Have you ever had a deep spiritual encounter? One that changed your life?

Some people experience transformative events that can be extraordinary. Upon reflection, we may come to see these incidents as spiritual and intellectual turning points—decisive events with beneficial results.

But can religious experience be evidence for the truth of God and the authenticity of Christianity? I had an unusual experience many years ago that significantly impacted me. I share it as a way to help people think through their own religious experiences with discernment.

A Powerful Dream

I’ve always been a person who wondered about the meaning of life. When I was nineteen years old, I seriously searched for answers to life’s big questions. While I had been baptized Catholic as a young boy, I was never confirmed in the faith and thus I remained only nominally religious. My family and I had also suffered the loss of my older brother Frank through suicide so it was a very difficult and confusing time for me. I sought solace in the music of the Beatles (particularly George Harrison after the band’s breakup) and contemplated their songs about themes in Eastern religion.

One night I had an extraordinary dream that I’ll never ever forget. I dreamed that I was in what looked like a cave. I also appeared to be dressed in a white robe and kneeling on the ground. I saw a hole in the wall of the cave that looked like a window. Then suddenly out of nowhere a man’s face appeared in the window. He startled me. But when I looked intently at the man’s face I thought he was very unattractive. Upon a closer look the man’s face looked bruised, swollen, and disfigured. The man looked very much like one of the Eastern icons I would later see of Jesus Christ. Then the man spoke and his voice sounded like thunder. I was terrified and fell on my face on the ground.

When I awoke in the middle of the night I was sweating and my heart was beating fast. I wasn’t immediately sure whether I was conscious or still dreaming. So I got out of bed and tried to gather myself. I had a sense that this wasn’t merely a dream but that I had experienced a real-life encounter. I remembered the overwhelming details and wondered why I had experienced something so seemingly real and dramatic.

The next day I told a close friend about the dream and he was amazed. As I continued to reflect, I came to think positively about this dream. In the days and weeks following I felt a deep desire to do two things. First, I wanted to read the Bible: something I had never done. Second, I wanted to go to church, which I hadn’t done consistently since I was a young boy.

I went to a bookstore and purchased a Living Bible (a paraphrased version entitled “Good News for Modern Man”) and began reading for hours on end. I couldn’t get enough of reading Scripture and the extraordinary person of Jesus captivated me. I also began attending Holy Family Catholic Church in Artesia, California, where I lived and had gone to church as a young boy. I soon discovered that as a Catholic I could attend mass daily. So for more than two years I attended church every single day at seven in the morning and then would go on to school or work.

My family and friends noticed and commented on the big change in my life. One close friend who I had known since first grade said that the difference was like night and day. My parents took particular notice of the changes going on in my life. I remember my mother saying that she turned the light out in my room after discovering I had fallen asleep in bed reading the Bible.

Applying Discernment

So what am I to say about this dramatic dream? Was it veridical (from the Latin veritas: meaning, corresponding to “truth”)? Did I have an authentic religious experience in which I saw Jesus in some form?¹ Or was the dream merely images, ideas, emotions, and sensations arising from my subjective psychological state? Or was the dream some kind of counterfeit religious experience? After all, one might say I had been dabbling in Eastern religions.

I don’t really know the answer to that question definitively. I’m not presently part of the Pentecostal or charismatic traditions within Christianity (though religious experience is certainly not limited to those theological traditions). But I’m not necessarily closed to a biblically based expression of charismatic Christian spirituality. However, rationally speaking, while it seems much more likely that it was just a dramatic yet purely subjective (or natural) dream, I know it impacted me deeply at the time. And it was one key event (of several) that influenced me in the direction of embracing or returning to historic Christianity.

This dream caused me me to seek out Scripture and make Bible reading and study a regular part of my life. The experience also led me to want to pursue a life of prayer along with leading a life that would be pleasing to God. So my dream, whether it was a genuine religious experience or not, clearly moved me in the direction of historic Christian truth.

In this way, I see it as one of God’s mysterious providences in which the fruit of the experience was indeed good.

Reflections: Your Turn

Have you ever had a profound religious experience? If so, how would you describe it? Visit Reflections on WordPress to comment with your response.

Resources

For more about discernment and direction in the Christian life, see Kenneth R. Samples, “Making Decisions: Six Criteria for Biblical Guidance.”

Unwarranted researcher involvement consistently characterizes the prebiotic simulation studies carried out over the last 60 years. Even though these experiments are designed to validate a naturalistic explanation for life’s origin, they end up demonstrating the necessity of intelligent agency in creating life from inanimate matter. Yet, many in the scientific community continue to resist any suggestion that life’s origin stems from supernatural work. As a means to build a bridge with these skeptics, we apply the concept of hypernaturalism as a means to address the concerns of the scientific community

When I’m out speaking on behalf of RTB, one question I often hear is, how did God create the first life? Did He just “zap” the first organisms into existence? Or did He bring about the origin of life by some other means?

A recent guest article by theologian Daniel Dyke and physicist Hugh Henry proves helpful in addressing this question. Our guest authors introduced the concept of hypernaturalism, which they define as the extraordinary use of natural law by an omnipotent God. When God acts in a hypernatural way, He employs the laws of nature and natural phenomena in an extraordinary manner—with respect to timing, location, and magnitude—to accomplish His will. In their framework, hypernaturalism stands distinct from “supernaturalism,” in which God always operates outside the laws of nature. Nevertheless, a hypernatural act is as much a miracle as a supernatural one.

Hypernaturalism in the Laboratory

In a sense, God, though the only being capable of supernatural acts, is not the only one who can engage in hypernatural activity. Human beings can, as well. Consider the work of an organic chemist in the laboratory. These scientists set up a glass apparatus to contain the reaction of interest. With care they add the appropriate chemicals, in a specific order. They adjust the reaction temperature, control the composition of the headspace above the reaction, and regulate the reaction’s pH. In other words, chemists, operating within the laws of nature, manipulate chemicals in extraordinary ways to accomplish a specific goal (in this case the generation of desired chemical compounds).

In fact, this type of activity is typical for origin-of-life researchers who perform prebiotic simulation experiments. Origin-of-life investigators labor to understand how undirected chemical and physical processes could have generated life. Obviously, they can’t go back in time and directly observe the chemical evolution that many believe took place on early Earth. Thus, they have no choice but to perform lab experiments with the overarching goal of recapitulating life’s origin. At the very least, the hope is that the experiments will provide some understanding of how life could have conceivably emerged on Earth via evolutionary processes.

Intervening in “Natural” Processes

The problem is that scientists carrying out laboratory experiments are not passive observers of undirected processes. Instead, they become active participants who (1) design the protocol; (2) assemble the apparatus; (3) supply the media and reagents for the experiment; (4) adjust the initial conditions and regulate them throughout the study; and (5) monitor the course of the chemical and physical changes usually by withdrawing material from the apparatus. In other words, they interject themselves into experiments designed to demonstrate how life can emerge without assistance.

If poorly executed or too extensive, this involvement runs the risk of making the experiment artificial; it no longer reflects the presumed evolutionary events thought to have occurred on early Earth. Instead it reflects what is possible if an intelligent agent (in this case, the researchers) orchestrates physicochemical processes. Of course, this result is undesirable from a naturalistic viewpoint because naturalists believe that the physicochemical processes thought to have spawned life would have proceeded without any outside intervention from an intelligent agent.

As I discuss in my book Creating Life in the Lab, unwarranted researcher involvement plagues the design and execution of virtually every prebiotic simulation experiment performed to date. For example, physicist Paul Davies notes that researchers investigating the RNA world hypothesis (one of the most important ideas in the origin-of-life discussion) face significant challenges.

