Christians and non-Christians alike stand behind debate podiums, rally around protests, and speak passionately about whether the act of abortion is fundamentally right or wrong. The fact that abortion is highly politicized makes it even more challenging to talk about.

Despite all the complex political, social, scientific, and theological layers, one thing is simple and clear:

Life is unquantifiable. Invaluable.

From beginning to end, the beauty and fragility of life all points to the One who upholds it—our amazing God. He is our Creator and loving Father who gives the gift of life at conception.

So as followers of Christ, it’s critical for us to know where the Bible stands on this sensitive, controversial topic.

Does the Bible Support Abortion?

As Christians, we hold Scripture as our ultimate authority in governing our worldview and our lives.

So, does the Bible say anything about abortion? Although the Bible doesn’t mention the word “abortion,” what we do find are countless verses that explicitly declare the value of human life.

Thus, humans are commanded to keep, honor, and protect life.

Is Abortion Sin?

We find ample warnings in the Bible that the act of murder is against God’s law and his holiness. It’s a strike against a universal moral code—even for non-Christians. Murder violates the sanctity of life given by God.

Is abortion murder? Abortion can briefly be defined as the killing of an innocent child in the womb. Some Christians would say abortion is morally wrong but would stop short of calling it murder in some cases. Others do equate it with murder. Where in the Bible does it say abortion is wrong?

If we consider abortion as the intentional killing of an innocent life, then one obvious place is in the sixth commandment.

And there are others:

• Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.” 
• Matthew 5:21: “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’” 
• Proverbs 6:16–17: “There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood (emphasis added).”
• Leviticus 24:17: “Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death.”

These verses collectively teach that taking a life is a grave sin. They reflect the explicit, God-given responsibility to protect life as a gift from God.

When Life Begins: Sanctity of Life at Conception

Most people would agree wholeheartedly that life is intrinsically valuable and that murder is wrong. It’s a strike against a universal moral code that all humans seem to recognize.

But the contentious point often boils down to determining when life actually begins.

We won’t explore in-depth the overwhelming scientific evidence that points to life beginning at conception here, but the Bible is very clear that life begins in the womb.

Here are a few verses that describe how God has ordained and planned for every human life in the womb:

• Psalm 139:13–16: “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”
• Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
• Isaiah 49:1: “Before I was born the Lord called me; from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.”

The Creator of this universe has known our names since the beginning of time. That’s something to ponder.

Every part and stage of our lives, inside and outside the womb, is carefully planned by a God who loves us and is gracious to us. However, trying to draw a line for when that moment of sanctity begins after conception is difficult. It’s wise to err on the side of life so we’re not prone to slippery slope moral arguments.

Conception is not by chance. It’s orchestrated by God. Conception is his intended plan to create a person who holds unspeakable value. And no human being has the right to end a life ordained by God almighty.

Personhood: Unborn Humans Have a Personal Nature

While most people recognize that life begins at conception and that the unborn are indeed human, some people argue that the unborn are not persons. Some advocates of abortion insist that the unborn are not self-conscious; therefore, they are not persons and thus abortion is morally allowable.

However, the Christian worldview sees human beings very differently than does a secular worldview. In Christian theology human beings are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–28) and, therefore, they have a human nature that is personal from the beginning of conception. Personhood is understood as a given of creation, not as something that emerges when one is self-conscious.

So, while some advocates of abortion insist that the human fetus is developing toward personhood, Christian defenders of the pro-life perspective argue that the fetus is a fully human person who is undergoing physical development and growth.

Is Abortion in the Bible?

Despite the overwhelming scriptural evidence that God’s law values human life in the womb, some people try to claim that the Bible condones the act of abortion in Numbers 5:11–31.

They argue that because the passage mentions the priest cursing the unfaithful woman to “miscarry” through drinking bitter waters, the curse is evidence for abortion. God justified the act.

However, a closer study of this verse and specifically the translation of “miscarriage” brings light to the issue. The word is more accurately translated as “womb shriveling.” It’s pointing to the curse of barrenness, not miscarriage. The judgment was not abortion, but a curse of not having children.

Even if we read the text as a miscarriage, the intent of this passage is to portray God’s right to judge. He is the ultimate author of life and death. The passage doesn’t warrant a call for abortion as a result of sinful acts.

If You Had an Abortion . . . There’s Forgiveness

We all live in a fallen world where we make decisions that go against God’s will. We’ve all failed to keep God’s law in many ways. It’s part of our brokenness, and whether we’re admittingly aware, disobeying God is a part of our sinful nature.

If you had an abortion due to various life circumstances, you may be wrestling with a whirlwind of emotions—grief, guilt, sadness, or even relief.

But know that there’s grace.

Regardless of the type of sin we’ve committed, God is a gracious God who forgives through the blood of Jesus Christ.

There’s forgiveness for repentant sinners, and God promises his grace and new life.

• Isaiah 1:18: “‘Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.’”
• 1 Peter 2:24: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.”
• Ephesians 1:7: “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace.”
• Psalm 103:12: “As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.”

Friends, you are not alone in this walk through troubled times, and there is hope and healing available through Jesus.

If you’re wrestling with thoughts of abortion, whether past, present, or thinking about it for the future, it is our prayer that you receive God’s grace and seek support from loving friends or family. Perhaps God will use your story in mighty ways to be an encouragement to others.

Regardless of your past failures and sin, may you feel his embrace and his relentless love for you. And may God continue to remind you of his unfailing grace that covers you through all seasons of life.

Wonderfully Made

As we have explored what the Bible says about abortion, there’s no denying that the Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139).

Each and every process in the womb—every part of a developing body—is carefully crafted since conception, and God is the ultimate giver and taker of life.

He knows every hair on our heads, and has called us by name before we were even in our mother’s wombs.

We have intrinsic value that is instilled by our Creator. And how wonderful to know we are in the care of such a mighty, loving God!

Let’s not forget that value when we see the life of an unborn child. May we hold fast to the infinite value God places on every human life. 

The post What Does the Bible Say About Abortion? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Imago Dei is first introduced in Genesis 1:26, “Let us make mankind in our image . . .” and further described in Genesis 1:27, “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

This is the only time in Scripture, and during creation, that God creates in his own image.

What Does “Made in God’s Image” Mean?

Let’s look at Genesis 1:26–27 (emphasis added):

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

This passage reflects the only time in Scripture where part of God’s creation is mentioned as being made in his image. On this basis we conclude that human beings are uniquely created in the likeness of God, our Creator.

This means that each human being, whom God has made in his own image (both male and female), is graciously bestowed with intrinsic dignity from the moment they’re created.

So, how can humans, as a composite of body and spirit, be made similar to someone we can’t see?

Historically, theologically orthodox Christians have held to the belief that humans uniquely bear God’s image. Yet there are different perspectives on the exact meaning of imago Dei.

Understandably, it’s confusing! But it’s incredibly important to dive into this topic, especially because it informs our view of morality. Throughout history, this belief that humans are created in the image of God has shaped societies around the world.

A complete understanding of imago Dei just isn’t possible since we as humans have a limited understanding of God’s nature. But we can get closer to a biblically faithful description of the image of God through careful study of Scripture and God’s creation.

A basic understanding of the doctrine holds that the imago Dei represents how all human beings reflect Godlike qualities. These include our desire to be in relationship and in fellowship with others, our spiritual nature, our ability to think critically, and more.

The Christian and the non-Christian are created in the image of God. Yet, his image has been marred by sin in all of us. By making us in his image, God displays his goodness to all humans.

In What Ways Are Humans Like God?

Humans are like God in our knowledge, awareness, and pursuit of morality

People can display some of God’s attributes, such as knowledge, wisdom, goodness, love, holiness, justice, truthfulness, and more. This is what theologians call the communicable attributes of God, as opposed to God’s incommunicable attributes such as omniscience. However, these attributes in humans differ in degree from those found in God. We’re finite, imperfect, and affected by sin, but in him the same characteristics (and more) are unlimited and perfect.

Humans reflect God in our relationships

The Bible also tells us that the imago Dei gives humans the unique opportunity to be in relationship and to be reconciled—despite our sinful nature—with our holy God. God is a relational being who exists eternally in a joyful relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (the Trinity). God also created us to live in relationship with one another and with him.

Humans image God in our actions

God uniquely gave humanity authority over creation, which we can learn about in Genesis 1:26 (emphasis added):

And because we are image bearers, humans have the important role of ruling over and caring for all that God has created.

The imago Dei is what sets humankind apart from everything else in creation! Bearing his image is what makes humanity God’s crown jewel in his creation. Nowhere else in Scripture are God’s other created works referenced as being made in God’s image.

Now, with this basic framework, let’s dive into the original Hebrew to gain a deeper understanding.

What Does Scripture Say About the Imago Dei?

“Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness” (Genesis 1:26a).

There are only six verses in Scripture that directly refer to human beings as image bearers.

1. Genesis 1:26–27
2. Genesis 5:1
3. Genesis 9:6
4. 1 Corinthians 11:7
5. Colossians 3:10
6. James 3:9

In these verses the Hebrew words for “image” (tselem) and “likeness” (demut) convey the idea of an object similar to or representative of something else, but not identical to it.

The words “image” and “likeness” shouldn’t be understood as referring to two different things, but rather as interchangeable terms. The New Testament Greek word for “image” conveys virtually the same meaning as the Hebrew.

Both languages indicate that humans are created in the likeness of God, but are not identical to God. Therefore, from a biblical perspective, human beings, who bear God’s image, are both alike and distinct from the God who made us.

To be clear, our Creator God is distinctly different from that which he created. As the Creator, he is not limited like we are as humans. He is infinite, eternal, perfect, and so much more. Finite creatures like us are unable to embody these characteristics.

Some of the best features of humankind (such as the ability to love, pursue justice, and be creative) are characteristics that reflect God’s relational, just, and creative qualities.

What a gift it is for humans to reflect the God who made us! What an honor it is to carry the likeness of the Creator of the universe!

Do Men and Women Bear God’s Image Equally?

Yes! Men and women, male and female, are equally made in God’s image.

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27; emphasis added).

When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created (Genesis 5:1–2).

From these passages we learn that God made man and woman (male and female) in his image. Thus, both men and women equally, yet distinctly, bear God’s image.

One perspective holds that the distinction between males and females is purposeful, as male and female relationships (within marriage) point toward Christ and his relationship with his people, the church. That is, Christ is the bridegroom and the church is his bride.

When a man and woman enter into a marriage covenant (or promise), they represent the covenant between Christ and the church (Genesis 2:24, Ephesians 5:31).

This relationship leads us to believe that God’s intention for marriage was for the union of male and female to mirror the commitment between Christ and the church.

Are marriages between Christian men and women perfect? Far from it. Due to humanity’s sinful state, human relationships are not perfect portrayals of God’s great love for his people (Romans 3:23–24).

But what this means for us—as our relationships imperfectly resemble God’s love for his people—is that we have perfection to look forward to in Christ’s second coming to Earth.

Did Sin Change the Image of God?

