On the off chance that I ever come to question Christianity, I find it hard to think I would abandon my conviction that a Creator played a role in the origin and design of life. It\u2019s hard to conclude anything else in the face of (1) the scientific challenges facing chemical evolution, and (2) the elegant and sophisticated architecture and operation of biochemical systems\u2014which, in and of itself, powerfully evinces design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Based on my experience, many scientists are quick to agree with me. They observe no viable explanation for an evolutionary origin of life and the designs of biochemical systems are, indeed, remarkable. Yet, despite these points of agreement, many nontheistic scientists eschew the idea that life stems from a Creator\u2019s handiwork, and they hold out hope for an evolutionary explanation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Commitment to Methodological Naturalism<\/strong> To put it another way, according to the tenets of methodological naturalism, every scientific explanation requires a mechanism\u2014if it is to be considered valid. Scientists struggle to accept any explanation sans a mechanism. So, when I (or some other Christian apologist) claim that scientific evidence points to a Creator\u2019s role, say, in the origin and design of biochemical systems, they are quick to ask: \u201cWhat\u2019s the mechanism God used to create life?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n This query serves as a \u201cgotcha\u201d question. For many scientists, if there is no mechanism, it isn\u2019t a viable scientific explanation. And they have no interest in giving that claim any hearing after that point. They simply dismiss it out of hand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I\u2019m sympathetic to this concern. An integral part of evaluating any scientific idea is to assess whether or not the mechanism(s) thought to be at play can actually account for the feature(s) or process(es) under consideration. In fact, this is the line of reasoning I used to conclude that chemical evolutionary processes can\u2019t explain the origin of life. So, without a mechanism at work to study, scientists don\u2019t know how they can truly evaluate a claim like the one that posits a Creator engineered the origin of life. Therefore, they have no interest in pursuing the possibility any further\u2014because they don\u2019t know how.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a case in point, in response to an article I posted on social media in which I presented scientific evidence for a Creator, one of my skeptical Facebook friends, Jim, raised this very issue:<\/p>\n\n\n\n There\u2019s one question that I tried to get [well-known ID advocate] to answer. I know you\u2019re not him and may have different opinions: His theory on the Cambrian explosion implies that new creatures formed out of thin air. Or in other words didn\u2019t have mommies and daddies, which I find very unlikely. I guess if you believe in a creator god anything goes, but I find it highly doubtful that this would be the answer to the Cambrian explosion . . . I guess it\u2019s a god of the gaps explanation which he probably wants to avoid as a \u201cscientist.\u201d Any thoughts?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n So, what are my thoughts?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Modes of Divine Action<\/strong> In other words, Did God create?<\/em> and How did God create?<\/em> are two distinct queries. We can know the answer to the first question without knowing the answer to the second. The mechanism the Creator used to bring about life\u2019s origin is a question about the mode of divine action. We don\u2019t need to know how<\/em> the Creator effected his creative purposes to know that<\/em> he did.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is quite possible that God could have created by \u201czapping\u201d things into existence. Or, another way to say it is that God could have created through supernatural means. If so, there would be no natural process mechanism(s) to study. It doesn\u2019t make the conclusion that God created any less valid or certain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But he also could have created through natural processes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An examination of the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 reveals several distinct verbs employed in the original Hebrew to describe God\u2019s creative acts:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The biblical text indicates that God has created both supernaturally and naturally as he brought the universe into being, transformed the earth to make it suitable for life, and populated our planet with different life-forms throughout life\u2019s history. If God creates through process, then scientists should be able to propose and study mechanisms that drive those processes. And when they do, it is reasonable to think that they should also discover a clear indication of the Creator\u2019s fingerprints in the mechanisms that undergird those processes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Two Possible Divine Mechanisms<\/strong> These two approaches hold the possibility of establishing rapprochement between scientists and those who advocate for some type of creationism. One approach is based on the concept of hypernaturalism and the other stems from a teleologically rich version of chemical and biological evolution called process structuralism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hypernaturalism<\/strong> With the concept of hypernaturalism in play, the dichotomy between natural process chemical evolution and the reliance on divine agency largely disappears. Instead, the origin of life can be understood to arise via hypernatural processes in which God made use of physicochemical mechanisms to effect life\u2019s origin. In this schema, the origin of life does not arise via the suspension<\/em> of the laws and processes of nature but through<\/em> them. Life\u2019s origin is a miracle, but one by which God intervenes<\/em> within the created laws of nature. Applying hypernaturalism to the origin-of-life scenario makes it possible to find common ground with research scientists who hold to methodological naturalism. By regarding life\u2019s origin as the result of God\u2019s hypernatural action, it\u2019s possible for scientists to investigate the origin-of-life question within the framework of modern-day science, even if life\u2019s emergence is understood to be a \u201cmiracle.