By Fazale ‘Fuz’ R. Rana, Hugh Henry and Daniel J. Dyke

 “It would not be an exaggeration to say that the origin of life is one of the greatest unanswered questions in science.”¹

For nearly six decades the scientific community has labored to explain the origin of life via chemical evolution. Researchers have identified chemical routes that generate the key building blocks of life—amino acids, nucleobases, sugars, and fatty acids—from simple chemical compounds. They’ve demonstrated how these compounds can assemble into complex, information-rich biopolymers and aggregate into proto-cellular entities. They’ve used in vitro evolution to evolve RNA molecules with a wide range of functional capabilities. If nothing else, the origin-of-life research community has confirmed the existence of the physicochemical processes and mechanisms needed to get life started. Small wonder many people believe the mystery is close to being solved.

And yet every proposed model for a naturalistic origin of life has met with myriad problems.² The accomplishments of the researchers are truly impressive—but in reality they represent false successes. To begin with, these experiments lack geochemical relevance. They work well in the laboratory environment, but they do not translate to the conditions of early Earth.

Secondly, these prebiotic simulations fail to take into account the role of the researcher in the experimental design. Hence why some scientists say the origin-of-life problem remains unsolved. In writing about the RNA world hypothesis (one of the most important ideas in the origin-of-life discussion), physicist Paul Davies notes,

As far as biochemists can see, it is a long and difficult road to produce efficient RNA replicators from scratch…This conclusion has to be that without a trained organic chemist on hand to supervise, nature would be struggling to make RNA from a dilute soup under any plausible prebiotic conditions.³

Davies’s observation applies to more areas of origin-of-research than just the RNA world hypothesis. And the situation hasn’t changed in the 15 years since he penned these words. When scientists perform origin-of-life experiments, they are no longer passive observers of undirected processes. They become active participants. They interject themselves into experiments designed to demonstrate that life can emerge on its own. If poorly executed or too extensive, such involvement runs the risk of making the experiment artificial, no longer true to the evolutionary events thought to have occurred on early Earth.

Such situations better reflect what happens when an intelligent agent (the researchers, in this case) orchestrates physicochemical processes—and we argue that this demonstrates the central role of creative design in the origin-of-life process. Still many in the scientific community would resist any suggestion that life stems from the work of a Mind. One key reason for this resistance relates to a poor of view intelligent design.

In this paper we propose to demonstrate the necessity of intentional agency in the origin of life by examining unwarranted researcher involvement in two prebiotic experiments. Then we will suggest a solution to scientists’ reluctance to embrace intelligent design as a legitimate explanation for life’s origin.

The Impact of Researcher Intervention on Prebiotic Simulation Studies

Without the option of time travel, scientists must look to other methods of research to understand how undirected chemical and physical processes could have generated life. It’s possible to probe the ancient geochemical record for clues; however, such efforts have only allowed researchers to “look through the glass, dimly.” Likewise, the geochemical records of the planet’s oldest rocks have provided key insight about the chemical resources available on early Earth and the likely geochemical and biochemical activities of that time—but the picture is incomplete at best and often muddled.⁴

Thus researchers have no choice but to go into the laboratory and do experiments with the overarching goal of recapitulating the origin of life. And if they can’t do that, then the most they hope can for is that their work provides some understanding of how life could have conceivably emerged on Earth—apart from the work of an intelligent agent. 

But these scientists face a conundrum. Excessive researcher intervention could render origin-of-life experiments irrelevant and yet some involvement is necessary even if just to set up the experiment. They have to design the protocol, assemble the apparatus, supply the media and reagents for the experiment, adjust the initial conditions and regulate them throughout the study, and monitor the course of the chemical and physical changes usually by withdrawing material from the apparatus.

At what point does researcher involvement become illegitimate? At what point does the experiment transform from one that provides important insight to one that has questionable relevance?

Such concerns should necessitate including a critical assessment of researcher involvement in the interpretation of results from origin-of-life experiments.⁵ Yet such evaluation is seldom mentioned when scientists reflect on the success (or failure) of these experiments. In fact, more often than not, they simply ignore any impact that the investigators may have had on the outcome. As a consequence of this oversight, it often appears as if origin-of-life researchers are closer to accounting for life’s start than they may actually be. Two examples related to the RNA world hypothesis illustrate this problem.

Researcher Intervention and the RNA World Hypothesis

As the late origin-of-life investigator Leslie Orgel noted, “It may be claimed, without too much exaggeration, that the problem of the origin of life is the problem of the origin of the RNA World.”⁶

Many origin-of-life investigators think that RNA predated both DNA and proteins as the premier replicator and information-harboring molecule. Accordingly, RNA operated as a self-replicator that catalyzed its own synthesis. The RNA world hypothesis supposes that numerous RNA molecules—representing a wide-range of catalytic activity—emerged over time. At this point in life’s history biochemistry centered exclusively on RNA. With time, proteins (and eventually DNA) joined RNA in the cell’s replication and informational arsenal. During the transition to the contemporary DNA-protein world, RNA’s original function became partitioned between proteins (replication) and DNA (information storage), and RNA assumed its current intermediary role. RNA ancestral molecules presumably disappeared without leaving a trace of their primordial existence.

The RNA world hypothesis hinges on researchers establishing the validity of several processes.

• Reasonable prebiotic chemical routes that will generate RNA’s building blocks  (nucleobases, ribose, and phosphate)
• Reasonable prebiotic routes that will assemble these building blocks into  ribonucleotides
• A realistic reaction scheme that will chemically activate the ribonucleotides
• Reasonable prebiotic routes that will assemble RNA from its building blocks into molecular chains long enough to form ribozymes
• Demonstration that ribozymes possess a range of catalytic activities necessary to sustain an RNA-based biochemistry
• Production of an RNA self-replicator

 

According to Orgel, “The synthesis of nucleosides from ribose and the nucleobases is the weakest link in the chain of prebiotic reactions leading to oligonucleotides.”⁷ For decades chemists have struggled to discover a way to make ribonucleotides by directly reacting ribose with the pyrimidine nucleobases (uracil and cytosine). Researchers have been able to make ribonucleotides using purines, however, by heating these compounds with ribose and certain salts, like magnesium chloride. Unfortunately, these reactions are highly inefficient. Yields of purine nucleotides comprise only two to five percent of the total complex mixture.

Intermingling Prebiotic Routes

Recently, a team of chemists from the University of Manchester discovered a possible way around this serious problem. Instead of dividing possible prebiotic reactions into those that lead to sugars and those that lead to nucleobases, and then trying to find a way for the sugars and nucleobases to combine to form ribonucleotides, the team took a different tact. They looked for ways that the two prebiotic routes could intermingle.

This novel approach led to a breakthrough. The University of Manchester team discovered that activated ribonucleotides could be readily formed in the laboratory in just a few simple steps.⁸ (This process is known as the Sunderland reaction scheme.) The reaction of cyanamide and glycoaldehyde to form 2-amino-oxazole is key to this prebiotic sequence. (Traditionally, scientists view cyanamide as part of the chemical pathways to some of the nucleobases; glycoaldehyde is the first product in the formaose reaction.) In turn, 2-amino-oxazole reacts with glyceraldehydes (formed when glycoaldehyde reacts with formaldehyde) to form a sugar derivative called pentose amino-oxazoline. This compound reacts with cyanoacetylene (one of the starting materials in the prebiotic synthesis of cytosine) to generate anhydroarabinonucleoside, which can react with pyrophosphate and urea to form an activated ribonucleotide. Finally, activated ribonucleotides are poised to react with each other to form RNA chains.

