When examining the archaeological record, it reveals that tools used by the first humans weren’t just practical innovations. They were expressions of something deeper, something that sets us apart from every other creature on Earth.

While the phrase “evolution of tools” often gets used to support evolutionary theory, we’d like to offer you a different perspective. The story of prehistoric tools actually points to evidence of God’s special creation of humanity, revealing our spiritual nature as beings made in his image.

The journey from simple stone tools to modern technology isn’t just about increasing complexity. It’s about the emergence of symbolic thinking, creative expression, and spiritual awareness that appeared suddenly and dramatically with true humans.

This perspective aligns perfectly with the biblical account of Adam and Eve, showing how science and Scripture work together to tell the same remarkable story.

We All Use Tools

The use of all tools shows the ability to plan ahead and solve problems. This remarkable trait appears in both animals and humans, though in very different ways. God created both animals and humans with this ability, but humans were given a far greater capacity to create, innovate, and express purpose through tools.

Animals create and use tools at a basic level.

The use of tools is actually widespread in the animal kingdom:

• Sea otters use flat rocks to crack open clams and shellfish, turning over on their backs in the water to use their bellies as anvils.
• Dolphins use sea sponges to protect their snouts during foraging, carefully selecting the right size and shape for their needs.
• Crows craft hooks from twigs to fish out insects, showing remarkable problem-solving abilities.
• Octopuses carry coconut shells as armor, demonstrating forward planning.
• Herons use various items as bait to catch fish, showing they understand cause and effect.
• Elephants use branches to swat flies away, modifying natural materials for their needs.
• Capuchin monkeys select specific stones to crack open nuts, choosing the right tool for the job.

This use of tools among animals drives home an important point. Tool use isn’t a defining feature of God’s image. In fact, the tool used by chimpanzees is comparable to the tool use of some hominins like Homo habilis and Homo erectus.

Humans create and use tools at a complex level. We’ve developed spears, hammers, crossbows, tractors, telescopes, computers, and countless other innovations. But what truly sets human tools apart isn’t just their complexity.

While some animals show cleverness, only humans show advancement. We refine and innovate tools generation after generation. The same stagnation we observe in animal tool use also appears in the hominin record. Neanderthals were on Earth longer than modern humans have been, but their technology remained essentially unchanged.

Our technology has exploded from primitive to sophisticated in a remarkably short time. There must be something to explain this difference. We believe it’s the image of God reflected in our symbolic capacity.

When Did Humans Start Using Tools?

Before we answer this question, we need to define our terms carefully. In scientific circles, the word “human” can mean different things depending on what you believe about our origins.

In this article, the word “human” is used with precision. We don’t use it to describe every primate creature with upright posture or a large brain. Instead, “human” is reserved for the descendants of Adam and Eve. These are beings who aren’t just biologically advanced but also spiritual image-bearers of God.

Some scientists refer to extinct hominins like Homo habilis or Neanderthals as “early humans,” but we see those beings as merely animal primates. They were biologically impressive animals, but not truly human in a theological or spiritual sense.

Humans are us, the descendants of the first two humans, Adam and Eve. We’re spiritual beings uniquely created in the image of God and distinct from all other creatures. Though biologically classified as Homo sapiens, humans aren’t the result of evolutionary processes, and we’re much more than our biology.

We’re a distinct creation, specially made with inherent dignity, value, and purpose. Some refer to us as “modern humans” to suggest we evolved from earlier species, but humans didn’t evolve from animals. We were created with spiritual capacity and moral responsibility from the beginning. Our unique identity shows up clearly in the archaeological record.

Hominins are a group of extinct primate species like australopithecines, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and others that appear in the fossil record. They share some physical similarities with humans, but hominins are nonhuman creatures.

They were biologically advanced animals created by God but were not spiritual beings made in his image. While they may have used crude tools or displayed limited intelligence, they’re not considered part of the human lineage in a theological or spiritual sense.

Neanderthals represent a specific type of hominin, created by God with impressive cognitive and physical capabilities, but still not fully human. Neanderthals were intelligent creatures capable of tool use, limited culture, and maybe even some crude symbolic behaviors. But they ultimately lacked the image of God.

They were still alive when Adam and Eve were created but went extinct shortly afterward. Neanderthals weren’t our ancestors, though some interbreeding with humans may have occurred on a biological level.

Now we can answer the question properly. From the time of their creation around 130,000 years ago, humans (Homo sapiens) have used tools. But unlike the simple tools of earlier hominins, human tools show creativity and symbolic purpose.

The archaeological record shows an explosion of innovation when the first true humans appear. Sophisticated hunting weapons, finely crafted blades, sewing needles, musical instruments, and even tools used to create art all appear suddenly. This sudden cultural advancement reflects far more than survival. It reveals a spiritual capacity for beauty, planning, and symbolic thought.

Human tool innovation appears abruptly and fully formed, consistent with the view that humans were specially created with intelligence, purpose, and the image of God. Before the appearance of humans, hominins created only crude tools. Even though they lived on Earth four times longer than humans have so far, their tool use remained unchanged and stagnant, showing no signs of advancement or innovation over time.

The hominin tool timeline tells this story clearly. Hominins began using tools perhaps as early as 3.4 million years ago. No stone tools have been discovered with australopithecines, but animal bones show signs of butchery. The australopithecines most likely used tools made from sticks, similar to what chimpanzees use today.

The habilines, such as Homo habilis, are traditionally considered the first makers of stone tools. These tools appear in the archaeological record about 2.6 million years ago and are known as Oldowan technology. (In archeology, “technology” simply means how tools were made and used—not to be confused with modern machines or electronics.)

These were flakes produced from a rock (called the core stone) that was hit with another rock (called the hammerstone). There’s some evidence that Homo habilis also used bones to make tools, in addition to stones.

Oldowan technology remained unchanged for nearly 800,000 years before it was replaced by a new technology associated with Homo erectus, called Acheulean technology. Acheulean tool making appeared around 1.76 million years ago and lasted until about 300,000 years ago when the erectines disappeared from the fossil record.

The tools of this era tend to be more symmetric and standardized. These hominins produced a range of different tool types including hand axes (teardrop-shaped tools), cleavers (large tools with broad, straight cutting edges), picks (used for digging or processing tough materials), and flakes (produced as byproducts that were deliberately used as smaller tools).

Mousterian technology is associated with Neanderthals. It appeared around 300,000 years ago until about 28,000 years ago. Mousterian technology was more sophisticated than Acheulean technology. Mousterian tools were prepared using a distinct method called the Levallois technique, which could be used to prepare a variety of tools from chipped flakes.

Crude Tools: What They Are and Why They Matter

Understanding crude or simple tools helps us see the dramatic difference between hominin and human capabilities. Crude tools represent basic functionality without refinement or symbolic meaning.

• Flakes and cores were small, sharp stone flakes chipped off a larger rock (core) and used for cutting meat or plants. These weren’t shaped or refined, just the result of a few strikes with another rock. 
• Choppers were rounded stones with one sharpened edge, used for smashing bones, cracking nuts, or chopping vegetation.
• Hand Axes were teardrop-shaped rocks with minimal symmetry, used for cutting or scraping. While slightly more advanced than flakes, early versions still lacked fine craftsmanship.
• Hammerstones were basic stones used to strike other materials, usually to create flakes or crack open bones. No handles or shaping were involved. 
• Digging sticks used by some hominins were simple wooden sticks used for foraging roots or insects. They weren’t carved or crafted, just selected and used.

What makes these tools “crude”?

What makes these tools “crude” is the lack of complex planning or standardization. They show minimal shaping, just a few strikes to get a rough edge. There are no handles or composite materials, no symbolic decoration or specialized functions.

We can tell the difference between genuine early human tools and Neanderthal tools in several ways. As previously mentioned, Neanderthals produced a distinct set of tools called Mousterian technology. Neanderthal tools were larger and more robust, formed using the Levallois technique.

Modern humans produced tools using a technique that involved chipping away smaller flakes with much greater precision. Modern human tools showed much greater variety than Neanderthal tools and were much more standardized.

One big difference relates to technological advancement. The tools made by Neanderthals were static. They didn’t change over the entire duration that Neanderthals were on Earth. The tools made by modern humans showed technological advancements, from primitive tools of the Upper Paleolithic to the sophisticated high-tech tools we use today. We also see clear, undisputed evidence of symbolism associated with modern human artifacts.

How Did Humans Drive the Evolution of Tools?

After Adam and Eve were created 130,000 years ago, we begin to see a sudden “explosion” of human culture. Art, language, music, and religious expression all appear together. Each of these points to a unique human ability to think symbolically, express deep meaning, and reflect spiritual awareness. No other creature possesses this ability, only humans.

This ability to use symbolism as creative and spiritual beings also sparked an unprecedented leap in tool innovation. It transformed the way humans designed and used tools.

What are some examples of symbolic behavior?

• Cave art provides powerful examples of symbolic behavior. Prehistoric tools were essential for creating these masterpieces. Stone scrapers prepared surfaces, hollow bones served as tubes for blowing pigment, and mineral-based tools created paints. Prehistoric tools made the artistic expression possible, but the art itself reveals symbolic thinking that goes far beyond survival needs.
• Burial practices show another dimension of symbolic tool use. Early human tools found in graves were often finely crafted and placed with personal ornaments or red ochre. These items were positioned with care, not just for utility, but to signify honor or belief in an afterlife. This behavior isn’t seen in animals. These tools demonstrate both symbolic intent and a leap in design complexity.
• Jewelry required specialized tools used by early humans for shaping, drilling, and threading. Shell beads and engraved pendants show a shift from basic tool use to refined craftsmanship with symbolic meaning tied to identity or status. The precision required reveals advanced planning and abstract thinking.
• Musical instruments provide perhaps the clearest evidence of symbolic capacity. Ancient flutes made from bird bones and ivory were carved with precision tools, showing a high degree of planning, creativity, and abstract thinking. The tools used by early humans to make instruments were as carefully designed as the instruments themselves. This provides further evidence of symbolic and spiritual expression.

The presence of symbolism in the archaeological record aligns perfectly with the sudden appearance of humans. This symbolic capacity isn’t found in earlier hominins or animals. Evolutionary biologists still can’t explain the origin of language, which represents the pinnacle of our symbolic capacity.

What Makes Human Tools Unique?

Several key characteristics distinguish human tools from those made by animals or hominins, revealing our special nature as image-bearers of God.

• Humans build on what came before. Unlike animals, humans don’t just make tools, we improve them over time. We’ve gone from sharp rocks to robots and rockets by learning from past generations. This cumulative improvement shows up nowhere else in the natural world.
• Humans plan ahead in remarkable ways. Human tools aren’t just made in the moment. We design them with specific purposes in mind, whether for farming, building, making music, or solving problems we anticipate in the future. This forward-thinking capacity reflects our ability to mentally travel through time.
• Humans use tools in the stone age and beyond for more than survival. Animals use tools mostly to get food. Humans do that too, often in much more complex ways, but we also use tools for art, worship, communication, and exploring the world. These uses show deeper meaning and imagination that transcends basic survival needs.
• Humans teach each other in sophisticated ways. Toolmaking isn’t instinctual or just copied through observation. It’s actively taught. Parents and teachers pass down knowledge so others can learn and improve upon it. This means our knowledge grows as a community, creating an ever-expanding base of technological capability.
• Some tools have deep meaning beyond their practical function. We use tools to express who we are or what we believe. Musical instruments and religious objects aren’t just helpful, they’re meaningful. A handmade cross, a paintbrush, or even a flag can carry deep symbolic value. These tools connect us to beauty, purpose, and something bigger than ourselves.
• This transformation started suddenly, according to the archaeological record. The leap in toolmaking didn’t happen slowly or gradually. When humans showed up, advanced tools appeared rapidly alongside art, music, and religious expression. It all points to something more than intelligence. It reveals our spiritual nature and the image of God.

This pattern continues today. While animal tool use remains essentially unchanged, human technology continues advancing at an accelerating pace. From prehistoric tools to smartphones and space shuttles, we see continuous innovation driven by our unique capacity for symbolic thought, creativity, and spiritual awareness.

The use of tools by early humans established patterns we still follow today. We create tools not just for survival, but for beauty, meaning, and connection with the divine. This reflects our fundamental nature as beings created in God’s image, designed for relationship with our Creator and dominion over the natural world.

Conclusion

The story of the evolution of tools reveals something remarkable about human nature. While Neanderthals may have made markings on cave walls and buried their dead, intentional activity doesn’t automatically carry meaning.

