Science @ The John Ankerberg Show

Perfection? or Purpose?

2008-05-20T15:46:00.001-04:00

Many people are troubled by the pain and suffering caused by natural tragedies such as hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and earthquakes. Some even ask how God could permit such incidents to occur with their resulting loss of life. To those affected adversely by such horrific and violent events, any explanation may seem unsatisfying. But viewed against the backdrop of God’s purpose for this created realm, we may be able to perceive a broader picture.

From the moment God created our universe with its dimensions of space, time, matter, and energy, the universe has been subject to a Second Law of Thermodynamics overlay. It is also called the Law of Entropy, or the Law of Decay. This means there is always a natural flow from a higher energy state to a lower state. In an easy-to-understand example, a cup of hot coffee, left to itself, always cools, never warms. Some difficult or unfortunate effects result from the Second Law, but in countless ways there are also wonderful benefits for our life and home on Planet Earth.

Let’s use an example from the world of weather. Our sun, in existence for over four billion years, radiates its energy in all directions. One billionth of the sun’s heat energy reaches earth and becomes the driving force behind earth’s weather. The sun’s heat falls more directly on regions around the equator, less directly on polar regions. Equatorial regions, therefore, receive more heat. Obeying the Law of Decay, earth’s warmer areas interact with cooler ones in an effort to correct this imbalance. Earth’s rotation adds interesting complexity to the picture. Every feature of our weather is driven by these factors, ranging from cloudless spring days to beneficial rains to occasional violent hurricanes. What lesson may we take from this? Second Law-driven weather is a life-nourishing feature of our home on Planet Earth!

What may we say, then, about the infrequent but highly publicized weather disasters which take lives? In a perfect world, some would say there would be no inconvenience, no pain, no hurricanes, and no death. Perhaps that is true. God pronounced His creation very good (Gen. 1:31). He did not pronounce it perfect. When we apply God-given wisdom, such as heeding forecasts, obeying building codes, and shunning hazard-prone areas, we are able to avoid most disasters. A perfect world of man’s design would likely be a disappointment in many ways. But God’s design for our world fits His purposes. For humanity and all God’s other created life on this planet, it is a very good world.

The Law of Entropy

2008-05-18T07:50:00.002-04:00

At “God’s initial creative act,” as I used to describe The Big Bang to my astronomy students, the universe began in its state of highest order, according to Stephen Hawking. His book A Brief History of Time, written in 1988, has become a secular classic. Disorder (entropy) has been increasing ever since the initial creation event. Imagine a completed jig-saw puzzle lying at the bottom of a box, displaying a beautiful complete, ordered picture. If the box is periodically shaken, the puzzle pieces will gradually break apart and lose the image of the initial picture. Disorder will increase. Eventually the puzzle will approach a condition of total disorder. In science, this overwhelming universal tendency is known as the Law of Entropy.

An age progression picture of our universe would show, for example, heat energy diffusing and becoming less useful as the universe expands. Manifestations of decay are everywhere. Infusions of energy from another part of the universe’s closed system could temporarily create an isolated “island” of apparent increased order--when a crew builds a new home, for instance--but at the expense of order and energy in some other place. Generally, the universal trend shows things running inexorably downhill.

New Testament scriptures deal with the phenomena of decay and increased disorder in both the physical and spiritual spheres. Romans 8:21 states the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay (NIV). This surprising verse refers to the physical, material creation. Verse 20 suggests that God, as creator, “subjected” the creation to this condition deliberately. In the spiritual realm, there are several startling verses suggesting that even the redemption of mankind was in the mind of God before the beginning of time (I Cor. 2:7, II Tim. 1:19, Tit. 1:2 NIV). Redemption from what, I would ask? It appears God deliberately designed the universe with an overlay of decay and with the knowledge that man would need redemption from the fallen condition they would willfully choose.