As promising as this chemistry is, the researchers noted a serious problem. In unbuffered reactions—in which the pH is uncontrolled—a large number of products result at each step in the pathway. As a consequence, 2-amino-oxazole is only present in the system at low levels. The other unwanted products interfere with the remainder of the pathway, frustrating the generation of activated ribonucleotides.

In the face of this problem, the researchers discovered that including phosphate in the reaction mixtures eliminated many of the unwanted byproducts. Phosphate functions as both a catalyst and a buffer, controlling the pH of the reaction mixture. In other words, one of the key reactants in the last stage of the chemical route plays a role in earlier reactions. The researchers also discovered that exposing the final reaction mixture to UV radiation selectively destroys unwanted byproducts as well.

Without question, the University of Manchester chemists have contributed an important conceptual advance to origin-of-life research, and possibly to the evolutionary paradigm. Their work paves the way for others to approach problems in prebiotic chemistry in an unconventional way that might lead to other breakthroughs. Still, have they really rescued the RNA world hypothesis? In spite of this work’s apparent success, problems abound.

1. Only half a solution. No route exists to make two of the four ribonucleotides needed to make RNA molecules. This reaction scheme only works for ribonucleotides that consist of pyrimidines. In other words, the origin-of-life community is only part way to resolving the problems concerning the source of activated ribonucleotides.

2. Possible side reactions. Even though the researchers examined ways that proposed prebiotic routes could intermingle, they still didn’t take into account all of the possible side reactions that could frustrate the reaction sequence they discovered. For example, the researchers ignored all the reactions that would competitively destroy cyanoacetylene and cyanoacetaldehyde, two key components in this pathway. The researchers conducted their laboratory experiments using purified chemicals and carefully controlled the compounds added to the reactions. But if unguided evolution were true, then this level of control would never have been present on early Earth.

3. Unselective UV radiation. Yes, exposure to UV radiation helps selectively destroy contaminants in the last step of the reaction, but in the earlier steps of the process it would indiscriminately destroy all of the reactants. The researchers were able to control when the mixture was exposed to UV radiation—but this type of selectivity wouldn’t be available on the early Earth. UV radiation from the Sun would have impinged on early Earth continuously.

4. Highly reactive ribonucleotides. If chemically-activated ribonucleotides don’t form, then RNA chains can’t assemble. And unfortunately, chemically activated ribonucleotides are highly reactive. Other materials present on early Earth would have quickly consumed these compounds, making it unlikely that these materials would have existed at levels high enough to help the RNA world scenario. It’s a no-win situation.

5. Unavailable phosphate. Perhaps the most significant problem has to do with the process’s dependence on phosphate. The high levels of phosphate used in the lab simply wouldn’t have been present on early Earth.

The University of Manchester chemists have done a masterful job, in principle, of indentifying a chemical route that could have generated two of the four ribonucleotides. They also went a long way toward ferreting out the chemical mechanisms that dictate the reaction sequence. But they have failed to demonstrate this chemical pathway’s geochemical relevance. The conditions required to make this reaction sequence work wouldn’t have been present on early Earth.

Clay Catalysts for RNA Assembly

Another false success for the RNA world hypothesis came from the assembly of RNA chains on clay surfaces. In the mid-1990s, James Ferris and his research team stirred excitement within the scientific community by assembling lengthy RNA molecules from ribonucleotides activated as phosphorimidazolides, using clay as a catalyst. They accomplished this assembly by washing solutions of the reactants over clay surfaces and then allowing the solutions to evaporate.⁹ Commentators heralded this work as a key demonstration that prebiotic conditions could have produced self-replicators.¹⁰ However, closer evaluation of this effort prompts a different conclusion.

1. Selective conditions. Origin-of-life scientist Robert Shapiro pointed out that Ferris’s teams conducted these experiments under selective conditions that excluded potential chemical interferents, ignoring what Shapiro deems the homopolymer problem.¹¹ It is highly unlikely that activated ribonucleotides would have been formed under the prevailing conditions of early Earth.¹² (And, as already noted, even if these materials had formed, their high reactivity would have caused them to combine with all sorts of compounds present on early Earth, and, thus, frustrate the generation of RNA molecules.)

Additionally, Shapiro noted a problem of excessive selectivity associated with the clay itself. Ferris’s teams used clay known as montmorillonite. This clay is widely distributed throughout the Earth, but not all montmorillonite clays are equal. A clay’s success as a catalyst depends on the location it comes from. Ferris and his collaborators found that clay provided by the American Colloid Company, which sources its clays from Wyoming, has the best likelihood of generating RNA molecules.¹³ The American Colloid Company processes their clays (Volclay) before delivery to the customer.

On top of that, the Ferris teams also had to pretreat the clays before using them as catalysts because the copper, iron, and zinc ions normally associated with the clays interfere with RNA assembly and the oligomerization reactions won’t happen. The offending materials are removed by a special procedure called a titration and replaced with benign sodium.¹⁴ Obviously, unassisted chemical evolution would not have been able to ensure successful RNA generation through such treatments and selectivity.

2. Mineral surfaces. Meanwhile, Leslie Orgel’s teams noted that mineral surfaces can also catalyze RNA’s decomposition.¹⁵ For example, RNA breakdown occurs on surfaces of minerals that contain lead and calcium. Orgel’s teams discovered that the amino acids glutamate and histidine stimulate the breakdown of RNA in a solution. Additionally, a Japanese team demonstrated that rare Earth elements (like cerium) present in the primordial oceans would have catalyzed the breakdown of the RNA backbone linkage.¹⁶ Proteins can prevent the breakdown of RNA, but the inhibition of this cleavage would have required an unrealistically high level of proteins in the early oceans.

Another difficulty for mineral-assisted RNA formation is the irreversible attachment of RNA to mineral surfaces once the molecular chain grows to a certain length. On early Earth, this attachment would have prevented the RNA molecule formed on a clay surface from being available for the origin-of-life process.

3. Problematic reaction mechanism. In the laboratory, Orgel and colleagues have demonstrated that once an RNA chain exists, it can serve as a template for assisting the assembly of another RNA chain. These experiments made use of activated ribonucleotide phosphorimidazolides to promote the reaction between ribonucleotides (others used condensing agents).¹⁷ These reactions can take place in fairly dilute solutions. But at least two problems exist when this mechanism is considered in the context of early Earth’s environment: (1) chemical interferents would have most certainly interrupted chain formation; and (2) the presence of racemic mixtures of ribonucleotides would have frustrated chain assembly. Thus, Orgel’s team has demonstrated that the incorporation of opposite-handed nucleotides disrupts RNA chain formation in template-assisted formation of RNA chains.¹⁸

4. Chain length. RNA chains are inherently unstable. As individual building block molecules are added to the chain causing it to grow in length, water molecules react with the RNA (a process called hydrolysis), breaking the chain down. In other words competing reactions of growth and degradation would prevent the chains from attaining the requisite length to generate a ribozyme.

Just like the chemists from the University of Manchester, James Ferris and other origin-of-life researchers have done a masterful job of identifying chemical processes that generate RNA molecules, in principle. But they have failed to demonstrate that these processes have geochemical relevance. The conditions required for RNA assembly on clay wouldn’t have been present on early Earth.