A dog may intentionally bury a bone, but it’s not creating a memorial or making a symbolic statement. It’s simply acting on instinct. The act is deliberate, but it doesn’t carry deeper meaning.

Human tools tell a different story entirely. They’re not just more advanced than animal tools, they’re meaningful. They show we’re more than clever animals. We’re creative, intentional, and spiritual beings designed to reflect the image of our Creator.

The archaeological record supports this view beautifully. Stone tools made by hominins remained essentially unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years. But when humans appeared, tool technology exploded with innovation, artistry, and symbolic meaning. This wasn’t gradual evolution, it was a sudden emergence of capabilities that reflect our spiritual nature.

From prehistoric tools to modern technology, we see consistent patterns of innovation, meaning, and spiritual expression that set humans apart from all other creatures. This supports the biblical account of special creation rather than gradual evolution from animal ancestors.

The post The Evolution of <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Tools</em>: A Sign of <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Human</em> Origins appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

For Christians, the ethics of artificial intelligence is more than a technical debate—it’s a moral conversation that touches on how we reflect God’s character and navigate this rapidly changing world.

Let’s explore the ethics of AI from a biblical perspective, considering how we can engage with this technology responsibly and faithfully.

The Age of AI and Ethics

Artificial intelligence is reshaping how we work, live, and connect, from the algorithms that recommend what show to watch next on your favorite streaming platform to systems that help doctors diagnose diseases.

But just what is AI?

At its core, AI is the ability of machines to simulate thought processes—to think like a human. These systems analyze data, recognize patterns, and make decisions in ways that once seemed impossible for a machine.

Impressive, yes. But AI is also profoundly influential.

It raises questions not just about what it can do but also what it should do. And that’s where the conversation shifts from technology to morality.

What Is Ethics?

Ethics might seem like a big, philosophical word, but at its heart, it’s simply the study of moral right and wrong.

Ethics gives us a framework for deciding how to live, work, and interact with one another. It asks questions like: What’s the right thing to do in a given situation? How do we balance our needs with the needs of others?

Ethics isn’t just about avoiding harm; it’s about pursuing good.

Ethics take on an even more profound significance when applied to something as transformative as AI. 

Expanding beyond personal decisions, ideas abound about how these powerful systems influence societies, communities, and individuals.

What Are Christian Ethics?

Christian ethics aren’t just a list of dos and don’ts scribbled in the margins of our lives; they reflect God’s unchanging character and his design for how we’re meant to live.

Grounded in Scripture, Christian ethics remind us that every decision, no matter how small, is an opportunity to demonstrate our faith and show the world who God is.

When Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount, he wasn’t merely giving a moral checklist; he was inviting us into a life that reflects the heart of God.

“Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matthew 5:7–8). These aren’t just aspirations—they’re blueprints for how we’re called to live, transforming our ethics into a living testimony of God’s grace. Christian ethics call us to pursue righteousness, to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to shine his light in a dark world. We are to develop godly virtues with the help and empowerment of the Holy Spirit. Thus, we cannot be fully moral on our own power. We were designed to partner with God to live moral and upright lives.

Christian ethics urge us to move beyond the superficial and step into a kingdom perspective. They remind us that every breakthrough, every advancement, and every opportunity is a chance to echo the words of Jesus: “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40).

Whether we’re innovating, creating, or leading, our mission is clear: to let God’s love and truth shape how we engage with the world, leaving it brighter and better for his glory.

What Is AI Ethics?

AI ethics is the application of moral principles to the creation and use of AI systems. It’s a conversation about ensuring fairness, accountability, and transparency in these systems’ operations.

AI ethics ask essential questions, such as how we prevent bias in AI systems. How do we protect privacy in a world where machines collect more and more data? Who is responsible when AI makes a mistake?

These aren’t just technical issues but moral dilemmas that demand thoughtful, principled investigation and answers.

For Christians, AI ethics represent an opportunity to lead. By grounding our approach in God’s truth, we can ensure that this powerful technology is used not to harm but to help—not to divide but to draw us closer to his purpose for humanity.

The Ethics of AI Conversation

AI holds immense potential to transform our lives, yet its rapid evolution presents profound ethical dilemmas that call for thoughtful, faith-centered reflection.

These issues intersect with Christian values, calling us to steward this powerful tool in ways that honor God and serve humanity. How we address these challenges is not just a question of technological innovation—it’s a matter of moral integrity.

Ethical Issues of Artificial Intelligence

Many AI systems operate as “black boxes,” making decisions without explanation. This lack of transparency and accountability can foster mistrust and create fertile ground for misuse.

Scripture calls us to “walk in the light” (1 John 1:7), emphasizing integrity and accountability. Transparency in AI is a moral obligation that builds trust and ensures responsible stewardship.

Bias in AI Systems

Despite their promise of objectivity, AI systems often inherit the unjustified biases embedded in the data on which they are trained.

For instance, an AI-powered hiring tool might inadvertently favor specific demographics, perpetuating inequality instead of eliminating it.

As Christians, we are called “to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8). Justice is not optional—it’s a command. Fixing unjustified bias in AI requires humility and accountability, ensuring that technology reflects fairness and equity rather than deepening societal challenges.

Privacy & Surveillance Driven by AI Technology

Privacy and surveillance present another significant complication.

AI relies heavily on vast amounts of data to function effectively, but this dependence raises concerns about how that data is collected, stored, and used. Tools designed to protect can easily be misused as instruments of control, infringing on personal freedoms and dignity.

Christian ethics reminds us that every individual is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and their relevant and proper privacy must be respected as an extension of their inherent worth. Safeguarding privacy isn’t just a legal issue; it’s a moral obligation to protect the sacredness of human life in a world increasingly driven by data.

Ethical Concerns of AI and the Human Cost

The promise of artificial intelligence is dazzling—efficiency, automation, streamlined processes, and endless possibilities for growth. Make no mistake, industries are being transformed before our very eyes.

Yet, the glow of progress has a shadow. Every breakthrough carries a cost—displaced workers, disrupted livelihoods, and the subtle erosion of human dignity.

As followers of Christ, we’re called to look beyond the data and see the people impacted by these changes. Jesus’s teaching to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39) compels us to respond with compassion and advocacy.

Faithful stewardship means balancing innovation with care, ensuring that progress does not come at the expense of human worth. Technology must serve humanity, preserving dignity rather than sacrificing it for efficiency.

With AI’s rise comes great potential but also great risk.

Few concerns are more sobering than the weaponization of AI, where autonomous systems make life-and-death decisions without proper moral guidance. Such uses stray far from God’s vision of peace. Jesus declared, “They must not slander anyone, but be peaceable, gentle, showing complete courtesy to all people.” (Titus 3:2). Technology should reflect the Creator’s heart, protecting life rather than threatening it.

AI’s ability to influence behavior also raises additional ethical concerns. Algorithms shape our thoughts and choices, often prioritizing profit over truth. Christian ethics calls us to think about “whatever is true, whatever is noble, and whatever is admirable” (Philippians 4:8), reminding us to design systems that uplift and inform, not deceive or manipulate.

AI also risks undermining the relationships that define us.

From robots offering companionship to automated interactions replacing human touch, technology sometimes edges out the personal connections God designed us to share. The Bible urges us to “spur one another on toward love and good deeds” (Hebrews 10:24).

As Christians, we must guide AI to deepen connections, not replace them. We must work to ensure that love, empathy, and the gift of presence remain at the heart of our communities.

AI Ethical Dilemma Examples

Artificial intelligence doesn’t exist in a vacuum of theoretical possibilities—it’s woven into the very fabric of our daily lives, often in ways we scarcely realize. These dilemmas are not abstract; they touch on real issues that affect real people.

Consider the hiring algorithm designed to streamline recruitment. Its efficiency is appealing, but what happens if it unintentionally excludes certain demographics, perpetuating systemic AI bias?

Or was the surveillance system created to enhance safety? What happens when it oversteps its bounds, infringing on personal freedoms and turning protection into control?

Autonomous weapons powered by AI make life-and-death decisions without human oversight. Who bears responsibility for their actions? And then, there are algorithms designed to manipulate user behavior, exploiting vulnerabilities for profit rather than serving the common good.

Each scenario highlights the urgent need for a Christ-centered approach to technology.

As stewards of God’s creation, we’re called to approach AI cautiously, ensuring it aligns with his principles of justice, compassion, and integrity.

These are not just challenges for engineers and policymakers; they are moral questions that demand the involvement of people of faith willing to engage with humility and courage.

Can AI Be Ethical?

The question, Can AI be ethical? is about more than technology—it’s about the people who design, implement, and steward it.

AI is neither good nor evil; it’s a tool shaped by the values and intentions of those who create it.

Its potential for harm is undeniable, but so is its potential to serve as an instrument of hope and healing. The answer lies in how we choose to use it.

Christian ethics remind us that our ultimate accountability is to God.

When we approach AI with humility, wisdom, and a heart aligned with his values, we can ensure it reflects his love and light.

This means prioritizing justice over convenience. Transparency over secrecy. Human dignity over profit. It means asking what AI can do and what it should do and designing it to serve others with integrity and compassion.

Christian Ethics in the Age of AI

AI offers us a remarkable opportunity to reflect God’s character in our innovation. By holding ourselves to his standard, we can create technology that uplifts human nature rather than exploits, unites rather than divides, and serves rather than dominates. The ethics of AI conversation invites us to think deeply and act responsibly, aligning our actions with God’s eternal truth. Christians should use AI while being mindful and strategic to develop virtues in one’s character.

As Christians, we’re called to be a light in the world, even in spaces dominated by algorithms and code. We can approach the development and use of artificial intelligence as a spiritual calling, ensuring it glorifies God and serves humanity with justice, mercy, and love.

Advocating for Biblically Ethical AI

Practical steps start with advocating for biblically informed fairness in AI, ensuring everyone has equal access to its benefits, and promoting transparency in its use. Above all, Christians should see AI as a tool to uplift humanity, not diminish it.

The Bible reminds us that every person is made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27). This truth must shape how we approach AI’s ethical challenges. If AI devalues human work, disrupts relationships, or leads to practices that strip away dignity, we cannot stay silent.

As followers of Christ, we are called to push back—prioritizing human worth and God’s design over the lure of technological convenience.

3 Guiding Truths for Navigating AI Ethics

As we step into the uncharted waters of artificial intelligence and its many ethical dilemmas, it’s easy to feel adrift. The questions are big, and the challenges are complex.

But as Christians, we have a steady anchor—the eternal truths of Scripture. These truths remind us that while technology may seem daunting, our faith doesn’t rest on human ingenuity or innovation. It rests firmly on the unchanging character of God.

When the path is unclear, we can look to his Word for guidance, knowing his wisdom, sovereignty, and love are constant. AI may be new, but the principles that guide us are as timeless as the God we serve.

Let’s explore three truths that steady our hearts and light our way as we navigate the AI ethical crossroads.

1. God’s Sovereignty Over All Creation (Colossians 1:16–17)

AI may feel overwhelming, but let us not forget that it is part of the creation over which God reigns supreme.

Nothing, not even the most advanced algorithm, escapes his control. He is the Creator of all things—visible and invisible—and he holds everything together in his sovereign hands.

When the ethical questions surrounding AI seem too large to handle, we can rest in the knowledge that God’s sovereignty has not been shaken. Every innovation, every decision, and every moment is under his watchful eye.

His plan is good, his wisdom is infinite, and his authority remains unchallenged.

2. Human Worth is Rooted in God (Psalm 139:13–14)

In a world increasingly measured by efficiency, productivity, and comparison, it’s easy to feel small next to machines that seem to outperform us.

But Scripture reminds us that our worth isn’t tied to what we can do—it’s rooted in who we are: creations of a loving God. He has prepared us for an opportunity to be his ambassadors and perform good works—even with AI. “For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 2:10).

We are fearfully and wonderfully made, woven together with care and purpose by the Creator of the universe. AI may calculate faster, analyze better, and execute tasks precisely, but it will never hold the worth of a soul redeemed by Christ.

Our value is not something a machine can replicate or replace. It is infinite, eternal, and grounded in the truth that we’re made in the image of God.

3. God’s Wisdom Guides Our Decisions (Proverbs 3:5–6)

The ethical concerns of AI often feel like navigating a maze with no clear end in sight. But as Christians, we’re not left to figure it out alone. God’s wisdom is available to us, and his guidance is unfailing.