Some scientist/theologians have suggested that the entropy of the universe provides the perfect setting for the eventual elimination of both physical decay and spiritual decay--man’s separation from God. In the coming New Creation (II Pet. 3:13, Rev. 21:1 NIV), the universal tendency toward physical decay and spiritual alienation from God will be banished.

God's Voice Thunders

2008-05-09T12:01:00.002-04:00

Outdoor commencement exercises are moving and memorable. In the mid-1960s the school district where I taught science held its eighth grade graduation program outdoors. Students were the featured speakers, delivering themed addresses and recitations, including the invocation and benediction. Near the end of the ceremony one June evening, a young man was nearing the end of his recitation with a line beginning “This GREAT God…” Immediately a loud thunderclap pealed from overhead. Fortunately for the audience, the program was about to end.

The lightning which causes thunder commands prudent safety precautions and provokes many varied emotions. Charges of millions of volts of electricity are instantly released, generating brief temperatures of over 10,000 degrees C. The sound of thunder is caused as lightning produces a sudden wave of compressed air molecules. The thunder seems to roll for many seconds as sound arrives from more and more distant parts of the lightning bolt. Many people never overcome their fear of these phenomena. Others experience the thrill of excitement and overpowering wonder as they seek the best vantage points to watch and listen safely. Notwithstanding the unease thunderstorms produce in some people, they are a major source of beneficial rainfall in many locations. Scientists estimate that some 1800 thunderstorms are occurring on earth at any given moment. Surely it is one of nature’s most gripping events.

Scripture contains many references to thunder. The usual imagery is that thunder represents the power of God or the voice of God. That metaphor is appropriate as we contemplate the emotions it produces. The last few chapters of the Old Testament Book of Job are a treasury of meteorological metaphors and spiritual depth. These passages inspire us with scientific insights and a reverent sense of worship of the Creator.

At this my heart pounds and leaps from its place. Listen! Listen to the roar of his voice, to the rumbling that comes from his mouth. He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth. After that comes the sound of his roar: he thunders with his majestic voice. When his voice resounds, he holds nothing back. God’s voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding (Job 37:1-5 NIV).

Spring Renewal

2008-05-05T08:48:00.001-04:00

Our recent post on bird songs highlights the transition from winter silence to springtime song. Spring also affects our local trees, now slowly springing to life and tinged with pastel green. Let’s address another change associated with the onset of spring–-visual changes in the plant world which accompany the audible ones in the animal world.

In a deep winter February moment of despair we might have imagined that the dry, gray tree branches swaying in sub-zero blasts of cold were dead. Fast-forward to early May, however, and signs of renewed life are everywhere. Our home is situated in a biome called the “temperate deciduous forest.” Most of the trees lose their leaves in autumn after their summer food-making tasks are completed. They have sent carbon and nitrogen compounds in the form of proteins to storage cells in the tree roots and inner bark.

Come spring, when nights shorten, days lengthen, and temperatures rise, the trees detect the gradual changes. It is time for the roots and inner bark to give up their stored nutrients for the leaf-building process. Water and soil minerals make their upward journey. After several weeks, thousands of leaves on each tree have achieved full size, sporting their characteristic blade shapes and other identifiers. Leaf characteristics join branching patterns, bark textures, flowering and fruit production habits, and size limits as traits which never vary from the genetic blueprint. The tree knows exactly what to do and when to do it.

Descriptions of anatomy and behavior are exceedingly plentiful in animal and plant literature. But I have been surprised by the lack of explanations for the apparent “intelligence” underlying their behavior. How does an arrangement of molecules in DNA govern the unique behavior of each species? That intelligence is surely more than the reductionist might claim when he explains these behaviors as mere manifestations of “molecules in motion.”

Springtime in temperate climate zones provides many examples of nature’s work/rest cycles. God instructed Moses to establish a work/rest sequence for the Israelites in order to provide physical and spiritual benefits. Nature’s cycle mechanisms also reflect biblical exhortations to shift from idle barrenness to the bloom of active spiritual renewal. The spring season provides an object lesson for Christ’s resurrection–-the transition from death to life. God has given His children many models of spiritual reality from the world of nature. Be alert for these lessons!