Researcher Intervention and the Case for Intelligent Design

We’d argue that researchers working to understand the RNA world hypothesis have provided empirical evidence an intelligent agent is necessary to direct prebiotic chemistry in such a way so as to affect the origin of life. In the case of the Sunderland reaction scheme, the chemists: (1) carefully controlled the amounts and purity of the chemical components added to the reaction mixtures; (2) adjusted the reaction conditions, which includes adding the appropriate level of phosphate; and (3) selectively exposed the final reaction products to UV radiation as a way to get rid of unwanted byproducts. Without this interference, the generation of activated ribonucleotides would have been impossible.

Shaprio comments, “The flaw with this kind of research is not in the chemistry. The flaw is in the logic—that this experimental control by researchers in a modern laboratory could have been available on the early Earth.”¹⁹ Likewise, the laboratory simulation experiments that Ferris’s teams used to synthesize RNA on mineral surfaces differ substantially from early Earth’s conditions. When scientists consider more realistic scenarios, they discover that RNA assembly could not have occurred naturally in the prebiotic realm to any appreciable extent.

Hypernaturalism and Intelligent Design

A remarkable number of scientists would agree with our critique—yet they resist any suggestion that life’s origin stems from the work of a divine Mind, in part because of how many scientists view the Intelligent Design Movement. They regard an appeal to intelligent agency as an appeal to the supernatural and, thus, a strict violation of the principle of methodological naturalism—the philosophical framework undergirding the scientific enterprise. According to this view, all scientific models require mechanistic explanations. Any appeal to the work of an intelligent agent is forbidden.

The concept of “hypernaturalism,” proposed by Daniel J. Dyke and Hugh Henry, provides a means to address the concerns of the scientific community.²⁰ “Supernaturalism” argues that God operates outside the laws of nature when He enacts a miracle, whereas in hypernaturalism, as defined by Dyke and Henry, God employs the laws of nature and phenomena in the nature in an extraordinary manner—with respect to timing, location, and magnitude—to accomplish His will. (See Dyke and Henry’s article “Hypernaturalism: Integrating the Bible and Science” for more detail.)

Through the use of hypernaturalism, the dichotomy between natural process chemical evolution and Intelligent Design largely disappears. Instead, the origin of life can be seen to arise via hypernatural processes in which the Creator makes use of well-understood physicochemical mechanisms to affect the origin-of-life. In this schema, the origin-of-life does not arise via the suspension of the laws and processes of nature but through them. The origin of life is a second stage interventionist miracle in which God intervenes within the created laws of nature (not a first stage miracle, in which God operates outside the laws of nature). The point of applying hypernaturalism to the origin-of-life scenario is not to compromise a Christian’s position on God’s creative power, but to find as much common ground as possible with researchers and to avoid dismissing their hard work in the lab.

Hypernaturalism addresses another concern of the scientific community: namely, Intelligent Design (conceived as supernatural interference) stultifies the scientific process. If a Creator brought life into existence “supernaturally,” then there is nothing for scientists to study. On the other hand, thinking of the origin-of-life as the result of God’s hypernatural action makes it possible for scientists to investigate the origin-of-life question within the framework of methodological naturalism, even if life’s emergence is understood to be a miracle.

In essence, when origin-of-life researchers perform prebiotic simulation experiments, they operate in a hypernatural way, too. They control the experimental set up and laboratory conditions to bring about extraordinary circumstances—within the confines of the laws of nature and natural processes—that bring about key steps in the pathway to the origin of life.

Could it be that God functioned like a divine organic chemist when He brought life into existence? In light of this question, it is intriguing that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures describe humans as made in God’s image. If that is the case, then when we create—or when humans step into the laboratory to run a chemical reaction—are we mimicking, though imperfectly, the Creator?

We would submit that the answer to these two questions is yes.

We maintain that the prebiotic simulation studies carried out over the course of the last six decades not only demonstrate that life’s origin requires a Creator, but they also give insight into how God did it.

Twice this week I saw my college-aged daughter Jacqueline reading Blaise Pascal’s classic work Pensées (French for “thoughts” or “reflections”). She’s not enrolled in a philosophy or religion course; rather she said she’s reading it for inspiration and wisdom. I immediately thought to myself, “That’s my girl!”

An intuitive mathematician and a gifted physicist, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) was one of the great pioneers of the scientific enterprise. He was also one of the most distinctive Christian apologists in history. Pensées is not a typical monograph; rather it is comprised of thoughts Pascal scribbled in a notepad he carried with him regularly. He had intended to utilize the notes to write a Christian apologetics book. Unfortunately he died before he could complete this task.

Nevertheless, the collection of organized and unorganized notes contains such profound content that it remains a continual bestseller. One can only wonder what Pascal’s apologetics text would have been like had it been completed.

Mining Pascal’s Apologetics Gold

Actually, we can imagine, to some degree, what Pascal’s grand apologetics book would have been like. Over the last few decades, three gifted contemporary Christian philosophers have mined the apologetics gold within Pascal’s Pensées and set forth this wisdom in a more complete apologetics form. All three books are excellent for understanding Pascal as a man and utilizing his unique apologetics brilliance.

****

1. Making Sense of It All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life (Eerdmans, 1992) by Thomas V. Morris
One of the best books I have ever read on Christian philosophy and apologetics, Making Sense of It All skillfully and successfully answers many of the existential objections that people give for not believing. Morris utilizes Pascal’s scientific, philosophical, and apologetic statements to show how faith in Jesus Christ is the unique answer to humankind’s deepest yearnings for meaning and life eternal. Morris also succeeds in weaving together many of Pascal’s brilliant insights into a significant and powerful Christian apologetic work.

2. Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal’s Pensées (Ignatius, 1993) by Peter Kreeft
Prolific Roman Catholic writer and apologist Peter Kreeft presents Pascal and his apologetics ideas in a clever and stimulating manner. This work is much longer than Morris’ book and contains helpful information about Pensées and the life of Pascal. Kreeft, a convert from Calvinism to Catholicism, is one of the leading apologists and philosophers writing today.

3. On Pascal (Wadsworth, 2003) by Douglas Groothuis
In his book, Christian philosopher and apologist Douglas Groothuis discusses Pascal’s unique intellectual contributions to Christianity and to the broader Western world. In just over a hundred pages, Groothuis skillfully unveils and explains the central Pascalian philosophical themes. This helpful book is part of the larger Wadsworth Philosophers Series. It is great to see Pascal, an outspoken Christian thinker, included in this series.

****

Pascal is one of my favorite Christian thinkers and writers. I much appreciate that these three contemporary apologists have worked to bring his unique apologetics insights to life.

If the Christian God exists then life has objective meaning. God possesses ultimate meaning, therefore humans (made in His image) would be expected to derive purposeful meaning. But what if God doesn’t exist? Can meaning be created or discovered in a godless universe?

Some atheist philosophers propose that while there is no meaning to life there may be meaning in life by the choices people make. A test of this claim comes by examining the human need for meaning and what the secular worldview of naturalism (the metaphysical view that nature is the sole reality) offers to meet this need.

Human Beings and Meaning

Human beings yearn for authentic meaning, purpose, and significance in their lives. In fact, without a sound and enduring reason to live, people often succumb to a sense of despair. At a fundamental level, humans need purpose and hope as much as they need food, shelter, and clothing—maybe even more. And that significance must include genuine meaning to life itself.

Naturalism and Meaning

How could a universe without God have value, meaning, and purpose, especially for sentient beings? If the universe and humanity are merely products of blind, accidental, and purely natural processes, then it is difficult to identify and justify a true enduring value for life. Accidental creatures with no ultimate purpose or end are hard-pressed to impart any permanent significance to their lives.