When we trust him and submit our decisions to his will, he promises to make our paths straight—even through the tangle of ethics in AI.

Leaning on God’s wisdom means approaching these challenges prayerfully, seeking his counsel through Scripture, and listening for his voice in our decisions. It means trusting he’ll illuminate the way, even when the road is unclear.

Approaching Artificial Intelligence with Faith and Wisdom

Biblical truths remind us that God’s sovereignty, the inherent worth he has placed on humanity, and his unfailing wisdom are constants in a world of rapid change.

So, we can face the ethical concerns of AI with confidence—not in our abilities, but in his promises. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His hand guides us, his heart cares for us, and his truth anchors us in every storm.

The age of AI is here. The question is, how will we, as Christians, rise to meet it?

Will we lean into God’s wisdom, using this technology for his glory? Or will we let the world’s standards dictate its use? The choice is ours, and it’s a choice that matters.

As we engage with these questions, we can trust in the God who sees, knows, and holds all things together.

The post Ethics of Artificial Intelligence appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

As Christians, we find ourselves at a crossroads when exploring the impact of social media on our physical, mental, and spiritual health. The Bible obviously doesn’t mention social media directly, but it does provide us with timeless wisdom that can guide our approach to this modern problem. We also have valuable scientific research that offers insight into the effects of social media on our brains and behavior.

In this article, we’ll explore the intricate relationship between social media addiction, mental health, and faith. We’ll study the latest scientific findings, examine biblical principles, and provide advice for maintaining a healthy balance in our digital lives. By the end of this journey, we hope to provide you with an in-depth understanding of social media addiction and equip you with the tools to navigate this challenging aspect of everyday life.

Is Social Media Dangerous?

Before we dive into social media addiction, it’s important to address a fundamental question: Is social media dangerous? The answer isn’t a simple yes or no because social media is a tool, and its impact depends on how we use it.

Social media has brought about many positive developments in our society. It has connected people worldwide, helped to exchange important information, and provided platforms for all voices to be heard. Thanks to these social platforms, many of us have experienced the joy of reconnecting with old friends or staying in touch with family members we don’t often see.

However, as we all know, too much of a good thing can be bad for you. This is where the danger of social media manifests. The danger lies not in its existence but in its potential for overuse and misuse. The features that make social media engaging and useful are the same things that make it addictive and harmful when used excessively.

Is Social Media Addictive?

To understand whether social media is truly addictive, we have to define addiction. Addiction is most commonly associated with substances like drugs or alcohol, but in recent years, the concept of behavioral addictions has gained recognition in the scientific community.

Behavioral addictions involve compulsive engagement in behaviors that can be rewarding despite negative consequences. These can include common societal activities like gambling, shopping, or, in our case, social media use. While not all excessive behaviors qualify as addictions, there’s growing evidence to suggest that social media use can indeed become addictive for some individuals.

So, what exactly makes social media potentially addictive? The answer is in the way these platforms are designed and how they interact with our brain’s reward system. Social media companies employ teams of psychologists and user experience experts to make sure their platforms are as engaging and addictive as possible. They use a variety of techniques to keep us scrolling, liking, and sharing. These include:

1. Variable reward schedules: This is the same principle used in slot machines. When we check our social media, we never know what we’ll find—a funny meme, an interesting news article, or a like or comment on our recent post. This unpredictability keeps us coming back for more.
2. Social validation: Likes, comments, and shares trigger the release of dopamine in our brains, creating a pleasurable sensation that we want to experience again and again.
3. Fear of missing out (FOMO): Social media platforms create a sense that important things are happening all the time, making us afraid to disconnect in case we miss out on something crucial.
4. Infinite scrolling: Many platforms have eliminated natural stopping points, making it easy to keep scrolling, otherwise known as doomscrolling.
5. Notifications: Push notifications serve as constant reminders to check our devices, interrupting our focus and pulling us back into the digital world.

These intricate design features tap into fundamental human needs for connection, validation, and information. When combined with the accessibility of our devices, which allow us to access social media anytime and anywhere, it’s easy to see how social media use can become problematic for many.

What Is Social Media Addiction?

Now that we’ve established how social media can be addictive for some, let’s explain what we mean by social media addiction. Social media addiction refers to the compulsive use of social platforms to the point that it interferes with your daily life. It’s characterized by an overwhelming need to use social media, which often results in neglecting personal relationships, work or school responsibilities, and even physical health.

Dr. Kimberly Young, a pioneer in the field of internet addiction, has proposed diagnostic criteria for social media addiction that mirror those used for substance addictions. These include:

1. Preoccupation with social media
2. Withdrawal symptoms when unable to access social media
3. Tolerance (needing to spend more time on social media to get the same “high”)
4. Unsuccessful attempts to cut back on social media use
5. Loss of interest in other activities
6. Continued use despite negative consequences
7. Lying about or hiding social media use
8. Using social media to escape negative feelings

It’s important to note that not everyone who uses social media frequently is addicted. The distinction lies in the negative impact on one’s life and the inability to control usage despite these negative consequences.

What Research Says About Social Media Addiction

As concerns about social media addiction have grown, so has the body of research examining this phenomenon. Let’s take a look at some key findings from recent studies:

1. Prevalence: A 2019 study published in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions found that approximately 5% of adolescents met the criteria for social media addiction. However, estimates vary widely depending on the criteria used and the population studied.
2. Mental health impact: Numerous studies have linked excessive social media use to increased rates of depression, anxiety, and loneliness. For example, a 2017 study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that young adults with high social media usage (more than 2 hours per day) were twice as likely to experience social isolation compared to those who spent less than half an hour per day on social media.
3. Sleep disruption: Research has consistently shown that social media use, especially before bedtime, can negatively impact sleep quality and duration. A 2016 study in the Journal of Adolescence found that nighttime social media use was associated with poorer sleep quality, higher levels of anxiety, and lower self-esteem.
4. Brain changes: Neuroimaging studies have shown that social media addiction activates the same brain regions as drug addictions. A 2019 study in Addictive Behaviors Reports found that individuals with problematic social media use showed reduced gray matter volumes in the anterior cingulate cortex, an area involved in emotion regulation and impulse control.
5. Academic performance: Several studies have found a negative correlation between social media addiction and academic performance. A 2015 study in Computers in Human Behavior reported that students who used social media while studying scored lower on tests compared to those who didn’t.

These findings paint a concerning picture of the potential impacts of social media addiction. However, it’s important to remember that correlation doesn’t always equal causation. Many of these studies can’t definitively say whether social media causes these issues or if people with preexisting conditions are more likely to develop problematic social media use.

Social Media Addiction Statistics

To further illustrate the scope of this issue, let’s look at some eye-opening statistics related to social media use and addiction:

1. According to a 2021 report by DataReportal, the average person spends 2 hours and 25 minutes per day on social media.
2. A 2018 Pew Research Center study found that 95% of teens have access to a smartphone, and 45% say they are online “almost constantly.”
3. The same Pew study reported that 31% of teens believe social media has a mostly positive effect on their lives, while 24% believe it has a mostly negative effect.
4. A 2019 survey by Common Sense Media found that 50% of teens report feeling addicted to their mobile devices.
5. A 2018 study in the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology found that limiting social media use to 30 minutes per day led to significant reductions in loneliness and depression.

These statistics highlight the impact of social media in our lives and the growing awareness of its potential negative impacts. They also highlight the importance of understanding and addressing social media addiction.

Signs of Social Media Addiction

Recognizing the signs of social media addiction is crucial for addressing the problem. Here are some common indicators that social media use may have become problematic:

1. Constant checking: Feeling an irresistible urge to check social media accounts frequently, even in inappropriate situations (like during work meetings or family dinners).
2. Loss of time awareness: Spending more time on social media than intended, often losing track of time while scrolling.
3. Neglecting responsibilities: Letting social media use interfere with work, school, or household duties.
4. Withdrawal symptoms: Feeling anxious, irritable, or restless when unable to access social media.
5. Failed attempts to cut back: Making repeated unsuccessful attempts to reduce social media use.
6. Using social media to cope: Turning to social media as a way to escape from problems or negative emotions.
7. Relationship issues: Experiencing conflicts with friends or family members due to constant social media use.
8. Decreased real-world social interaction: Preferring online interactions over face-to-face conversations.
9. Physical symptoms: Experiencing headaches, eye strain, or sleep disturbances due to excessive screen time.
10. Preoccupation: Constantly thinking about social media or planning the next post even when not online.

If you or someone you know is exhibiting several of these signs, it may be time to consider seeking help or making changes to social media habits.

Effects of Social Media Overuse

Social media addiction can have widespread effects, influencing various aspects of an individual’s life. Let’s explore some of the key effects:

Physical Effects

1. Sleep disturbances: The blue light emitted by screens can interfere with the production of melatonin, a hormone that regulates sleep. Additionally, the stimulating nature of social media can make it difficult to wind down before bed.
2. Eye strain: Prolonged screen time can lead to digital eye strain, causing symptoms like dry eyes, blurred vision, and headaches.
3. Posture problems: Constantly hunching over devices can lead to neck and back pain, a condition sometimes referred to as “text neck.”
4. Reduced physical activity: Time spent on social media often comes at the expense of physical activity, potentially contributing to a sedentary lifestyle.
5. Carpal tunnel syndrome: Repetitive motions like scrolling and typing on mobile devices can lead to wrist and hand pain.

Mental Health Effects

1. Anxiety and depression: Numerous studies have linked excessive social media use to increased rates of anxiety and depression. The constant comparison to others’ highlight reels can lead to feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem.
2. Loneliness and social isolation: Despite being designed to connect people, social media can lead to feelings of loneliness and isolation, especially when it replaces real-world interactions.
3. Attention problems: The constant stream of information on social media can lead to decreased attention spans and difficulty focusing on tasks.
4. Fear of missing out (FOMO): Social media can create or exacerbate anxiety about missing out on social events or experiences.
5. Body image issues: Exposure to idealized and often unrealistic body images on social media can contribute to poor body image and eating disorders, particularly among young people.

Cognitive Effects

1. Memory issues: Constantly consuming bite-sized pieces of information can potentially impact our ability to form and retain long-term memories.
2. Reduced creativity: While social media can be a source of inspiration, overuse can lead to information overload and reduced original thinking.
3. Impaired decision-making: Some studies suggest that excessive social media use can impact the prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain responsible for decision-making and impulse control.
4. Decreased empathy: Overreliance on digital communication may reduce our ability to read social cues and empathize with others in face-to-face interactions.

Social and Relationship Effects

1. Relationship conflicts: Excessive social media use can lead to conflicts in relationships, whether due to neglect, jealousy, or misunderstandings.
2. Reduced quality of interactions: Even when physically present with others, the habit of checking social media can lead to less meaningful interactions.
3. Online vs. offline persona discrepancy: The curated nature of social media can create a disconnect between a person’s online persona and their real-life self, potentially leading to identity issues.
4. Cyberbullying: Social media platforms can facilitate bullying and harassment, which can have severe psychological consequences.

Academic and Professional Effects

1. Reduced productivity: Constant interruptions from social media notifications can significantly impact work or academic performance.
2. Missed opportunities: Time spent on social media is time not spent on personal or professional development activities.
3. Digital footprint concerns: Inappropriate social media posts can have long-lasting consequences on one’s reputation and career prospects.

How Social Media Addiction Affects The Brain

To truly understand the addictive nature of social media, we need to look at its effects on the brain. Neuroscientific research has shown that social media use can trigger the same neurological circuits as addictive substances.

1. Dopamine release: Social media interactions, such as receiving likes or comments, trigger the release of dopamine in the brain’s reward center. This creates a pleasurable sensation that encourages repetition, much like the high from certain drugs.
2. Intermittent reinforcement: The unpredictable nature of social media rewards (you never know when you’ll get a like or a comment) creates a pattern of intermittent reinforcement, which is known to be addictive.
3. Activation of the amygdala: The amygdala, the part of the brain associated with emotional processing, becomes highly active during social media use, often intensifying emotional responses to online interactions.
4. Changes in the prefrontal cortex: Some studies suggest that excessive social media use may impact the prefrontal cortex, potentially affecting impulse control and decision-making abilities.
5. Neuroplasticity: Regular, intense experiences (like those provided by social media) can change the structure of our brains over time, potentially making it harder to break the habit.

Understanding these neurological effects can help us appreciate why social media can be so compelling and why breaking a social media addiction can be challenging.