From Silence to Song

2008-05-01T08:49:00.001-04:00

When spring arrives in northwest Illinois, our stony winter silence is broken by joyful, sometimes raucous bird songs. At this time of year, male birds stake out their nesting and food-gathering territories and proclaim themselves to be the most worthy mating partners. Now and then a squabble between male robins or cardinals enlivens the action, but the disputes are soon settled in favor of the dominant participants.

What prescribes the special song of a robin, a cardinal, or a bluebird? Plentiful literature on bird behavior is mostly descriptive rather than explanatory. Is there an explanation for the unique identifiers such as the cardinal’s noisy proclamation, the robin’s incessant narrative, or the bluebird’s liquid warble? In most cases the song seems to be intrinsically programmed. Young birds, however, also rely on listening to the veterans to master the finer points of their recital.

Later, the birds will construct a nest to fledge their young. It will conform to definite specifications. Will it be a bowl of grass fragments held together by mud and located beneath the deck? An intricately woven structure suspended from a tree branch? Or perhaps even a mere depression on the ground? And what about characteristics of flight, also precisely programmed according to species? Some birds soar, riding thermals. Others are able to hover noiselessly or rocket through a thick forest without touching a branch. Certain birds fly purposefully in a straight line. Some birds fly with steady wing strokes, others with regular brief pauses. Flying habits range from rapid, labored wing beats to slow, graceful, fluid movements. Many birds seem to enjoy following and chasing each other, making several sharp directional changes each second.

We have not mentioned the visual appearance of the 775 bird species found in the U.S. and Canada, or the 8700 bird species found worldwide. Their physical characteristics are the source of great wonder, awe, and enjoyment. Coded DNA accounts for each and every physical trait passed from generation to generation. Scientists may even be able to pinpoint the locations of genes responsible for characteristics such as plumage coloring and beak shape. But behavioral uniqueness may be a different story. Who knows the exact cause of these unique and mysterious behaviors?

Whether our amazement is triggered by watching neighborhood birds from the back deck or by pondering a bird encyclopedia, we can’t help but perceive that the beauty and uniqueness of these familiar creatures who annually proclaim the arrival of spring must be the handiwork of a Creator.

SETI

2008-04-26T09:27:00.002-04:00

“Intelligence” as an underlying cause of observed natural phenomena is a forbidden word in the academic world of science. Leaders in that world investigate only “natural” cause and effect. The idea of intelligence, or the more formal intelligent design (ID), is said to be a religious concept and therefore out of bounds. However, a startling irony is revealed in the secular SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) movement. For a time SETI was an adjunct of the government’s NASA program. It received some taxpayer money for activities such as microwave surveys of the heavens, searching for indicators of intelligent life in distant space. Budget-cutting removed all government support in 1993, to the disappointment of scientists. It continues, however, with private funding.

If an “intelligent” signal were to be received from outer space, no doubt that signal would be in the form of a code. Scientists would evaluate the code and then agree on the meaning of the code’s message. This would create an instant public sensation. It would be recognized as one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. Intelligence would be “proven” to exist in another part of our universe. If SETI enthusiasts even proved that a microwave signal from a distant galaxy was produced by intelligent beings, that discovery would be hailed as a great scientific achievement.

Before we get too carried away with enthusiasm, let’s return to earth. The DNA molecule contained within the cell is responsible for the nuances of every physical trait and every physical function of each human being on earth. DNA contains coded information responsible for differentiating each human being from six billion others on our planet. That code also differentiates each of the millions of earth species from every other species. This submicroscopic repository of information has no equal. The DNA code is complex beyond comprehension. Codes are always produced by an intelligent agent and are the product of a mind.

