012.12.014.

3. Marc Monot et al., “On the Origin of Leprosy,” Science 308, no. 5724 (May 13, 2005): 1040–1042, doi:10.1126/science/1109759. 

The post Leprosy, Liver Disease, and God’s Goodness appeared first on Reasons to Believe.