Spiritual Effects

As Christians, it’s crucial that we also consider the spiritual implications of social media addiction. While the Bible doesn’t specifically mention social media, it does provide principles that can guide our approach to this modern challenge.

1. Idolatry: In Exodus 20:3, God commands, “You shall have no other gods before me.” From the earliest story of humanity, Scripture shows how easily our attention can shift from trusting God to pursuing something that promises satisfaction apart from Him. When social media becomes an obsession that takes precedence over our relationship with God, it can become a form of idolatry.
2. Comparison and envy: Proverbs 14:30 warns, “A heart at peace gives life to the body, but envy rots the bones.” Social media’s emphasis on presenting idealized versions of our lives can fuel unhealthy comparison and envy.
3. Distraction from spiritual disciplines: Constant social media use can distract us from important spiritual practices like prayer, Bible study, and meditation. As Jesus said in Matthew 6:6, “But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.”
4. Neglect of real-world relationships: The Bible emphasizes the importance of community and face-to-face relationships. Hebrews 10:24–25 encourages us, “And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another.”
5. Time stewardship: Ephesians 5:15–16 advises, “Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.” Excessive time spent on social media may not align with good stewardship of the time God has given us.
6. Impact on our witness: As Christians, we’re called to be salt and light in the world (Matthew 5:13–16). Our social media habits, both in terms of time spent and content shared, can either enhance or hinder our witness to others.
7. Seeking validation from the wrong source: Social media can foster a need for constant affirmation through likes and comments. However, as Christians, our ultimate validation should come from God. As Galatians 1:10 reminds us, “Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.”

These spiritual effects underscore the importance of using social media with intentionality and wisdom, always keeping our relationship with God at the center of our lives.

How to Stop Social Media Addiction

Recognizing the need to address social media addiction is an important first step. Here are some strategies to tackle this modern challenge:

1. Digital detox: Consider taking a break from social media for a set period, whether it’s a day, a week, or longer. This can help reset your habits and provide perspective on your usage.
2. Set boundaries: Establish specific times for checking social media and stick to them. For example, you might decide to only check social media during your lunch break and after dinner.
3. Turn off notifications: Disable push notifications for social media apps to reduce the temptation to constantly check your phone.
4. Use screen time tracking tools: Many smartphones now have built-in features that track your app usage. Use these to become more aware of your social media habits.
5. Find alternative activities: Replace social media time with other activities you enjoy, such as reading, exercising, or spending time with friends and family.
6. Practice mindfulness: When you feel the urge to check social media, pause and ask yourself why. Are you bored? Anxious? Understanding your triggers can help you address the root causes.
7. Improve sleep hygiene: Establish a “no screens” rule for at least an hour before bedtime to improve sleep quality.
8. Curate your feed: If you’re not ready to quit entirely, start by unfollowing accounts that make you feel negative or trigger excessive use.
9. Use social media with intention: When you do use social media, set a specific purpose instead of mindlessly scrolling.
10. Find an accountability partner: Find a friend or family member who can support you in your efforts to reduce social media use.
11. Replace virtual connections with real ones: Make an effort to connect with friends and family in person rather than relying on social media interactions.
12. Practice gratitude: Regularly reflect on the blessings in your life to counteract the tendency to compare yourself to others on social media.
13. Engage in spiritual disciplines: Prioritize time for prayer, Bible study, and other spiritual practices to stay centered and gain perspective.
14. Seek professional help: If you’re struggling to control your social media use on your own, consider talking to a therapist or counselor who specializes in behavioral addictions.

Remember, breaking a social media addiction is a process that requires patience and persistence. Be kind to yourself as you work toward healthier habits.

The One True Solution for Social Media Addiction

While the suggested strategies can be helpful, as Christians, we believe that true transformation comes through a relationship with Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul reminds us in Philippians 4:13, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”

Here are some biblical principles that can guide us in overcoming social media addiction:

1. Renewing the mind: Romans 12:2 says, “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” This involves consciously replacing worldly thought patterns with God’s truth.
2. Seeking God’s kingdom first: In Matthew 6:33, Jesus instructs us to “seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” When we prioritize our relationship with God, other things, including our use of technology, fall into proper perspective.
3. Finding identity in Christ: Galatians 2:20 reminds us, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” Understanding our true identity in Christ can free us from the need for validation through social media.
4. Practicing self-control: Galatians 5:22–23 lists self-control as a fruit of the Spirit. As we grow in our faith, the Holy Spirit empowers us to exercise greater control over our behaviors, including our social media use.
5. Getting community support: Ecclesiastes 4:9–10 tells us, “Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their labor: If either of them falls down, one can help the other up.” Being part of a supportive Christian community can provide accountability and encouragement in overcoming addiction.
6. Prayer and dependence on God: James 5:16 encourages us, “The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.” Bringing our struggles with social media before God in prayer can be a powerful step toward healing.
7. Filling our minds with good things: Philippians 4:8 advises, “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” Consciously filling our minds with positive, godly content can help counteract the often negative effects of social media.

By grounding our approach to social media in these biblical principles, we can work toward a healthier relationship with technology that aligns with our faith and values.

Conclusion

As we’ve explored in this article, social media addiction is a complex issue with far-reaching effects on our physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. While social media platforms offer many benefits, their addictive potential poses significant challenges for individuals, families, and society as a whole.

Christians living in the digital age are called to navigate these challenges with wisdom and discernment. We must remember that while technology itself is neutral, how we use it can either enhance or hinder our relationship with God and others. The apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 6:12 are particularly relevant: “‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say—but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’—but I will not be mastered by anything.”

The key is to maintain a balanced perspective. Social media can be a powerful tool for connection, learning, and even ministry when used intentionally and in moderation. However, we must be vigilant to ensure that it doesn’t become an idol that consumes our time, attention, and emotional energy at the expense of real-world relationships and spiritual growth.

As we strive to overcome and develop healthier digital habits, let’s remember that our ultimate source of fulfillment and identity is not found in likes, shares, or followers, but in our relationship with God. Jesus’s words in Matthew 11:28–30 offer a beautiful invitation, especially for people who need spiritual rest:

In a world that often feels overwhelming and that constantly calls us to connect digitally, this promise of rest and peace is more relevant than ever. By grounding ourselves in God’s love and truth, we can develop a healthier relationship with social media and technology, using these tools to enrich our lives and faith rather than letting them control us.

Let us move forward with intention, wisdom, and grace, always seeking to honor God in how we engage with the digital world. May we use our time and technology in ways that reflect his love, build genuine connections, and contribute positively to our communities and the world.

The post Social Media Addiction: Physical <em class="algolia-search-highlight">and</em> Spiritual Effects appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

This explanation seems likely because Bayes’ work, which he never published, was discovered after his death by his fellow minister and mathematician friend and colleague Richard Price. Price used Bayes’ theorem to argue that the existence of multiple independent witnesses to a miracle could overcome the improbability of the miracle happening and establish it as a fact. In this article we will take a brief tour of Bayes’ theorem, explore how the inventor of the analytical engine (one of the first computers!) used Bayesian thinking to counter Hume’s argument against the resurrection, and consider the role Bayesian statistics can play in Christian apologetics today.

What Is Bayes’ Theorem?
Bayesian statistics is often used to update prior beliefs after observing new data. How well do our existing beliefs explain the relevant data and do we need to update our beliefs? As an example, let’s consider the likelihood that Thomas Bayes wrote his essay on probability to refute David Hume, given that Richard Price used Bayes’ theorem for that very purpose. In this case, our “prior” belief is that Bayes wrote his essay to refute Hume, which we’ll assign a probability of 60%. Why? If 60% seems a bit arbitrary, that’s because it is and this fact drives a school of statisticians called frequentists crazy—but keep in mind that real life often requires making decisions in the face of uncertainty. Also, Bayes was known for engaging in intellectual debate and was devout in his faith.

Now, our data in this case is that Price, a friend of Bayes, used Bayes’ theorem to refute Hume. If Bayes himself had this purpose in mind, it is even more likely that Price, given their friendship, would do so. Thus, we’ll assign the probability of our data about our belief to 80%. Now the tricky part. What is the likelihood that Price would use Bayes’ theorem to refute Hume even if Bayes never intended it for that purpose? This is the probability of the data—whether or not our belief is true—and is necessary to calculate the probability of our belief given the data (see the equation below).

In this case, we’ll say that the probability of Price using Bayes’ theorem to refute Hume— regardless of Bayes’ intent—is reasonably high, since Price himself was eager to engage in such debates. We’ll set the probability of the data regardless of our belief at 65%. We can then calculate, based on our assumptions, the probability of our belief that Bayes wrote his essay to refute Hume.

Now, if we change our assumption and decide that we have no idea how likely Price would be to use Bayes’ theorem to refute Hume on his own, the probability Bayes wrote his essay to refute Hume jumps to 96% because the denominator in our equation changes from .65 to .5, giving us (0.8 * 0.6) / 0.5 = 96%. The point is that Bayes’ equation can give different answers depending on how sure you are that a particular observation could have occurred without the effect you are checking. For example, it’s not likely that a sunny day would give you a stomach ache, but sour milk definitely could. So, this is how you would calculate the probability of a stomach ache given a sunny day:

I’ll leave it to you to calculate this on your own. If you get stuck, just ask ChatGPT or Gemini and they can help you out. In real life there are cases where we can use historical data to know these probabilities more precisely, such as figuring out if a positive cancer test really means you have cancer, which is a very practical application of Bayesian statistics.

Babbage’s Refutation of Hume
Let us fast forward from Bayes in the 1740s to Charles Babbage, professor of mathematics at Cambridge and designer of a steam-powered programmable computer called the analytical engine, in the early 1800s. Babbage rephrased Hume’s challenge to eyewitness testimony of miracles (such as the resurrection) as, “The falsehood of testimony of the miracle must be more improbable than the miracle,”¹ or as an equation:

In common vernacular, Hume would only believe claims of the miraculous if the probability that the witnesses were wrong was less than the probability of the miracle, which would be difficult if you assume miracles have a very low probability of occurring. If we assume mutually independent witnesses who are reliable 99% of the time, then the probability of N (number) such witnesses being wrong is given by the following equation:

After crunching some numbers using Bayesian equations provided by Pierre-Simon Laplace (the scholar who came up with the mathematical equation for Bayes’ theorem after rediscovering the same principle around 1774), Babbage came to the conclusion that as long as your witnesses speak truth more often than falsehood, there will always be a number of witnesses who can satisfy Hume’s criteria (see Taylor’s paper² for details). In other words, eyewitness testimony could mathematically provide reasonable evidence for a miraculous event, given certain assumptions about the eyewitnesses.

So What?
Bayes’ theorem does not offer “proof” of the miraculous, but it does help us understand how our assumptions impact our beliefs. Hume assumed the probability of the resurrection occurring was zero (weighting the scales just a tiny bit), whereas Babbage calculated it to be 5 * 10^-12. By assigning the resurrection a nonzero probability, Babbage made it possible for eyewitness testimony (assuming certain properties of eyewitnesses) to function as reliable evidence for the resurrection (if it’s zero then no amount of evidence would be sufficient). While neither of these numbers may be the “correct” number, they at least allow us to ask fun, meaningful questions, such as “How many eyewitnesses should be necessary for me to accept the resurrection as a historical event based only on the data available to me?”

Ultimately, Bayes’ theorem helps us think about how prior assumptions influence our conclusions when we update our beliefs given a set of facts. Making our priors clear helps us have better apologetic conversations because we understand precisely where we are starting and, when engaging skeptics such as Hume, how to communicate in a way that may open doors for more meaningful dialogue.³

Endnotes  

1. Courtney K. Taylor, “Charles Babbage and Mathematical Aspects of the Miraculous,” ACMS 22nd Biennial Conference Proceedings, Indiana Wesleyan University, 2019.
2. Taylor, “Babbage and Mathematical Aspects.”
3. For a scholarly book that considers the probability of God’s existence, see Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, 2nd ed. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004).

The post Bayes, Babbage, <em class="algolia-search-highlight">and</em> Belief in the Resurrection appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Since 1998, an array of satellites has been tracking particulate air pollution levels all around the world. From 1998 to 2021, the average increase in such pollution over India, alone, measured 67.7%. Between 2013 and 2021, India was responsible for 59.1% of the global increase in particulate air pollution.

Can this alarming trend be checked or even reversed? Yes. I’ll explain how—given that our planet has been created with resources for the benefit of all humanity—we can remedy this problem, but first I’ll describe the scope of the challenge.