Here’s one way to view the fall of mankind in relation to the imago Dei: When sin entered the Garden of Eden, humans were scarred by their sin but not destroyed. Sin marred, but didn’t efface, God’s image in humans. In God’s grace, he chose to redeem his creation rather than wipe it out.

However, sin did change human beings’ relationship with God and one another. In our fallen state, humans are now at enmity with God and with one another. Nevertheless, sin didn’t change the fact that humans are created in the image of God.

Because every human continues to bear the imago Dei, God sees even our marred images as redeemable and restorable. It’s because of the imago Dei that God saw humankind as worthy of redemption. In the triune God’s great act of selfless love (John 3:16), Jesus took our place of punishment for sin on the cross. He also gave us his righteousness, by which we can stand blameless before our holy Creator.

Did our sin change God? No. God remains unchanging (Matthew 24:35; Hebrews 13:8). Sin and evil have no power over God and he is able to use humans, even in our sinful disposition, for his glory and good purposes.

With this in mind, we can be confident that even after Adam and Eve’s fall in the Garden of Eden, all humans (Christian and non-Christian) continue to bear God’s image.

But, sadly, because of our sin all humans are often an incomplete, and even a poor, reflection of his image. 

In his letter to the Colossian church, the apostle Paul explains that as believers in Christ they are also alive with Christ. He urges them to turn away from their sinful ways and to turn toward God, and to “put on the new self which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator” (Colossians 3:9–10).

Paul was reminding the church in Colossae that even though they were sinners, they are made in God’s image and have been raised to life with Christ. The image of God in redeemed sinners is to undergo renewal of the knowledge of God. Paul’s letter to the Colossians at the time of the early church is still relevant to us today.

Furthermore, in James 3:9, author James warns the Jewish Christians about the temptation for us to praise God while also cursing our fellow image bearers.

James is making the point that since human beings are created in God’s likeness, when we speak evil to another image bearer, we’re also speaking evil toward God.

We learn in these postfall Scripture passages that despite humanity’s sinful state, humans continue to reflect God’s image. However, because we still live in a fallen world as sinful human beings, we also look forward to Jesus’s second coming when God will renew and restore the earth.

Are Animals Made in the Image of God?

It’s undeniable that animals share some characteristics with humans. Animals are even capable of having emotions and thoughts.

So, are animals also created in God’s image?

Genesis 1 emphasizes the unique creation of “soulish” animals (Hebrew nephesh). These soulish animals (including birds, mammals, and some reptiles) are able to form emotional bonds, especially with their parents and their young.

Think of a parent animal caring for its offspring, or even sacrificing its own life to save the life of its young. We’ve all seen images of these moments and they can be both heartwarming and heart-wrenching.

Let’s look to the biblical creation account to help us learn more about the relation between humans and animals.

In Genesis 1, the Hebrew word bara is translated as “create” and used only three times.

• When God brings the universe into existence (Genesis 1:1)
• When God creates the nephesh (soulish animals, Genesis 1:21)
• When God creates humans (Genesis 1:27)

In the context of Genesis 1, bara is reserved for God bringing something brand new into existence.

While humanity shares physical qualities with animals, people stand alone in terms of their spiritual nature. Bara, used in Genesis 1:26–27 and Genesis 5:1–2 with reference to humanity’s creation, suggests God’s origination of something brand new.

If humans had a likeness to animals, we would assume that the writer of Genesis would not have used bara to describe how God made humans. Instead, in Genesis 1:27 bara is used three times to explain how God created mankind in his image.

Thus, the Genesis creation account solidifies how human beings alone are made in God’s image. And while humanity is directed to care for the animals, we must be careful not to characterize animals with mankind’s unique image and likeness of God.

How Do We Reflect God’s Image Today?

Christians can rejoice in the fact that we’re made in God’s image. Even though we’re imperfect at reflecting his image to the world, it’s all the more reason why we look to Jesus Christ, God’s Son, as the perfect image of God the Father.

It’s our charge as God’s image bearers to tell other image bearers how they can be reconciled to their Creator. God promises to restore his image in all repentant sinners through the lifelong process of sanctification (transformation into Christlikeness).

And how can each of us as imperfect humans be sanctified? By the grace of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, we can be born again (renewed) to a God-honoring life, restored in God’s image of righteousness and holiness.

The post What Does “Made in the Image of God” Mean? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The Bible says God made human beings in his image (Genesis 1:26–27).

Think about that—you bear the image of the Creator of the universe!

This foundational truth sets humans apart from every other creature. We are not just physical beings but spiritual ones, too. Even people who don’t have a high regard for the Bible agree there is something more to us than what meets the eye. Altogether, this means our lives have intrinsic value and purpose.

But what does being made in God’s image truly mean? And how do we live out this identity in a world filled with competing views on humanity?

We’ll explore these questions together.

Definition of Being Human

To Be Human Is to Reflect God’s Image

To be human means more than having certain physical traits or biological markers. For Christians, it starts with the value-rich idea that we are created in the image of God—unique among all physical life-forms.

Still, defining what it means to be human isn’t straightforward and it’s a topic of scientific and theological debate.

Scientific Ambiguity and Definitions of “Human”

In science, the definition of being human depends on the context. Sometimes, it refers to all hominin (humanlike) species in the fossil record, like the genera Ardipithecus and Australopithecus. Other times, it is narrowed to the Homo genus, such as Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Neanderthals. At its most refined, it refers to anatomically and behaviorally modern humans: Homo sapiens sapiens (us).

The Evolutionary View of Humanity

The ambiguity continues when we look at the evolutionary view, where humans are the result of natural selection operating over millions of years. This view, however, has no means of explaining consciousness and morality—inarguable truths known to poke holes in evolutionary, atheistic worldviews.

People who support this idea think the different early human species were like stepping stones that eventually led to modern humans.

But this view raises an important question: What makes us unique from other creatures? Is it just biology? Or is there something more?

A Biblical View on Being Human

The Bible provides clarity to this question. Being human means:

(Genesis 1:27).

Evangelical and conservative Christians widely agree that humans are image-bearers. However, debates begin over which ancient humanlike beings, if any, also carried this image.

At Reasons to Believe, we hold that modern humans, both anatomically and behaviorally, are the true image-bearers of God.

Unlike other hominins, our ancestors Adam and Eve were true image-bearers.

RTB’s View on Hominins and the Image of God

Hominins were fascinating creatures that showed intelligence and culture but didn’t share the spiritual qualities that come with being made in God’s image. They were designed by God with behavioral qualities similar to the great apes—remarkably complex—but not like ours.

Some Christians believe certain hominins such as Neanderthals may have also been made in God’s image. However, because of their cognitive limitations and biological differences, particularly their brains, RTB firmly rejects this view. We uphold the position that only modern humans are specially created by God to bear his image..

Why This Question Matters

What does it mean to be a human? This question brings us face-to-face with a profound truth that stretches beyond mere biology. This question invites us to consider not just how, but why we are made.

The answer rests in the meaning of our role as God’s image-bearers.

God’s Good Design: Made in His Image

The divine imprint of being made in God’s image is what sets us apart and shapes our consciousness, morality, creativity, and free will. It’s a gift that defines who we are and why we exist.

Theological Debate on the Image of God

The Bible says humankind was made “in the image of God.” But what does that mean?

For centuries, scholars have wrestled with this question. The traditional way of understanding the image of God, called the resemblance view, suggests our spiritual and moral traits reflect God’s, though in a finite way.

Recently, two other ideas have emerged:

• The relational view sees God’s image as our ability to have a relationship with him.

• The representative view sees God’s image as our responsibility to act as his representatives on Earth.The representative view sees God’s image as our responsibility to act as his representatives on Earth.

While theologians may debate its meaning, RTB scholars believe the image of God includes all of the above. Because we resemble God in part, we’re able to enjoy a relationship with him and fulfill our role as stewards of his creation.

Characteristics of God’s Image

When we include the characteristics of the three viewpoints, we find that human beings have four characteristics that reflect God’s image:

*/adam-eve/first-humans/ancient-cave-art-strengthens-evidence-for-the-image-of-god

Your True Purpose as a Human

Being made in God’s image gives our lives ultimate meaning and purpose. Our true purpose is to form a relationship with God, reflect his nature, and glorify him through our actions. Jesus explained this beautifully when he said we must love God with all our heart and love others as ourselves (Matthew 22:37–39).

The Role of Humans in Life on Earth

Our purpose goes beyond love as a feeling: true love is active. We’re called to care for the earth and each other and to thrive as human beings. Genesis 1:28 tells us to multiply, rule over creation, and subdue it.

This calling reflects responsible care, not exploitation. Protecting the planet advances human well-being, as caring for creation and human flourishing go hand in hand.

How Science Affirms What Being Human Means

Science offers compelling clues on the age-old question of what it means to be a human. When considering the concept of imago Dei, or being created in God’s image, modern science highlights how exceptional human beings truly are, in part, based on the design of our brains. The evidence sets us apart from other creatures, including our closest hominin relatives the Neanderthals.

The Complexity of Human DNA

Human DNA reveals an amazing design that speaks of plan and purpose. DNA in all living things is complex. Some of our genes (found in DNA) contain information that uniquely directs our cognitive development. The information in human DNA forms our biology and is responsible for our unique creativity, morals, and cognitive skills. It’s as if DNA was designed to reflect a higher purpose—a fingerprint of a higher power.

Unique Brain Structure of Humans vs. Neanderthals

Scientists have noted key differences between modern human and Neanderthal brains. Modern humans have a globular skull with enlarged thinking areas, while Neanderthals had longer skulls, impacting advanced cognition. The cerebellum in modern humans is larger and more symmetrical, enhancing skills like language, memory, and social abilities. Additionally, the modern human parietal lobe is more developed, supporting self-awareness, planning, coordination, and symbolic thought.

A Scientific Case for Human Exceptionalism

Advances in artificial intelligence and bioengineering highlight humanity’s uniqueness. AI may be powerful but it can’t replicate our morality, creativity, or relational depth, showing that being human means more than biology. Far from contradicting the idea of the imago Dei, science supports it—our DNA, brains, and behaviors align with how the Bible explains humanity. Modern science, far from lessening our place in creation, reinforces that we truly are fearfully and wonderfully made.

What Defines You as a Human Being?

What defines us as human beings? We are more than our actions, achievements, or circumstances. The Bible says we are created in God’s image with special worth and purpose. But as Adam’s descendants, we also bear the consequences of humanity’s fall. This sinful state means humans are a mix of greatness and brokenness—able to love and create, yet prone to sin and rebellion against God’s will. Sin infiltrates our nature, and we are unable to overcome it without God’s grace.

Nonbiblical Views on Humanity

In some evolutionary views, humans are seen as material beings shaped by natural selection, with concepts like good and evil viewed as societal constructs. Human actions stem from instincts, not divine purpose, making sin natural behavior rather than moral failure.

Others argue that humans are inherently good and do wrong only out of desperation or lack of resources. However, this view struggles to explain the deep cruelty and selfishness seen throughout history, even among the privileged.