But why couldn’t a person simply create meaning for themselves by their personal choices? Philosopher Thomas V. Morris offers a response:

Something has meaning if and only if it is endowed with meaning or significance by a purposive personal agent or group of such agents…. Meaning is never intrinsic; it is always derivative…. We can endow with meaning only those things over which we have the requisite control.1

If Morris is right, then the limitations of the human condition cause some real inner existential consternation for naturalists. Much of reality lies beyond human control—the timing, place, and circumstances of one’s birth; the family into which one is born; the ideas, education, philosophy, religion, and worldview to which an individual is exposed; social and environmental factors; and much of a person’s own suffering. Even the everyday choices people make, over which they have some control, are influenced by factors beyond their consent. Recognizing that much of what is critically important to life lies beyond a person’s direct authority should motivate that individual to critically analyze his adopted worldview.

In a naturalist universe, everyone is subject to profound forces beyond their control. Again, if Morris is right, the challenge in creating meaning in life is that humans lack requisite control.

However, God possesses intrinsic meaning, and humans, being made in God’s image, derive that meaning. The Gospel message of historic Christianity offers people all the derived hope and meaning that a person could ever want and need.

Sometimes the hardest part of dialoguing with nonbelievers involves finding a place to start. “Should I begin the discussion with an argument for the existence of God? Or, should I defend the reliability of the Bible?” Well, it depends.

The book of Acts reveals two very different approaches employed by the apostles.¹ They varied their gospel presentations depending on their audience. Understanding these approaches can provide insight into outreach efforts for today.

Peter’s early sermons recount the history of God’s dealings with His covenant people. He culminates each presentation with a declaration that Jesus was the promised Messiah and an explanation of the meaning of His death and resurrection (Acts 2:17-39; 3:12-26; 4:8-12). Stephen follows a similar pattern in his defense before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7:2-8:53), and as does Paul. Upon entering a city, Paul went to the synagogue, where he “reasoned with [the Jews] from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead” (Acts 17:2-3). Over and over again Luke describes Paul’s work in the synagogue as a persuasive orator (Acts 13:14-41; 14:1; 17:10-11; 17:17; 18:4-5; 18:19; 19:8-10).

In all of these cases, the apostles’ audience is comprised of one or all of the following groups: 1) Jews living in Jerusalem, 2) Greek-speaking Jews, or 3) God-fearing Gentiles who attended synagogue but who had not fully converted to Judaism.² Yet, all of these groups had one important thing in common – they already possessed knowledge of the Old Testament scriptures and shared a belief in the covenant-making God of Israel. Their main stumbling block to faith was that they did not believe Jesus was God, the Christ (the Messiah). In short, they needed evidence that worshiping Jesus would not amount to idolatry. This concern is why Peter and Paul focus their efforts on demonstrating how Jesus fulfilled God’s Old Testament promises (cf. Acts 2:25-28; Ps. 16:8-11) and on providing confirmation of God’s approval through signs and wonders.

The need for articulate men and women to “reason” with certain groups of people from the Scriptures still manifests itself today. Modern Jews continue to reject Jesus as the Messiah, as do Muslims, and Mormons.³ Yet, all three of these groups affirm, at least in principle, that the Bible is sacred and that Jesus was a historical person. Thus the main task in outreach to these groups is not unlike the task before Peter and Paul: 1) demonstrate that Jesus as God incarnate, is the Savior of the world and, 2) that the New Testament provides an accurate, eyewitness account of His words and works. Very little, if any, time need be spent arguing for the existence of God or for the idea that God has revealed Himself through men because members of this audience by and large already generally accept these truths.

After the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10, however, a shift occurs. The church in Antioch is the first to send out missionaries. Paul and Barnabas take the gospel to other parts of the Mediterranean world. But it’s not until after the Jewish leaders in Pisidian Antioch “talked abusively against what Paul was saying” that the missionaries focused their efforts toward Gentiles (Acts 13).

Paul and Barnabas saw results almost immediately: “When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed” (13:48). At this time, Paul and Barnabas began to apply a two-pronged evangelistic strategy. Upon entering a city, they first went to the synagogue and reasoned with the people there from the Scriptures. After that, they took the gospel to the Gentiles. But these weren’t God-fearing Gentiles like Cornelius. These were idol-worshiping Gentiles who had no knowledge of Scripture. They didn’t know anything about God’s covenant with Abraham, the issuing of the Ten Commandments, or prohibitions against idolatry.

First century religious practice was a hodge-podge, not unlike our own day. Cities such as Ephesus and Athens were filled with innumerable religious sects, philosophies, and cults. However, unlike today, it was not taboo to challenge religious claims. Paul’s sermons give a glimpse into his strategy for proclaiming the gospel to the biblically illiterate: begin with creation and then work toward Jesus Christ. “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands…In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man [God] has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising [Christ] from the dead” (see Acts 14:8-18; 17:16-31).

This pattern highlights the important role, today, of science-based evangelism. By providing non-believers with accurate and intriguing information about the created order, evangelism efforts gain credibility. They help the nonbeliever navigate to the next level in the search for truth, asking profound worldview questions about the Creator, the meaning of life, and the resurrection, just as Paul did.

Both of these strategies met mixed results – some believed while others did not. Even Peter’s riveting call to repentance, which resulted in God’s bringing thousands to salvation on Pentecost, was rejected by some. From a human perspective, such results may seem discouraging. However, the book of Acts makes clear that, ultimately, evangelistic success is based not on a particular formula, but rather it rests on the supernatural work of God.

When addressing the challenges that naturalistic origin-of-life scenarios present to their faith, Christians often point to the many problems facing origin-of-life researchers

But just pointing out the problems with the evolutionary origin-of-life models has alienated secular scientists, and has, in fact, driven many scientists away from Christ. A new approach is necessary, one that takes into account the legitimate concerns raised by secular scientists. Christians must not only present a positive case for the supernatural origin of life but also offer their case in a scientifically testable form if their ideas are to be taken seriously by the scientific community.

A biblically based, scientifically testable origin-of-life scenario can be developed and used to make a uniquely Christian contribution to the origin-of-life question. Creation can be put to the test; creation can be science. Remarkable harmony exists between the biblical origin-of-life model and the most recent results from the origin-of-life research community. Little if any agreement can be found between the naturalistic origin-of-life scenario and the scientific data.

Abiogenesis—the emergence of life from nonliving physicochemical systems—forms the core of the evolutionary paradigm. Life must have its beginning in exclusively physical and chemical processes for evolutionists to legitimately explain life’s diversity throughout Earth’s history from a strictly materialistic standpoint. If abiogenesis lacks scientific credibility, the foundation of evolutionary theory crumbles. Moreover, if life can be shown to have a supernatural origin, then the door opens for viewing all phenomena in biology from an intelligent design perspective.

Despite the importance of abiogenesis to the evolutionary paradigm, origin-of-life researchers have failed to generate any tangible progress towards a strictly materialistic explanation for life’s inception. The origin-of-life research program first began as a scientific endeavor in the early 1950s, when Stanley Miller produced amino acids in his now legendary spark-discharge experiments.^{1, 2} Giddy with Miller’s accomplishment, many scientists predicted answers to the origin-of-life question within the decades to come.³ However, origin-of-life researchers are no closer to understanding the origin of life today than they were 40 years ago when Stanley Miller did his first experiments. Best-selling author Paul Davies (an agnostic) makes this point in his book, The Fifth Miracle:          

When I set out to write this book, I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life’s origins . . . Having spent a year or two researching the field, I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding . . . This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major conceptual lacuna.⁴

Davies goes on to explain why such a mismatch persists between public perception and reality on the origin-of-life question:

Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled. There seems to be two reasons for their unease. First, they feel it opens the door to religious fundamentalists and their god-of-the-gaps pseudo-explanations. Second, they worry that a frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding. . .⁵

The “behind-the-scenes” frustration of the origin-of-life research community was clearly evident at ISSOL ’99.⁶ The 9th meeting of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life combined with the 12th International Conference of the Origin of Life at the University of California in San Diego in July 1999. This joint scientific meeting, held every three years, attracts the most prominent origin-of-life investigators from around the world and serves as a platform for sharing their latest findings. The mood there was grim.