Identifying the Pollutants
Researchers with the World Health Organization (WHO) identify two forms of particulate pollution: inhalable particles between 2.5 and 10 micrometers in diameter, and inhalable particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, or PM2.5, the latter being the most dangerous. The major components of both kinds of particulate air pollution are black carbon soot, mineral dust, sulfates, nitrates, ammonia, and sodium chloride (salt).

In 2021, the PM2.5 air pollution over India averaged 58.7 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m³), an increase of 4.4% over the previous year. The measure in that same year for Delhi was 126.5 µg/m³, an increase of 18.2%. This 2021 level exceeds by more than 25 times the level set by WHO as the maximum human tolerable level of 5 µg/m³. Meanwhile, ground-based instruments indicate that the city of Darbhanga in northeast India may have had an even higher PM2.5 level than Delhi that year. These instruments indicated a 2021 average PM2.5 level of 175.9 µg/m³, more than 35 times the WHO limit.²  

Right behind India in dangerously high levels of PM2.5 pollution are eastern China and virtually all the nations of Southeast Asia. In China, PM2.5 air pollution takes 2.5 years off the life expectancy of the average resident, even more from those living in the largest cities.³ In Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan, the effect of PM2.5 is worse yet, shortening average life expectancy by five years.⁴ The loss of life expectancy attributable to particulate pollution across all of Asia averages 3.3 years.⁵

Health Consequences
Anyone who has warmed up near an open fire that’s pouring out billows of smoke has experienced the respiratory distress that comes with inhaling smoke. When it starts to irritate our lungs and nasal passages, we instinctively back away. In an open area, we benefit from this option.

Inhalable particulates from a campfire or other open fire tend to be larger than 2.5 micrometers, typically about 10 micrometers in diameter. These larger particles can penetrate deep into lungs and from there into the bloodstream, potentially causing serious health problems. However, it’s the smaller PM2.5 particles that pose the greatest health risks: decreased lung function, fibrosis, aggravated asthma, COPD, irregular heartbeat, heart attacks, lung cancer, and premature death in people with heart or lung disease.⁶ Children and older adults are at greatest risk from exposure.

Additionally, the PM2.5 pollution in India shows elevated levels of arsenic, tin, and lead.⁷ Long-term exposure to these elements is known to cause cancer and organ failure. By all indications, this pollution is a slow, stealthy killer.

Impact on Life Expectancy
Exposure to PM2.5 not only degrades human health, as noted, it substantially lowers life expectancy. For India as a whole, PM2.5 air pollution shortens residents’ life expectancy by 5.3 years.⁸ According to the latest Quality of Life Index, the average person living in the vicinity of Delhi would live 11.9 years longer if the PM2.5 level there were reduced to 5 µg/m³ or less.⁹ 

India’s northern plains dwellers, 546 million people who constitute 39% of India’s total population, are currently on track to lose 8 years of life expectancy, due to PM2.5 air pollution.¹⁰ Clearly, exposure to PM2.5 air pollution ranks as the greatest threat to life expectancy in India, ahead of cardiovascular diseases, high systolic blood pressure, and tobacco—all of which have received serious attention in recent years. All the while, particulate pollution has only continued to increase. 

Environmental Damage
PM2.5, the primary cause of reduced visibility (haze) in the atmosphere (see figures 1 and 2) also increases the acidity of lakes, streams, estuaries, seas, and oceans. It melts snow and ice, significantly contributing to global warming as it decreases the reflectivity of Earth’s surface. Additionally, it depletes soil nutrients, damages food crops, fruit trees, and forests, and even degrades buildings, bridges, monuments, and statues.

Figure 1: Low Visibility Due to PM2.5 at the New Delhi Railway Station
Note that the railway building a half kilometer away is nearly invisible.
Credit: Sumita Roy Dutta, Creative Commons Attribution

Figure 2: PM2.5 Air Pollution in New Delhi Significantly Blocks Sunlight
Credit: Sumitmpsd, Creative Commons Attribution

Potential Remediation
Nearly all of India’s PM2.5 air pollution comes from the burning of coal, wood, biomass, diesel, oil, and gasoline, with coal as the biggest contributor.¹¹ Replacing these fuel sources with natural gas would eliminate the majority of India’s PM2.5, leaving only the small contribution from road and construction dust. This replacement would offer the added benefit of immediately reducing India’s carbon greenhouse gas emissions by nearly half.

Natural gas, or methane (CH₄), is a clean fuel in that it releases no particulates into the atmosphere as it burns. The end products are water vapor and carbon dioxide. While both water vapor and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases, only the carbon dioxide release contributes to global warming. The extra water vapor simply condenses as rain, dew, mist, snow, hail, or frost.

In North America, natural gas is a more economical source of fuel than coal, wood, diesel, oil, and gasoline. Consequently, natural gas is used everywhere for heating and for generating electricity. When truck and car engines are converted to run on natural gas, the fuel cost for these vehicles is cut in half. Thus, for most North Americans and Western Europeans, exposure to PM2.5 air pollution poses no significant health risk. By switching to natural gas, Canada, the United States, and western Europe saw a more dramatic drop in greenhouse gas emissions than all other nations of the world.

Barriers to Potential Remediation
Although natural gas is abundant and relatively inexpensive in North America, such is not the case in India, China, and Southeast Asia. Why? North America sits on a vast natural gas reserve, a supply of such size as to rid the whole world of dependency on coal, wood, diesel, oil, and gasoline fuel sources—and for less than these nations/regions currently pay.

To make this resource available to the rest of the world, however, North America would have to scale up its capacity to export liquefied natural gas. The good news is that natural gas can be cooled down to liquid form, which can be easily and safely stored and transported. Liquefied natural gas takes up only 1/600^th the volume of natural gas at standard temperature and pressure. Giant tanker ships have capacity to transport the equivalent of 162 million cubic meters of natural gas to ports all over the world (see figure 3).

Figure 3: Q-Max LNG Tanker Carrier
With a length of 345 meters (1,132 feet) and a width of 54 meters (177 feet) the Q-Max LNG (liquefied natural gas) tanker can transport 266,000 cubic meters of liquefied natural gas—equivalent to 162,000,000 cubic meters of natural gas at normal temperature and pressure.
Credit: Nakilat, Creative Commons Attribution

The problem, however, is that on January 26, 2024, the executive branch of the U.S. government made the decision to delay even considering the construction of new liquefied natural gas terminals. The stated rationale for this decision was to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Ironically, the decision does just the opposite. In effect, it forces India, China, and Southeast Asia to continue their dependence on coal, wood, diesel, oil, and gasoline. Worse yet, it perpetuates the early demise of over a billion human beings.     

Spiritual Lessons
The Bible tells us that God put human beings in charge of Earth’s resources to wisely manage them for the benefit of all Earth’s life (Genesis 1:28–30). Wise management implies paying attention to unintended consequences. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee for the United States Congress, has explained the unintended consequences of limiting LNG exports.¹² While the goal of eliminating virtually all greenhouse gas emissions through the development of wind, water, solar, and nuclear power is laudable, this goal will take a great deal of time to achieve—an estimated two decades, at least.

Meanwhile, it would seem both prudent and life-saving to help other nations to lower greenhouse gas emissions by replacing high-greenhouse-gas-emitting fossil fuels with the lowest-greenhouse-gas-emitting fossil fuel: natural gas. After all, this resource is the most abundant and least costly fuel available, not to mention the one and only fossil fuel that releases no particulate pollution.

God calls the descendants of Adam and Eve to live compassionately in the love and strength he alone provides. He will show us how to alleviate poverty and suffering wherever they exist, giving honor to his name. Supplying Asia with abundant natural gas would save tens of millions of lives and alleviate widespread devastation of both humans and animals. It would dramatically boost the economies of both North American and Asian nations. It would rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and, thus, effectively mitigate global warming and climate change. It would enhance the ecosystems of Asia, increasing food and forest productivity throughout the region. It would clear up the skies over Asian cities so that the 2+ billion people living in these cities could actually see stars at night. Once again, for billions of people, the heavens could—and would—declare to them the glory and righteousness of God (Psalm 19:1, 97:6).    

Endnotes

1. Michael Greenstone and Christa Hasenkopf, “Air Quality Life Index 2023: Annual Update”(August 2023), https://aqli.epic.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/AQLI_2023_Report-Global.pdf; “Air Quality Life Index, India Fact Sheet” (2023), https://aqli.epic.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/India-FactSheet-2023_Final.pdf.
2. IQAir, “World’s Most Polluted Cities: Most Polluted City Ranking Based on Annual Average PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3)” (2017–2022), https://www.iqair.com/us/world-most-polluted-cities.
3. Greenstone and Hasenkopf, “Air Quality Life Index 2023.”
4. Greenstone and Hasenkopf.
5. Greenstone and Hasenkopf.  
6. Lukasz Zareba et al., “The Relationship between Fine Particle Matter (PM2.5) Exposure and Upper Respiratory Tract Diseases,” Journal of Personalized Medicine 14, no. 1 (January 16, 2024): id. 98, doi:10.3390/jpm14010098; Dayong Yue et al., “Diesel Exhaust PM2.5 Greatly Deteriorates Fibrosis Process in Pre-Existing Pulmonary Fibrosis Via Ferroptosis,” Environment International 171 (January 2023): id. 107706, doi:10.1016/j.envint.2022.107706; Yonghui Yang et al., “Continuous Exposure of PM2.5 Exacerbates Ovalbumin-Induced Asthma in Mouse Lung Via a JAK-STAT6 Signaling Pathway,” Advances in Clinical Experimental Medicine 29, no. 7 (July 2020): 825–832, doi:10.17219/acem/121009; Ruyi Li, Rui Zhou, and Jiange Zhang, “Function of PM2.5 in the Pathogenesis of Lung Cancer and Chronic Airway Inflammatory Diseases (Review),” Oncology Letters 15, no. 5 (May 2018): 7506–7514, doi:10.3892/ol.2018.8355.
7. Pallavi Pant et al., “Characterization of Ambient PM2.5 at a Pollution Hotspot in New Delhi, India and Inference of Sources,” Atmospheric Environment 109 (May 2015): 178–189, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.02.074.
8. “Air Quality Life Index, India Fact Sheet.”
9. “Air Quality Life Index, India Fact Sheet.”
10. “Air Quality Life Index, India Fact Sheet.”
11. Abhinandan Ghosh et al., “A District-Level Emission Inventory of Anthropogenic PM2.5 from the Primary Sources Over the Indian Indo Gangetic Plain: Identification of the Emission Hotspots,” Science of the Total Environment 914 (March 1, 2024): id. 169865, doi:10.1016/j.sciotenv.2023.169865; Pant et al., “Characterization of Ambient PM2.5.”
12. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, United States Congress Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, “Myth vs. Fact: Biden’s LNG Export Ban” (February 5, 2024), https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/myth-vs-fact-on-biden-s-lng-export-ban.

The post Most Polluted City Sets Course for Creation Care <em class="algolia-search-highlight">and</em> Health appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

After your family opens some presents and enjoys a nice brunch, you head into the rest of your day. Stepping outside, the blistering 100^°F temps remind you of what people used to describe as summer, but Christmas in the year 2523 is a different time. The lawn is dry, the sun intense, and the air conditioning bills high. No, global warming is not the culprit. This is life without leap year! Don’t like this situation? Give it a few more centuries and Christmas will once again occur during the part of the year we in the northern hemisphere call winter. 

What Is a Year?
To understand why we need leap years, a little background on years and seasons is required. The cyclical nature of years (summer, fall, winter, spring) and the existence of seasons are not arbitrary or random. Rather, the motion of Earth around the Sun determines the length of the cycle—defined as a year—and the tilt of Earth’s axis determines the seasons. As shown in the figure below, Earth’s axis is tipped relative to the plane of Earth’s orbit. This means that as Earth moves around the Sun, the amount of sunlight received at a given location will change. When the North Pole points away from the Sun, the northern hemisphere experiences winter and the southern hemisphere summer. Conversely, when the North Pole points toward the Sun, the northern hemisphere experiences summer and the southern hemisphere winter. 

Figure 1: Earth’s positions as it revolves around the Sun, with seasonal dates and configurations.

We define a year as the time it takes for the Sun to return to the same spot in Earth’s sky, and we call this quantity a tropical year.¹ Although the precise length of a tropical year can vary by about 30 minutes, it averages 365.2422 days, or 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45 seconds. Since we only have 365 days in a calendar year, the calendar year will slowly drift out of phase with the tropical years at a rate of about 6 hours/year. Since the location of Earth in its orbit determines the season, when a calendar year only has 365 days, the seasons will slowly drift through the calendar. 