Humanity’s Problem—and God’s Solution

The Bible paints a different picture. It tells us humans are sinners, separated from God, from others, and from creation itself. This reality is echoed in Romans 3:10–12, “There is no one righteous, not even one,” and “there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Our separation from God is stark. Though we were created to have a relationship with him, our sin creates a sinkhole we cannot escape on our own.

Yet, in our hopelessness, God provided a way out. Romans 6:23 reminds us, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Through the cross, Jesus paid the penalty for our sins and made reconciliation with God possible.

The True Definition of Humanity

The meaning of being human lies not in our brain structures, what we accomplish, or even how society defines us. Our identity is rooted in God’s image, dependent on Jesus for forgiveness and restoration, and maintained with all creation through the Holy Spirit. By God’s design, we are given a purpose far greater than anything we could reach on our own.

You are fearfully and wonderfully made, redeemed by God’s love, and meant to live for his glory. This is what being truly human means.

Jesus: The Perfect Human

Jesus Christ, fully God and fully human, perfectly reflects God’s image and reveals humanity’s true purpose. Colossians 1:15 calls him “the image of the invisible God,” exemplifying holiness, righteousness, and love. Through his life, death, and resurrection, Jesus made a way to restore the image of God that had been tarnished by sin. That restoration comes by the power of the Holy Spirit (called sanctification), who transforms us to become more like Christ and live out our purpose as God’s children.

To Live Is Christ

The ultimate goal of humanity is realized in Christ. To be a human is not about moral perfection or worldly accomplishments, it’s about finding our identity in Jesus—the perfect human who invites us into a relationship with God. Through him, we embody everything we were created to be.

The post What Does It Mean to Be Human? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

But does science affirm that life begins at conception? Or is this a matter of personal belief? How do we connect scientific views with what the Bible says about when a new life starts?

Let’s explore these questions with an open mind, seeking to understand when life begins and what it means for people in our world today. We’ll examine scientific definitions, biological facts, and biblical insights into the time when a new human being begins and what these views mean for both faith and science.

When Does Life Begin According to Science?

Science confirms that human life begins at conception—the moment when sperm and egg fuse to form a zygote. From that instant, a genetically unique human being comes into existence, complete with distinct DNA.

This process, called fertilization, is widely recognized as the starting point of human life. In fact, 96% of biologists agree that life begins at fertilization, making it the prevailing scientific perspective.

This shared view among scientists is echoed by many OB/GYN physicians who advocate for recognizing the zygote as a new human life from conception. They affirm that the fertilized human egg has all the necessary genetic parts that define a new individual human life. Let’s track that journey from fertilization to birth.

Human Development Journey

From the point of conception, the zygote goes through the development journey to become a fully formed human. Here are some of the major milestones:

Watch the following video to see the journey every human takes from fertilization to birth:

When Does Life Begin Medically?

Dual Patient Approach

The medical field considers both science and ethical responsibility when addressing the question of when life begins. Many medical professionals recognize the pregnant mother and her unborn baby as two distinct patients, highlighting the view of the unborn as a unique individual. This is known as the dual patient approach.

If a concern arises, medical staff are ethically required to consider the health and life of both human beings, both collectively and independently. This dual patient approach by the medical field supports the understanding that all human life begins at conception and each life is important.

What Does the Bible Say About When Life Begins?

According to the Bible, the question of when life begins is answered by considering teachings and principles found in Scripture. Psalm 139:13–16 artfully suggests that life begins in the womb, likely at conception. There, God is intimately involved in creating a person. The Bible affirms that he:

and

This Psalm not only stresses the sanctity of life from its earliest stages but also demonstrates remarkable scientific accuracy that matches well with what science tells us about human development.

Scientific and Scriptural Insights

Further support for the biblical viewpoint stems from studies about the placenta showing the extraordinary design and function needed to support new life. This research showcases what many see as the work of a Creator to protect and nourish an early, distinct life. Consequently, the placenta’s design argues against the idea that a fetus is “just a parasite.”

Instead, it shows the important relationship needed for growth and health. Plus, new findings in neuroscience reveal changes in a woman’s brain during pregnancy, spotlighting the profound biological and emotional changes that happen while caring for new life.

Some people use Genesis 2:7, where God breathes life into Adam, to say life begins with the first breath. But this idea doesn’t align with the full scriptural context.

Instead consider the similarity between Adam’s creation and yours when you were in the womb—God intricately created both up to the point of their first breath. In Luke 1, we read phrases like “the baby leaped in her [Elizabeth’s] womb,” and “the baby in my womb leaped for joy.” These expressions make it clear that what’s in the womb is a human life and there’s no indication that life doesn’t begin until that first breath is drawn.

Addressing Common Objections

When addressing common arguments against the pro-life view, such as why spontaneous abortions occur and the idea that Christians are only pro-birth and not pro-life, it’s important to think about these concerns carefully.

Understanding these sensitive topics will help us to have compassionate and informed conversations, based on both faith and facts.

Especially when we want to make a biblical case against abortion.

This approach honors the Bible’s view of when life begins and invites a deeper appreciation for the amazing scientific process that happens from conception to birth.

When Does “Personhood” Begin?

The debate over when “personhood” begins is a pivotal, often heated topic in discussions about human life. Many pro-choice supporters acknowledge that a human embryo or fetus is a human being, but they argue it is not the same as a human person.

This issue brings up two essential questions: What exactly defines a “person”? and Who decides the criteria for personhood? These questions show how unclear and arbitrary it can be to separate being a person from just being a human.

The Christian View of Personhood

From a Christian point of view, personhood starts at conception. At this point, a human being is, by definition, endowed with the image of God. This concept is known as the imago Dei. It affirms that every human, from the moment their history is set in motion, is a person because they bear this divine image which gives them inherent dignity and worth.

Challenges with Sentience and Self-Awareness

Critics often argue that attributes such as sentience (the ability to experience feelings and sensations) or self-awareness (consciousness) should define personhood. But these ideas often cause more problems.

• The capacity to feel or perceive is difficult to measure and varies widely among individuals.

• Likewise, self-awareness is a trait that develops over time and is not present at birth.

The lack of measurable standards for sentience or self-awareness leads to the question: Why should these characteristics serve as the benchmarks for personhood?

Such traits are not only arbitrary but can leave out individuals who are in certain developmental stages, such as infants or those with cognitive impairments.

Developmental Milestones and Personhood

Developmental milestones like a heartbeat, brain activity, or the ability to live outside the womb are sometimes used as markers of personhood. However, these are just stages of growth and don’t fully encase what it means to be a person. From a Christian viewpoint, personhood is linked to identity as image bearers of God, not on mere capacity for bodily function.

The Importance of Language in Human Value Discussions

The importance of using clear, precise language when talking about human value can’t be overstated. How we define “human” and “person” shapes our ethical and moral views about life and how we protect it. In the biblical worldview, every life is sacred from conception—a position that supports arguments against abortion by highlighting the value inherent to all human beings.

We encourage everyone to think about the language they use when discussing early human life. Important meanings and moral responsibilities arise from words and definitions.

Takeaway

The question of when human life begins according to science and the Bible is often deeply debated but should be likewise deeply researched and considered. Our minds should be open to facts and our hearts willing to reflect on something more than just ourselves and on what it means to be human.

People from all worldviews and backgrounds have thought about when a new human being begins. The majority agree that life starts at conception—not at 8 weeks or 24 weeks, and not at birth, but when the new human DNA is created.

There’s great support for the belief that life begins at fertilization, which in turn has important ethical and moral implications. It makes us think about the value of life from the very start and the need to care for and protect it, even before that life takes its first breath.

When we consider the evidence for when human life begins, we step into a profound truth—life is not an accident, it’s a purposeful gift. Science and Scripture together affirm that every human being is wonderfully made, intentionally created, and endowed with purpose from the very beginning.

The post When Does Human Life Begin? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

—The scholar department team at RTB

It’s common knowledge in the twenty-first century that technology powers and shapes our world. Beyond this understanding of how technology has advanced civilization, the development and use of technology teaches us things about God. That’s the focus of this article. A follow-on article will look at temptations that come with technology.

Scripture, especially Psalm 19:1–6 and Romans 1:18–20, clearly teaches that nature reveals God’s existence, glory, and divine attributes. Many other passages point toward creation as proof that God has the power necessary to care for his people. So, as natural science progressively reveals the wonders of nature, it offers more and more reasons to love and worship the Creator. In this way, natural science helps us keep the first and greatest commandment: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:36–37).

Based on natural science, many applied sciences provide ways to fulfill the second great commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself” Matthew 22:39. Medicine, engineering, information technology, and many other fields rely on science to mitigate the curse (of living in a broken world affected by sin in every way) that followed the fall, at least in part. So, because of science, we have new ways to love one another, such as improving the living conditions of people globally.

How Technology Enables Science
On this view, it seems obvious that science comes first, and its applications follow. However, there’s more to appreciate than this linear model of progress. In our day, technology often comes first, and science follows.

Consider the tools today’s scientists use: telescopes and microscopes; particle accelerators and sophisticated instruments; computer hardware, software, and networks to store and analyze data; and many more high-tech devices. As science expands, technology is critical to its continued success by bridging ever-growing gaps between nature’s secrets and the ability of human senses to observe and human minds to comprehend.

Compared with science, enabling technologies often operate in the background—something I learned as a child. Growing up in the 1960s, I was fascinated by America’s space program. Famed broadcast journalist Walter Cronkite and other news reporters described Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions in terms of scientific achievement. Only later did I learn that it was engineering that took astronauts to the Moon and back. Science began exploring the Moon’s secrets when those missions returned. Yes, science helped NASA to plan the missions, but executing those plans was all about technology: rockets, communications, life-support, and other systems.

Beyond supporting science, technological systems and devices give us a broader view of nature, especially its hidden features and possibilities. This knowledge helps us orient our minds and hearts toward the God who created it all and toward our fellow human beings.

God’s Universe
In antiquity, the size of the heavenly sphere, as it was called, was unknown. Later, with telescopes and Isaac Newton’s physics and calculus, our comprehension of the universe grew, along with perceptions of its size. Today, with terrestrial and space-based telescopes operating across the electromagnetic spectrum, plus other advanced tools (e.g., gravity wave observatories), we explore the farthest reaches of our inconceivably large universe. It is vaster and more wonderful than our predecessors could have imagined, and so is God who created and sustains it all.

God’s Power
Likewise, modern physics and its engineering applications reveal God’s power in more detail. Since the invention of fire, the fact that energy is bound up in matter has been well known. Centuries later, scientists identified the process by which the oxidation of fuel releases that energy as heat. However, the presence of energy stored in every atom was completely unknown. Then, Einstein’s E=MC² relationship between mass and energy revealed, at least to physicists, that energy went into creating every bit of matter in the universe. How?

In every atom heavier than hydrogen, two or more protons—in uranium atoms there are 92 protons—are crammed into a tiny nucleus. Their positive electrical charges would blow the protons apart, but what’s known as the strong nuclear force holds them together.¹ Conversely, to assemble a nucleus from its component particles, work is necessary to overcome the repulsive forces and bring everything within range of the strong force. When it does, energy—what is known as binding energy—is trapped in the nuclei.²

Binding energy is present in everything physical—in the air, in your coffee cup, in you—but so far, we only know how to release that energy under special conditions. By human ingenuity, in the core of a nuclear reactor or bomb, some of the binding energy is released as small fractions of matter are annihilated. Physicists are pleased if they can split a few percent of the uranium in a power reactor or bomb.³ But the universe, immense in size and mass, was created by God out of nothing, creatio ex nihilo.

