With that in mind, we’ll tackle these eight questions in light of Scripture and the scientific evidence:

• What does the Bible say about dinosaurs?
• Did God create dinosaurs?
• Where are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible?
• Did dinosaurs live with humans?
• Why did God create dinosaurs?Why would God kill the dinosaurs?
• Does this mean there was animal death before Adam and Eve’s fall?
• What killed the dinosaurs, according to the Bible?

Before We Talk Dinosaurs: Our Biblical Framework

At Reasons to Believe, we approach these questions from an old-earth creationist (OEC) perspective. Before we talk about dinosaurs, it helps to understand this view.

Old-earth creationism begins with a high regard for Scripture. We believe Genesis is a true historical account of creation and should be interpreted carefully in light of its original language and context.

We understand the six days of creation as real, ordered acts of God, but not necessarily limited to 24-hour days. This understanding is derived from the biblical text itself.

In the original Hebrew, the word translated “day” (yom) is used throughout Scripture to describe different lengths of time depending on context. Genesis gives clear boundaries to each creation day, but it does not require them to be equal in length or tied to Earth’s rotation.

In short, the old-earth view doesn’t reinterpret Scripture to fit science. It seeks to take both God’s Word and God’s world seriously.

It’s also important to clarify what this view does not affirm. While we hold that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, we do not accept macroevolutionary theory. We believe God created humans—Adam and Eve—uniquely and directly in his image.

With that groundwork laid, let’s get to the fun!

What Does the Bible Say About Dinosaurs?

Like we mentioned, Genesis 1 is a historical account of God’s creative work. Yet, Genesis 1 is not an exhaustive description of creation. Instead, it offers snapshots of the creation story.

While the Bible describes many historical accounts, it doesn’t provide all-inclusive summaries of every historical event. God in his goodness gave every generation his inspired Word with precisely what we need to know for our salvation. Nothing less and nothing more.

With that in mind, you won’t find direct mention of dinosaurs in the Bible.

The Bible is ultimately about God’s redemptive plan for humanity. Since dinosaurs are not part of the salvation story, we shouldn’t worry about their absence from Scripture.

Nevertheless, these fascinating creatures are well worth exploring and learning about. As we discover more about all that God created, including the dinosaurs, we can learn more about who God is.

Did God Create Dinosaurs?

Even though you won’t find dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible, that doesn’t mean God didn’t create these magnificent creatures. It simply means dinosaurs didn’t make the highlight reel of Scripture. (And, yes, we’ll get to the mention of the Behemoth and Leviathan in the book of Job later!)

The scientific record tells us dinosaurs lived roughly 260 million years to 65 million years ago. For Christians, this could mean God created dinosaurs at the end of his fifth creation day or at the beginning of the sixth day before God created mankind.

Let’s review the Genesis 1 text on the days of creation, specifically when animal life began.

In Genesis 1:21–23 we read:

This passage can be understood to mean that if there were dinosaurs who lived in water, God created these dinosaurs on the fifth day.

In Genesis 1:24–25, we learn that God created land animals (as well as mankind) on the sixth day of creation:

Scientifically we know there were three generations (or epochs) of dinosaurs. Let’s break these generations down in chronological order:

• Triassic
  Appeared around 260–200 million years ago
  Lived for 60 million years until they were wiped out during the Triassic-Jurassic extinction event
• Jurassic
  Appeared around 200–145 million years ago
  Lived for 55 million years until they were wiped out during the Jurassic-Cretaceous extinction event
• Cretaceous
  Appeared around 145–66 million years ago
  Lived for 80 million years until they were wiped out during the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event

Some people assume that spans of millions of years point to evolutionary theory. But that’s not what happened. In the above timeline, if dinosaurs were wiped out, then repopulated quickly and diversely, it leaves no time for complex evolutionary processes. 

Where Are Dinosaurs Mentioned in the Bible?

Again, we don’t believe you’ll find mention of dinosaurs in the Bible. But let’s take a look at some passages in Scripture that are often thought to be dinosaur descriptions.

Behemoth and Leviathan in the Book of Job

It has long been speculated that the book of Job mentions dinosaurs through its descriptions of the Behemoth and Leviathan in Job 40 and 41.

Let’s review the text, paying close attention to the poetic descriptions used.

In Job 40:15–19 the Lord says to Job:

In Job 41:1–2; 12–15; 19–21, the Lord continues with a long description of the Leviathan:

Before the nineteenth century, Christians who read this passage believed the Behemoth and Leviathan poetically described the hippopotamus and crocodile, respectively.

It wasn’t until dinosaur fossils were first described in 1677 by Robert Plot that some people began to refer to these descriptions as dinosaurs. Examples include the Triceratops (known to be a plant eater) or Tyrannosaurus (known to be the most fearsome of the dinosaurs).

The difficulty with this interpretation is that no creatures on Earth—alive or extinct—literally fit these descriptions. For example, there is no known fire-breathing animal that had body parts of actual bronze and iron. It’s important to remember that Job 40 isn’t a zoological field guide; it’s a poetic reflection on God’s creative power.

There’s also a possibility that these fearsome beasts are a part of the supernatural realm and not creatures that commonly roamed Earth.

So why would God take the time to describe these beasts in such detail?  

Ultimately to explain his command over everything! While Job could not fathom taming such creatures, God explains that he is the only One who has made and can tame his creation.

What an incredible Creator we worship!

Did Dinosaurs Live with Humans?

Since we hold an old-earth creationist view, we maintain that the days of creation were long periods of time (epochs, eras, eons). However, we do not hold to an evolutionary theory. With that in mind, we believe God likely created dinosaurs on the sixth day, but they died off millions of years before he created Adam and Eve later in that same creation period.

Therefore, we do not believe dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time.

Our perspective differs from fellow Christians who hold a young-earth creationist (YEC) view. The YEC viewpoint says that the earth is closer to 6,000 years old, which means they do believe dinosaurs and early humans coexisted. They also believe there were dinosaurs on Noah’s ark.

Our RTB scholars approach both Scripture and the fossil record with confidence that they’re in harmony. We don’t need to dismiss or reinterpret the fossil record to make it fit the Bible. While God certainly could have created dinosaurs to live alongside humans, Scripture does not require that conclusion, nor does the scientific evidence support it.

Instead, the fossil record reveals that dinosaurs played a distinct and purposeful role in Earth’s history long before humans appeared—one that fits coherently within God’s broader plan for creation. When understood together, both Scripture and science point to a timeline that’s faithful to the biblical text and grounded in the physical evidence God has left for us to study.

Why Did God Create Dinosaurs?

On the surface, some people might see God’s creation of the dinosaurs as unnecessary if he created them just to be wiped out by mass extinction events. 

If dinosaurs were not included in Scripture, then what was God’s purpose for creating these incredible creatures? 

According to the fossil record, more species of life came into existence during the thousand years before humans were created (which, from an old-earth perspective, is during God’s fifth and sixth days of creation). The fossil record provides confirmation that there were sudden appearances of new life-forms on Earth, which points to God’s direct involvement in creating new life throughout the fifth and sixth days.

This means there is both biblical and scientific evidence for God’s creative activity of animal life on the fifth and six days in Genesis 1.

Christians can trust that God makes himself known to all humanity through his incredible work in creation. God’s creation of dinosaurs not only demonstrates the awesomeness and artistry of our Creator, but also reveals attributes of God’s character.

Romans 1:20 tells us this about God’s handiwork in relation to his character:

This passage gives us confidence that continued scientific exploration of the world around us leads to a deeper understanding of our Creator. God’s creation, along with the discoveries we make within it, continually points to him as the designer and sustainer of the universe.

So, even though the Bible doesn’t directly mention dinosaurs, we can trust that God made dinosaurs as an opportunity for us to discover the greatness of his handiwork and to worship him. 

Why Would God Kill the Dinosaurs?

As Psalm 104:24–25 describes, God created animals in great quantity and with great diversity:

God filled the earth with the maximum quantity and diversity of life as the physical conditions on Earth permitted.

During the ages of the dinosaurs, shallow seas and tall trees on the continents permitted land animals as large as the dinosaurs. Today, Earth’s physical conditions do not allow a land animal any larger than an elephant to thrive.

It could also be that God’s creation and extinction of the dinosaurs was intended to keep Earth packed with the greatest possible biomass (organic matter used as fuel), biodiversity (the variety of life in an ecosystem), and biocomplexity (complex environments formed through many individual parts).

This endowment ensures that humans have all the biodeposits needed to launch and sustain a global high-tech civilization. It displays how God prepared the planet for humanity and provided for us even before the creation of Adam and Eve.

Reading further into Psalm 104:27–30, we find a general understanding of why God would create and then remove any life from Earth.

From this passage, we find reason to praise God for his sovereignty over creation and for his provision for all life.

Genesis 1 also provides insight into why God would kill the dinosaurs. It describes the changing conditions in the universe and on Earth between God’s creative activity and today. The creation story agrees with scientific models that estimate it took almost 4.6 billion years for the earth to attain the environmental conditions that support life today.

This process could explain the extinction/creation cycles: life-forms became extinct due to a changing environment, and new life-forms adapted to the new conditions God created.

So then, how does the extinction of dinosaurs fit into God’s plan?

We know the purpose of all of Scripture is to tell the story of God’s redemption plan for human beings. The focus of Genesis 1 is the creation of humans—God’s image bearers and ultimate creation. Thus, the creation and death of such intermediate life-forms like dinosaurs may have been necessary to bring about habitable conditions for humans to live on Earth.

One example of this preparation that we see in nature is that scientists believe the extinction of dinosaurs resulted in petroleum: the lifeblood of today’s advanced society.

Going back to Psalm 104, if our interpretation is correct, then God’s inspired Word was once again ahead of humans’ scientific discovery in its description of our natural world. The harmony between the biblical accounts of creation and the fossil record gives us confidence that the Bible reveals truth about the natural realm.

Does This Mean There Was Animal Death Before the Fall of Adam and Eve?

If our biblical and scientific interpretations accurately portray an old earth (4.5 billion years old), then yes, there would have been animal death before Adam and Eve’s original sin in the garden.