How Does Leap Year Work?
Throughout most of human history seasonal occurrences like the beginning of harvest and other natural agricultural-related events drove much of life, and different cultures adopted various approaches to keep the calendar years synced with the tropical year. It was a common occurrence that calendar years varied from year to year. For example, the Hebrew calendar had 12 months with a total of 354 days. To compensate for seasonal drift, a thirteenth lunar month was added every 2–3 years. Starting in 45 BC, Julius Caesar sought to remove any reason to modify the year since it was often done for political motivations. Caesar modified the Roman calendar so that each month had 30–31 days (except February) because a superstitious previous king thought months with even numbers were unlucky. Additionally, Caesar instituted a policy of adding one day to the calendar every four years, placing that day before March 1. Thus, the average year in a Julian calendar is 365.25 days, which is much closer to the average tropical year of 365.2422 days. 

This Julian calendar aligned with the tropical years quite well, but the average Julian year is slightly longer than the average tropical year. By the 1500s, the Julian calendar had drifted by ~10 days relative to the tropical year. Thus, in October 1582, Pope Gregory XIII introduced the calendar that now bears his name. The most significant difference between the two is that the Gregorian calendar has only 97 leap years every 400 years but the Julian calendar has 100. With this change, the average Gregorian year is 365.2425 days, and the drift between the Gregorian calendar and tropical years is about 1 day every 3,000 years!

The rule for determining which years are leap years is this: 

According to the Gregorian calendar, which is the civil calendar in use today, years evenly divisible by 4 are leap years, with the exception of centurial years that are not evenly divisible by 400. Therefore, the years 1700, 1800, 1900 and 2100 are not leap years, but 1600, 2000, and 2400 are leap years.

Leap Year Reflects Order
I’ve always thought leap years were cool. Specifically, the year I finally had more birthdays than my mom (born on February 29) was memorable. And that’s something that most of her grandkids remembered as well! More importantly, the need for leap year reflects the incredible order in our universe. Think about it for a minute. Earth travels nearly 600 million miles each year in its orbit around the Sun, and that journey takes 525,948  +/- 15 minutes! And scientists can calculate those variations for each year by accounting for the gravitational influences of the Moon and other planets in the solar system. This knowledge allows us to adjust calendars accordingly. 

Scripture makes it clear that God has the power to create the universe, but it also reveals another attribute: God’s immutability. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If God were to withdraw his hand from upholding the universe, it would tumble into nonexistence. In other words, God’s immutability results in the universe behaving reliably because God sustains it at every place, all the time. In fact, God sustains the universe so reliably that we can describe its behavior using terms like the “laws of physics” and, for science to function properly, that reliability is an absolute necessity.

Endnotes

1. There are other ways to define a year, such as a sidereal year, which is the time it takes for Earth to complete one revolution of its orbit around the Sun. However, for calendar purposes, we’re most interested in aligning the seasons (primarily determined by equinoxes) so the tropical year is used to define the Julian and Gregorian calendars.

The post Why Leap Years Are Important appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Stephen Hawking warned us to stop sending signals out into space because any alien species that can reach us will be far more technologically advanced than we are, and, as our own history teaches us, such encounters rarely work out well for the natives.¹ And in his book Superintelligence, University of Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom warns that a superintelligent AI may annihilate humanity in the process of becoming the dominant form of life on earth.² But why, with so much talk of superintelligent AIs and aliens, is the idea of a superintelligent God alien to the modern imagination? In the search for superintelligence, what if we’re looking in all the wrong places?

In this article, I discuss what superintelligence means, why there is so much buzz around it, whether the buzz is justified, and how superintelligence may open doors to share about a God whose ways are higher than our own, even as the heavens are higher than the earth (Isaiah 55:9).

What Is Superintelligence?
In his book, Bostrom defines three types of superintelligence—speed intelligence (same quality as humans but faster), collective intelligence (many minds together—think the Borg from Star Trek), and quality intelligence (as humans are smarter than animals, so this intelligence is above that of humans). If we develop an AI as smart as humans, it’s likely to automatically achieve a speed advantage over us—given that the electrical signal in the brain moves at 1/100,000th the speed of the signal in a silicon chip. However, at this point in history even artificial general intelligence (AGI), an AI intelligence equivalent to humans, is still science fiction. In fact, even with all of our advances in the field of AI, we still struggle to create a test to determine whether or not a machine is truly as intelligent as a human.

The Turing test, in which a human tries to determine if they’re talking to a human or an AI, is insufficient according to philosopher John Searle. He proposed the Chinese room argument, where a man appears to know Chinese because he always passes the correct Chinese characters out of a room to his interlocutor, but in fact the man is simply following the instructions of a computer program and does not understand a single character of Chinese. François Chollet, an AI researcher at Google, points out that the human mind is capable of what is called “extreme generalization,” which Chollet defines as “adaptation to unknown unknowns across an unknown range of tasks and domains.” Humans can figure out how to tie a knot, solve a sudoku, paint a work of art, navigate a relational issue, and then walk the dog.

By contrast, current AI systems are only good at solving a single task, such as recognizing or generating images, and no single AI can solve a broad set of tasks—especially unknown tasks. Unforeseen circumstances often cause current AI systems to break. So why are philosophers and influencers speculating about superintelligence when we still don’t have AGI or even understand how to evaluate AI for human-level intelligence?

Why All the Buzz?
To the modern secular mind the emergence of superintelligence is inevitable because evolution must progress. Accordingly, given that elephants and whales have more raw computing power than humans in their brains,³ surely human intelligence is merely a byproduct of our brain architecture and the evolutionary process. The idea that the human race, which has only been around for a tiny fraction of the 14 billion years the universe has existed, is the apex intelligence seems an absurd, antiquated, anthropocentric view. Combine this low view of humanity’s place in the overall history of the universe with the recent hype surrounding AI models that (1) beat the world’s best Go players (AlphaGo), (2) score better than most humans on standardized tests, (3) produce impeccable text (ChatGPT), and (4) produce art that can win competitions against human artists (Midjourney), and it’s not hard to understand why people are waiting for sentient AI to pop into existence and even surpass human capabilities. 

Tim Urban, well-known for his blog Wait But Why, embodies this perspective in an article he wrote titled “The AI Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence.”⁴ Urban argues that most people do not understand how quickly AI will overtake humanity in terms of intelligence. But do scientists who are experts in AI agree with this view or is popular culture’s take on AI merely science fiction?

Is the Buzz Justified?
Andrew Ng, cofounder of Google Brain and professor at Stanford University famous for his online AI classes, emphasized to the US Senate AI Insight Forum that AI doomsday scenarios are unlikely.⁵ To understand Ng’s position, consider the following words posted by Yann LeCun, one of the three “godfathers” of AI, on December 17, 2023 on LinkedIn:⁶

The emergence of superhuman AI will not be an event. Progress is going to be progressive.

It will start with systems that can learn how the world works, like baby animals. Then we’ll have machines that are objective driven and that satisfy guardrails. Then, we’ll have machines that can plan and reason to satisfy those objectives and guardrails. Then we’ll have machines that can plan hierarchically.

At first, those machines will be barely smarter than a mouse or a rat. Then we’ll scale up those machines to be as smart as a dog or a crow. Then, we’ll adjust the guardrails to make those systems controllable and safe as we scale them up. Then we’ll train them on a wide variety of environments and tasks. Then we’ll fine tune them on all the tasks that we want them to accomplish.

At some point, we will realize that the systems we’ve built are smarter than us in almost all domains. This doesn’t necessarily mean that these systems will have sentience or “consciousness” (whatever you mean by that). But they will be better than us at executing the tasks we set for them. They will be under our control.

Notice how LeCun changes the narrative around superintelligent AI. There is no singularity event where AI becomes sentient and suddenly decides to assault humanity. AI is a human-controlled system trained by humans to excel at a set of tasks. Humans may misuse AI, the same way that humans misuse any other technology to dominate others, but the chances of AI going rogue are slim.

Moreover, superintelligence will not come about explosively (as Urban suggests). Rather, each step toward superintelligence will be progressive. And even once AI is better than humans at a broad set of tasks, that doesn’t mean that AI will have godlike powers.

Superintelligence and God
The idea of a superintelligent God may be a comfort or a terror. For the person who trusts in the goodness, grace, and mercy of God, a comfort. For the person who either does not believe God is good or who intends to do no good themselves, a terror.

Likewise, the idea of a superintelligent God may grow or stymie the intellect. For the person who  recognizes a superintelligent God as an opportunity to ask the most challenging questions of a Person who is unthreatened by, and the author of, our intellect, the mind will flourish. For the person who wants to use the idea of a superintelligent God to avoid facing the difficult questions, the intellect will be stymied.

Finally, the idea of a superintelligent God may open doors to a fun and thoughtful conversation. Whether or not humans ever create a superintelligent AI, as Christians we can use the idea of superintelligence as a thought-provoking conversation starter. What if God is superintelligent? What if his ways really are higher than our ways? What if a superintelligent God loves us so much that he came into this messy world and died a cruel death and rose again from the grave—all that we might love, worship, and dwell with him forever in paradise?

The apostle Paul puts it in perspective:

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!

    How unsearchable his judgments,

    and his paths beyond tracing out!

“Who has known the mind of the Lord?

    Or who has been his counselor?”

“Who has ever given to God,

    that God should repay them?”

For from him and through him and for him are all things.

    To him be the glory forever! Amen. (Romans 11:33–36)

Endnotes  

1. Leo Hickman, “Stephen Hawking Takes a Hard Line on Aliens,” The Guardian, April 26, 2010.
2. Nick Bostrom, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2014), 91.
3. Bostrom, Superintelligence, 69.
4. Tim Urban, “The AI Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence,” Wait but Why (blog), January 22, 2015.
5. Andrew Ng, The Batch, no. 227, December 13, 2023, https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/issue-227/.
6. Yann LeCun, LinkedIn, December 17, 2023, https://www.linkedin.com/posts/yann-lecun_the-emergence-of-superhuman-ai-will-not-be-activity-7142009252721655808-tVMa.

The post Aliens, AI, <em class="algolia-search-highlight">and</em> God: The Search for Superintelligence appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

—The scholar department team at RTB

A previous article (Technology Teaches: What Does Applied Science Reveal About God? About Love?) examined how technology teaches us things about God. This follow-on article examines the temptations that can come with technology. When Scripture says that “No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind” (1 Corinthians 10:13), it’s easy to envision how things like technological achievements in human history have led to hubris and self-reliance rather than worship of God.

King Uzziah’s Engineers
Years ago, I was pleased to find a pdf file of the King James Version (KJV) Bible on the Internet. Today, Internet sites allow many Bible translations to be searched, but at that time searching for text in an electronic Bible was a new experience. I enjoyed looking for words and phrases of interest. As a mechanical engineer, I was surprised and pleased to find that the KJV uses the word “engine” twice.

The first is in 2 Chronicles 26. In any translation, this chapter tells the story of King Uzziah of Judah. He was a good king, one of the best. In the New International Version (NIV), verse 4 begins, “He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord.” The following text describes how Judah defeated its enemies, even receiving tribute from them. Under Uzziah’s leadership, the nation prospered and its defenses were improved. But how were they improved?

The KJV explains in verse 15 (emphasis added), “And he made in Jerusalem engines, invented by cunning men, to be on the towers and upon the bulwarks, to shoot arrows and great stones withal.” The result? “And his name spread far abroad; for he was marvellously helped, till he was strong.”¹ For a mechanical engineer, this is very exciting. Inventing powerful machines is our bread and butter!

The machines of 2 Chronicles 26:15 are easily recognized as catapults (for hurling stones or shooting arrows). Indeed, since antiquity, military necessity has given rise to bothengines and engineering. Catapults, for offense or defense, were designed by what we would call mechanical engineers. The fortifications they would defend or attack are the works of what we would call civil engineers. In this way, the KJV shows that engines and engineers existed long before engineering was formally taught or existed as a profession.

But what about the KJV’s description of engineers? They were not simply skillful—the adjective used in most translations—but cunning. Many people are skillful, but few are cunning.