And power? Cosmology’s “big bang” occurred over a brief period, so the rate at which energy was expended in creation—the binding energy divided by time—is unspeakably vast. So, modern nuclear physics and engineering teach us, for the first time, how great is the Creator’s power!

God’s Image-Bearers
Beyond the knowledge obtained through science and technology, we can also learn about God by examining the people who do scientific work. Genesis 1:26–27 tells us human beings are made in God’s image, in his likeness. Can we know more about God by examining his image-bearers? Yes! In the words of philosopher Esther Meek, “On the Christian theological vision, all reality is either God, or God’s personal effects.”⁴ So even in our fallen state, we still get glimpses of God’s intelligence and creativity, and those qualities are reflected by scientists, engineers, doctors, and many others.

Consider research into quantum physics and its possibilities in communication and computation. This work highlights the human desire to understand nature, and then use that knowledge for good purposes. Quantum phenomena were first explored about a hundred years ago. Still, they remain difficult to comprehend, even mysterious. By applying intelligence and creativity as God’s image-bearers, people strive for a detailed and working knowledge of these things. Centuries after Johann Kepler sought to “think God’s thoughts after him,” we have the same aspiration. Our technological advances display our intelligence and creativity. They also teach us to love God and neighbor.

But how much more intelligent and creative is the God who conceived of the universe, its space, matter, energy, and physical laws? And beyond the existence of the created realm, God also planned to draw people to himself, even after they rebelled against him.

Praise be to God, the great and powerful Creator of this vast universe, who loved us and came to earth as a man to save us by grace!

Endnotes

1. The strong force holding together atomic nuclei reminds us of the description of Christ in Colossians 1:17: “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
2. For a fascinating account of this phenomenon, its release in nuclear devices, and its practical possibilities, see John McPhee, The Curve of Binding Energy: A Journey into the Awesome and Alarming World of Theodore B. Taylor (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1974).
3. Consider the Manhattan Project, as it is portrayed in the summer 2023 movie Oppenheimer, based on Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Knopf, 2005).
4. Esther Lightcap Meek, Contact with Reality: Michael Polanyi’s Realism and Why It Matters (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2017), 439.

The post Technology Teaches: What Does Applied Science Reveal About God? About Love? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Spoiler alert!

Blueberries are yummy; blue crayons are yucky

Spaghetti is yummy; worms are yucky

Burgers are yummy; boogers are yucky

For now, my grandson has two categories he uses to organize the world: yummy and yucky. He seems to be much more interested in things that are yucky than yummy. He loves to point them out, talk about them, and even smell them when they’re stinky. 

In my experience as a Christian apologist who barters in the science-faith arena, if there’s one thing that most Christians find yucky—disturbing and disgusting—it is the fact that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred and produced modern human-Neanderthal hybrid offspring. Yet, it’s also a topic that Christians love to discuss.

There’s a good reason for this interest. The prospect of human-Neanderthal interbreeding raises a plethora of questions, such as:

• If interbreeding took place, what does that mean for the credibility of the biblical account of human origins?
• Are humans truly exceptional? 
• Are we truly made in God’s image?
• Did the children resulting from these interbreeding events have a soul? Did they bear the image of God?

I have addressed these questions in two articles: “Answering Scientific Questions on Human-Neanderthal Interbreeding, Part 1,” and “Answering Theological Questions on Human-Neanderthal Interbreeding.” 

The interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals is particularly problematic for our (RTB) human origins creation model (presented in detail in Who Was Adam?). On the surface, it appears to falsify several key predictions of our model. 

Yet, new work by investigators from the University of Barcelona helps address this significant challenge to our model.¹ In fact, their work on “gene deserts”—large regions in the human genome where no Neanderthal DNA exists—can be marshaled to make a case that modern humans are exceptional and made in God’s image! That which is yucky has become, in a manner of speaking, yummy.

RTB’s Human Origins Model on Neanderthals
Our model holds that Adam and Eve were the first two humans, created in God’s image through his direct and personal actions. We maintain that Adam and Eve were modern humans and gave rise to all people alive today and all people who have lived throughout human prehistory and history. We affirm that Adam and Eve were created and we deny the notion that Adam and Eve were the products of a God-guided evolutionary process. 

As for the hominins such as Neanderthals, we don’t see them as evolutionary predecessors to modern humans. Instead, we regard them as animals created by God that lived for a period, then went extinct. 

According to our model, these creatures were intelligent and led emotionally rich lives. They had their own technology and culture. Yet we take the view that these creatures were not made in God’s image. That status is exclusive to Adam and Eve and their descendants, modern humans. 

Based on our view of the hominins, we would predict both biological similarities (because humans and animals were made from the same stuff—the dust of the earth) and biological differences. We also predict significant behavioral differences between modern humans (who bear God’s image), and hominins (who lack God’s image).

But What if Modern Humans and Neanderthals Interbred?
Along with the “yuck” factor, several more questions come to mind:

• Doesn’t interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals invalidate the RTB model?
• Doesn’t it mean that Neanderthals and modern humans really are the same species? 
• Doesn’t this discovery mean that Neanderthals were just like us?

Not necessarily. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that modern humans and Neanderthals were distinct species. There’s also plenty of evidence that indicates modern humans were cognitively superior to Neanderthals, as evidenced by genetic differences and differences in brain structure.  (See Resources.) Finally, there’s a plethora of evidence that members of distinct species can interbreed to produce healthy, viable offspring. (See Resources.) So, why wouldn’t the same be true for modern humans and Neanderthals?

According to the RTB human origins model, interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals is possible because of the shared biological designs between the two species. This interpretation may explain the evidence scientifically, but it still doesn’t answer troubling theological questions. 

Did Modern Human-Neanderthal Hybrids Have the Image of God?
If Neanderthals lacked the image of God, then what are we to make of the offspring that resulted from the interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals? Did these creatures have a soul? Did they bear God’s image?

Even though—according to our model—Neanderthals lacked God’s image, I hold the view that the modern human-Neanderthal hybrids bore God’s image. I offer a detailed explanation for why I embrace this view in the Resources section. 

Briefly, it’s possible to conceive of scenarios in which a human-hominin hybrid receives a soul. For example, one could envision God creating a soul in the human-Neanderthal hybrid at the time of conception, honoring the fact that at least one of the parents is an image-bearer and knowing that the hybrid would likely interbreed with other humans. Alternatively, as long as one of the parents is an image-bearer, then the offspring should also possess God’s image. In effect, the image of God is indivisible. Either a being has the image of God or it doesn’t. It makes no sense to think of a creature having only half of the image of God.

Based on the biblical texts (again, see the Resources section), it appears that God would have been displeased with the interbreeding between modern humans—Adam and Eve’s descendants— and Neanderthals. Interbreeding isn’t what God intended, though he appears to have used the yucky behavior for good purposes. 

Protective Measures
It appears that God put in place protective measures to limit the impact of interbreeding once it took place, as evinced by the discovery of Neanderthal gene deserts in the human genome. The discovery of Neanderthal gene deserts is a bit surprising because Neanderthal DNA sequences are distributed throughout the modern human genome. For example, people of Eurasian descent have about 1–4% Neanderthal DNA in their genomes. These sequences aren’t concentrated in one location. The DNA sequences are found nearly everywhere. 

Neanderthal gene deserts must exist because it would have been a disadvantage for the descendants of the hybrids to have the Neanderthal version of the genes in the desert regions. In other words, over time, the forces of natural selection would have eliminated the Neanderthal version of the genes in these regions of the genome (negative selection). Alternatively, it could have been that the modern human version of these genes was so advantageous for the hybrid’s descendants that they were preserved (positive selection). Yet, for other regions of the modern human genome outside the Neanderthal gene deserts, replacing the modern human version of genes with Neanderthal versions must have had minimal impact or may have even been beneficial.²

As it turns out, a catalog of the genes found in four of the largest Neanderthal gene deserts includes genes that play a central role in language trait development, such as FOXP2, ROBO1, ROBO2, and EPHA3, and it explains why Neanderthal versions of these genes were eliminated from the modern human genome via natural selection. Modern human versions of genes in Neanderthal gene deserts also appear to be expressed at high levels in the developing cerebral cortex. By the same token, the expression of Neanderthal versions of genes is suppressed in modern human brain regions.³

Building off these earlier insights, the research team from Spain wanted to probe more deeply the role played by genes in Neanderthal gene deserts. The team identified genes in four of the largest Neanderthal gene deserts that were under positive selection. Using Allen Brain Atlas (a database that seeks to combine genomics with neuroanatomy) data, they also analyzed the gene expression profile of these genes in different brain regions at different developmental stages. 

Compared to random regions of the genome (of comparable size to the four Neanderthal gene deserts), they discovered that key genes that play a role in neuronal growth and brain development (such as CADPS2, ROBO2, and SYT6) were under positive selection and were expressed at high levels in three brain regions: 

• The striatum, which integrates different areas of the brain, plays a role in coordinating motor functions, action planning, decision making, motivation reinforcement, and reward perception;
• The thalamus, which serves as a hub in the brain for the exchange of information and for relaying sensory information to the cerebral cortex. The thalamus also regulates consciousness, alertness, and sleep; and 
• The cerebellum, which plays an integrator’s role by coordinating motor activities. It also plays a role in language, regulates emotions, and controls attention.

Collectively, these observations suggest that:

• Neanderthals and modern humans are, indeed, distinctive species. 
• A species barrier exists between the two groups of hominins, preventing them from merging into a single species. 
• Cognitive differences exist between modern humans and Neanderthals. 

The final observation (cognitive differences) in the list finds affirmation from other independent lines of evidence. For example, the shape of the modern human skull appears to be unusual and distinct compared to the skulls of hominins such as Neanderthals, H. heidelbergensis, and H. erectus. The skull shape of these hominins was more elongated along the anterior-posterior axis. But the skull shape of modern humans is globular, with bulging and enlarged parietal and cerebral areas. Additionally, in the modern human skull, the face is retracted and relatively small. 

The difference in skull shape and facial structure impacts the shape of the modern human brain and the relative sizes of different brain regions. The chief difference between human and Neanderthal brains is the size and shape of the cerebellum. The cerebellar hemisphere is projected more toward the interior in the modern human brain than it is in the Neanderthal brain and the volume of the modern human cerebellum is larger. The right side of the Neanderthal cerebellum is significantly smaller than the left side—a phenomenon called volumetric laterality. This discrepancy doesn’t exist in the modern human brain. The parietal regions in the modern human brain were also larger than those regions in Neanderthals’ brains.⁴

Genome-wide comparisons of the Neanderthal and modern human genomes have identified different versions of genes that play a role in skull morphology (shape) and cognitive development.⁵ Molecular anthropologists studying neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders in modern humans have also inferred differences in the expression of genes in coding regions of the Neanderthal and modern human genomes. They’ve also detected differences in expression patterns for genes that play a role in facial and vocal tract development.⁶

While these genetic differences suggest disparities in cognitive capacities between modern and archaic humans, the evidence is circumstantial. Recently, however, researchers have developed experimental approaches to directly assess the impact of these genetic differences on brain development and function. 