When disagreements over issues of intelligent design arise, we must realize that differences in worldview may be at the heart of the disagreement. More people are recognizing that science, evidence-based as it is, may be better-served by admitting design as an explanatory option in some cases. Isaiah 45:18-19 (NIV) is not unscientific because it speaks about the activities of God, the Creator: For this is what the Lord says – he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited – he says: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. Isaiah’s statements invite observation and testing.

A reader reaction: Theistic evolution

2008-04-23T14:39:00.003-04:00

We encourage email responses to our blog content. Our 4/19 post generated a thoughtful, detailed response worth sharing with our readers. The writer responded to several specific points in the post.

Point: Theistic evolutionists would say God endowed matter with self-organizing capabilities. Reaction: Accepting the exact same intrinsic principle as naturalistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists are not supported by hard, observational science in this assessment. This is bad science.

Point: Dr. Francis Collins sanctions the idea of molecules-to-man evolution and claims there is no conflict with his evangelical faith. Reaction: I find theistic evolution extremely inconsistent in its biblical interpretation. For example, theistic evolutionists are quick to point out that they regard the Genesis account of creation as allegory and metaphor, seriously lacking in scientific credibility. Yet, they strongly defend the historical narrative found in the Gospels and the entirety of the New Testament. Why isn’t the New Testament allegory and metaphor as well? It is chock full of the miraculous. And what about Jesus, Luke, and Paul? They all refer back to Adam and Eve. Were they just symbols? Was the fall of mankind just a story written by the scientifically illiterate? If so, why did Jesus have to come and die on the cross? And what about the 200 references in the New Testament to people, places, and events in Genesis? And what about 100 or so references in the New Testament to Genesis 1-11? I think it’s fair to say that New Testament authors and Christ himself did not believe it to be allegory, metaphor, or merely meaningful myths.

Point: Theistic evolution locks arms with naturalistic evolution in many significant ways. Reaction: It locks arms with a theory whose very foundational roots are atheistic in nature. Evolution, as derived by its founder, Charles Darwin, and practiced by the vast majority of the current scientific community, is an inherently atheistic scientific theory. It also locks arms with a theory that is quite inconsistent with sound, scholarly, biblical interpretation.

Point: In deciding between theistic evolution and creationism, the Christian must constantly consider whether nature calls attention to itself, or to the Creator. Reaction: I think the Christian would be better served considering whether evolution is good science at all. No testable explanation for the origin of the cosmos, the origin of DNA, the origin of the cell, the sudden appearances that dominate the fossil record, and the unique intellectual, moral, and spiritual capacity of mankind. Or the fact that it can’t quantify or qualify the precise anatomical and physiological steps required to turn a frog heart into a lizard heart, or a dinosaur lung into a bird lung, or an ape brain into a human brain, no matter how much time is allotted. I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of theistic evolutionists utilize the argument from authority to defend their position. I would challenge these individuals to take a much harder look at the claims of theistic evolution, both from a scientific and biblical perspective.

Expelled

2008-04-22T00:24:00.004-04:00

Expelled, the newly released movie by Ben Stein, will generate howls of horror by the community of evolutionists, particularly those in the academic world. Our readers should know what the furor is all about.

Intelligent design (ID) is a concept which has become popular mainly in the last two decades. It proposes that the multiple instances of precise fine tuning in the cosmos and the incredible functional complexity of living things from the cell to integrated organ systems bespeak origins which can best be explained by an intelligent agent. But any mention of ID in venues from research labs to public school classrooms generates mocking ridicule, or worse, from scientists and department heads securely locked in a box labeled “NATURAL EXPLANATIONS ONLY – NO SUPERNATURAL CONSIDERED!”

The case for design and the weaknesses of evolutionary theory are discussed in the film but play secondary roles as the film proceeds. Primary attention is devoted to the blatant suspension of academic freedom and the dangerous practices of social Darwinism such as the Holocaust, eugenics, and abortion. No professional scientist in the world of academia, no matter how well-reasoned and logical his proposal, no matter how his thesis otherwise conforms to recognized scientific principles, is ever allowed to propose, discuss, or even mention ID. The usual penalty if he does? Discipline, censure, non-renewal, and a bleak prospect for future employment. Many dismissed scientists, university officials who have sanctioned the dismissals, and well-known evolutionists are interviewed by Stein. The viewer is left to make conclusions primarily based on those interviews and historic film clips of the impact of social Darwinism in the 20th century.