When defending the Christian faith from the hard line of naturalism, pointing out the acknowledged problems with naturalistic origin-of-life scenarios may be important—but it is not enough. Christians must first make a positive case for the supernatural origin of life. Secondly, the case for life’s supernatural beginnings must comport with all of Scripture, not just one or two passages. And finally, for scientists to take seriously the case for a supernatural origin of life, that case must be testable. Paleontologist Niles Eldredge makes these points forcefully in his book The Triumph of Evolution and The Failure of Creationism. (In this work, Eldredge fails to demonstrate the triumph of evolution and only demonstrates the failure of young-earth creationism.⁷)Referring to young-earth creationists, Eldredge states,

Creation scientists have not managed to come up with even a single intellectually compelling, scientifically testable statement about the natural world. . . Creation science has precious few ideas of its own—positive ideas that stand on their own, independent of, and opposed to, counter opinions of normal science.⁸

So, in the end, there is as little substance in the scientific creationists’ treatment of the origin and diversification of life as there is in their treatment of cosmological time. They pose no novel testable hypotheses and make no predictions or observations worthy of the name. They devote the vast bulk of their ponderous efforts to attacking orthodox science in the mistaken and utterly fallacious belief that in discrediting science . . . they have thereby established the truth of their own position.⁹

Reasons To Believe scholars seek to address the important and valid points made by Niles Eldredge and other critics of creationism head-on by developing a biblically based, scientifically testable creation model—one that makes testable predictions. Creation can be tested. Creation can be science. An overview of the Reasons To Believe Creation model appeared in a previous issue of FACTS for FAITH (Q2 2000) and will be the topic of a conference on June 28-30, 2001. Numerous scientific and theological tests support that model.¹⁰

Presenting the biblical account of origins in the form of a testable creation model provides a powerful and exciting new approach to evangelism and apologetics. Offering up a testable creation model not only demonstrates the truthfulness of the Bible but also can lead to scientific advance. The standard naturalistic model and the biblical creation model for the origin of life both make predictions; thus, these predictions can be compared with some of the new major discoveries. Not surprisingly, the biblical description of the origin of life agrees with recent scientific discoveries. In sharp contrast, the most recent scientific data contradicts the predictions made by the naturalistic origin-of-life model.

The textbook^{11, 12} or standard materialistic scenario for the origin of life begins shortly after Earth’s formation. The earth in its primordial state was markedly different than today. Evolutionary researchers take advantage of the lack of certainty about Earth’s early conditions by postulating that reducing gases—hydrogen-rich gases such as ammonia, methane, and water vapor—made up the early earth’s atmosphere. They speculate that no oxygen was present. Under these conditions energy discharges, such as lightning, propagating through the early earth’s atmosphere would lead to the production of small organic molecules, such as formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.

According to this scenario, these prebiotic molecules would then accumulate in the earth’s oceans over vast periods of time to form the legendary primordial or prebiotic soup. Within the prebiotic soup, again over long periods of time, the small prebiotic molecules would react to form more complex molecules, such as amino acids, sugars, fatty acids, purines, and pyrimidines. These molecules would in turn function as building blocks for the complex molecules that eventually would lead to the biomolecules found in living systems today.

This explanation for the origin of life requires that the chemical reactions taking place in the prebiotic soup eventually produce molecules with the ability to self-replicate. As their concentration increased in the prebiotic soup, the large, complex molecules would be expected to aggregate to form protocells or prebionts. Over time, through random chemical and physical events, the self-replicating molecules found in the chemical aggregates would transfer this capability to the prebionts. Evolutionary processes (e.g. natural selection) would eventually lead the prebionts to become increasingly efficient self-replicators and increasingly more complex.

Finally these prebionts would yield an organism referred to as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). LUCA presumably resembled a modern bacterium. LUCA, then, would have given rise to the major domains of life.

Table I lists some of the most important predictions that reasonably follow from the textbook origin-of-life scenario.

Genesis 1:2 provides the starting point for the biblical description of life’s beginnings:

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

This passage describes the earth in its primordial state.¹³ According to the text, the Spirit of God was moving above the surface of the waters, so the context of this passage is the earth’s surface. Positioned on the earth’s surface, a hypothetical observer would experience only darkness. He would also note that Earth’s surface was covered entirely with water. An observer would also see Earth as unsuitable for life. The Hebrew word translated as formless, tohu, connotes a desolate wasteland.¹⁴

The Genesis 1:2 description of the earth’s primordial conditions finds remarkable agreement with the scientific description of the earth’s initial conditions. The interplanetary debris of the early solar system and thick primordial atmosphere of early Earth would keep sunlight from reaching its surface.¹⁵ Darkness would, indeed, be pervasive on the planet. While scientists debate the mechanism and timing for the formation of the earth’s oceans, consensus holds that continents did not exist when the earth formed. Early in its history Earth was, indeed, a water world.¹⁶ From the time of its formation (approximately 4.55 billion years ago) until 3.5 billion years ago, the earth experienced numerous collisions that would have rendered the earth a desolate planet largely unsuitable for life.¹⁷

Genesis 1:2 also describes the supernatural creation of the first life on Earth.¹⁸ The original language makes even more apparent than the English that the Spirit of God is doing more than simply hovering over the surface of the waters. The Hebrew word translated as “hovering,” rahap, may also be translated as “brooding.” In its only other biblical use, rahap describes the Spirit of God “protecting” the wandering nation of Israel (Deuteronomy 32:10-11):

In a desert land he found him, in a barren and howling waste. He shielded him and cared for him; he guarded him as the apple of his eye, like an eagle that stirs up its nest and hovers (rahap) over its young, that spreads its wings to catch them and carries them on its pinions.

Transposing this imagery onto Genesis 1:2, we see the Spirit of God “brooding” over the surface of Earth as a mother eagle, hatching and jealously protecting her young.¹⁹ As an added note, the nation of Israel is seen wandering in a land of desolation. Here, tohu is translated as howling waste, further linking Deuteronomy 32:10-11 and Genesis 1:2.

Table II lists some of the most important scientific predictions that arise from the biblical description of life’s origin.

Comparing the predictions made by the two origin-of-life scenarios with the record of nature provides the best means of assessing the validity of the two competing models. Some of the most recent breakthrough discoveries in origin-of-life research specifically address predictions made by the two models.