Researchers have generated and characterized brain organoids produced from modern human stem cells and have compared them with “Neanderthalized” brain organoids generated with gene-editing techniques. To date, four independent studies have identified physiological differences between modern human and “Neanderthalized” brain organoids. They observed the differences when the modern human versions of the genes TKTL1, NOVA1, Adenylosuccinate Lyase, KIF18A, KNL1, and SPAG5 were gene-edited to the Neanderthal versions. These distinctions all indicate that the genetic differences in these genes (which all play a role in neural development) are significant and that Neanderthals were cognitively inferior to modern humans.⁷

Yummy or Yucky?
From a biblical perspective, the quality that makes modern humans unique and exceptional is the image of God. While theologians debate the nature of God’s image in human beings, it’s reasonable to think that the image of God refers to capabilities that modern humans alone possess, such as the capacity for symbolism, which manifests in language, music, and art. This quality most likely involves an immaterial aspect of our nature as human beings, but it’s also reasonable to think that there must be brain structures and neurochemical processes that support the expression of the image of God. This expectation is being fulfilled before our eyes as life scientists produce mounting evidence for the uniqueness of the human brain. Along with it, they’re providing evidence that modern humans display a distinct type of advanced cognition that separates us from the other hominins, including Neanderthals.

The discovery of Neanderthal gene deserts in the modern human genome adds to the case for human exceptionalism. These gene deserts point to the existence of a species barrier between modern humans and Neanderthals—a barrier that ensures the brain structures that grant modern humans the capacity for advanced cognition remain undisturbed, even when we interbred with Neanderthals. 

From a theological standpoint, it appears that God put in place a protective mechanism that ensures that the image of God was not lost when modern humans interbred with Neanderthals. Ironically, when the scientific consequences of interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals are studied in detail, instead of undermining the case for human exceptionalism, interbreeding affirms it. 

Now, I find that affirmation to be delicious.

Resources

• Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross (book)
• Thinking about Evolution: 25 Questions Christians Want Answered by Anjeanette Roberts, Fazale Rana, Sue Dykes, and Mark Perez (book)

Responding to Questions about Human-Neanderthal Interbreeding

• “Answering Scientific Questions on Human-Neanderthal Interbreeding, Part 1” by Fazale Rana (article) 
• “Answering Scientific Questions on Human-Neanderthal Interbreeding, Part 2” by Fazale Rana (article) 

Brain Structure Differences between Modern Humans and Neanderthals

• “Neanderthal Brains Make Them Unlikely Social Networkers” by Fazale Rana (article) 
• “Blood Flow to Brain Contributes to Human Exceptionalism” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Differences in Human and Neanderthal Brains Explain Human Exceptionalism” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Did Neanderthals Have the Brains to Make Art?” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “When Did Modern Human Brains—and the Image of God—Appear?” by Fazale Rana (article)

Brain Organoid Studies

• “Brain Organoids Cultivate the Case for Human Exceptionalism” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Key Difference in Developing Human and Neanderthal Brains” by Fazale Rana (article)

Genetic Differences between Modern Humans and Neanderthals

• “Ancient DNA Indicates Modern Humans Are One-of-a-Kind” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “New Genetic Evidence Affirms Human Uniqueness” by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

1. Raül Buisan et al., “A Brain Region-Specific Expression Profile for Genes within Large Introgression Deserts and Under Positive Selection in Homo sapiens,” Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 10 (April 26, 2022): 824740, doi:10.3389/fcell.2022.824740.
2. Buisan et al., “A Brain Region-Specific Expression Profile,” 824740. 
3. Buisan et al., 824740.
4. Takanori Kochiyama et al., “Reconstructing the Neanderthal Brain Using Computational Anatomy,” Science Reports 8 (April 26, 2018): 6296, doi:10.1038/s41598-018-24331-0.
5. Richard E. Green et al., “A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome,” Science 328, no. 5979 (May 7, 2010): 710–722, doi:10.1126/science.1188021.
6. For example, see Laura L. Colbran et al., “Inferred Divergent Gene Regulation in Archaic Hominins Reveals Potential Phenotypic Differences,” Nature Ecology and Evolution 3 (November 2019): 1598–1606, doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0996-x; David Gokhman et al., “Reconstructing the DNA Methylation Maps of the Neandertal and the Denisovan,” Science 344, no. 6183 (May 2, 2014): 523–527, doi:10.1126/science.1250368; David Gokhman et al., “Differential DNA Methylation of Vocal and Facial Anatomy Genes in Modern Humans,” Nature Communications 11 (March 4, 2020): 1189, doi:10.1038/s41467-020-15020-6.
7. Cleber A. Trujillo et al., “Reintroduction of the Archaic Variant of NOVA1 in Cortical Organoids Alters Neurodevelopment,” Science 371, no. 6530 (February 12, 2021): eaax2537, doi:10.1126/science.aax2537; Vita Stepanova et al., “Reduced Purine Biosynthesis in Humans after Their Divergence from Neandertals,” eLife 10 (May 4, 2021): e58741, doi:10.7554/eLife.58741; Felipe Mora-Bermúdez et al., “Longer Metaphase and Fewer Chromosome Segregation Errors in Modern Human Than Neanderthal Brain Development,” Science Advances 8, no. 30 (July 29, 2022): eabn7702, doi:10.1126/sciadv.abn7702; Anneline Pinson et al., “Human TKTL1 Implies Greater Neurogenesis in Frontal Neocortex of Modern Humans Than Neanderthals,” Science 377, no. 6611 (September 9, 2022): doi:10.1126/science.abl6422.

The post Neanderthal Gene Deserts Provide Oasis for RTB’s Creation Model appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

For much of the last 50 years, when Christians have discussed creation or Genesis, the conversation has inevitably focused on the length of the creation days. I have always found this somewhat strange because when Bible readers ask what Genesis is talking about, the emphasis is not on a creation timescale. Rather, Genesis concentrates on who God is and what he has done—topics that most Bible-believing Christians agree on. In fact, one of the most fundamental aspects of God’s nature shows up in Genesis 1—God is inherently relational. The author also declares that we are created in that image, a point that recent scientific research affirms.

A Layman’s Look at Genesis 1
When I began studying science apologetics, one of the first things I did was investigate what Genesis 1 and 2 said. After a few times through, I noticed something interesting by reading the first few words of each verse:

1. In the beginning God . . . 
2. And the earth was formless . . .
3. Then God said, . . . 
4. God saw that the light . . .
5. God called the light “day,” . . .
6. Then God said, . . .
7. God made the expanse, . . .
8. God called the expanse “heaven.” 

In fact, the 34 verses from Genesis 1:1–2:3 mention God explicitly over 50 times! Clearly, Genesis 1 is about God, and not just that he exists but also who he is. I noticed at least three things about God in this passage: (1) Since God created the universe, he is powerful; (2) There is an order to creation that reflects God’s purposefulness; and (3) God is moral because he declares the things he made good. 

One of God’s attributes that I didn’t appreciate until years later was that he is triune. Of course, I knew that God was one essence in three persons—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But it wasn’t until several years later that something additional dawned on me. God, in his essence, is relational! And that point is emphasized when God created humanity. As stated in Genesis 1:26–27 (NASB), 

Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them [emphasis added].

Even human beings reflect the triune nature by being one essence (human) in two parts (male and female).¹ And the first charge given to humanity required relationship, namely “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28, NASB). Just as God is relational in his essence, relationship is baked into human nature. 

What Does Science Reveal about Relationships?
A Harvard study more than 8 decades long reveals foundational insights into the importance of relationships. Starting in 1938, scientists studied the health of 238 sophomores attending Harvard University. The study expanded through the decades to encompass the offspring of all the original men (Harvard was all-male when the study started), and in the 1970s the participants expanded to include 456 Boston inner-city residents. Since 1987, more than 40 peer-reviewed publications were generated from the study.²  

Some of the more intriguing results derived from the study relate to emotional and physical health in old age. One paper found that more time spent with others correlated with greater health and happiness. But the data shows something even more significant. Everyone who lives past 30–40 years will experience a decline in physical health—some more than others—and usually that decline brings a corresponding decrease in happiness. However, having a healthy marriage worked against that decrease, resulting in a happier life even as physical health declined.³ Another series of papers highlighted the importance of nourishing childhood environments for healthy adult lives. One paper concluded that “Results suggest that greater childhood nurturance relates to more adaptive defensive styles in early adulthood, which is then associated with healthier midlife functioning at work and in relationships.”⁴ Another paper added that nurturing family environments lead to greater marital attachment 60 years later, and a third paper noted the correlation of warm mother-child relationships with intact cognitive abilities (rather than dementia) at 90 years old.⁵

Former director of Harvard’s Study of Adult Development, George Vaillant, and the current director, Robert Waldinger, make some strong statements about the importance of relationships to mental health, physical health, and aging well. Waldinger declares that “when we gathered together everything we knew about them at age 50, it wasn’t their middle-age cholesterol levels that predicted how they were going to grow old. . . . It was how satisfied they were in their relationships. The people who were the most satisfied in their relationships at age 50 were the healthiest at age 80.” Similarly, “Loneliness kills. It’s as powerful as smoking or alcoholism.” ⁶ Vaillant echoes Waldinger’s conclusions and states that “when the study began, nobody cared about empathy or attachment. . . . But the key to healthy aging is relationships, relationships, relationships.”

A Union of Spiritual and Physical
These findings show that relationships are essential for our proper mental health, but the scientific data also shows that our relationships directly impact our physical health. And, while not addressed in the study, our physical health impacts our mental health and our relationships, too. This recognition that our physical and mental health are connected provides additional affirmation of the truth of Scripture. 

Genesis 1 starts with God creating the heavens and the earth and that word for creating carries the idea of bringing something new into existence. The creation week ends with God creating humans, which raises the question: What new thing did God bring into existence with humanity? All the elements of our physical bodies already existed. Other life, including social animals, already existed. With human beings, God brought into existence life that is a union of physical and spiritual—we are the only creatures (at least on Earth) that bear God’s image and have the capacity to worship. Because God designed the proper focus of that worship to be himself, we again see the foundation of relationship. It’s no wonder that humans seem to be healthier when we’re in proper relationship with one another and with our Creator. 

Endnotes

1. We must be careful not to push this comparison too far, but I find it interesting to notice the parallel. 

2. For all the details, see Harvard Second Generation Study, Harvard Study of Adult Development, accessed September 27, 2023. The publication list is housed at Publications, Harvard Second Generation Study. 

3. Robert J. Waldinger and Marc S. Schulz, “What’s Love Got to Do with It? Social Functioning, Perceived Health, and Daily Happiness in Married Octogenarians,” Psychology and Aging 25, no. 2 (June 2010): 422–431, doi:10.1037/a0019087. 