This film will likely produce an “earthquake.” The strength of the worldview that supports evolution and excludes the supernatural will be tested. That worldview is that of atheism/naturalism. There will be a clash of atheism/naturalism with the theistic/Christian worldview. Expelled will take you on an emotional journey along the fault lines of the earthquake. It is a powerful film!

Theistic evolution - Why not?

2008-04-19T19:11:00.002-04:00

Several Christian friends of mine are theistic evolutionists with whom I have had lively discussions. Theistic evolutionists state that God, at the beginning, brought all things into existence. They would also say that God endowed matter with self-organizing capabilities. Thereafter, God sustains matter and His natural laws, but plays no direct role. Theistic evolutionists and creationists alike would agree with the Apostle Paul in Colossians 1:16-17: Everything got started in him and finds its purpose in him. He was there before any of it came into existence and holds it together right up to this moment (The Message Translation).

In contrast, naturalistic evolutionists claim “nature is all there is.” They would not accept the idea that God programmed matter with self-organizing properties. The process of evolution has produced the most complex life present today. They do not believe God exists. Consequently, the truths expressed in Colossians 1:16-17 have no reality for them. Theistic evolutionists, while believing in God, also accept the innate ability of matter to produce man from the simplest ancestral life. They join with naturalistic evolutionists to endorse the principle of descent with modification. They believe mutation and natural selection drive the process.

When a well-known biologist becomes a theistic evolutionist and comes out unequivocally for both evolution and belief in God, it attracts considerable attention. Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and one of the world’s leading scientists, wrote The Language of God. This popular book is cited by many Christians as giving credence to theistic evolution, because Collins is a high profile, self-proclaimed Christian. Essentially, he sanctions the idea of molecules-to-man evolution and claims there is no conflict with his evangelical faith. What, then, could be the objection to theistic evolution?

Evolution and creationism are affirmed by two entirely different worldviews. Naturalistic evolution finds its fulfillment in nature and its inherent properties. Creationism has God as the natural world’s author and sustainer. Theistic evolution locks arms with naturalistic evolution in many significant ways. Miracles are not needed for the formation of complex physical life. For a theistic evolutionist, the dangers of absorbing naturalistic habits of thought are ever present. In deciding between theistic evolution and creationism, the Christian must constantly consider whether nature calls attention to itself, or to the Creator.

Open and closed science

2008-04-13T16:03:00.002-04:00

The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is an organization of scientists who are Christians sharing a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science. Craig Rusbult is chairman of ASA’s Science Education Commission. He has written a description of what he terms “open” and “closed” science. It highlights the problems inherent in the naturalistic restrictions under which professional scientists must work.

“Open science” is liberated from methodological naturalism (MN), even though it begins with an MN position. That is, all scientists start their work in pursuit of natural explanations for events or natural solutions for problems. If evidence and logic point to an end of the road for natural explanations, on rare occasions a scientist using open science would be willing to consider an explanation which does not force him to a naturalistic conclusion. For instance, the genetic code stored in the DNA molecule has no precedent in naturalism, since all codes are the product of a mind. Open science would allow possible supernatural causation as a topic for further research. The scientist would not be restricted to naturalism as the only explanatory option. But alas! Professional scientists do not practice open science. They practice “closed science.”

In “closed science” the opening assumption in any investigation is that all phenomena in nature are and have been natural occurrences. Therefore, any investigation must end with a naturalistic conclusion. This is an example of circular reasoning. It results in a true conclusion only if the original assumption is true. In previous posts we have established that science deals only with natural causation. But many science professionals have extended this idea to embrace the “nature is all there is” position. Unfortunately, even if a scientist uses the finest evidence and logic, any suggestion of supernatural intervention in the natural world or any kind of miracle at any point in time is unscientific by definition. In the mind of the public, unscientific has acquired a negative connotation.