Cunning creatures are sly like foxes. The cunning can conceive of things that would never occur to others. But there’s a dark side to cunning. Uzziah’s engines were designed to kill people and break things, the basic function of weaponry.² Yes, their purpose was good, the defense of Jerusalem, but only in a fallen world are such devices considered necessary.³

Uzziah’s Pride
Okay, this may be very interesting to engineers (even fascinating!), but why should anyone else care about this story? Because of what follows in verse 16: “But after Uzziah became powerful, his pride led to his downfall.”

Certainly, this result is consistent with Proverbs 16:18, “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.” And what made Uzziah so proud? Craftsmanship gave him an extraordinary sense of power, especially those engines, the works of cunning engineers. They were the technological wonders of his day!

And why is this significant? Because today we’re no different. We are so proud of our twenty-first-century technology and its capacity to apply science to improve our lives, that we’re tempted to be self-reliant and turn away from God.

Lord Acton observed in 1887 that “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”⁴ So, with strong armies and fortified cities, Uzziah understandably felt the power of those engines. Do we not feel the same way about today’s technological wonders? Humans seem to have supreme confidence that technology will overcome any barriers to comfortable living—perhaps even cheating death itself!

And what is the nature of Uzziah’s sin? Verse 16 concludes, “He was unfaithful to the Lord his God, and entered the temple of the Lord to burn incense on the altar of incense.” In other words, he lost sight of his God-given role, to rule as king over God’s people. No longer content with being king, he fancied himself a priest. We might conclude that his will to power was stimulated.

Technology Tempts Today
Today, the beguiling power of science and technology continues to distract people from their reliance on God. With hot and cold running water; heating and air conditioning; vehicles to move about town and around the world; safe, nutritious, and tasty food in abundance; computers, cell phones, the Internet, and much more, we fancy ourselves self-sufficient—never mind that these only serve our needs and wants in this world. Who needs God when life is so good? Many people are tempted to live as though God doesn’t exist. And instead of worshipping God, humans worship the self and the created world.

The temptation to live life without God is strong. I’m an engineer. My training and experience shaped my technical problem-solving skills. When I use those skills to plan and execute a project, it’s easy for me to forget God and the gifts he gave me and my obligation to use those gifts for God’s glory. I forget to pray and thank God for the privilege it is to help build the kingdom of Christ. In better moments I strive to be conscious of the pull of power, the urge to do things for me and in my way. I must let go of the take-charge-and-make-things-happen attitude characteristic of engineers, one built on self-sufficiency, and humbly ask God to be at work in me.⁵

We have much to be thankful for, and technology brings us many good things. James 1:17 reminds us that “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights.” The comforts and advances we enjoy as a result of technology are God’s gifts. They’re to be received with gratitude. Thanks be to God for the blessings of science and technology, and in using and making them, may we be faithful in giving God all the glory!

Endnotes

1. For comparison, the NIV translates verse 15: “In Jerusalem he made devices invented for use on the towers and on the corner defenses so that soldiers could shoot arrows and hurl large stones from the walls. His fame spread far and wide, for he was greatly helped until he became powerful.” From an engineering perspective, the noun device falls short of engine. Device is a more general term, and many devices function with little or no energy stored or released. By contrast, catapults store and quickly release large amounts of energy, the very definition of powerful.
2. Note Ezekiel 26:9, the second KJV reference to engines in a prophecy of Tyre’s destruction: “And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.”
3. As the effectiveness of weapons has increased, so has the moral ambiguity that surrounds them, as shown in the recent movie Oppenheimer, directed by Christopher Nolan (Universal Pictures, 2023).
4. Gertrude Himmelfarb, Lord Acton: A Study in Conscience and Politics (First published 1952; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Acton Institute, 2015), 144.
5. As skillful as engineers are, it seems that failures inevitably occur. Unfortunately, engineers do not always learn from failures, a fact that engineering-professor-turned-historian Henry Petroski has studied for decades, beginning with To Engineer Is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design (New York: Vintage Books, 1992), continued in To Forgive Design: Understanding Failure (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012).

The post <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Technology</em> Tempts: Can Applied Science Go Too Far? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Visibility of the Heavens in Ancient Times
Artificial nighttime lighting (ANL) likely dates back to Adam and Eve. The archaeological record testifies that Homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans) always had control over fire. Therefore, nighttime camp and hearth fires would have been common. The earliest written records mention the widespread use of candles and oil lamps.

These early forms of ANL were intermittent, rarely intended to provide illumination for more than a few hours, and illumination levels were low, typically below that of a 40-watt incandescent bulb. The illuminated areas were small, too, usually only about 10 square meters. For people of the Roman Empire and earlier, a short walk or a few hours wait would be sufficient to escape any ANL interference with views of the nighttime sky. 

When God told Abraham to “look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them,”¹ the night sky on a moonless night was so dark that any human adult with good eyes could see ~15,000 stars. Abraham saw the Milky Way and dozens of nebulae, an awe-inspiring sight. His contemporaries’ ability to determine the great distances to the Moon and the Sun and their inability to measure distances to the stars spoke to them of the vastness of the starry realm.

With the invention of the telescope in 1608, humans could see, for the first time, hundreds of thousands of stars. By the late 1600s, millions of stars had become visible.    

Decreasing Visibility of the Heavens
The industrial revolution of the 1800s and especially the technological revolution that followed the end of World War II had a blinding effect. With gas lighting replacing oil lamps in the 1800s, city streets remained illuminated all night long. By the end of the 1800s, incandescent electric bulbs replaced gas lighting. In the 1900s, incandescent bulbs gave way to mercury vapor lamps, which subsequently gave way to low-pressure sodium lamps. Now, LED lighting is replacing mercury and sodium lamps.

Each technological advance in ANL has made nighttime lighting much brighter, more pervasive, and much less expensive. Thus, since 1900, ANL has been increasing exponentially, and the rise in ANL has been especially steep since 2000.

Sadly, the twenty-first-century rise of ANL has brought with it serious health challenges and ecological consequences.² At the same time, it has drastically reduced the visibility of the heavens for the majority of the world’s population.

For the first time in human history, most people live in large metropolitan areas. In such places, ANL is so intense that when they look up at the night sky people see fewer than 50 stars! I’ve been in some Asian cities where, on a “clear” night, not even the brighter planets were visible, let alone any stars. In some of these same cities, the combination of light and air pollution makes seeing the Moon impossible, unless it is at least 15 degrees above the horizon. So, for hundreds of millions of people, the heavens declare nothing about the glory and righteousness of God. For them, the magnificent heavenly objects remain totally invisible.  

Decreasing Effectiveness of Telescopes
Abraham’s generation did not need telescopes. Our generation does. The availability of telescopes helps compensate for what we cannot see with our unaided eyes. With a good pair of binoculars, we can travel to the countryside to see all that Abraham could see. We can visit the NASA and ESO websites and marvel at images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), the Very Large Telescope array, and now the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).

However, civilization and technology are now threatening the capability of telescopes to see the heavens clearly. How? Satellites now number in the tens of thousands. Within a decade, proposed satellite constellations could raise the number of satellites orbiting Earth as high as a hundred thousand, even a quarter of a million or more.

Satellites orbiting Earth reflect sunlight. They create streaks of light across images of the night sky (see figure 1). Especially in the case of long-exposure telescopic images, dozens of satellite streaks brighter than the natural objects astronomers are attempting to observe and measure severely degrade the quality of the research results (see figure 2).

Not only ground-based telescope images are being marred by satellite streaks. Satellites leave bright streaks across images taken by the HST, as well. In 2021, 5.9% of HST images exposed for just 11 minutes were streaked by satellites.³ Deep HST images take hours. The percentage of images marred by satellite streaks rises proportionally with exposure time. You can imagine researchers’ frustration.

Figure 1: Light Streak from an Artificial Satellite above the Very Large Telescope
Credit: ESO

Figure 2: Astronomical Image Marred by Satellite Trails
Credit: Victoria Girgis/Lowell Observatory  

As seriously as optical wavelength telescopes are impacted by ANL and Earth-orbiting satellites, radio telescopes are impacted to a far greater degree. Radio interference from ground-based and satellite transmissions is both strong and pervasive, and it’s only growing stronger and more pervasive. I’ve written recently⁴ about how radio interference seriously limits long-wavelength radio astronomy, and I must add that it also seriously limits short-wavelength radio astronomy.

The research on which I based my doctoral thesis is no longer feasible. For the detection sensitivity required, I used broadband receivers at five different centimeter wavelengths. Today, these bandwidths are saturated by radio interference. Radio astronomy at these wavelengths is now confined to a few narrow “protected” bandwidths.   

ANL Increase by Satellites
In 2020, a team of astronomers calculated the degree of illumination from Earth-orbiting satellites at the zenith (directly above any point on Earth’s surface) at midnight. The skyglow amounted to 20 microcandelas per square meter.⁵ (1 candela expresses the light emitted by a candle of specific size and composition.) This level of illumination already degrades astronomers’ observations. 

The megaconstellation satellite systems proposed for launch during the next 15 years will increase midnight zenith illumination by more than ten times. It may even become noticeable to people living in rural areas.    

Dark Sky Refuges
The International Astronomical Union has appealed to the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space to protect the night sky’s darkness for the sake of future advances in astronomy. While astronomers cannot stop the launch of satellite constellations, the best they can hope for is that corporations manufacturing satellites will make them less reflective. 

Radio astronomers feel especially hopeless. The proposed satellite arrays will be transmitting powerful signals across most of the radio spectrum. 

The one remaining “radio quiet” location in the solar system is the far side of the Moon during the lunar night. However, even this site is under threat. In the next decade or so, the Moon will become the target of hundreds of orbiters and landers. These orbiters and landers could spoil radio astronomy’s last remaining refuge.⁶

At a conference called Astronomy from the Moon: The Next Decades, held at the Royal Society of London, astronomers raised the alarm. They called on governments to establish international treaties that would protect the Moon’s far side. In particular, they called for the shelving of plans to install a lunar satellite navigation system. They asked that strict rules be applied to any satellite or lander operating on the Moon’s far side. 

More than 250 lunar missions are scheduled for launch during the next decade. The time window to draft appropriate treaties and acquire necessary signatures is small and rapidly shrinking.

Meanwhile, optical and infrared astronomy research is also being squeezed out. The remaining refuge for these types of observations is the Lagrange 2 point (L2) along Earth’s orbit. This point is about a million miles away from Earth, where the JWST has been operating for the past year. The European Space Agency’s Euclid Space Telescope is on its way to join the JWST in L2.

To place telescopes at the L2 site is not inexpensive. The JWST, for example, cost $10 billion. Furthermore, the L2 site is subject to meteorite and micrometeorite impacts, and L2 is too far away for repair or upgrade missions.   

What’s at Stake?
Increasing ANL threatens more serious consequences than interference with the astronomy research I’m passionate about. It will bring more serious health and ecological consequences than those we’re already experiencing. For one example, the Bible speaks of a time when people’s love will “grow cold.”⁷ It’s easy to see how ANL may be partly to blame. 

ANL reduces both the duration and quality of sleep.⁸ A recent study shows that sleep loss exacerbates depression and reduces expression of altruism.⁹ Altruism would likely be further reduced and depression further increased as people lose the ability to see the beauty and wonder of God as expressed in the heavens. Much more than astronomical research is at stake.

What Can Be Done?
Technological advances have made ANL, the Internet, and global positioning systems remarkably accessible. The low cost of these amenities tempts humans everywhere to expand their usage. However, the time has come to address significant questions: 

1. Can we limit ANL to places where it’s essential for safety? 
2. Can we move ANL wavelengths toward the red end of the spectrum, where its effects are less harmful?
3. Can we develop new technology so that we can get by with many fewer satellites?
4. Can we make satellites less reflective, less “noisy,” and place them in lower orbits? 
5. Can we design satellites to de-orbit once they cease useful operation? 
6. Can we develop and implement a system for the retrieval and safe disposal of obsolete satellites and space litter? 

I believe we can do all these things and more, as well, to help restore access to the revelation of God’s glory and righteousness in the heavens. Personally, I love to show people the gorgeous images being released by space telescopes and explain what they tell us about our Creator.

Although I may seem to be bashing technology, I greatly value one particular smartphone app. When the phone is aimed up at the night sky, it identifies astronomical objects that can be detected there. A good pair of binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50 or 10 x 50) can be linked to the smartphone for enhanced viewing of the planets, moons, stars, and nebulae. 

The sense of wonder that comes from observing and pondering the heavens nearly always leads to in-depth conversation about the One who brought them—and us—into existence.    