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In essence, when origin-of-life researchers perform prebiotic simulation experiments, they operate in a hypernatural way. They control the experimental setup and laboratory conditions to bring about extraordinary circumstances\u2014within the confines of the laws of nature and natural processes\u2014that allow key steps in the pathway to the origin of life to transpire. Could it be that God worked as a divine organic chemist to bring life into existence? It\u2019s intriguing that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures describe humans as made in God\u2019s image (Genesis 1:26\u201327). If such is the case, then when we create\u2014or when humans step into the laboratory to run a chemical reaction\u2014are we mimicking, though imperfectly, the Creator?<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Process Structuralism<\/strong> On this view, physical forces supersede natural selection altogether and shape the development of biochemical and biological systems. Some structuralists go so far as to claim that the basic forms of the natural world\u2014\u201cthe types\u201d\u2014are immanent in nature and determined by a set of special natural biological laws, the so-called \u201claws of form.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n This view of the evolutionary process reintroduces teleology (design, purpose) into biology. When viewed as a historically contingent process, evolution is unguided and undirected. It has no purpose. It has no end goal. On the other hand, if structuralism is valid\u2014as the evidence increasingly suggests\u2014then the evolutionary process proceeds to predetermined ends and teleology perfuses life\u2019s evolutionary history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One implication that arises if process structuralism accounts for life\u2019s history is that a divine Mind rigged the universe in such a way that biochemical and biological systems are inevitable and intended by the Creator. The outcomes are the only ones that could ever emerge from evolutionary processes because these processes were designed to yield only those creatures God desired. Thinking of the origin-of-life as the result of an evolutionary process that has been rigged at the get-go to arrive at predetermined endpoints allows scientists to study the process, view it mechanistically, and still embrace the conclusion that \u201cGod did it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Open to Options<\/strong> God could create (1) supernaturally, (2) hypernaturally, or (3) through a divinely designed process\u2014such as process structuralism\u2014that doesn\u2019t require his direct and immediate intervention. By examining the details surrounding, say, the origin of life, we can discover clues on how God may have achieved his goal, with two of the options undergirded by mechanisms that scientists can investigate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If a genuine discontinuity in nature characterizes the origin of life, it seems reasonable to conclude tentatively that God created life supernaturally, outside the laws of nature. Toward this end, life\u2019s origin does appear to be discontinuous. First life appears early and suddenly in life\u2019s history and appears to be remarkably complex at its onset.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Still, I hesitate to conclude that God created life supernaturally. Instead, I favor the idea that God created Earth\u2019s first life hypernaturally. Origin-of-life researchers have identified numerous chemical and physical processes that could\u2014in principle<\/em>\u2014contribute to a chemical evolutionary origin of life. However, I question how these processes could practically generate life on early Earth. Virtually all of the identified processes depend upon exacting laboratory conditions. That is, these processes take place only through human intervention. As a rule, these processes would be unproductive on early Earth, because they require chemically pristine conditions, unrealistically high concentrations of reactants, carefully controlled order of additions, carefully regulated temperature, pH, salinity levels, etc. In effect, decades of work in prebiotic chemistry indicate that the steps necessary for chemical evolution to transform disparate molecules on early Earth into the first cells can occur only if laboratory workers hypernaturally manipulate the laws of physics and chemistry to create highly improbable just-right effects. This conclusion naturally lends itself to speculate that perhaps God created life in the same way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I\u2019m also open to the possibility that a type of chemical evolutionary version of process structuralism could explain the origin-of-life through an evolutionary process that the Creator rigged to exclusively produce the just-right molecular systems needed for life. Biochemists and origin-of-life investigators have made interesting discoveries that lend support for this idea. (See the articles listed in the Resources<\/strong> section under the heading, The Origin of Life: Anthropic Principle<\/em><\/strong>.) This version of chemical evolution is quite distinct from the versions proposed by most origin-of-life scientists. It has God\u2019s fingerprints all over it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In answer to my skeptical Facebook friend, I don\u2019t know how God created first life on Earth. I\u2019m open to follow the evidence where it leads. But I am confident that God did create life and that it\u2019s possible to investigate how he did it scientifically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Resources<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Hypernaturalism<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHypernaturalism: Integrating the Bible and Science<\/a>\u201d by Hugh Henry and Daniel J. Dyke (article)<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHypernaturalism: The Improbable Reveals God\u2019s Handiwork<\/a>\u201d by Hugh Henry and Daniel J. Dyke (article)<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA Hypernatural Miracle: Elijah and the Fire from Heaven<\/a>\u201d by Hugh Henry and Daniel J. Dyke (article)<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHow Did God Create the First Life on Earth?<\/a>\u201d by Fazale Rana (article)<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHypernaturalism and the Origin of Life<\/a>\u201d by Fazale \u201cFuz\u201d R. Rana, Hugh Henry, and Daniel J. Dyke<\/p>\n\n\n\n Process Structuralism<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cJust-Right RNA Structure Points to Intentional Design<\/a>\u201d by Fazale Rana (article)<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhat If . . . ? Convergence Strengthens the Case for Creation<\/a>?\u201d by Fazale Rana (article)<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Origin of Life: Earth\u2019s Early Life<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhat Does the Discovery of Earth\u2019s Oldest Fossils Mean for Evolutionary Models<\/a>?