The idea of animal death prior to the fall does concern YECs. From a young-earth view, the fall was the event that introduced death for all life-forms. In other words, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, young-earth believers hold that there was no animal or human death.

At RTB we believe Scripture provides a clear explanation on the question of animal death before the fall. Here is one passage (of many) that provides an answer.

Romans 5:12–14:

Paul’s statement in Romans that death entered the world through Adam’s sin does not teach that death entered the nonhuman creation for the very first time after the fall. This becomes clear when interpreted in the context of the original Greek translation.

Romans 5 teaches us that the covenantal penalty of death, as the wages of human sin, began at the fall of Adam.

From this perspective, it makes it a bit easier to grasp why God would allow animals (even the dinosaurs) to die prior to the fall.

What Killed the Dinosaurs, According to the Bible?

If there’s no direct mention of dinosaur extinction in Scripture, we also don’t expect to find an explanation for the extinction of dinosaurs in the Bible.

We know scientifically that there were three generations of dinosaurs (Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous) and each were wiped out by mass extinction events. While we can’t come to this conclusion through God’s inspired Word, we can learn about these extinction events through God’s record in nature.

God’s Sovereignty over Creation

As fun as it is to discuss the creation, purpose, and deaths of the dinosaurs, it’s even more amazing that no matter your conclusion, you can trust in God’s sovereignty.

If new discoveries of dinosaurs cropped up to prove either a young or old earth, our salvation as Christ-followers would remain unchanged.

If our OEC view is correct, then we should stand amazed at the foresight and creativity God exercises in his care for creation. We can especially marvel at his care for humans as he prepared and provided, millions of years in advance, a planet that was suitable for advanced human life.

We can praise God for the opportunity and curiosity that keeps us discovering more about him through our study of Scripture and his creation.

Looking for answers to other Old Testament questions? Check out our free ebook 10 Tough Questions from the Old Testament Answered.

The post Are Dinosaurs in the Bible? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

For decades, scientists have wrestled with these questions. Many who look for purely natural explanations believe every living thing can be traced back to a single-celled organism, often called the “Last Universal Common Ancestor,” or LUCA. But this just creates another question: how did that first living cell even come into existence?

Figuring out how life on Earth began—specifically, how a barren planet became filled with microscopic life—isn’t just a point of scientific concern; it has huge implications for each person’s belief system. The evidence points in one of two directions. Either:

1. Life is the result of an unguided, natural process, 
2. Or, it was designed by a Creator.

Many people assume that science and the biblical account in Genesis are at odds. But are they? And do they have to be? Can Christian Scripture and origin-of-life research fit together?

At Reasons to Believe, we hold that both science and Scripture affirm that the origin of life on earth was the result of God’s creative work. To lay out the evidence for this view, we first need to clarify a few key questions:

• What exactly is life?
• What kind of life was first present on Earth?
• What does the latest origin-of-life research tell us?

A thoughtful Christian approach will seriously consider the viewpoints of non-Christian scientists and all relevant scientific facts. While much of the scientific community leans toward a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life on Earth, we’ll see that the evidence presents some major problems for this view. Instead, the history of life points powerfully toward purposeful design and, therefore, a Designer.

How Did Life Begin?

To understand how life began, we first need to agree on what life actually is. While that might sound simple, when we look at the details, it becomes a complex issue.

What Is Life?

Scientists have identified several key characteristics that all life on Earth shares. Life is:

• Organized: It has a defined structure.
• Chemically distinct: It’s different from its nonliving surroundings.
• Homeostatic: It maintains a stable internal balance.

In addition to these traits, living things also:

• Take in and use energy from their environment.
• Respond and adapt to their surroundings.
• Reproduce and experience small-scale changes, or microevolution.

Every living thing reproduces and evolves. Even if you don’t believe that all life evolved from a single common ancestor (macroevolution), it’s clear that all life changes in small ways in response to its environment (microevolution)..

What Does Life Need to Get Started?

For life to exist, it needs the right ingredients and environment. Think of it like building a house—you can’t just dump lumber, nails, and bricks on a lot and expect a home to appear. You need specific materials, a solid foundation, and a carefully ordered plan to bring it all together. In the same way, three of the most critical ingredients for most life on Earth are:

1. water
2. carbon dioxide
3. oxygen

More Than Just Water and Air

While water, CO₂, and oxygen are vital, they’re not the whole story. To build the complex organic compounds found in most or all living organisms, you need other essential elements. These include hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur–and, of course, carbon. Other elements like potassium, sodium, and calcium are also important, even if they’re not as abundant.

Abiogenesis: Can Life Arise from Non-Life?

For the first living cells to form, all these elements had to be present in the right amounts and under the right conditions. Many origin-of-life scientists believe that the presence of these key chemical elements provides all the means for the natural development of the first life on Earth. This theory—that life can evolve from nonliving, inorganic matter—is called abiogenesis.

But is it really that simple? Let’s look at what the fossil record tells us about the history of life on our planet.

When Did Life Begin on Earth?

Understanding the timeline of life’s origin can help us appreciate the complexity of Earth’s history. Scientists have uncovered remarkable evidence that reveals just how early—and suddenly—life appeared.

Timeline of Major Life Events

• ~4.566 billion years ago: Earth forms.
• ~4.5 billion years ago: The Moon forms.
• ~3.85 billion years ago: Isotopic evidence for life appears.
• ~3.8 billion years ago: Oceans become permanent, and a stable water cycle is established.
• ~3.5 billion years ago: Stromatolites and microfossils provide evidence of early microbial life.
• ~2.5 billion years ago: Cyanobacteria and other phototrophs contribute to the oxidation of Earth’s atmosphere.
• ~1.9 billion years ago: Microscopic eukaryotes (complex cells) appear.
• ~650 million years ago: Some scientists believe the first land plants arrive.
• ~543 million years ago: The Cambrian explosion occurs, introducing fish and shell-like invertebrates.
• ~444 million years ago: End-Ordovician extinction event occurs, eliminating an estimated 85% of marine species.
• ~372–359 million years ago: Late Devonian extinction events take place in multiple pulses, reshaping marine ecosystems.
• ~520 million years ago: Fossil land plant spores are discovered.
• ~425 million years ago: Vascular plant fossils appear.
• ~346 million years ago: The earliest terrestrial animal fossils are found.
• ~252 million years ago: End-Permian extinction event (“The Great Dying”), the most severe extinction in Earth’s history.
• ~230 million years ago: Dinosaurs emerge.
• ~201 million years ago: End-Triassic extinction event clears ecological space for dinosaur dominance.
• ~155 million years ago: The earliest winged birds appear.
• ~66 million years ago: End-Cretaceous extinction event occurs, most famously wiping out the non-avian dinosaurs.
• ~125 million years ago: The earliest mammal fossils are discovered.
• ~130,000 years ago: Modern humans emerge.

Findings highlight how the discovery of ancient fossils has perplexed origin-of-life researchers and cast doubt on classic evolutionary timelines. While 3.85 billion years of life history might sound like ample time for gradual evolution, the evidence tells a different story: life appears rapidly, stabilizes for long periods, and then new waves of life arise suddenly—often immediately following catastrophic extinction events.

From an old-earth creation perspective, this pattern reflects purposeful stages in Earth’s history, with ecosystems being reset and prepared for increasingly complex life, ultimately culminating in humanity. This progression aligns far more naturally with a biblical explanation of life’s origins than with older naturalistic models that require long, uninterrupted stretches of slow evolutionary change.

Where Did Life Begin?

Where life began on Earth is just as fascinating as when it began. The fossil record points to two especially significant locations: shorelines  and hydrothermal vents.

• Shorelines: Some of the oldest fossils on Earth are found along shorelines and shallow seas in the form of stromatolites.These layered bacterial mats show that microbial communities thrived in the planet’s primeval days and their global distribution reveals that early life was already surprisingly diverse.
• Hydrothermal Vents: Deep-sea vents provided a unique sanctuary for life sheltered from harsh surface conditions and asteroid bombardment. Microfossils in these environments show that complex biological activity was present around the same time as stromatolites.

Recent research highlights just how quickly and widely microbial communities spread, even in Earth’s most inhospitable conditions. As discussed in “What Does the Discovery of Earth’s Oldest Fossils Mean for Evolutionary Models?,” these findings challenge the timeline and expectations of naturalistic evolution, suggesting that the abrupt appearance and variety of early life on Earth isn’t easily explained by the classic models.

With so much evidence pointing to a rapid and global emergence of life, the question remains: how did such complex life begin so early?

How Scientists Study the Origin of Life

Beyond the puzzle of when life appeared, scientists are also trying to figure out how it appeared. A major focus of origin-of-life research is understanding how nonliving (prebiotic) compounds could have assembled  to form the first living cells.

To do this, researchers have developed a three-step experimental approach.

1. Proof of Principle: These experiments aim to demonstrate that a particular chemical or physical process could contribute to one of the steps needed to create life. It’s about showing what’s possible in a lab setting.
2. Mechanism Studies: Once a process is shown to be possible, researchers dive deeper. They study the specific mechanisms behind these chemical changes to understand exactly how they work.
3. Geochemical Relevance: This is the most critical step. Here, scientists try to determine if the processes they’ve demonstrated in the lab could have actually happened on early Earth. In effect, seeing if the processes still work when the lab conditions match the real-world conditions from billions of years ago.

So far, scientists have had success with the first two steps. They’ve identified reliable processes that could, in principle, generate the building blocks of life. They’ve also explored the mechanisms behind these processes.

But here’s the big question: Could any of these carefully controlled lab experiments have occurred naturally on the chaotic, early earth? While we can show that certain chemical reactions are possible, demonstrating that they are relevant to the origin of life on Earth is a much greater challenge.

The Primordial Soup Theory

You’ve probably heard the classic “primordial soup” explanation for how life began. It’s the story many of us learned in school. The idea is that life didn’t just appear all at once but developed through a step-by-step process.