Origin-of-life researchers have recently uncovered unequivocal evidence that life first appeared early in Earth history, shortly after the formation of the first rocks.^20-23 The oldest rocks yet discovered on Earth date at around 3.9 billion years old. Prior to this time, the earth existed largely in a molten state unsuitable for life. Researchers have identified carbonaceous deposits—deposits made up of carbon compounds such as kerogen tars, graphite and apatite—from the earth’s oldest rocks, dated at 3.86 billion years old. The chemical signature of these carbonaceous deposits indicates that they were produced as the by-product of biological activity. Fully consistent with the discovery of life’s by-products from 3.86 billion years ago is the discovery of fossilized bacteria in rocks about 3.5 billion years old.^{24, 25}

Life first appeared and spent its early existence under unimaginably harsh conditions. In scientific terms, it should not have originated, let alone persisted. From the time of Earth’s formation (at 4.55 billion years ago) until around 3.9 billion years ago, the planet experienced frequent impacts.^{26, 27} Some of the objects (asteroids, comets, and planetesimals) striking the earth were approximately 100 km in diameter. Upon impact, these colliders liberated so much energy that, not only did water on the earth’s surface become volatilized, but rocks on the surface and subsurface melted. The giant impactor phase of Earth’s history ended around 3.9 billion years ago. However, at this time, gravitational perturbation in the solar system caused objects in the Kuiper-Edgeworth belt to rush toward the inner solar system.²⁸ This event, termed the late heavy bombardment, led to over 17,000 collisions with the earth, destroying any life that would have been present. Finally, between 3.9 billion years ago and 3.5 billion years ago impactors still collided with the earth, though the size and frequency of impact diminished with time.²⁹ Many of these events still would have vaporized the earth’s oceans, leading to a wholesale destruction of life. Between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, multiple origin-of-life events must have taken place with the maximum time window between impact events, and hence for the origin of life, being 10 million years.³⁰

To date, origin-of-life researchers have failed to recover any geochemical remnants of prebiotic molecules—organic molecules produced by nonbiological processes. ³¹ All the carbonaceous deposits recovered from the oldest rocks are, without exception, the by-product of biological activity. The “absence of evidence” for a prebiotic soup must be taken as “evidence of absence.”³²

If a prebiotic soup was not present on the early earth, the existing conditions would not support the formation of prebiotic molecules. Conversely, if it is discovered that the conditions of early Earth were not conducive to the formation of prebiotic molecules, a prebiotic soup would not be found within the geological record.

Fitting with the lack of evidence for a prebiotic soup is the growing recognition that the early earth’s conditions would not have supported the synthesis of prebiotic molecules. For example, mounting evidence indicates that the early earth’s atmosphere was neutral, not reducing, composed of N₂, CO₂, and H₂O.^{33, 34} Even with the absence of O₂ (an inhibitor to the process of forming life molecules), prebiotic molecules cannot be produced in this type of atmosphere.^{35, 36} Strong evidence also has emerged that there were low, but significant levels of O₂ not only in the early earth’s atmosphere, but also in the early earth’s hydrosphere.^37-39 The presence of O₂ would serve to inhibit the formation of prebiotic molecules.

The prebiotic soup predicted by the textbook evolutionary model did not exist on early Earth. However, even if it had existed, it could not have led to life’s beginning. Origin-of-life researchers have discovered a number of chemical routes capable of yielding many of the molecules needed to build life,⁴⁰ but abiotic pathways to many other crucially important classes of biochemical compounds have yet to be discovered and may not even exist.⁴¹

Even more problematic for the naturalistic origin-of-life scenario is the recognition that the conditions of the hypothetical primordial soup and of the early earth would have inhibited most, if not all, potential prebiotic chemical routes. Many of the potential prebiotic reactions can only succeed under restrictive conditions. In most cases, it is unlikely that these conditions existed on the early earth. In some instances, the same conditions needed to drive the formation of biochemical compounds would have led to their subsequent destruction.^{42, 43}

New evidence indicates that the transition metals and rare earth elements in the early earth’s oceans would have promoted the decomposition of what many scientists believe were key intermediate chemical compounds taking part in the most widely accepted evolutionary origin-of-life scenarios.⁴⁴ The hypothetical primordial soup would have undoubtedly been a complex chemical mixture comprised of a large number of chemical species. The same chemical routes that would have led to the production of biochemical compounds under laboratory conditions would have been inhibited by other components in the primordial soup. These interfering compounds would have either terminated or redirected key steps in the prebiotic pathways.^{45, 46} Given the likelihood of widespread chemical interference in the hypothetical primordial soup, the success of origin-of-life researchers in preparing biochemical compounds is a false success. Origin-of-life investigators typically study potential prebiotic pathways under unrealistic, controlled, chemically pristine conditions.

New evidence indicates that life in its minimal form is chemically complex even if morphologically simple. The smallest bacterial genomes capable of independent survival include between 1500-1900 gene products.^47-50 These bacteria are believed to be the oldest organisms on Earth and quite likely reflect the complexity of first life on Earth and the minimum complexity of independent life.⁵¹ The smallest known genome, that of Mycoplasma genitalium, is comprised of 470 gene products.⁵² However, M. genitalium is not an appropriate model for the origin of life, for it depends on host biochemistry to survive and, therefore, cannot exist independently. Nonetheless, M. genitalium is a good model for determining the bare minimum requirements for life. Theoretical and experimental work using M. genitalium indicate that life requires at least 250-350 gene products (having eliminated, in theory, genes used for parasitic interactions).^53-55

Biophysicist Hubert Yockey has calculated the probability of forming a single gene product (one that is functionally equivalent to the ubiquitous protein cyctochrome C) as one chance in 10⁷⁵. ⁵⁶ Given this probability, Yockey calculated that if the hypothetical primordial soup contained about 10⁴⁴ amino acids, a hundred billion trillion years would yield a 95% chance for random formation of a functional protein only 110 amino acids in length (a single gene product).⁵⁷ The universe is about 15 billion years old. This means that less than one trillionth of the time has passed that would be needed to make even one of the 250-350 gene products necessary for minimal life, or one of the 1500 gene products necessary for independent life.

Further complicating the supra-astronomical probabilities that must be overcome for even the simplest life to arise by natural processes is the changing view of bacteria. No longer regarded as cells with a random, nondescript internal structure, bacteria are now recognized as having remarkable internal organization, both spatially and temporally, at the protein level.^{58, 59} This internal organization of bacterial cells is universal and is needed for their survival. This means that origin-of-life researchers must account for not only the simultaneous appearance of 250-350 gene products but also their organization inside the cell.

Comparing the predictions of the biblical origin-of-life model with the most recent discoveries coming from origin-of-life research reveals remarkable agreement. Life originated early and quickly in Earth’s history under hostile conditions. Moreover, life as it first appeared, in its minimal form, possesses enormous complexity.

None of the predictions that come from the naturalistic model are satisfied by the most recent scientific results. From a naturalistic perspective, supra-astronomical probabilities argue against the required simultaneous assembly of the molecular components needed for life to function in its most minimal form. Perhaps most devastating of all is the absence of a primordial soup on early Earth. All origin-of-life models that appeal exclusively to natural processes have as their chief requirement a primordial soup. Even if a primordial soup existed, however, the chemical processes supposedly taking place in the soup seem incapable of producing life. In light of the most recent scientific discoveries, the comments of Paul Davies and the quiet frustration of origin-of-life researchers seem understandable.

The harmony between the Bible’s account of the origin of life and nature’s record provides powerful evidence for the validity of the Christian faith. The lack of concordance between the naturalistic model for life’s origin and the scientific data causes one of the key pillars of the theory of evolution to crumble. Once a reasonable, testable case has been made for the supernatural origin of life, the door is open to view other areas of the biological realm from a supernatural standpoint as well.

In addition to demonstrating the truthfulness of Scripture, recent discoveries show how the biblical account of origins can contribute to scientific research. By offering the biblical account of life’s origin in a form that invites scientific testing, Christians make clear that the study of creation is science. A testable creation model approach to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the major categories of life, and the origin and spread of humanity allows Christians to make a unique contribution to the question of origins—one that allows for supernatural explanations. By offering testable models capable of making predictions, Christians can positively influence the direction of scientific research in a way that reflects their worldview and in a way that can be respected and embraced by the scientific community. Creation is science.