\u201d by Fazale Rana (article)<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cLUCA\u2019s Complexity Challenges Evolutionary Origin of Life<\/a>\u201d by Fazale Rana (article)<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Origin of Life: Unwarranted Researcher Involvement<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cPrebiotic Chemistry and the Hand of God<\/a>\u201d by Fazale Rana (article)<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Origin of Life: Anthropic Principle<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHave Researchers Developed a Computer Algorithm That Explains the Origin of Life?<\/a>\u201d by Fazale Rana (article)<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cKrebs Cycle Origin Brings the Case for Creation Full Circle<\/a>\u201d by Fazale Rana (article)<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cEvidence That the Cell\u2019s Metabolism Is Planned<\/a>\u201d by Fazale Rana (article)<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cJust-Right RNA Structure Points to Intentional Design<\/a>\u201d by Fazale Rana (article)<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIs the Optimal Set of Protein Amino Acids Purposed by a Mind?<\/a>\u201d by Fazale Rana (article)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Endnotes<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n On the off chance that I ever come to question Christianity, I find it hard to think I would abandon my conviction that a Creator played a role in the origin and design of life. It\u2019s hard to conclude anything else in the face of (1) the scientific challenges facing chemical evolution, and (2) the elegant and sophisticated architecture and operation of biochemical systems\u2014which, in and of itself, powerfully evinces design. Based on my experience, many scientists are quick to agree with me. They observe no viable explanation for an evolutionary origin of life and the designs of biochemical systems […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":579,"featured_media":355691,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_person_authors":[],"_kad_blocks_custom_css":"","_kad_blocks_head_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_body_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_footer_custom_js":"","footnotes":"","_classifai_error":"","_classifai_text_to_speech_error":"","_classifai_text_to_speech_scheduled":false},"categories":[63990,64000],"tags":[],"discipline":[],"reading-level":[64149],"class_list":["post-355673","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-life","category-who-is-god","reading-level-advanced-deep-dive"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
No single reason exists for their reluctance. Still, there are a few shared objections. One I often hear arises out of the scientific community\u2019s demand for mechanistic (underlying natural cause) explanations. Their obsession with mechanism stems from their commitment to methodological naturalism\u2014the philosophical position which holds that the only legitimate explanations for the universe and phenomena contained within it must be based on mechanistic, natural processes. Period. Because of this deep-seated commitment, some scientists will not permit any appeals to the supernatural or to agency as part of contemporary science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
As I noted, a strong scientific case exists for a Creator who played a role in the origin of life and the design of biochemical systems. (I wrote four books that collectively make the case: Origins of Life<\/em><\/a>, The Cell\u2019s Design<\/em><\/a>, Creating Life in the Lab<\/em><\/a>, and Fit for a Purpose<\/em><\/a>.) The doubts of many in the scientific community notwithstanding, this conclusion stands whether or not we know the mechanism the Creator used to bring about Earth\u2019s first life. This inference is no less valid than the one arrived at by crime scene investigators when they discover a dead body and draw the conclusion that the victim\u2019s death was a homicide, even if they don\u2019t know how or why the murder was committed or who the perpetrator might be. Of course, having the \u201chow\u201d and \u201cwhy\u201d information strengthens the crime scene detectives\u2019 case. But it\u2019s not needed to conclude that the deceased person was murdered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
As I\u2019ve considered scientists\u2019 challenge about the need for mechanisms, I recently presented two theistic approaches to the origin-of-life question. These modes make it possible to entertain a role for divine agency while providing the means to investigate the origin-of-life question in a way that conforms to the spirit of the scientific method.1<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n
The concept of hypernaturalism has been proposed by Old Testament scholar Daniel J. Dyke and physicist Hugh Henry.2<\/sup> Like most scientists, Dyke and Henry eschew the concept of supernaturalism, which they argue has the Creator operating outside the laws of nature. Why would God violate the laws that he put in place to govern the universe when he engages in his creative acts? In contradistinction, while Dyke and Henry leave a place for God occasionally creating supernaturally, they argue that God primarily operates within<\/em> the laws and phenomena of nature when he creates. God\u2019s work can be recognized because the just-right event happens at the just-right time with the just-right magnitude. The just-right, improbable nature of the outcome of these processes connotes a Creator\u2019s involvement and constitutes a miracle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to process structuralism, evolutionary outcomes aren\u2019t shaped by an unguided, undirected historically contingent process under the control of natural selection, which is the way that most evolutionary biologists conceive of the evolutionary process.\u00a0Instead, evolutionary outcomes are constrained and fundamentally prescribed by the laws of nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When Christian apologists conclude from the scientific evidence that a Creator played a role in the origin, design, and history of life, we have options concerning the mode of divine action. It\u2019s common to perceive that \u201cGod did it\u201d means that God \u201czapped\u201d things into existence. But this perception doesn\u2019t reflect what Scripture teaches. Concluding that \u201cGod did it\u201d doesn\u2019t mean that we can\u2019t develop some insight into how<\/em> God achieved his creative work through mechanistic processes that bear his signature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n