According to this theory, the oceans of early Earth were like a warm, chemical-rich soup. In this primordial soup, simple organic compounds randomly bumped into each other, forming more and more complex molecules. Over vast stretches of time, these nonliving but organic compounds combined in just the right way to create the very first, simple, single-celled organism.

From this initial spark of life, the theory goes, LUCA (the Last Universal Common Ancestor) eventually evolved. This is the single-celled organism from which all other life is thought to have descended.

Does the “Primordial Soup” Theory Hold Up to Science?

While the primordial soup idea is popular, scientists have run into major problems with it. These issues challenge whether this well-known story for how life began could have actually happened.

For example, the classic model assumes Earth’s early atmosphere was “reducing”—meaning rich in hydrogen-based gases that would have helped prebiotic compounds form. However, we now have strong evidence that the early atmosphere was neutral, full of water vapor, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide. This type of atmosphere would have prevented many of the necessary organic compounds from ever forming.

The soup theory itself has other issues. Many of the chemical reactions needed to create the building blocks of life also produce byproducts. These extra chemicals could have stopped later reactions in their tracks or even destroyed the very compounds that had just been made.

Searching for Alternative Routes

Because of these challenges, scientists have proposed alternative theories for the origin of life on Earth.

• Extraterrestrial Delivery: Some suggest that comets or asteroids crashed into Earth, seeding it with the necessary compounds for life—a theory known as panspermia.
• Unique Environments: Others propose that life began in specific locations with unique energy sources, like volcanoes or deep-sea hydrothermal vents. These scenarios aim to find a plausible natural mechanism for creating prebiotic compounds.

The Problem of the Scientist in the Lab

A major hurdle for all origin-of-life experiments is researcher intervention. For a naturalistic origin of life to be plausible, the process must have happened in an unguided way , without any intelligent interference. Scientists trying to recreate these conditions have to prove their experiments could work on the chaotic, messy early earth.

However, researchers often don’t account for their own role. Simple things, like using purified chemicals, temperature control, or removing contaminating byproducts, are standard lab practice. But these actions represent a level of control and foresight that wouldn’t have existed in nature. This kind of tinkering couldn’t happen on early Earth without an intelligent designer.

In their quest to show how life could arise naturally, researchers guide the process toward a desired outcome and unwittingly play the role of a creator.

This leads us to an intriguing question: If creating even the simplest building blocks of a cell requires careful lab conditions and intelligent intervention, is it reasonable to think life began on Earth without a designer?

Why Is There Life on Earth?

After exploring all these scientific puzzles, what are we left with? How did life begin on Earth? While researchers have shown that certain chemical steps toward life are possible in a lab, they haven’t been able to show how these steps could happen in the real world without a scientist’s help. The gap between nonliving chemicals and a living cell remains huge.

The incredible complexity of even the simplest cell, the stunning diversity of the first fossils, and what we know about the hostile early earth all point toward a different conclusion. Both theistic and atheistic scientists acknowledge that complex life appeared suddenly and early in our planet’s history. This sudden arrival demands an explanation that goes beyond simple, unguided processes.

Science and Scripture in Harmony

At Reasons to Believe (RTB), we see overwhelming evidence for design in the history of life. The unexplained complexity and sudden diversity of the first living things point powerfully to God as the Creator. The answer to how life on Earth began seems to require an intentional, intelligent agent—much like origin-of-life experiments require an intelligent scientist.

We hold that the creation accounts in Genesis are historical and can be tested against the record of nature. Part of our testable creation model is to show Christians how the creation account fits with research on the early Earth and origins of life.

Far from contradicting the Bible, modern science gives us more reason to see the evidence for design all around us. Studying how life began actually gives us more reason to believe that God is the Creator and Sustainer of everything that lives.

The post How Did Life Begin on Earth? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Will we be reunited with our pets in heaven one day—or perhaps see animals that went extinct before our time? These aren’t just “kids’ questions.” They touch real grief, real love, and real faith.

In this article, we’ll explore what the Bible and careful Christian thinking say about animals, souls, and eternity so you can think about God’s magnificent creatures and your beloved companions with both honesty and hope.

What the Bible Says About Souls and Spirits

Before we can answer whether animals have souls, we need to understand what the Bible means by “soul” and “spirit”—and how these terms apply to both humans and animals.

What Is a Soul?

The Bible describes the soul as what makes us living beings. In Genesis 2:7, God breathes life into Adam, making him a “living soul.” The Hebrew phrase literally means “living being” or “living creature.”

Here’s where it gets interesting: this same phrase appears throughout Genesis to describe animals too. When God creates sea creatures and birds, they are also called “living creatures” (Genesis 1:20–21, 24). This shared language shows that both humans and animals possess a God-given vitality that goes beyond mere biological function.

But does this mean animals have souls exactly like humans? Not quite. While the Bible uses similar language for both, it consistently highlights a crucial difference: only human beings are made “in God’s image” (Genesis 1:27).

The way God creates humans versus animals reveals this distinction. In Genesis 1, God spoke animals into existence, saying “let there be” for different kinds of creatures. But when it came time to create Adam, God did something entirely different. He personally formed Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils (Genesis 2:7). This intimate, hands-on creation—combined with God declaring humanity made “in his image”—shows that humans possess a unique spiritual and moral responsibility that animals don’t share.

So when we ask if animals have souls, we’re really asking a more nuanced question: Do animals have the same kind of soul as humans? The answer appears to be no—but that doesn’t mean they lack an inner life.

Understanding “Soulishness” in Animals

Some Bible scholars use the term “soulishness” to describe what certain animals possess. This concept helps us see the distinction more clearly. Higher animals—like dogs and elephants— have a God-given life and awareness that includes emotions and feelings, a mind capable of learning and memory, a will that makes choices, and the capacity to bond with and serve humans.

Think about your own pets. Dogs show loyalty and joy when you come home. Cats display affection (on their own terms, of course). Horses form deep bonds with their riders. Birds recognize voices and respond to kindness. These aren’t just programmed responses—they reveal that animals have something real going on inside.

But here’s the key distinction: while these animals can relate to us, bond with us, and even serve us, they cannot relate to God in the same way humans can. Animals don’t seek God, worship him, or bear moral responsibility before him. They don’t experience sin, need forgiveness through Christ, or receive the indwelling Holy Spirit. These uniquely spiritual capacities belong to humans alone.

So do animals have souls? Higher animals have “soulishness”—a real, God-given inner life with emotions, personality, and consciousness. But they don’t have souls in the same way humans do, with the spiritual capacity to know and relate to God.

What Is a Spirit?

The Bible sometimes uses the words “soul” and “spirit” together and sometimes interchangeably. But there is a difference.

The spirit is described as the divine breath or life force that God gives to all living beings. In Genesis 7:15, “all creatures that have the breath of life” entered Noah’s ark—meaning both animals and humans possess this life-giving breath, and both are alive because God gave them spirit.

So, what’s the difference between soul and spirit? In Christian thought, the spirit is the animating force that gives life, while the soul is the seat of personality, mind, and emotions. Both animals and human beings have a spirit—the breath that brings life—but only humans have souls uniquely tied to being made in God’s image, with the capacity for spiritual relationship with God..

Answering the Question: Do Animals Have Souls?

The short answer is: certain animals have “soulishness” but not souls like humans. The Bible uses the same Hebrew words to describe both humans and animals as “living creatures.” Higher animals clearly have inner lives—they show emotions, form bonds, make choices, and display personalities. Your dog’s joy when you return home isn’t fake. Your cat’s affection (however selective) is real. These behaviors point to something deeper than mere instinct.

Scripture consistently reminds us that only human beings are made “in the image of God.” This unique status gives us spiritual and moral responsibility unmatched by animals. We alone can seek and know God personally, bear moral responsibility for our choices, experience conviction of sin and the need for redemption, receive the Holy Spirit and be transformed spiritually, and worship and glorify God consciously.

Animals don’t carry these capacities. They’re innocent of sin—not because they’re morally perfect, but because they lack the spiritual nature that makes humans accountable to God. A lion hunting prey isn’t committing murder; it’s following its God-given design. Animals live according to their created nature without the spiritual awareness that characterizes human existence.

This doesn’t diminish animals’ value. It simply means they occupy a different place in God’s created order. The higher animals even have “soulishness”—real life, real feelings, real personalities—but not the image of God that defines human souls.

Do Animals Have Spirits?

Yes, animals have spirits in the sense that they have the “breath of life” from God. Both human beings and animals share this spirit—the life force that animates all living creatures (Genesis 7:15; Ecclesiastes 3:19–21). This is why all living things are alive.

However, only humans bear spiritual responsibility before God. Sinfulness, the need for Christ’s sacrifice, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are exclusively human experiences. Animals have the spirit of life, but not the spiritual nature that connects humans to God in a personal, moral relationship.

What Does the Bible Say About Animals?

Scripture paints animals as valuable and cherished parts of God’s creation.

• In Genesis 1, God created animals and called them “good.”
• Proverbs 12:10 tells us, “The righteous care for the needs of their animals.”
• In Jonah 4:11, God expresses his concern for animals alongside the people of Nineveh.
• The story of Noah’s ark in Genesis 6–9 shows God’s desire to save animal life.

From the very beginning, God created animals with a meaningful place in the world. When he made the earth, he didn’t create animals as an afterthought—he delighted in them and called them part of his very good creation. Throughout the Bible, we see that animals aren’t just decorative or utilitarian. They’re participants in God’s unfolding story, sometimes serving as messengers, helpers, or even examples of faithfulness and obedience.

Our treatment of animals says something about how we understand God’s love for all his creation. By actively caring for animals, we recognize their worth and our place as caretakers in God’s world.

Will Our Pets Go to Heaven?

For many of us, this question is deeply personal. We wonder if the pets we loved on earth will be with us in heaven. The Bible doesn’t give us a crystal-clear answer on eternal life for animals, but it does offer some hope-filled glimpses that encourage our imagination and faith.

Revelation 21:1 paints a picture of “a new heaven and a new earth,” where God will make all things new and free from the effects of sin. Whatever the details, God’s future kingdom will be a place of complete restoration, beauty, and joy.