4. Michael D. Nevarez, Melinda I. Morrill, and Robert J. Waldinger, “Thriving in Midlife: The Roles of Childhood Nurturance and Adult Defense Mechanisms,” Journal of Research in Personality 74 (June 2018): 35–41, doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2018.01.002.  

5. Robert J. Waldinger and Marc S. Schulz, “The Long Reach of Nurturing Family Relationships: Links with Midlife Emotion-Regulatory Styles and Late-Life Security in Intimate Relationships,” Psychological Science 27, no. 11 (September 29, 2016): 1443–1450, doi:10.1177/0956797616661556; George E. Vaillant et al., “Antecedents of Intact Cognition and Dementia at Age 90 Years: A Prospective Study,” International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 29, no. 12 (December 2014): 1278–1285, doi:10.1002/gps.4108.

6. Liz Mineo, “Good Genes Are Nice, but Joy Is Better,” The Harvard Gazette, April 11, 2017. 

The post Genesis Affirms We’re Created for Community appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

These questions (and more) are the focus of the third installment of the Netflix documentary series Unknown. This episode, “Cave of Bones,” is directed by Mark Mannucci and tells the stories of paleoanthropologist Lee Berger and his team of collaborators (paleoanthropologist John Hawks, evolutionary anthropologist Agustin Fuentes, and cultural anthropologist Keneiloe Molopayane) who led the excavations of the Rising Star cave system between 2017 and 2022. This cave system houses the remains of the highly enigmatic hominin species, Homo naledi.

The film masterfully tells the story of the collaborators’ discovery of evidence from the cave system’s Dinaledi Chamber and Dragon’s Back Chamber that—if true—upends everything we think we know about our identity as human beings—regardless of the worldview we hold.

The cinematography in “Cave of Bones” is worth the subscription to Netflix. The video footage of the Rising Star cave system is stunning. So, too, is the videography of the dangerous ascent up Dragon’s Back and the even more risky descent through the chute to the Dinaledi Chamber. 

Mannucci expertly captures the allure and intrigue of paleoanthropology. After watching “Cave of Bones,” it’s easy to understand why paleoanthropologists devote their lives to excavating cave sites and studying ancient bones and artifacts. Over and over, Mannucci captures the amazement and unbridled joy that Berger and his team experienced each time they gained new insight into the biology and behavior of H. naledi—insights that they quickly realized have the potential to revolutionize the way we think about ourselves as human beings. Mannucci also does an excellent job of conveying the strange bedfellows made by adventure and tedious hard work that researchers experience when excavating sites for fossil and archaeological treasures. 

I particularly enjoyed getting a firsthand look at the cutting-edge scientific tools that are used to excavate cave sites and analyze the finds. My favorite part of the documentary was the scene in which the team encased a rock slab harboring a juvenile specimen of H. naledi with plaster. This unusual step was necessary because the fossils were too fragile to excavate. It was remarkable to see the team’s Herculean effort to transport the plaster slab out of the Dinaledi Chamber through the narrow chute and down Dragon’s Back. It was also fun to watch the way the team used CT technology to image the interior of the rock slab, with Berger eventually traveling to France to use high-energy synchrotron X-rays to get a detailed look at a tool-shaped rock contained in the slab with the juvenile’s remains.

Bombshell Revelations  
What fun is a documentary if there aren’t a few bombs to drop? Mannucci drops three high-power “explosives” about H. naledi—and ultimately about us as modern humans. These three revelations add up to one singular idea: human beings are not special after all.

Funerary Practices
Mannuci takes us on the adventure as Berger and his collaborators discover evidence in the Dinaledi Chamber of presumed grave sites where H. naledi ritualistically buried their dead. This hominin species wasn’t simply dropping dead bodies down the chute leading to the Dinaledi Chamber, thereby caching their dead. According to Berger and his team, these hominins were engaging in funerary practices in which they would transport the remains of dead community members through Superman’s Crawl and up Dragon’s Back. Then they carefully lowered the bodies into the Dinaledi Chamber where they were deliberately placed in a grave, along with grave goods (items buried along with the body). If so, then the Dinaledi Chamber was a H. naledi graveyard.

Figure 1: A cartoon of the section of the Rising Star cave system that leads to the Dinaledi Chamber 
Credit: Wikipedia 

Mannucci interviews Agustin Fuentes about the significance of this claim. According to Fuentes, anthropologists have long regarded funerary practices as something that defined us as modern humans. Some animals deliberately bury their dead. And many animals experience loss and grief when a member of their group dies. But none engage in organized communal ritualistic activities that are packed with meaning as modern humans do. 

Funerary practices reflect an awareness and understanding of our own mortality—something that animals apparently lack. These rituals also connote a sense of the afterlife—a recognition that the person who died will continue to exist in another realm. In many cultures, funerary practices are considered an essential step in the transition from our plane of existence to another. Grave goods are often included with the interred body because the community believes their deceased loved one will need these items in the afterlife. Funerary practices also reflect a deep level of care and respect for the deceased members of the community, in which the community sees it as their obligation to come together and invest resources to assist and prepare those who have died for the transition to the afterlife. 

Such practices are a manifestation of the combination of four qualities that some anthropologists think make humans unique and exceptional. These include:

• Capacity for symbolism
• Open-ended ability to combine and recombine symbols 
• Our theory of mind
• Ability to form complex, hierarchical social structure 

As a Christian, I see these properties as scientific descriptors of the image of God. Yet, if H. naledi engaged in funerary practices, then they would be image bearers just like us. 

Use of Fire
The second bombshell revealed in the documentary was the evidence Berger and his collaborators discovered for fire use by H. naledi. Presumably, this hominin was making and using fires to light its way through the dark and inaccessible cave passages leading to the Dinaledi Chamber.

Cave Art
The final and most explosive bombshell came near the end of the documentary, when, for the first time, Berger entered the Dinaledi Chamber. Because the chute that drops into the Dinaledi Chamber is quite narrow, only people of small size can be lowered into the Hill Antechamber that opens into the Dinaledi Chamber. For nearly a decade, Berger could only experience the chamber through the video feed provided by anthropologists who were small enough to fit through the chute. In preparation for the 2022 excavations, Berger lost weight and got in shape so he could experience the Dinaledi Chamber firsthand. It is an emotionally gripping scene to see Berger’s response to finally experiencing the cave site that has consumed his life for the past 10 years—a location he never thought he would ever be able to visit.

As Berger begins to look around the cave, he spots something startling: a collection of hatch marks on the pillar that separates the Hill Antechamber from the Dinaledi Chamber. It looks like these hatch marks were deliberately carved into the pillar by a tool much like the one discovered with the H. naledi juvenile that was encased in rock. Berger and his team interpret these markings as evidence that H. naledi made art and had the capacity for symbolism.

These three claims are shocking to many evolutionary scientists who have no commitment to human exceptionalism because H. naledi had a brain size comparable to a chimpanzee. Most paleoanthropologists have long held the view that a large brain size was necessary for advanced cognition. But if these claims stand, they will upend the prevailing thinking among evolutionary biologists about what makes us human and prompt questions about why our brain evolved to be so large. Paleoanthropologist Christopher Stringer (who wasn’t affiliated with the research) said, “These are challenging finds, and they certainly make us think about what it is to be human.”¹

Defusing the Bomb
One weakness in “Cave of Bones” is Mannucci’s telling of the H. naledi story as a point-of-view documentary. This style makes Berger’s interpretations of H. naledi’s cognitive capacity and culture quite persuasive. Yet, Mannucci’s approach does a disservice to the viewer because he fails to convey the scientific controversy surrounding Berger and his views of H. naledi. (I detail some of this controversy in a recent article Does H. naledi Undermine the Case for Human Exceptionalism?)

Just before the release of “Cave of Bones,” Berger and his collaborators posted three online scientific papers, as preprints, detailing the discoveries featured in the Netflix documentary.² These papers were submitted concurrently with the open-access journal eLife for peer review.

This method is called an open-access approach. The traditional approach for publishing scientific papers involves submitting the article(s) to a journal for peer review by experts in the field. Based on the quality of the science, the reviewers decide the paper should be accepted or rejected for publication or should be revised and resubmitted—all of which occurs before the final manuscript is published and available for wide-scale public consumption.

In recent years, there’s been a movement toward an open-access approach to science, in which work is made available before the peer-review process takes place. Sites such as BioRxiv post manuscripts as preprints before or concurrently with the formal peer review process. This path makes scientific findings immediately available. (The formal peer review process can take over a year in some cases.) It also makes the peer review process more transparent.

eLife has adopted an open-access route to publishing scientific works. In their model, a paper is neither accepted nor rejected. It is posted along with the peer reviewers’ comments. The paper can stand as is or the authors can revise it and repost the revised version.  

There is much to laud about the open-access strategy to communicating the results of scientific studies. But a word of caution is justified. This approach gives preprints, and even articles posted with peer-reviewed comments, an air of respectability and credibility they may not deserve. 

Berger and his collaborators have taken advantage of the open-access model to give the impression that the “Cave of Bones” documentary is undergirded with published scientific support for their claims. But it isn’t.

Paleoanthropologist Andy Herries has chided Berger for this approach, stating “I do have the expectation that there is robust scientific evidence to support such statements before scientists go on massive media campaigns regarding these ideas.”³ 

It doesn’t appear that the claims about H. naledi cognition and culture are supported by robust scientific evidence. The peer reviews are now coming for the three preprints submitted to eLife and it doesn’t look good for Berger and his coauthors. Respected science journalist Robin McKie, in a piece for The Guardian, quotes three of the peer reviewers who concluded that the papers:

• “Do not present convincing science”
• “Are inadequate, incomplete, and largely assumption-based—rather than evidence based”
• Are “imprudent and incomplete”

Paleoanthropologist Maria Martian-Torres, who wasn’t an official reviewer but coauthored a piece that criticized the Berger team’s claims in the three preprints, told Ewen Callaway for the journal Nature that “I don’t see an anatomical connection. I don’t see a hole or a pit that has been intentionally dug. These hypotheses have been sold with a very strong media campaign before the evidence was ready to support it.”⁴

Unfortunately, the perception of many paleoanthropologists is that Berger and his collaborators are unresponsive to the concerns raised by the papers’ reviewers. Archaeologist Sven Ouzman, who reviewed the paper describing and interpreting the rock engravings, has expressed concern that the papers are “essentially up there and published, and they can say, ‘we have reviewed the reviewer’s comments, and we thank them for it. But we stand by our arguments.’” ⁵

So even though Unknown’s “Cave of Bones” episode wows Netflix viewers with a compelling scientific story about H. naledi, one can’t help but wonder if it is little more than a subversive attempt to bypass the scientific process of peer review and supplant it with sensationalized speculation that gains an air of credibility thanks to eLife’s publication model.

Nonscientific Motivations?
All scientists want their work to be placed in the best light. They desire for people to appreciate the significance of their work. Berger and his collaborators are no exception. And they shouldn’t be criticized for these motives. But it appears as if they let their desires get the best of them. 