Endnotes

1. Genesis 15:5.
2. Hugh Ross, “Is Artificial Nighttime Lighting Too Much of a Good Thing?” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe (October 17, 2022).
3. Sandor Kruk et al., “The Impact of Satellite Trails on Hubble Space Telescope Observations,” Nature Astronomy 7 (March 2, 2023): 262–268, doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01903-3.
4. Hugh Ross, “LuSEE: Boldly Going Where No One Has Gone Before,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe (July 24, 2023).
5. M. Kocifaj et al., “The Proliferation of Space Objects Is a Rapidly Increasing Source of Artificial Night Sky Brightness,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 504, no. 1 (June 2021): L40–L44, doi:10.1093/mnras/slab030.
6. Davide Castelvecchi, “Are Telescopes on the Moon Doomed before They’ve Even Been Built?” Nature 615 (March 16, 2023): 383–384, doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00635-8.
7. Matthew 24:12.
8. Maja Grubisic et al., “Light Pollution, Circadian Photoreception, and Melatonin in Vertebrates,” Sustainability 11, no. 22 (September 14, 2019): id. 6400, doi:10.3390/su11226400.
9. Eti Ben Simon et al., “Sleep Loss Leads to the Withdrawal of Human Helping Across Individuals, Groups, and Large-Scale Societies,” PLOS Biology 20, no. 8 (August 23, 2022): id. e3001733, doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001733.

The post Saving Astronomy—<em class="algolia-search-highlight">and</em> More appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Electromagnetic radiation comes in a range of wavelengths that make up the electromagnetic spectrum. The range includes AM radio waves at the lowest energy/longest wavelength end of the spectrum and gamma-rays at the highest energy/shortest wavelength end. Astronomers have observed every part of the electromagnetic spectrum except one: radio frequencies below 30 megahertz, corresponding to wavelengths longer than 10 meters. 

Now, thanks to a much-anticipated mission scheduled for deployment in 2025 or early 2026, astronomers are about to explore the final frontier.¹ I expect that the knowledge gained from this exploration will yield new evidence for the intentional design of the cosmos for our existence.

Impenetrable Barrier: Earth’s Ionosphere
One reason astronomers have been unable to explore the universe at wavelengths longer than 10 meters has to do with the effects of Earth’s ionosphere, the region where Earth’s atmosphere meets interplanetary space. Earth’s ionosphere extends from 48 to 965 kilometers (30–600 miles) above sea level. It’s where ultraviolet and x-ray radiation from the Sun ionizes (strips away the electrons of) atoms and molecules.

This ionization in Earth’s upper atmosphere generates a huge amount of radio “noise” at wavelengths longer than 3 meters. All that noise limits astronomers’ capability to glean meaningful information about our galaxy, other galaxies, and the distant universe at those wavelengths.² Nevertheless, because of the importance of this wavelength range, astronomers have dedicated five instruments to making observations at wavelengths longer than 3 meters: (1) the Square Kilometer Array (SKA), (2) the Low Frequency Array (LOFAR), (3) Large Array Low-Frequency Sky Survey (VLSS), (4) the Galactic and Extragalactic All-Sky MWA Survey (GLEAM), and (5) the Eighth Cambridge (8C) Survey. 

The longest wavelength yet observed by the first four instruments has been 4.2 meters. Astronomers used the fifth instrument to observe radio sources at 7.9 meters; however, the quality of their data was marginal.³

At wavelengths longer than 10 meters, Earth’s ionosphere is almost entirely opaque. Consequently, ground-based telescopes have been unable to detect radio sources at those wavelengths coming from beyond the solar system.   

Impenetrable Barrier: Radio Transmissions
At wavelengths longer than 3 meters, the electromagnetic spectrum is saturated by AM and FM radio station broadcasts, short-wave radio transmissions, ham radio transmissions, VHF television broadcasts, and military over-the-horizon radar.⁴ Decades ago, there were a few locations on Earth where one could avoid such radio transmissions. Not anymore.

The number of radio, radar, and television transmitters has multiplied exponentially. At wavelengths longer than 3 meters, Earth’s ionosphere reflects radio signals with an efficiency that is proportional to the wavelength. The radio noise just from AM radio stations is huge. For example, there are 220 AM radio stations broadcasting at 50,000 watts in the United States alone. For comparison, the extragalactic radio sources astronomers desire to detect at wavelengths longer than 10 meters are weaker than 10^-26 watts per square meter per hertz. Thus, nowhere on Earth can astronomers’ instruments detect radio emissions from stars, galaxies, and nebulae at wavelengths longer than 10 meters. 

Escaping the Barriers
With Earth’s surface ruled out for very-long-wavelength radio astronomy, astronomers have considered Earth-orbiting telescopes. However, radio transmission that leaks through Earth’s ionosphere creates a major interference. 

Another problem is that the longer the wavelength astronomers observe, the greater the uncertainty in determining the positions and sizes of the radio sources. To gain sufficient resolution to determine the sizes and positions of radiation emissions at such wavelengths, astronomers must construct interferometers. 

In radio interferometry, astronomers combine the radiation signals they receive from multiple telescopes that are spatially separated from one another to create a high-resolution image of the astronomical source. However, for radio interferometry to deliver a reliable image, astronomers must continuously know the precise positions of each telescope in the array and the timing of incoming waves to each telescope. This requirement is attainable only when all the telescopes are mounted on a single fixed, solid body like Earth where the position of each telescope is accurately known and each telescope possesses a calibrated high-precision clock. An example of this arrangement is the Very Long Baseline Array, a set of 10 radio telescopes, each equipped with a sophisticated hydrogen maser atomic clock, stretching from Hawaii to the US Virgin Islands. It is much more challenging, by far, when the radio telescopes are in separate orbits about Earth.

Moon’s Far Side: The Last Refuge
For long-wavelength radio astronomy, the far side of the Moon (see figure 1) is the only unspoiled detection location in the solar system. It’s the only place where Earth’s intense radio transmissions and noisy ionosphere are permanently blocked out. It’s the only place where astronomical observation at wavelengths longer than 10 meters is even possible. For observations in the 3 to 10-meter range, it remains the only place where astronomers can detect faint signals from far distant galaxies and quasars.

Figure 1: Moon’s Far Side
Credit: NASA

The Moon’s far side is also the only unspoiled haven for broadband astronomical observations in the 1-centimeter to 3-meter wavelength range. In that range, radio astronomy has been squeezed into a few protected narrow bands. This loss of detection sensitivity is not trivial. The Moon’s far side is the one place where the detection sensitivity that broadband observations make possible can potentially be recovered.   

Going Where No One Has Gone Before
While twenty-first-century technology has seriously disrupted Earth-based radio astronomy, it also holds promise. I did my PhD research long ago, during the Apollo program, and I remember talking to my professors back then about the benefits of putting radio telescopes on the back side of the Moon. They laughed. The technology didn’t exist at that time to construct radio telescopes anywhere on the Moon, much less on the back side.

We’re no longer so limited. Today, the technology does exist to place radio telescopes on the Moon—even on its far side—and at relatively low cost. NASA and the US Department of Energy have developed a robotic telescope that will attempt first-of-its-kind measurements.

LuSEE–Night Instrument 
This new instrument, the Lunar Surface Electromagnetics Experiment—Night (LuSEE–Night) consists of four monopole antennae arranged in a cross-configuration and mounted on top of a rotating platform (see figure 2). The plan is to place it in the CS-13 region of the Moon’s far side via a Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) mission scheduled, as mentioned above, for late 2025 or early 2026. Since it will be fully robotic, the mission will include all the technology needed to deliver the LuSEE-Night instrument to the Moon’s far side, set it up, and make it fully operational. No astronauts will be needed.

Figure 2: LuSEE–Night Instrument
Credit: NASA/DOE

The LuSEE–Night landing site is a 100-meter ellipse centered on the lunar far side near the antimeridian. The chosen site is near the antipode (the location most opposite to Earth) so as to minimize terrestrial radio frequency interference. There is not a total blockout of radio interference from Earth since at the lowest frequencies some noise will likely be refracted by the tenuous lunar ionosphere.⁵ The landing site was also chosen for its relative flatness and low horizon.

LuSEE–Night’s four monopole antennae will observe the radio sky and feed a full-bandwidth spectrometer operating in the frequency range of 0.1 to 50 megahertz, corresponding to wavelengths ranging from 6 meters to 3,000 meters. If it works as planned, it will give astronomers their first-ever glimpse at objects beyond our solar system at wavelengths longer than 7.9 meters. 

Observations will be conducted during the 14-day, or 340-hour, “lunar night” when the Moon’s far side is pointed away from the Sun so that any interference from solar radiation will be blocked out. The time researchers have chosen for observations will also minimize radio interference from Jupiter and Saturn. LuSEE–Night will be powered up at the beginning of the lunar night and will be permanently powered down at the end of the lunar night. This timing will eliminate the risk of interference from electromagnetic emissions generated by the LuSee spacecraft, which could threaten the integrity of the observations.

LuSEE–Night’s antennae patterns and observations will be calibrated by known 10-second-duration signals from a CLPS lunar orbiter. This orbiter will send timed signals to LuSEE-Night throughout its observing run. 

Discovering What the Heavens Reveal 
LuSEE–Night’s scientific mission is to study the astronomical “Dark Ages.” The Dark Ages is the one unexplored portion of cosmic history—the era between the last scattering of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) and the formation of the universe’s first stars. The last scattering of the CMBR occurred 380,000 years after the cosmic creation event, and the universe’s first stars formed 200–300 million years after that event. Only a cold, non-luminous mixture of hydrogen and helium gases existed during that era, as far as we know. 

Radio waves at wavelengths longer than 10 meters represent the only signals astronomers can measure from the Dark Ages. Therefore, LuSEE provides an opportunity for astronomers to learn how some of the universe’s first nonluminous matter condensed to form the universe’s first stars.

Astronomers anticipate that their investigation of the Dark Ages will affirm which of several LCDM (lambda cold dark matter) inflationary big bang models most accurately describes the origin and history of the universe. LCDM models are those in which most of the universe is comprised of dark energy and most of the remainder of the universe is composed of cold dark matter. Part of exploring the Dark Ages includes the cosmic dawn, the appearance of the universe’s first stars. As described in last week’s article (“Cosmic Dawn Bolsters Case for Creation”), the James Webb Space Telescope will be exploring events that occurred from the cosmic dawn onward to the universe’s first galaxies and first galaxy clusters. The LuSEE–Night and, eventually, much larger radio arrays on the Moon’s far side, could allow us to explore the events leading up to the cosmic dawn. Together these two observing programs have potential to penetrate astronomy’s last frontier, taking us to previously hidden moments in cosmic history.

As Anže Slosar, the Department of Energy science lead and LuSEE–Night Collaboration spokesperson comments, “Every time we have opened a new frequency window in cosmology, we have unlocked new discoveries about the history of the universe and our place within it.”⁶ I expect the missions to reveal new cosmic design features and more insights into how the universe was purposefully and precisely prepared for the entry of humanity. We can all look forward to the revelation of even more of God’s glory and goodness (Psalm 19:1–4; Psalm 50:6, Psalm 96:7).  

Endnotes

1. Stuart D. Bale et al., “LuSee ‘Night’: The Lunar Surface Electromagnetics Experiment,” arXiv:2301.10345 (January 24, 2023), doi:10.48550/arXiv.2301.10345.
2. F. de Gasperin et al, “The Effect of the Ionosphere on Ultra-Low-Frequency Radio-Interferometric Observations,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 615 (July 2018): id. A179, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833012.
3. Mark Lacy, Steve Rawlings, and P. J. Warner, “A Complete Sample of Radio Sources in the North Ecliptic Cap, Selected at 38 MHz—I. The Radio Data,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 256, issue 3 (June 1992): 404–424, doi:10.1093/mnras/256.3.404.
4. M. L. Kaiser et al., “WIND/WAVES Observations of Man-Made Radio Transmissions,” Geophysical Research Letters 23, no. 10 (May 15, 1996): 1287–1290, doi:10.1029/95GL03665.
5. Neil Bassett, et al., “Characterizing the Radio Quiet Region behind the Lunar Farside for Low Radio Frequency Experiments,” Advances in Space Research, 66, no. 6 (September 15, 2020): 1265, doi:10.1016/j.asr.2020.05.050.
6. Anže Slosar, quoted in US Department of Energy: Office of Science, “Department of Energy and NASA Join Forces on Innovative Lunar Experiment,” March 7, 2023.

The post LuSEE: Boldly Going Where No One Has Gone Before appeared first on Reasons to Believe.