Many Christian thinkers point out that while the Bible offers no explicit assurance that our individual pets will be in heaven, it also doesn’t rule out the possibility. What we can know for certain is that God will not take anything away that he does not replace with something far better.

Ultimately, we can trust that God’s new creation will be filled with his best gifts. As 1 Corinthians 2:9 reminds us, no human mind can conceive of the things God has prepared for those who love him. Whatever God creates in the new heaven and new earth will far exceed anything we could ask or imagine.

Will There Be Animals in Heaven?

The Bible’s visions of God’s future kingdom include striking imagery of animals. Isaiah’s prophecy of peace (Isaiah 11:6–9) pictures predators and prey living together in harmony. Revelation describes horses among Jesus’s hosts (Revelation 19:14). Whether these passages are symbolic or literal remains a matter of interpretation among Christians. What we can say with confidence is that God clearly delights in animals and cares for all he has made. While we cannot be certain about the exact nature of the new creation, Scripture assures us that God’s perfect kingdom will include everything needed for our complete joy in his presence.

The Bigger Picture: Souls and Eternity

As we consider the question, do animals have souls, we’re reminded of how deeply this topic touches our hearts and faith. From the Bible’s opening chapters to the teachings of Jesus, God’s Word celebrates the beauty, worth, and wonder of all living creatures—including our pets. Scripture paints animals as living beings who reflect God’s creativity and care.

So, what’s the takeaway for us? God invites us to cherish and care for his creation with compassion and gratitude. When we love and respect our pets and all animals, we’re honoring the God who made them and gave them breath. Whether or not we’ll be reunited with our beloved pets in eternity, we know that God delights in all he has made. He will create again in the new heaven and new earth, and whatever he creates will be far better than anything we can imagine.

The post Do Animals Have Souls? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The lack of imagination and poor character development for Inhumans were unfortunate. Hands down, the Inhumans are one of the most interesting collections of Marvel characters. A reclusive superhuman race of beings, the Inhumans had their beginnings when the alien race called the Kree performed genetic experiments on primitive humans 50,000 years ago. Today, the descendants of these genetically modified humans call themselves the Inhumans. They live within a complex social hierarchy that centers around the ritualistic exposure to the mist derived from terrigen crystals. This mist serves as a mutagen that unlocks the genetic potential of each Inhuman, transforming them into beings with unique superhuman powers. Through this process, each Inhuman becomes who they were truly destined to be.

The Inhumans are just one of many examples of popular culture reflecting the seemingly scientific idea of genetic determinism—the notion that our genes dictate who we are and who we’ll ultimately become. This perspective pervades our culture and challenges our cherished notions of who we are as human beings. But is it true?

Genetic Determinism
The widespread influence of this view of human nature is understandable. Advances in genetics leave many people with the mistaken notion that our genes determine our biological and psychological traits. And errors in our genes will inescapably destine us to experience specific diseases. As David S. Moore, developmental psychologist and author of the book The Dependent Gene, writes, “These . . . advances have been presented to the public in a way that has perpetuated the mistaken idea that some of our traits are caused exclusively (or primarily) by our genes.”²

Most people are aware that virtually all our physical features, such as eye color, hair color, height, etc., have a genetic basis. But now, geneticists have presented data that suggests our personalities and character—qualities that define who we are as a person—are also influenced by our genes. For example, in 2020 an international research team reported the results of a genome-wide association study on 2,149 healthy Finns that was designed to tease out the complex genotype-phenotype relationships that determine human character. They learned that “self-regulatory personality traits are strongly influenced by organized interactions among more than 700 genes despite variable cultures and environments” and that these gene sets modulate specific molecular processes in the brain “for intentional goal-setting, self-reflection, empathy, and episodic learning and memory.”³

Geneticists are also developing an understanding of the genetic basis for many diseases and possible ways to manage and treat them. But the advances also leave many people with the impression that errors in our genes seal our fate. This point is powerfully illustrated by findings regarding BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Mutations in these two genes, which encode tumor suppressor proteins, increase the risk fivefold that women will develop breast cancer and ten- to thirtyfold that they will develop ovarian cancer. Even though only 5 to 10% of breast cancers stem from mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, mutations to these genes have oversized consequences. Women with mutations in either of these two genes have up to a 65% chance of developing breast cancer and a 45% chance of developing ovarian cancer by age 70. Because of the influence of genetic determinism, women who discover that they have mutations in their BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes often assume they’ll inevitably develop breast cancer and consequently elect to have preventative mastectomies in response. In fact, this procedure is often recommended by physicians for women with mutations in the BRCA genes.⁴

Beyond diseases like cancer, geneticists have also discovered that mutations in our genes make significant contributions to a growing list of neurological disorders such as attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anorexia nervosa, anxiety disorders, autism spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, obsessive‐compulsive disorder, post‐traumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia, and Tourette’s syndrome.⁵

In addition, geneticists have learned that genes influence criminal behavior. One of the most well-known examples of this link is the discovery of an association between a version of the MAOA gene (a gene that encodes the enzyme monoamine oxidase A) and impulsive aggression, arson, and sexual assault. Monoamine oxidase A regulates the metabolism of the neurotransmitters serotonin and dopamine and, consequently, influences brain function. Versions of the MAOA gene that encodes what biochemists call low activity monoamine oxidase A correlate with a propensity to commit violent criminal acts.⁶

It’s no wonder many people subscribe to some form of genetic determinism. Science appears to affirm it.

So, are we merely the product of our genes? 

Biological Determinism
Even though acceptance of genetic determinism is widespread among the scientifically uninitiated, acceptance is rare among life scientists. They understand that environmental factors and “random” processes that occur during embryonic and fetal growth and development (developmental noise) also contribute to biological and psychological traits in humans. As David Moore writes, “All traits—from ‘biological’ traits like hair color and height to complex ‘psychological’ traits like intelligence—are caused by dependent interactions of genes and environments.”⁷

In other words, we are more than our genes. The environment and our growth and development in the womb also shape who we are. For example, geneticists have discovered that even though an association exists between the low activity version of the MAOA gene and criminal aggression, they’ve also uncovered interactions between genes and the environment. People with low activity and high activity versions of the MAOA gene show low aggression when unprovoked. It was only under conditions of high provocation that people with the low activity level MAOA gene displayed criminally aggressive behavior. In a similar vein, geneticists have also learned that maltreatment as a youth coupled with the low activity version of the MAOA gene leads to criminal behavior.⁸

While these types of insights undermine genetic determinism, they do seemingly support the idea of biological determinism. This view holds that each human being is nothing more than the cumulative interplay of our genes and the environment. Neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky puts it this way in his book Determined: 

You observe a behavior and can answer why it occurred . . . because of the action of neurons in . . . your brain in the preceding second. And in the seconds to minutes before, those neurons were activated by a thought, a memory, an emotion, or sensory stimuli. And in the hours to days before that behavior occurred, the hormones in your circulation shaped those thoughts, memories, and emotions, altered how sensitive your brain was to particular environmental stimuli. And in the preceding months to years, experience and environment changed how those neurons function, causing some to sprout new connections and become more excitable, causing the opposite in others. 

And from there, we hurtle back decades in identifying antecedent causes. . . . During adolescence a key brain region was still being constructed, shaped by socialization and acculturation. Further back, there’s childhood experience shaping the construction of your brain, with the same then applying to your fetal environment. Moving further back, we have to factor in the genes you inherited and their effects on behavior. . . . Everything in your childhood, starting with how you were mothered within minutes of birth, was influenced by culture, which means centuries of ecological factors that influenced what kind of culture your ancestors invented, and by the evolutionary pressures that molded the species you belong to. Why did that behavior occur? Because of the biological and environmental interactions all the way down.⁹

So, while we may be more than our genes, according to those who hold to biological determinism, our biology and psychology—our identity and character—are no more than the dictates of the collective activity of our genes shaped by a lifetime of interactions with environmental influences. 

In fact, scientists like Sapolsky argue for such extreme forms of biological determinism that they deny our free will. They maintain that our sense of free will is merely an illusion. Accordingly, we are ultimately controlled by subconscious activities in our brain that are influenced by deterministic forces beyond our control. We think we’re making choices when in fact we’re not.

So, are we merely the cumulative effects of the environment operating on our genes?

Is Free Will an Illusion?
For many scientists, the evidence for biological determinism (which includes the notion that free will is illusory) appears to be strong. If they’re right, then this view challenges long-held and cherished notions about our identity and nature as human beings. 

So, are we truly free agents? 

Biological determinism also raises questions about human culpability. The good things we do and the bad acts we commit are outside of our control. We shouldn’t be applauded for the good we do or punished for the bad we perpetrate. Every thought we think, every act we commit is determined by our biology and history. Finally, this perspective also challenges the Judeo-Christian view of human beings made in God’s image with the free-will capacity to accept him and worship him or to reject him. 

Yet, some scientists accept biological determinism while embracing the reality of our free will. One of them is life scientist Kevin Mitchell. According to Mitchell, it’s our capacity for metacognition that evinces our capacity for free will. In his book Free Agents, Mitchell writes, “Humans possess a highly developed set of neural resources devoted precisely to metacognition, introspection, imagination, and conscious cognitive control of our behavior. We think about our thoughts. We reason about our reasons. In fact, much of our waking mental lives is taken up with such introspection, and when we’re not thinking about our own thoughts and reasons, we are often thinking about those of other people.”¹⁰

Scientific discussions about determinism and free will take place within a materialistic framework, in which the brain is the mind, and the mind is the brain. Even from this vantage point, free will can exist. Neuroscientist William Klemm has hypothesized that free will arises from neural networks in the brain that surveil other neural networks, yielding conscious awareness of self that has the capacity to exert executive control.¹¹ It’s important to note that Klemm’s explanation is a hypothesis that awaits testing.