Sadly, paleoanthropology is unusually susceptible to nonscientific influences when advancing ideas. Many fossil and archaeological sites have scant, precious remains available for scientists to study. At best, the remains tell an incomplete story. As a result, paleoanthropologists are left looking through the glass dimly. Yet they are tasked with offering an interpretation of their finds. This is where philosophical and scientific preconceptions and commitments—and career aspirations—can come into play. 

Science journalist Jon Mooallem made this point a few years ago in a New York Times piece. He stated:

All sciences operate by trying to fit new data into existing theories. And this particular science, for which the “data” has always consisted of scant and somewhat inscrutable bits of rock and fossil, often has to lean on those meta-narratives even more heavily. . . . Ultimately, a bottomless relativism can creep in: tenuous interpretations held up by webs of other interpretations, each strung from still more interpretations. Almost every archaeologist I interviewed complained that the field has become “overinterpreted”—that the ratio of physical evidence to speculation about that evidence is out of whack. Good stories can generate their own momentum.⁶

With the expert help of Mannucci, Berger and his collaborators have told a good story about H. naledi. Yet, it’s a tale that signifies nothing. It’s an account that lacks evidential support.

At the end of the day, what we genuinely know about H. naledi doesn’t challenge the notion of human exceptionalism. And for Christians, it doesn’t undermine the biblical claim that we are uniquely made in God’s image—the crown of creation.  

We do, indeed, stand alone. Humans are the only creatures who have ever lived that have the capacity to create the enterprise we call science—giving us tools to systematically investigate and understand the world. We are the only creatures who have the wherewithal to ask metaphysical questions about who we are and our place in the cosmos. And we are the only creatures who have the capacity to tell stories designed to answer these questions.

Resources

• Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity by Fazale Rana (book)

• “Does Homo naledi Undermine the Case for Human Exceptionalism?” by Fazale Rana (article)

• Stars, Cells, and God: Homo naledi Art? and Sandgrouse Features by Fazale Rana and Jeff Zweerink (video)

• “Were Neanderthals People, Too? A Response to Jon Mooallem” by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

1. Alison George, “Homo naledi May Have Made Etchings on Cave Walls and Buried Its Dead,” New Scientist, June 5, 2023.
2. Lee R. Berger et al., “241,000 to 335,000 Years Old Rock Engravings Made by Homo naledi in the Rising Star Cave System, South Africa,” BioRxiv (June 5, 2023), doi:10.1101/2023.06.01.543133; Lee R. Berger et al., “Evidence for Deliberate Burial of the Dead by Homo naledi,” BioRxiv (June 5, 2023), doi:10.1101/2023.06.01.543127; Agustin Fuentes et al., “Burials and Engravings in a Small-Brained Hominin, Homo naledi, from the Late Pleistocene: Contexts and Evolutionary Implications,” BioRxiv (June 5, 2023), doi:10.1101/2023.06.01.543135.
3. Robin McKie, “Were Small-Brained Humans Intelligent? Row Erupts Over Scientists’ Claims,” The Guardian (July 22, 2023).
4. Ewen Callaway, “Sharp Criticism of Controversial Ancient-Human Claims Tests eLife’s Revamped Peer-Review Model,” Nature 620 (July 25, 2023): 13–14, doi:10.1038/d41586-023-02415-w.
5. Callaway, “Sharp Criticism.” 
6. Jon Mooallem, “Neanderthals Were People, Too,” New York Times Magazine, January 11, 2017.

The post A Response to “Unknown: Cave of Bones” appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

—The scholar department team at RTB

I frequently see comments on social media claiming, “We are all God’s children.” Generally, people intend this sentiment to mean that God has the same relationship with every human equally. The implication is that God relates to each person directly as heavenly Father. Sometimes this phrase is even used to affirm universal salvation (i.e., that everyone will ultimately be saved).

The question, however, is does the Bible actually teach that everyone is a child of God? Let’s take a closer look at some of the key Scriptures that address this question.

God as Creator
All humans are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27). Even after the fall of Adam into sin, Scripture describes how God made humans “a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor” (Psalm 8:5). In fact, after Noah’s Flood God declares that the warrant for capital punishment stems from humans being God’s image bearers (Genesis 9:4–6). The apostle James warns Christians not to verbally disparage someone else: “With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be” (James 3:9–10).

When we put these Scriptures together, two important truths emerge. First, humans are fallen. Second, humans maintain the image of God, inherent dignity, value, and worth amid their fallenness. Both of these descriptions are universally applied to all humans in all times and all places.

There is one reference in the New Testament where humans are universally described as being the “offspring of God,” and that is in the apostle Paul’s sermon to the philosophers in Athens. God is described as the Creator of everything, including all of humanity.

From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. . . . As some of your own poets have said, “We are his offspring” (Acts 17:24–28).

Paul’s description, however, doesn’t connote a direct father-child relationship between the Creator and all humans. Rather, it is more of a generic description about the origin of humanity, like referring to George Washington as the “father of our country.” In this way, God acts as the source or progenitor of all humanity.

God as Father
God the Father has only one begotten Son (John 3:16). However, humans have the potential to become one of God’s children through adoption. The work of Jesus on the cross opens up the possibility for us to become co-heirs with Jesus as a child of God. Christ, and Christ alone, is “the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6).

We get further insight into Paul’s theology on this matter when we observe how he opens many of his epistles with phrases like, “God our Father” (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3). In context, it’s clear that he is referring to Christians, not all of humanity. There are many places where Paul explicitly uses the analogy of adoption to describe the Christian’s relationship with the Father:

• But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. (Galatians 4:4–5)
• He predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will. (Ephesians 1:5)
• So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26–28, emphasis added)
• For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory (Romans 8:14–17).

God has knit together a new people, consisting of Jews and Gentiles, men and women, rich and poor, slave and free. These are the people who have become the children of God.

The apostle John explains that we become God’s children through grace rather than birthright. Even though Jesus was rejected by many, “yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12, emphasis added). In other words, not everyone wears the title “child of God.”

Interestingly, Jesus even goes so far as to call some who are outside of his family as belonging to their “father, the devil” who carry out their “father’s desires,” including lying and murder (John 8:44). Paul makes similar statements in Ephesians, warning the church about the “prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience” (2:2) and again “Let no one deceive you with empty words . . . the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.” (5:6). Who are these “sons of disobedience”? They are those who are not in a covenant relationship with the Father through Jesus.

That brings us to a critical point. While not everyone is a child of God, Jesus extends the invitation to become one to all. I pray for everyone to know what it is like to be a child of God, to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and to experience the forgiveness and love of the Father.

Belonging
This framework raises a provocative question about a popular church strategy. It is expressed in the phrase: belong, believe, behave. There are a number of videos and articles available on the Internet summarizing the view, but here is a short one. An increasing number of churches advocate this idea of inviting non-Christians on a journey to explore who Jesus is, and even to feel a sense of belonging to a church community prior to believing in Jesus as Savior.

While I’m sympathetic to the idea of creating a warm and welcoming environment for non-Christians, I have concerns about the long-term impact of this strategy. Merely hanging out with Christians doesn’t make someone a Christian. Being part of church culture doesn’t make someone a Christian. Yet, it’s not uncommon for some churches to allow people to serve in order to promote a sense of belonging. Without a clear call to believe in the gospel, this approach can lead to confusion for the seeker.

From a biblical perspective, we don’t “belong” to the church until we belong to Christ. To be a child of God is to be part of the body of Christ. The gateway to that position of belonging is grounded in belief. Without belief, there is no true belonging.

Resource
“Are We All God’s Children?” YouTube, Theology Mom, February 27, 2023, youtube.com/watch?v=LU0CFJTgfNI.

The post Article Highlight: Are We All God’s Children? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

It’s the tale of Plato’s Cave. In this allegory, Plato describes a group of prisoners chained to a wall deep within a cave. The only thing they can see is the cave wall in front of them. Occasionally, shadows are projected on the wall as people and animals walk past the cave opening. These shadows are all that the prisoners know of reality. But the shadows provide only a limited—and, at times, inaccurate—understanding of the real world. Only when the prisoners break free and escape the cave do they gain true knowledge about the world as it is.

While Plato would have each of us climb out of our own cave and ascend into the real world to gain access to the truth, some paleoanthropologists think that the only way we can know the truth about our origins is to descend into the cave—in this case the Rising Star cave system located in South Africa. This cave system is in an area called the Cradle of Humankind, a UNESCO World Heritage site.

The Rising Star cave system houses the remains of a highly enigmatic hominin called Homo naledi. Recently, a team of paleoanthropologists headed by Lee Berger of the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa made a splash when they announced that H. naledi buried their dead ritualistically, mastered fire, and made art.¹ These claims are shocking to many scientists because H. naledi had a brain size comparable to a chimpanzee. Most paleoanthropologists have long held the view that a large brain size was necessary for advanced cognition. But if these claims stand, they will upend the prevailing thinking among evolutionary biologists about what makes us human and prompt questions about why our brain evolved to be so large. Paleoanthropologist Christopher Stringer (who wasn’t affiliated with the research) said, “These are challenging finds, and they certainly make us think about what it is to be human.”²

A Theological Challenge
These claims also threaten to undermine the notion of human exceptionalism. Many paleoanthropologists have thought that ritualistic burials and art were possible only for modern humans. But if H. naledi was also engaged in these behaviors, perhaps modern humans aren’t unique at all. If so, such behavior would challenge the biblical claim that human beings uniquely bear God’s image.

As Berger states, “We are facing a remarkable discovery here of hominids, nonhumans with brains a third of the size of [modern] humans . . . burying their dead, using symbols, and engaging in meaning-making activities.” “Not only are [modern] humans not unique in their development of symbolic practices, but [we] may not have even invented such behaviors.”³

So, are Berger’s claims credible? Do these new insights undermine the concept of human exceptionalism and the theological view that humans uniquely bear God’s image? How should Christians make sense of hominins such as H. naledi?

Before I offer my perspective on the finds and these questions, a bit of background on H. naledi may be helpful.

Homo naledi’s Recent Discovery
The remains of Homo naledi were unearthed in 2013 and the first scientific reports on this hominin surfaced in 2015. Berger’s team recovered about 1,550 fossils from the Dinaledi Chamber of the Rising Star cave system. These fossils corresponded to about 730 skeletal elements from 15 individuals that spanned from infancy to old age at the time of death. 

H. naledi had an unusual anatomy that appears to blend Homo and australopithecine features. This creature was about 4 feet in height, weighed about 90 pounds, and had a brain size that approximated a chimpanzee’s. Its lower limbs resembled those of an early member of Homo, indicating that this creature had a human-like gait. Its arms and torso were reminiscent of an australopithecine, indicating that this hominin could also move through the trees using arboreal locomotion. No tools were recovered in the Dinaledi chamber, but the hand structure indicates that H. naledi had the dexterity to manufacture and handle tools. Based on the tooth wear, this creature appeared to consume gritty foods, perhaps dirt-covered tubers and roots.