 

 

References:

1. Stanley L. Miller, “A Production of Amino Acids under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions,” Science 117 (1953), 528-29.
2. Stanley L. Miller, “Production of Some Organic Compounds under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions,” Journal of the American Chemical Society 77 (1955): 2351-61.
3. John Horgan, The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age (New York: Broadway, 1997), 138-42.
4. Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999), 17.
5. Davies, 17-18.
6. Fazale R. Rana and Hugh Ross, “Life From the Heavens? Not This Way . . .” Facts for Faith 1 (Q1 2000), 11-15.
7. See review by Fazale R. Rana in Facts for Faith 3 (Q3 2000), 60-61. Book reviewed: Niles Eldredge, “The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism,” (New York: W. H. Freeman, 2000), 91.
8. Eldredge, 91.
9. Eldredge, 146.
10. Hugh Ross, “Can Science Test a God-Created-It Origins Model? Yes!” Facts for Faith 2 (Q2 2000), 40-47, 55-58.
11. The author readily acknowledges that the origin-of-life research community is actively considering other origin-of-life scenarios as alternatives to the one presented in this article. Nevertheless, the textbook scenario still appears to be the most widely accepted origin-of-life model among origin-of-life investigators. Many of the features of the textbook origin-of-life scenario find their way into nearly all of the alternative origin-of-life models.
12. Richard Cowen, History of Life, 3d ed. (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Science, 2000), 1-18.
13. Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1998), 23.
14. Spiros Zodhiates, ed. Hebrew-Greek Keyword Study Bible New International Version (Chattanooga, Tenn.: AMG, 1996): 1560-61.
15. Ross, Genesis, 26-27.
16. Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe (New York: Springer-Verlag, 2000), 53-54.
17. Ward and Brownlee, Rare Earth, 49-52, 57-60.
18. Ross, Genesis, 29-30.
19. John Rea, Charisma’s Bible Handbook on the Holy Spirit (Orlando: Creation House, 1998), 23-27.
20. Manfred Schidlowski, “A 3,800-Million-Year Isotopic Record of Life from Carbon in Sedimentary Rocks,” Nature 333 (1988), 313-18.
21. Manfred Schidlowski, “Carbon Isotopes as Biogeochemical Recorders of Life over 3.8 Ga of Earth History: Evolution of a Concept,” Precambrian Research 106 (2001): 117-34.
22. S. J. Mojzsis et al., “Evidence for Life on Earth before 3,800 Million Years Ago,” Nature 384 (1996), 55-59.
23. Minik T. Rosing, “13C-Depleted Carbon Microparticles in 3700-Ma Sea-Floor Sedimentary Rocks from West Greenland,” Science 283 (1999), 674-76.
24. J. William Schopf, “Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex Chert: New Evidence of the Antiquity of Life,” Science 260 (1993), 640-46.
25. Frances Westall et al., “Early Archean Fossil Bacteria and Biofilms in Hydrothermally-Influenced Sediments from Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa,” Precambrian Research 106 (2001): 93-116.
26. K. J. Zahale and N. H. Sleep, “Impacts and the Early Evolution of Life” Comets and the Origin and Evolution of Life. Edited by Paul J. Thomas, Christopher F. Chyba, and Christopher P. McKay (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1997), 175-208.
27. Ward and Brownlee, 48-50.
28. Hugh Ross, “New Evidence for Life’s Rapid Origin,” Connections vol. 3 no. 1 (2001), 1.
29. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God, 2d ed. (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1995), 147-48.
30. Hubert Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (New York: Cambridge University, 1992), 183, 203-04.
31. Yockey, Information, 235-41.
32. Hubert Yockey, “To NASA: Stop Funding This Science-Without-a-Subject,” Facts for Faith 1 (Q1, 2000), 13.
33. Francis Raulin, “Atmospheric Prebiotic Synthesis,” presentation at the 12th International Conference on the Origin of Life and the 9th meeting of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life, San Diego, Calif., 1999.
34. Christopher Wills and Jeffrey Bada, The Spark of Life: Darwin and the Primeval Soup (Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus, 2000), 61-62.
35. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2000), 19-22.
36. Stanley L. Miller, “The Endogenous Synthesis of Organic Compounds” The Molecular Origins of Life: Assembling Pieces of the Puzzle. Edited by Andre Brock (New York: Cambridge University, 1998), 59-85.
37. Wells, 14-18.
38. Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Dallas: Lewis and Stanely, 1984), 76-93.
39. Ivan G. Draganic, “Oxygen and Oxidizing Free-Radicals in the Hydrosphere of Early Earth,” presentation at the 12th International Conference on the Origin of Life and the 9th meeting of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life, San Diego, Calif., 1999.
40. Miller, Endogenous, 59-85.
41. Miller, Endogenous, 75.
42. One important example of this involves the sugar, ribose. See Miller, Endogenous, 74.
43. Rosa Larralde et al., “Rates of Decomposition of Ribose and Other Sugars: Implications for Chemical Evolution,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 92 (1995): 8158-60.
44. Mitsuhiko Akaboshi et al., “Dephosphorylating Activity of Rare Earth Elements and Its Implications in the Chemical Evolution,” presentation at the 12th International Conference on the Origin of Life and the 9th meeting of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life, San Diego, Calif., 1999.
45. Robert Shapiro, “Prebiotic Cytosine Synthesis: A Critical Analysis and Implications for the Origin of Life,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 96 (1999): 4396-401.
46. Robert Shapiro, “The Homopolymer Problem in the Origin of Life,” presentation at the 12th International Conference on the Origin of Life and the 9th meeting of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life, San Diego, Calif., 1999.
47. Andreas Rupp et al., “The Genome Sequence of the Thermoacidophilic Scavenger Thermoplasma acidophilum,” Nature 407 (2000), 508-13.
48. Carol J. Ault et al., “Complete Genome Sequence of the Methanogenic Archaeon, Methanococcus jannaschii,” Science 273 (1996), 1058-73.
49. Gerad Deckert et al., “The Complete Genome of the Hyperthermophilic Bacterium Aquilex aeolious,” Nature 392 (1998), 353-58.
50. Karen E. Nelson et al., “Evidence for Lateral Gene Transfer Between Archae and Bacteria from Genome Sequence of Thermotoga maritima,” Nature 399 (1999), 323-29.
51. Colin Patterson, Evolution, 2d ed. (Ithaca, N.Y.: Comstock, 1999), 23.
52. Claire M. Fraser et al., “The Minimal Gene Complement of Mycoplasma genitalium,” Science 270 (1995), 397-403.
53. Clyde A. Hutchinson, III et al., “Global Transposon Mutagenesis and a Minimal Mycoplasma Genome,” Science 286 (1999), 2165-69.
54. Arcady R. Mushegian and Eugene V. Koonin, “A Minimal Gene Set for Cellular Life Derived by Comparison of Complete Bacterial Genomes,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 93 (1996): 10268-73.
55. Nikos Kyrpides et al., “Universal Protein Families and the Functional Content of the Last Universal Common Ancestor,” Journal of Molecular Evolution 49 (1999): 413-23.
56. Yockey, Information, 246-57.
57. Yockey, Information, 255.
58. Richard Losick and Lucy Shapiro, “Changing Views on the Nature of the Bacterial Cell: From Biochemistry to Cytology,” Journal of Bacteriology 181 (1999): 4143-45.
59. Lucy Shapiro and Richard Losick, “Dynamic Spatial Regulation in the Bacterial Cell,” Cell 100 (2000): 89-98.