While this view is not universally held, a significant number of life scientists (including me) hold to limited biological determinism. We recognize that our histories and the ongoing interplay of our genes and the environment, along with the process of our growth and development in the womb, play a role in shaping who we are as human beings. But, because we possess free will (and free won’t), we can rise above the deterministic forces that shape who we are and make free-will decisions. Yes, our choices are constrained by our biology and circumstances, but within those constraints we are free to choose what we will or won’t do.

Based on the available scientific evidence, it’s reasonable to conclude that we are more than our genes, and more than the cumulative interactions of our genes and the environment. We’re free-will beings with the capacity to captain our own ship.

A Christian Perspective of Biological Determinism and Free Will
Is it possible to develop a biblically based creation model that balances biological determinism and free will? One that respects the scientific insights and affirms the biblical teaching on human nature and identity as image bearers?

I think so. As a Christian (who rejects materialism) I maintain that a distinction exists between the brain and the mind, with the mind being an immaterial part of our nature. As image bearers, we also possess a spirit. (Perhaps we could think of the combination of our mind and spirit as our soul.) According to neuroscientist Matthew Stanford, an interplay exists between our brain, mind, and spirit.¹² In Stanford’s model, our brain structures and physiology influence our thinking and our thinking can impact our brain biology. Our spirit can influence our mind and our mind can influence our spirit. 

Before our minds are transformed by God, our sin nature influences our thinking and, in turn, our brain biology. At our conversion—and through the process of sanctification—our spirit is renewed (Romans 12:2). We are new creatures. Our renewed spirit influences our mind and, consequently, our brain differently than when we’re in a state of sin. And as we strive to renew our mind, no longer conforming to the world, our mind’s influence transforms our spirit and through this interplay of brain, mind, and spirit we become more like Christ. 

In this model, our free will arises out of our immaterial nature—but it can be influenced by our genes and our history. It’s also influenced by our spirit, whether we’re in a state of sin or born again. In other words, there exists a spiritual dimension to determinism. For believers, the action of the Holy Spirit constrains our free will and, in doing so, influences our thinking and, ultimately, our brain biology. Yet, we’re still free to choose, despite these influences.

One final point. No human being is a ghost in the machine. Though we have both material and immaterial natures, they aren’t separate and distinct but integrated. Consequently, it isn’t unreasonable to expect the existence of brain structures and physiological processes that support and work with our immaterial nature—our mind and spirit. Thus, I’m not surprised that neuroscientists speculate about neural networks that surveil other neural networks to give us a sense of self. If this turns out to be the case, it doesn’t mean that our mind is our brain. Instead, it could be understood as a brain operation that supports the operation of our mind and its interplay with our spirit, which is the ultimate source of our free will.

Our identity isn’t bound to our genes or our history. We aren’t slaves to our biology. We’re free-will beings who can choose what we do and who we want to become, just as Scripture teaches and science affirms.

Resources

“Is There a Biological Basis for Belief?” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Is There a Biological Basis for Belief? A Follow-Up” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Epigenetics—Sins of the Father” by Fazale Rana (article)

“‘Sins of the Father’ Revisited” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Magnets and Morality” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Does Human Morality Arise from Brain Chemistry?” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Does Oxytocin Cause Spiritual Experiences?” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Love Is in the Air and It Smells Like Intelligent Design” by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

1. Adrienne Tyler, “Marvel’s Historic TV Bomb Is So Bad It’s Still Hurting the MCU 6 Years Later,” ScreenRant, October 13, 2023. 
2. David S. Moore, The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of “Nature” Vs. “Nurture” (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2001), 4.
3. Igor Zwir et al., “Uncovering the Complex Genetics of Human Character,” Molecular Psychiatry 25 (October 2020): 2295–2312, doi:10.1038/s41380-018-0263-6.
4. Gianluca Franceschini et al., “Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in BRCA Mutation Carriers: What Surgeons Need to Know,” Annali Italiani di Chirurgia 90 (2019): 1–2, PMID:30872561.
5. Ole A. Andreassen et al., “New Insights from the Last Decade of Research in Psychiatric Genetics: Discoveries, Challenges, and Clinical Implications,” World Psychiatry 22, no. 1 (February 2023): 4–24, doi:10.1002/wps.21034.
6. S. Sohrabi, “The Criminal Gene: The Link between MAOA and Aggression (REVIEW),” BMC Proceedings 9, Supplement 1 (January 14, 2015): A49, doi:10.1186/1753-6561-9-S1-A49.
7. Moore, The Dependent Gene, 4. 
8. Sohrabi, “The Criminal Gene.” 
9. Robert Sapolsky, Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will (New York: Penguin Press, 2023), 3–4.
10. Kevin J. Mitchell, Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2023), 266.
11. W. R. Klemm, Making a Scientific Case for Conscious Agency and Free Will (San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 2016), 4.
12. Matthew S. Stanford, The Biology of Sin: Grace, Hope, and Healing for Those Who Feel Trapped (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2010), 15–26.

The post Are We More Than Our Genes? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

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’s handiwork, and they hold out hope for an evolutionary explanation.

Commitment to Methodological Naturalism
No single reason exists for their reluctance. Still, there are a few shared objections. One I often hear arises out of the scientific community’s demand for mechanistic (underlying natural cause) explanations. Their obsession with mechanism stems from their commitment to methodological naturalism—the 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.

To put it another way, according to the tenets of methodological naturalism, every scientific explanation requires a mechanism—if 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’s role, say, in the origin and design of biochemical systems, they are quick to ask: “What’s the mechanism God used to create life?”

This query serves as a “gotcha” question. For many scientists, if there is no mechanism, it isn’t 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.

I’m 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’t explain the origin of life. So, without a mechanism at work to study, scientists don’t 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—because they don’t know how.

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:

There’s one question that I tried to get [well-known ID advocate] to answer. I know you’re 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’t 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’s a god of the gaps explanation which he probably wants to avoid as a “scientist.” Any thoughts?

So, what are my thoughts?

Modes of Divine Action
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, The Cell’s Design, Creating Life in the Lab, and Fit for a Purpose.) 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’s 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’s death was a homicide, even if they don’t know how or why the murder was committed or who the perpetrator might be. Of course, having the “how” and “why” information strengthens the crime scene detectives’ case. But it’s not needed to conclude that the deceased person was murdered.

In other words, Did God create? and How did God create? 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’s origin is a question about the mode of divine action. We don’t need to know how the Creator effected his creative purposes to know that he did.

It is quite possible that God could have created by “zapping” 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’t make the conclusion that God created any less valid or certain.

But he also could have created through natural processes.

An examination of the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 reveals several distinct verbs employed in the original Hebrew to describe God’s creative acts:

• bara, which describes God creating supernaturally, originating something that did not previously exist.
• asah, which describes God creating supernaturally, originating something new from previously existing materials.
• yatsar, which carries the same connotation as asah.
• banah, which means to rebuild, to redesign.
• haya, which implies divine superintendence of a process.
• desha, which implies origination through a process.

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’s 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’s fingerprints in the mechanisms that undergird those processes.

Two Possible Divine Mechanisms
As I’ve considered scientists’ 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

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.

Hypernaturalism
The concept of hypernaturalism has been proposed by Old Testament scholar Daniel J. Dyke and physicist Hugh Henry.² 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 the laws and phenomena of nature when he creates. God’s 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’s involvement and constitutes a miracle.

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’s origin. In this schema, the origin of life does not arise via the suspension of the laws and processes of nature but through them. Life’s origin is a miracle, but one by which God intervenes 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’s origin as the result of God’s hypernatural action, it’s possible for scientists to investigate the origin-of-life question within the framework of modern-day science, 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. They control the experimental setup and laboratory conditions to bring about extraordinary circumstances—within the confines of the laws of nature and natural processes—that 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’s intriguing that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures describe humans as made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27). If such 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?

Process Structuralism
According to process structuralism, evolutionary outcomes aren’t 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. Instead, evolutionary outcomes are constrained and fundamentally prescribed by the laws of nature.

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—“the types”—are immanent in nature and determined by a set of special natural biological laws, the so-called “laws of form.”

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—as the evidence increasingly suggests—then the evolutionary process proceeds to predetermined ends and teleology perfuses life’s evolutionary history.

One implication that arises if process structuralism accounts for life’s 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 “God did it.”

Open to Options
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’s common to perceive that “God did it” means that God “zapped” things into existence. But this perception doesn’t reflect what Scripture teaches. Concluding that “God did it” doesn’t mean that we can’t develop some insight into how God achieved his creative work through mechanistic processes that bear his signature.

God could create (1) supernaturally, (2) hypernaturally, or (3) through a divinely designed process—such as process structuralism—that doesn’t 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.

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’s origin does appear to be discontinuous. First life appears early and suddenly in life’s history and appears to be remarkably complex at its onset.

Still, I hesitate to conclude that God created life supernaturally. Instead, I favor the idea that God created Earth’s first life hypernaturally. Origin-of-life researchers have identified numerous chemical and physical processes that could—in principle—contribute 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.

I’m 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 section under the heading, The Origin of Life: Anthropic Principle.) This version of chemical evolution is quite distinct from the versions proposed by most origin-of-life scientists. It has God’s fingerprints all over it.

In answer to my skeptical Facebook friend, I don’t know how God created first life on Earth. I’m open to follow the evidence where it leads. But I am confident that God did create life and that it’s possible to investigate how he did it scientifically.