H. naledi’s position in the human evolutionary tree is uncertain. When originally recovered, its remains were undated. But based on the hominin’s blended anatomical features, Berger and his collaborators speculated that H. naledi lived about 2 million years ago and may well have been the key transitional form that gave rise to early H. erectus and the Homo genus. 

However, to everyone’s surprise, when the H. naledi site was dated, the hominin was discovered to have lived around 330,000 to 250,000 years ago. This much more recent date would make it a contemporary with Neanderthals, Denisovans, archaic Homo sapiens, and perhaps modern humans.

Homo naledi Funerals?
Even more startling than H. naledi’s unusual anatomy was the claim from Berger’s team that this hominin buried its dead and by doing so engaged in funerary practices. This behavior connotes a sense of the afterlife and implies the capacity for symbolism.

To understand the basis for the claim, it helps to have some understanding of the Dinaledi Chamber’s location in the Rising Star cave system (see figure 1). The cave entrance leads to a descent of approximately 150 feet that terminates in an extremely narrow passage called Superman’s Crawl. The only way through the passage is for the caver to hold one arm tightly against his/her body and extend the other one straight above the head—like Superman in flight. This narrow passage opens into a large chamber that contains a stair-like structure that extends upward about 50 feet toward the ceiling, called the Dragon’s Back. At the top of Dragon’s Back is a narrow opening that leads to a chute that drops to the floor of the Dinaledi Chamber.

Figure 1: Depiction of a Section of the Rising Star Cave System Showing Access to the Dinaledi Chamber
Credit: Wikipedia

Dinaledi Chamber is the location of the H. naledi remains. These remains are well preserved and mostly articulated. They show no evidence of damage from predators, and do not appear to have been washed into the chamber by flooding. These features led Berger and his collaborators to conclude that H. naledi must have intentionally buried their dead in the chamber. Because it would have been so difficult to carry a dead body from the surface (cave entrance) to the chamber, where it would have been deposited, Berger argued that the burial must have been ritualistic in nature. If so, it means that H. naledi would have had symbolic capabilities. 

A recent preprint on H. naledi presents apparent evidence for ritualistic burials.⁴ Berger and his team recovered the remains of a single individual consisting of 83 bones and teeth in an area of disturbed soil shaped like an oval. Elsewhere in the chamber they found bones and teeth from a single juvenile that had seemingly formed into a fetal position. This location also contains partial remains of three other juveniles. A crescent-shaped stone with striations was recovered near the hand of one of the juveniles. Berger and his team contend that the orientation of the bones and the disturbed soil indicate that these individuals were deliberately interred in pits that were dug out from the Dinaledi Chamber floor.

While Berger’s interpretation of the burial evidence is plausible, other interpretations are equally plausible—and perhaps more reasonable. Instead of performing a ritualistic burial, could H. naledi have been caching their dead? But if so, why choose a location that is so hard to get to? It could be that Superman’s Crawl was much wider in the past than today. If so, the chamber with the Dragon’s Back would have been more accessible.

If this hominin was caching its dead, is there evidence that H. naledi dropped the remains down the chute? Perhaps. Yet, the recovery of nearly intact H. naledi remains far from the bottom of the chute refutes this explanation. In some instances, the intact remains are buried underneath scattered remains of several different H. naledi individuals. If H. naledi was dropping its dead down the chute, then the most intact individuals should be near the chute and on top of remains that display greater skeletal disarticulation.⁵ Still, if this latter pattern is verified, does it indicate that H. nalediwas transporting the remains of their dead group members down the chute into the Dinaledi Chamber?

Not necessarily. Some geologists who have been in the Rising Star cave system believe that the Dragon’s Back resulted from a relatively recent ceiling collapse.⁶ If so, then when H. naledi occupied the cave, Dragon’s Back wouldn’t have existed. And the chute that drops into the chamber would have been about 50 feet from the cave floor and inaccessible to H. naledi.

Paleoanthropologist Aurore Val has argued that there may have been an alternative entrance to the Dinaledi Chamber that was easily accessible from the surface.⁷ She has also challenged the claim that the H. naledi remains from the chamber weren’t modified by predators. She maintains that the absence of the heads on the long bones is a sure indicator that the remains were processed by predators. She has also identified evidence that beetles and snails damaged the H. nalediremains and contributed to their decomposition. The chamber conditions aren’t ideal for snails and beetles and no snail remains were recovered there. These two observations imply that significant decomposition of the H. naledi remains took place on the surface before they were deposited in the chamber. These observations support the notion that H. naledi was caching its dead using an opening into the chamber that was easily accessed from the surface and that no longer exists.

What about the H. naledi remains associated with oval areas formed from disturbed soil? In a piece published at The Conversation website, four paleoanthropologists point out that none of the claimed H. naledi burials satisfy the standards used by paleoanthropologists to determine if hominin remains have been deliberately buried.⁸ They argue that these locations on the cave floor don’t appear to be deliberately excavated and may simply be shallow areas. They also note that the remains don’t appear to have been aligned, nor do they display the high degree of skeletal articulation expected if the remains were deliberately buried.

H. naledi Fires?
Berger also contends that these creatures must have mastered fire because they would have needed to illuminate the cave so that they could make their way from the surface deep into the cave to the Dinaledi Chamber while transporting dead bodies. Berger recently announced at a lecture at the Carnegie Institution of Science that he had evidence that H. naledidid, indeed, master fire. It is important to point out that at the time of this writing, Berger and his collaborators have yet to publish their evidence.⁹ As such, it is an unsubstantiated claim.

Nevertheless, in support of his claim, Berger points to blackened areas on the ceiling of the Dinaledi Chamber and soot particles on some of the rocks. He also notes that stone hearths containing burnt antelope bones have been found in other areas of the Rising Star cave system.

Some researchers interpret this evidence differently. It could well be that the blackened areas on the cave ceiling come from mineral discoloration, not burning activity. Without dates for the soot particles and the burnt antelope remains, it’s impossible to connect the hearth construction and the presumed burning activity with H. naledi. It’s possible that the hearths were constructed and used by cave dwellers other than H. naledi (such as archaic or modern humans). 

The team of four paleoanthropologists mentioned earlier questions the fire mastery claims. They write, “Yet none of the scientific research needed to confirm the use of fire has been carried out. Or if it has, it hasn’t been published. Previously acquired radiocarbon dates obtained by the site investigators on the apparent hearth material provided very late dates that distanced the hearths from the remains of Homo naledi by several hundred thousand years.”¹⁰

H. naledi Art?
In another preprint, Berger and his collaborators claim that they have evidence of H. naledi artwork in the Dinaledi Chamber.¹¹ This putative art takes the form of hatch marks that were impressed into a pillar in the chamber. The hatch marks appear to form several patterns including Xs, crosses, triangles, and squares that the Berger team interprets as geometric shapes. Presumably, the hatch marks were made using a tool like the one found near one of the juveniles in the oval area of disturbed soil on the chamber floor.

I question whether these hatch marks legitimately constitute art or some type of symbol. I had a dog who scratched furniture. When he did, he left behind markings that formed geometric patterns. So, is it possible that H. naledi simply marked on the cave wall without any artistic intent whatsoever?

Even if the hatch marks are art, there’s no evidence that they were produced by H. naledi. It could be that this “art” was made more recently by another hominin occupying the cave site. The hatch marks haven’t been dated. Until they are, there’s no way to know who the “artist” might have been.

The Mystery Continues
Without question, H. naledi is a fascinating, enigmatic hominin. Berger and his co-investigators deserve much credit for the work they’ve done to unearth and characterize H. naledi. Scientific mystery and intrigue surround this creature. Yet, at this juncture, one would be hard-pressed to conclude that this small-brained hominin buried its dead ritualistically, mastered fire, and produced art. The evidence presented to support these claims is scant and their interpretations are rife with speculation. In fact, given H. naledi’s brain size, we wouldn’t expect this hominin to have these capabilities at all. 

Alternative scenarios readily account for the archaeological evidence associated with H. naledi—scenarios that seem more likely given the brain size of this creature. A more sober-minded approach understands H. naledi to be a fascinating creature with intelligence and emotional capacity but, unlike modern humans, it lacked the cognitive capacity to engage in symbolic behaviors. In short, H. naledi poses little threat to the idea of human exceptionalism. 

For Further Exploration

• “One-of-a-Kind: Three Discoveries Affirm Human Uniqueness” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “New Research Douses Claims that Neanderthals Mastered Fire” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Did Neanderthals Start Fires?” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Neanderthal Burials Deep-Sixed” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Did Neanderthals Bury Their Dead with Flowers?” by Fazale Rana

• “Rabbit Burrowing Churns Claims about Neanderthal Burials” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Cave Art Tells the Story of Human Exceptionalism” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Did Neanderthals Produce Cave Paintings?” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Did Neanderthals Make Art?” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Further Review Overturns Neanderthal Art Claim” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Did Neanderthals Have the Brains to Make Art?” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Do Neanderthal Cave Structures Challenge Human Exceptionalism?” by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

1. Lee R. Berger et al., “241,000 to 335,000 Years Old Rock Engravings Made by Homo naledi in the Rising Star Cave System, South Africa,” BioRxiv (June 5, 2023), doi:10.1101/2023.06.01.543133; Lee R. Berger et al., “Evidence for Deliberate Burial of the Dead by Homo naledi,” BioRxiv (June 5, 2023), doi:10.1101/2023.06.01.543127; Agustin Fuentes et al., “Burials and Engravings in a Small-Brained Hominin, Homo naledi, from the Late Pleistocene: Contexts and Evolutionary Implications,” BioRxiv (June 5, 2023), doi:10.1101/2023.06.01.543135.
2. Alison George, “Homo naledi May Have Made Etchings on Cave Walls and Buried Its Dead,” New Scientist, June 5, 2023. 
3. Ann Gibbons, “Was a Small-Brained Human Relative the World’s First Gravedigger—and Artist?” Science, June 5, 2023. 
4. Lee R. Berger et al., “Evidence for Deliberate Burial of the Dead by Homo naledi,” BioRxiv (June 5, 2023), doi:10.1101/2023.06.01.543127.
5. Bruce Bower, “Pieces of Homo naledi Story Continue to Puzzle,” Science News (April 19, 2016). 
6. Private email correspondence with Sue Dykes, a paleoanthropologist who had been in the Rising Star cave system, September 11, 2015.
7. Aurore Val, “Deliberate Body Disposal by Hominins in the Dinaledi Chamber, Cradle of Humankind, South Africa? Journal of Human Evolution 96 (July 2016): 145–148, doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.02.004.
8. Petraglia et al., “Major New Research Claims Small-Brained Homo naledi Made Rock Art and Buried the Dead. But the Evidence is Lacking,” The Conversation, June 5, 2023. 
9. Alison George, “Homo naledi May Have Used Fire to Cook and Navigate 230,000 Years Ago,” New Scientist, December 6, 2022. 
10. Michael Petraglia et al., “Major New Research Claims.”
11.  Berger et al., “241,000 to 335,000 Years Old Rock Engravings.”

The post Does <i>Homo naledi</i> Undermine the Case for Human Exceptionalism? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.