Resources

Hypernaturalism

“Hypernaturalism: Integrating the Bible and Science” by Hugh Henry and Daniel J. Dyke (article)

“Hypernaturalism: The Improbable Reveals God’s Handiwork” by Hugh Henry and Daniel J.  Dyke (article)

“A Hypernatural Miracle: Elijah and the Fire from Heaven” by Hugh Henry and Daniel J. Dyke (article)

“How Did God Create the First Life on Earth?” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Hypernaturalism and the Origin of Life” by Fazale “Fuz” R. Rana, Hugh Henry, and Daniel J. Dyke

Process Structuralism

“Just-Right RNA Structure Points to Intentional Design” by Fazale Rana (article)

“What If . . . ? Convergence Strengthens the Case for Creation?” by Fazale Rana (article)

The Origin of Life: Earth’s Early Life

“What Does the Discovery of Earth’s Oldest Fossils Mean for Evolutionary Models?” by Fazale Rana (article)

“LUCA’s Complexity Challenges Evolutionary Origin of Life” by Fazale Rana (article)

The Origin of Life: Unwarranted Researcher Involvement

“Prebiotic Chemistry and the Hand of God” by Fazale Rana (article)

The Origin of Life: Anthropic Principle

“Have Researchers Developed a Computer Algorithm That Explains the Origin of Life?” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Krebs Cycle Origin Brings the Case for Creation Full Circle” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Evidence That the Cell’s Metabolism Is Planned” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Just-Right RNA Structure Points to Intentional Design” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Is the Optimal Set of Protein Amino Acids Purposed by a Mind?” by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

1. Fazale R. Rana, “Materialistic and Theistic Perspectives on the Origin of Life,” in Science and Faith in Dialogue, Reformed Theology in Africa Series, vol. 10, ed. Frederik van Niekerk and Nico Vorster (Cape Town, South Africa: AOSIS Publishing, 2022), 125–148.
2. Hugh Henry and Daniel J. Dyke, Hypernaturalism: Integrating the Bible and Science (Chicago: Independently Published, 2018).

The post Q&A: Did God Create New Species Out of Thin Air? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Research has revealed, for example, that a strategically designed and strategically timed encounter with a smaller planet dispersed proto-Earth’s thick atmosphere and thousands-of-kilometers-deep ocean, increased the mass and density of proto-Earth, and resulted in the formation of Earth’s large moon.² The collision between (and consequent merger of) the two planets resulted in Earth’s possessing a large, hot, and dynamic core. This unique core gave rise to Earth’s Goldilocks crust. Earth’s crust is not too thick, nor is it too thin. It is just the right thickness to make possible a long history of life on its uppermost surface and, eventually, global human civilization.³ Now a team of geophysicists has discovered that Earth’s crust is just right for life in several other marvelous ways. 

A Clever Analytical Approach
While several mysteries concerning Earth’s crust remain, just days before Christmas 2023, a team of geophysicists led by Zhen-Jie Zhang published a breakthrough paper unveiling what researchers had previously considered undecipherable details about Earth’s outer shell of rock.⁴ Their work brought to light fresh insights that are already yielding dramatic new evidence for design.

Igneous rocks are the product of the cooling and solidification of magma, or lava. Igneous rocks comprise about 15% of Earth’s continents and nearly all of Earth’s oceanic crust. Basalts are the most widespread and abundant of Earth’s igneous rocks. Basalts come from Earth’s asthenosphere.

The asthenosphere is the layer that lies between Earth’s crust and mantle. It is thicker than Earth’s crust but much thinner than Earth’s mantle. Earth’s asthenosphere has an exceptionally low viscosity. Viscosity refers to resistance to stirring. For example, peanut butter is more viscous than syrup and syrup is more viscous than water. The low viscosity of Earth’s asthenosphere lowers the melting point of minerals, explaining why basalts in the asthenosphere are in liquid form and why basaltic rocks are so abundant in Earth’s crust.

Zhang’s team noted that data from various petrologists’ experiments revealed that oxides in basalt primary melts (basalts that have suffered little or no chemical alteration since cooling and solidifying from their molten form) are sensitive to the pressure of melting but show little or no sensitivity to the chemical compositions in either the asthenosphere or the upper mantle. They then explained how this property of basalt primary melts combined with measurements of oxides in the basalt primary melts could be used to determine the thickness of Earth’s lithosphere at the location and age of the basalt sample. (The lithosphere constitutes Earth’s crust plus that part of Earth’s upper mantle that does not move, relative to the crust.) 

So, Zhang and his colleagues then supervised a machine-learning algorithm to analyze global geo-databases (e.g., EarthChem and GEOROC) of basalts. By this means they were able to determine ongoing, cyclical variations in the thickness of Earth’s crust throughout the past 3.8 billion years. 

Three Discoveries Come to Light
First, Zhang’s team’s analysis revealed that a supercontinent forms as Earth’s crust thickens, and it breaks apart when Earth’s crust thins. At its thickest, Earth’s crust averages a depth of 140 kilometers, while at its thinnest, a depth of about 70 kilometers, on average. Zhang’s team also observed a slight trend: the minimum thickness becomes thinner with each succeeding supercontinent cycle. During the most recent cycle, the average crust thickness declined to 60 kilometers. At present, the average thickness is 72 kilometers. 

Second, the team’s study revealed that five supercontinent cycles have occurred during the past 3 billion years, with a periodicity that averages about 0.6 billion years, and that the duration of each supercontinent decreases with each progressive cycle, shortening from 0.50 billion years to 0.12 billion years (see figure). 

Figure: Supercontinents in Earth’s Past History
The bars indicate the varying durations of Earth’s supercontinents.
Data credit: Zhang et al.; Figure credit: Hugh Ross

Third, and most importantly, Zhang’s team established that there has never been a “stagnant lid” regime in Earth’s history—a time when the crust was a single stationary plate. Zhang and his colleagues determined that Earth’s crust has always consisted of multiple plates constantly moving relative to one another. In other words, during the entire time in which stable solid rock features have existed on Earth’s surface, plate tectonic activity has been ongoing. Plate tectonics has endured throughout the past 3.8 billion years. This research result thereby confirms the conclusions of a study, published in 2020, based on the buildup of argon isotopes in Earth’s atmosphere.⁵   

How Plate Tectonics Impact Life, and Vice Versa
What particularly caught my attention as I read the paper published by Zhang’s team is that the duration of plate tectonics on Earth appears identical to the duration of life on Earth. Both began at the same time and have continually persisted throughout the past 3.8 billion years.

This simultaneity is unsurprising when we recognize that life’s persistence on Earth requires sustained plate tectonic activity to recycle the nutrients life requires. At the same time, however, the persistence of plate tectonics at the level this recycling demands depends upon the existence of an abundance of iron- and sulfur-based anoxygenic photosynthetic life. These microbes play a crucial role in producing the black shales that facilitate the tectonic motion. 

Black shales are more buoyant than seafloor basalts. Black shales also contain high concentrations of heavy radioisotopes, especially uranium-235 and uranium-238. Radioisotope decay in the black shales generates heat. This heat combined with the shales’ greater buoyancy destabilizes the adjacent crust. This weakening facilitates the sliding of one tectonic plate past an adjacent plate or the sliding of one tectonic plate underneath an adjacent plate.

For advanced life to be possible, a long history of microbial life must precede it. For Earth’s surface environment to become chemically ready to support the flourishing of plants and animals requires at least 3 billion years of preparation by a huge abundance and diversity of microbial life. Even more time is required to permit the existence of human beings.⁶   

Thus, for humans to exist on Earth, life’s origin must have occurred no later than 3.8 billion years ago. Likewise, plate tectonics must have begun no later than 3.8 billion years ago, which means Earth must have cooled sufficiently from its merger with the rocky planet Theia⁷ no more recently than 3.8 billion years ago. This simultaneity and precise timing and design testifies of exquisite orchestration.

One More “Aha!”
Zhang and his colleagues add in the concluding paragraphs of their paper that “Earth was eventually primed for the arrival of a colorful Phanerozoic with the Cambrian explosion of metazoans.”⁸ In other words, the team noted that the sudden explosion of multiple animal phyla with intestinal tracts, circulatory systems, and complex internal and external organs—an event known as the Cambrian explosion—depended on a dramatic acceleration of the crustal thinning that initiated a supercontinent breakup. How so? 

The breakup of Gondwana generated massive landslides into the seas (the Great Unconformity), producing vast continental shelves that brought about the chemical transformation and oxygenation of Earth’s atmosphere and seas. This relatively rapid sequence of events created for the first time in Earth’s history an environment fit for advanced life. Thus, it made possible the Avalon and Cambrian bursts of life just early enough to make way for the future existence of human beings. A more thorough explanation of these events and their meticulous orchestration can be found in Improbable Planet,⁹ Designed to the Core,¹⁰ and Rescuing Inerrancy.¹¹ Each new discovery points to the work of a supernatural, super-intelligent Creator who intended for us to be here and to recognize his handiwork.

Endnotes

1. Hugh Ross, Designed to the Core (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2022), 207–220.
2. Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2016), 43–61.
3. Ross, Designed to the Core, 207–220.
4. Zhen-Jie Zhang et al., “Lithospheric Thickness Records Tectonic Evolution by Controlling Metamorphic Conditions,” Science Advances 9, no. 50 (December 15, 2023): id. eadi2134, doi:10.1126/sciadv.adi2134.
5. Meng Guo and Jun Korenaga, “Argon Constraints on the Early Growth of Felsic Continental Crust,” Science Advances 6, no. 21 (May 20, 2020): id. eaaqz6234, doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaz6234.
6. Ross, Improbable Planet, 119–142.
7. For details and documentation on the collision between proto-Earth and Theia, see Ross, Improbable Planet, chapter 5, pages 43–61.
8. Zhang et al., “Lithospheric Thickness Records,” page 8 of 13.
9. Ross, Improbable Planet, 143–197.
10. Ross, Designed to the Core, 183–223.
11. Hugh Ross, Rescuing Inerrancy: A Scientific Defense (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2023), 161–172.

The post Mysteries of Earth’s Crust Revealed appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post Love Is in the Air and It Smells Like Intelligent Design appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Data indicates that: (1) the growing human population size, (2) the increasing conversion of land for agricultural usage, and (3) the continuing abuse of the environment all contribute to the destruction of ecosystems. And as ecosystems are destroyed, extinction risks increase. Studies show that species loss is accelerating at rates that exceed background extinctions (those due to normal environmental or ecological factors) by 10 to 100 times.¹

Current estimates place about 25% of the world’s species on the verge of extinction. If these species are lost, ecosystems will reorganize and, in turn, render even more species vulnerable to extinction. It’s a vicious cycle. Extinctions beget extinctions. 

This loss of species is tragic because it robs the world of beautiful, majestic organisms. The biodiversity loss also threatens human civilization. We depend on ecosystems to deliver several critical benefits, such as: 

• stable climates
• sources of fresh water 
• agricultural pest control 
• control of disease-causing vectors
• crop pollination 

In short, without flourishing ecosystems, human flourishing is impossible. 

Extinctions: A Challenge for the Design Argument 
As frightening as the prospect of another mass extinction may be, extinctions are troubling for another reason—at least for people who believe that a Creator played a role in the origin, design, and history of life. 

Skeptics often argue that if there is a Creator, he must not be very capable—as evidenced by all the extinctions that have occurred throughout life’s history. Surely, if he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, God could have created organisms that weren’t vulnerable to extinction. 

This challenge was recently leveled against me on social media in response to an article I posted making the case for a Creator based on the design of biochemical systems. The challenger, Joshua, retorted in the comments, “If life on earth was designed, it wasn’t by an intelligent creator as evidenced by the thousands of extinct species that have existed.”

It’s not the first time I’ve heard this all-too-common objection. Even prominent scientists such as the late evolutionary anthropologist Irven DeVore quipped, “I personally cannot discern a shred of evidence for ‘[intelligent] design.’ If 97% of all creatures have gone extinct, some plan isn’t working very well!”

Withstanding the Challenge 
On the surface, this challenge appears to undermine the design argument and the idea that God designed life and oversaw its history. But there’s no reason to fear. Careful reflection exposes a serious flaw in this counterclaim to the design argument: namely, extinctions don’t equate to bad designs.

First, many of the species that have disappeared from Earth became extinct tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years after their first appearance. Considering how long these species endured on Earth, it is hard to argue that they were poorly designed. 

Second, Earth’s conditions have changed throughout life’s history. Organisms perfectly suited for an earlier era of Earth’s history, over time, will gradually become ill-adapted to the new environments that emerge as Earth’s conditions evolve. These losses in fitness between organisms and their environments will render species vulnerable to extinction. Again, it’s hard to argue that these organisms were poorly designed when they were ideally created for specific sets of conditions that no longer exist on Earth. 

Third, many of the organisms lost to Earth’s past disappeared because of mass extinction events. In almost every instance, some type of cataclysmic event caused the wide-scale loss of biodiversity. Paleontologists have identified five mass extinction events that eliminated between 70–95% of all species in one fell swoop. In addition to these “big five” catastrophes, paleontologists think that somewhere between 5 and 15 additional mass extinctions occurred. These extinctions weren’t as dramatic as the big five, but they still resulted in substantial biodiversity loss. 

These extinctions had little to do with the “poor” design of these organisms. Instead, dramatic events rendered conditions on much of Earth so extreme that few life-forms could survive even if they were well-designed.

A Philosophical or Biblical View of the Creator?
When considering challenges to God’s competence and goodness as a Creator, it’s necessary to engage with the concept of God as revealed in Scripture as opposed to a nonbiblical philosophical depiction of God—which is how Joshua (and Irven DeVore) view God.

Though it may be surprising to some, passages in the Bible such as Psalm 104 and Job 38 and 39 describe animal death as part of the good creation God instituted. In these passages, the Creator is worshipped and celebrated for providing prey for predators. It may seem counterintuitive, but there are good and necessary reasons why God would create a world with plant and animal death. Stable, thriving ecosystems would be impossible without plants and animals dying. Is it possible that the Bible teaches that mass extinctions are part of God’s good creation, too?

I think so. Consider Psalm 104:27–30. This passage describes a cycle of life and death regulated by God’s ongoing actions. Some Bible commentators see this passage as describing the daily occurrences of birth and death in ecosystems. Others have argued that the text has an even richer and deeper meaning, presciently describing mass extinction and mass origination events that have taken place throughout life’s history. 

Key to this interpretation is the use of the words bara and ruach in this passage. God is described as renewing (bara) the Earth with life by his Spirit (ruach). The word bara—translated as “renew” in Psalm 104—occurs in Genesis 1 in reference to God originating things that are new; things that did not previously exist. In other words, God isn’t merely replacing creatures with the same creatures. Instead, he is replacing animals that vanished with entirely new ones—unlike anything that has previously existed. 

The word ruach is also found in Genesis 1:2, where it refers to the spirit of God hovering over the earth. The use of these two words doesn’t seem accidental. It looks intentionally designed to highlight the connection of the Genesis 1 creation account to Psalm 104. In this way, Psalm 104 not only echoes Genesis 1 but also extends it. If this interpretation of Psalm 104:27–30 is sound, then it expands our understanding of creation days 5 and 6. And it means that mass extinctions and mass originations were part of a divinely orchestrated natural history. 

If, indeed, Psalm 104:27–30 references mass extinctions and originations throughout Earth’s history, it is one more example of the remarkable scientific accuracy of the creation accounts found in Scripture. The author of Psalm 104 (presumably David) and those who originally received this psalm wouldn’t have had any concept of mass extinctions and originations. Yet, inspired by the Holy Spirit, the author of this psalm communicated ideas that the original audience would grasp, while at the same time anticipating future scientific insight that would resonate with a modern reader.

Resources 

A Christian View on Extinctions 

“A Christian Perspective on the Sixth Mass Extinction” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Did Humans Cause the Global Extinctions of Mammals?” By Fazale Rana (article)

“Did Humans Cause the Global Extinction of Large Mammals?” By Fazale Rana (video)

“How Should Christians Respond to the Sixth Great Mass Extinction?” By Fazale Rana (video)

Animal Death and the Good Creation

“Wolf Predation Improves Moose Herd Health” By Fazale Rana (article)

“Is Cruelty in Nature Really Evil?” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Why Would God Create a World Where Animals Eat Their Offspring?” by Fazale Rana

“Why Would God Create a World with Parasites?” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Why Did God Create the Thai Liver Fluke?” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Scientists Uncover a Good Purpose for Long-Lasting Pain in Animals” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Of Weevils and Wasps: God’s Purpose in Animal Death” by Maureen Moser (article)

“Animal Death Prevents Ecological Meltdown” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Animal Death before the Fall: What Does the Bible Say?” by Lee Irons (article)

“Animal Death and the Atonement” by Krista Bontrager (article)

“Life from Death” by Fazale Rana (article)

Extinctions and Psalm 104

“Does Psalm 104 Affirm Progressive Creation?” By Hugh Henry and Dan Dyke (article)

Endnotes

1. Christopher Sandom et al., “Global Late Quaternary Megafauna Extinctions Linked to Humans, Not Climate Change,”Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281 (July 22, 2014): doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.3254; John C. Briggs, “Emergence of a Sixth Mass Extinction?” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 122 (October 2017): 243–248, doi:10.1093/biolinnean/blx063; Gerardo Ceballos et al., “Accelerated Modern Human-Induced Species Losses: Entering the Sixth Mass Extinction,” Science Advances 1 (June 19, 2015): e1400253, doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400253; Carlos P. Carmona et al., “Erosion of Global Functional Diversity across the Tree of Life,” Science Advances 7 (March 26, 2021): eabf2675, doi:10.1126/sciadv.abf2675; Gerardo Ceballos and Paul R. Ehrlich, “Mutilation of the Tree of Life Via Mass Extinction of Animal Genera,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 120 (September 18, 2023): e2306987120, doi:10.1073/pnas. 2306987120.

The post Q&A: Do Extinctions in the Fossil Record Undermine Creation? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

I was with my family for a vacation on the Big Island of Hawaii. We happened upon an out-of-the-way swimming spot that was a natural pool free from waves because of the sand bars. We later learned from locals that sea turtles were attracted to this spot to feed due to the calm waters. As my family enjoyed a swim in the pool, we suddenly found ourselves in the middle of a large group of green sea turtles. We were of no concern to them as they munched algae off the rocks. They fed for well over an hour before swimming back to the open ocean. 

We could hardly believe what had happened.

Sea Turtles
The sea turtles found in Hawaii are green sea turtles. They are among seven species of sea turtles alive today that include: green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, olive ridley, leatherback, loggerhead, and the flatback, which is found only in Australia.  

Sadly, all sea turtle species are endangered. If these animals are lost, not only would their absence result in the loss of beautiful and majestic creatures, but it would also harm ecosystems in the ocean organized around seagrass beds—part of the sea turtle diet.

Life scientists want to understand sea turtles to help them flourish. Part of this understanding involves learning about their natural history. Unfortunately, the fossil record is scant and offers little help. 

For this reason, the recent recovery of a fossilized carapace (shell) from the Chagres Formation of Panama by a research team from Colombia has generated excitement.¹ This formation dates to the Upper Miocene (11.5 to 5.3 million years ago). The newly discovered specimen is a member of the genus Leipochelys, which includes the Kemp’s ridley and olive ridley species. The carapace displays differences compared to extant members of Leipochelys, and may well represent an ancient species of sea turtle that no longer exists. 

Soft Tissue Finds
The Chagres Formation has also yielded fossil fish and cetaceans. These fossils are extremely well preserved. For this reason, the researchers decided to examine the carapace fossil for micro-anatomical features such as cells and blood vessels. 

Using EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) treatment, the researchers were able to remove the mineral component from a small piece of the fossil carapace.  

They could hardly believe what happened next.

They discovered preserved blood vessels, osteocytes, and collagen fibers. Some of the osteocytes have a small oval structure in their interiors that resembles the cell’s nucleus. And some of these oval structures stained when treated with a compound that detects DNA. 

Though not a first—the discovery of remnants of osteocytes and blood vessels, along with the possible preservation of DNA fragments, has been reported for only two dinosaur fossils—this find is still exciting. This turtle specimen gives researchers a window into the biodiversity that existed when the Isthmus of Panama formed about 3 million years ago. And it adds to the growing excitement about the potential of fossils to yield soft tissue remnants. 

Most paleontologists are thrilled at the prospects of retrieving soft tissue materials from fossil remains. These discoveries add another dimension to their understanding of the biology of Earth’s past life and the natural history of extant organisms. 

Soft Tissues in Fossils and Implications for the Age of the Earth
Most young-earth creationists (YECs) are also excited about the recovery of soft tissue remnants from fossil remains, but for a different reason. They argue that these discoveries are evidence that the fossil record can only be a few thousand years old—not millions of years. There’s no way that soft tissues and the biomolecules that comprise them could survive that long, they reason. If so, then it means the results of radiometric measurements must be flawed if they return an age date for fossils on the order of tens to hundreds of millions of years. They conclude that the best way to interpret the fossil record is that it’s the result of a global deluge that occurred a few thousand years ago. 

On the surface, this argument carries a bit of a punch. How can soft tissue materials survive for millions of years?

Means of Soft Tissue Preservation
As an old-earth creationist (OEC) who is persuaded that Earth is 4.5 billion years old and life has been present on Earth for nearly 4 billion years, this provocative question prompted me to write the book Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth. It should be of no surprise that I demonstrate in the book that radiometric dating is reliable. The fossils yielding soft tissues are truly tens to hundreds of million years in age. Thus, there must be some means for soft tissue materials to endure. And there is. Before I describe the general mechanism for survival of these materials, it’s important to understand what’s been recovered from fossil remains. 

YECs give the impression that the soft tissue materials are not only original but intact and unaltered. This misrepresentation is unfortunate. Paleontologists have recovered remnants of soft tissue materials that have experienced diagenesis (physical and chemical changes that occur during the conversion of sediment to sedimentary rock) during the fossilization process. The remnants of cells and blood vessels discovered by paleontologists in the turtle carapace have retained their original physical shape, but during diagenesis they’ve been chemically altered—with the breakdown products of the original biomolecules still harbored in the cell-like and blood-vessel-like structures. 

YECs rightly argue that biomolecules (and the soft tissues that they form) readily undergo degradation by several distinct mechanisms. But life scientists have discovered several previously unrecognized protective mechanisms. These mechanisms extend the time that the diagenetically altered biomolecules survive. (For details of both types of mechanisms, see Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth and the articles listed in the Resources section.) It’s a competition between degradation and preservation.

These protective mechanisms delay the complete disappearance of the biomolecules that form soft tissue structures long enough for them to be entombed by the mineralization process that occurs during fossilization. This entombment entraps any remaining organic materials. And, once entombed, the breakdown of these materials significantly slows down. In some instances, the degradation process might be altogether arrested. 

For this fossil, the race between disappearance and entombment appears to have been won by entombment for the biomolecules and microanatomical structures that made up the soft tissues of the fossil carapace. The researchers foresaw this victory because the carapace, along with other fossils from the Chagres Formation, are so well preserved. 

More Soft Tissue Protection from the Shell
The mineral components (hydroxyapatite) of the bone that contributes to the turtle’s shell structures offer protection from degradation. The mineral matrix surrounds osteocytes. These cells reside in spaces inside the bone called lacunae. These openings in the bone form when cells become trapped within the bone matrix that they help produce. (It is sort of like the person who paints themselves into a corner.) The blood vessels (which are remarkably durable structures designed to withstand high pressures as the heart pumps blood through them) that permeate the turtle shell bone are also protected by the mineral matrix during fossilization. In addition to hydroxyapatite, bone also contains the protein collagen. Collagen is a highly durable fibrous material. Like osteocytes and blood vessels, these tough protein fibers are protected from breakdown by their interactions with the hydroxyapatite of the matrix. 

The bottom line: There are good explanations for how collagen fragments, and the remnants of osteocytes, and blood vessels could endure for 5 to 10 million years in the fossil carapace. And with these explanations, no good reasons remain to think that soft tissue remnants evince a young Earth. It may be hard to believe what happened, but it looks like these majestic creatures were endowed with preservation properties that allow us to appreciate their design. 

Resources

Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth by Fazale Rana (book)

Responding to Young-Earth Critics

“Does Dinosaur Tissue Challenge Evolutionary Timescales? A Response to Kevin Anderson, Part 1” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Does Dinosaur Tissue Challenge Evolutionary Timescales? A Response to Kevin Anderson, Part 2” by Fazale Rana (article)

Mechanism of Soft Tissue Preservation

“Soft Tissue Preservation Mechanism Stabilizes the Case for Earth’s Antiquity” by Fazale Rana (article)

“How Can DNA Survive for 75 Million Years? Implications for the Age of the Earth” by Fazale Rana (article)

Recovery of a Wide Range of Soft Tissue Materials in Fossils

“What Dinosaur Soft Tissue Says about the Earth’s Age” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Does the Recovery of Oils from a Fossilized Bird Evince a Young Earth?” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Ancient Mouse Fur Discovery with Mighty Implications” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Is Fossil-Associated Cholesterol a Biomarker for a Young Earth?” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Can Keratin in Feathers Survive for Millions of Years?” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Do Fossilized Ink Sacs Discolor the Case for an Old Earth?” by Fazale Rana (article)

“Science News Flash: An Old-Earth Perspective on Dinosaur Feathers Preserved in Amber” by Fazale Rana (article)

Detection of Carbon-14 in Fossils

“Does Radiocarbon Dating Prove a Young Earth? A Response to Vernon R. Cupps” by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

1. Edwin-Alberto Cadena, Carlos De Gracia, and Diego A. Combita-Romero, “An Upper Miocene Marine Turtle from Panama that Preserves Osteocytes with Potential DNA,” Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23, no.1 (September 28, 2023): e2254356, doi:10.1080/02724634.2023.2254356.

The post Do Turtle Soft Tissue Fossil Remnants Provide Evidence for a Young Earth? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

What we know is that the periodic table was sparse, initially. The first stars in the universe were comprised of hydrogen, helium, and a trace amount of lithium. The largest of these stars fused hydrogen and helium into heavier elements and scattered these elements into interstellar space when they reached the supernova phase. A second generation of stars formed from the ashes of the first. The largest of these second-generation stars more efficiently generated heavy elements and, when they went supernova, scattered far more heavy-element-enriched ashes into interstellar space. Third-generation stars, like our Sun, formed from the ashes of second-generation stars.

A Consistent Pattern for Most of History
The enrichment of elements heavier than lithium in stars and in the interstellar and intergalactic medium progresses according to a single scaling relationship, one that accurately predicts what astronomers are able to observe in galaxies. As galaxies age, they do, indeed, grow progressively richer in elements heavier than lithium, in keeping with this scaling relationship.

Astronomers have successfully measured the relative abundance of elements in millions of second and third-generation stars. They’ve also determined to a high degree of precision the quantities of heavy elements blasted into interstellar space by supernova eruptions over the past ten billion years. 

However, astronomers’ observations showed hints that this universal scaling relationship connecting star-formation rate, stellar mass, and the abundance of elements heavier than lithium might not match what occurred during the earliest one or two billion years of cosmic history.² These “hints” motivated astronomers to use the JWST to shed light on the star-formation rate, stellar mass distribution, and abundance of elements heavier than lithium in galaxies that formed during the first billion years of cosmic history.   

The JWST Confirms Astronomers’ Hunch
A team of 13 astronomers led by Kaspar Heintz of the Cosmic Dawn Center and the Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark used the JWST to measure the chemical abundances of galaxies just 470–770 million years after the cosmic origin event, aka the big bang.³ They noted that these galaxies proved significantly poorer in heavy elements than would be expected if the universal scaling relationship for older galaxies (formed 2.0–13.8 billion years after the big bang) applied. Elements heavier than lithium were only one-fourth as abundant as the universal scaling relationship would have yielded had it been operating at the same level during that early era. 

Implications for Advanced Life on Earth
The measurements by Heintz’s team indicate that while a scaling relationship does exist in these very early galaxies, it proceeded at a much lower rate than it did from 2 billion years onward in cosmic history. Heintz and his colleagues concluded that “galaxies at this time [previous to the first 800 million years of cosmic history] are still intimately connected with the intergalactic medium and subject to continuous infall of pristine gas, which effectively dilutes their metal abundances.”⁴ (In astronomical terms, elements heavier than lithium are referred to as “metals.”)

The dilution of heavy elements in galaxies that formed during the universe’s first 800 million years suggests that the Earth’s rich endowment of heavy elements is unexpected, by natural processes alone. Our solar system formed when the universe was only 9.22 billion years old. Multiple factors required exquisite fine-tuning for Earth to become so rapidly endowed with the superabundance of heavy elements—the elements without which Earth’s global high-technology civilization would be impossible.⁵ This discovery points to a supernatural Designer who provisioned planet Earth not only for the existence of billions of people but also for spreading the message of his redeeming love to all the world’s people groups in a brief (by astronomical terms) time.

Endnotes

1. Filippo Mannucci et al., “A Fundamental Relation Between Mass, Star Formation Rate and Metallicity in Local and High-Redshift Galaxies,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 408, no. 4 (November 2010): 2115–2127, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17291.x; Mirko Curti et al., “The Mass-Metallicity and the Fundamental Metallicity Relation Revisited on a Fully T_e-Based Abundance Scale for Galaxies,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 491, no. 1 (January 2020): 944–964, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2910; Ryan L. Sanders et al., “The MOSDEF Survey: The Evolution of the Mass-Metallicity Relation from z = 0 to z ~ 3.3,” Astrophysical Journal 914, no. 1 (June 10, 2021): id. 19, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf4c1.
2. P. Troncoso et al., “Metallicity Evolution, Metallicity Gradients, and Gas Fractions at z ~ 3.4,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 563 (March 6, 2014): id. A58, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322099; M. Onodera et al., “ISM Excitation and Metallicity of Star-Forming Galaxies at z ~ 3.3 from Near-IR Spectroscopy,” Astrophysical Journal 822, no. 1 (May 1, 2016): id. 42, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/42.
3. Kasper E. Heintz et al., “Dilution of Chemical Enrichment in Galaxies 600 Myr after the Big Bang,” Nature Astronomy2023 (September 21, 2023), doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02078-7.
4. Heintz et al., “Dilution of Chemical Enrichment,” p. 1.
5. I describe many of these factors in my books Improbable Planet (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2016) and Designed to the Core (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2022).

The post Universe’s Chemical Enrichment Designed for Life appeared first on Reasons to Believe.