We have extolled the many benefits of science in previous posts. The activities and discoveries of science, which can be seen as God-gifted, are mostly in the natural realm using God-ordained laws of nature. Our prayer for the future of science is for a movement toward open science where our gifts of logic and rationality do not exclude consideration of the reality of a Creator and His impact along the timeline of cosmic and biological history.

Darwinian stamina

2008-04-08T18:18:00.002-04:00

The stamina of evolution is well-known. There is no question that it is firmly ingrained in our science and in our culture. This is true partly because a well-developed model of creation has been absent until now. It is also true that the real weaknesses in the naturalistic model of evolution have been shielded from public scrutiny. And finally, it has survived because there is no better naturalistic explanation.

Scientific theories sometimes function better as guides for further research than as statements of truth. When weaknesses in a scientific theory become evident, scientists begin to propose alternate theories. Charles Darwin thought that if numerous successive, slight modifications could not form a complex organ, his theory would absolutely break down. When it became well-known that instead of gradualism, many sudden appearances of new species dominated the fossil record, evolutionists not only gave the phenomenon a name–-punctuated equilibrium–-but also proposed creative, even bizarre naturalistic theories to account for it.

Scientists began to pronounce evolution a “fact” because they “saw” that life forms changed over time. They began to use phrases like “we have discovered” or “we now know.” Inference from the fossil record began to be equated with factual evidence. The theory of mutation acting in concert with natural selection to account for new species became an article of faith. The science community embraced that idea because there was no better theory that conformed to the naturalistic requirements of the science establishment. Evolution was touted as good science, but in reality, it was the only science. A better naturalistic alternative did not exist.

After scientists accepted blind, purposeless processes as the driving force of evolution, it remained for them to convince the public. Included in the basket of belief in evolution is a belief that matter possesses the full capability of self-organizing into complex living systems. Evolutionary scientists, 90-95% of which are self-acknowledged atheists or agnostics, believe matter has this capability. This explains Richard Dawkins’ famous statement that Darwinism made it possible to become “an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Evolution needs no deity to direct the process or to smile on it from afar. While examining evolution’s underlying assumptions, therefore, some may want to rethink their own beliefs about origins. How is it sensible that theistic evolutionists blend a process perceived by scientists as unguided and naturalistic with the concepts of theism, God, and Creator?

Consilience

2008-04-05T11:26:00.005-04:00

For many years I have heard scientific laypeople, in conversations or letters, express their thoughts that evolution is “tested and proven…rock solid.” Strangely, most evolutionary scientists would probably not use that description, but they are pleased the public thinks that way. The support pillars for evolution are not nearly so massive. Let’s illustrate the point with a literary tussle from the early 1990s. Phillip E. Johnson, a brilliant lawyer, wrote a critique of Darwinism in 1991 entitled Darwin on Trial. For his effort, he has taken many cynical hits from evolutionists who do not like exposure of the weaknesses of evolution. Evolution is firmly ingrained in the very bone marrow of the scientific community and consequently, our culture. Anyone who challenges it becomes the victim of the “attack mode” by scientists, sympathetic media, the education system, the courts, and many others.

One famous scientist who has attacked Johnson was the late evolutionary guru Stephen Jay Gould. His 1992 rebuttal in Scientific American, entitled “Impeaching a Self-appointed Judge,” attempted to embarrass and mock Johnson more than defend evolution. Anyone who questions evolution these days may expect a counter attack, an indication of the very high stakes involved. He criticized Johnson for suggesting that traditional scientific methods such as observation, experimentation, and testability, were desirable investigative tools. Gould characterized Johnson's suggestion as "a narrow and blinkered caricature of science as experiment and immediate observation only." But Johnson's understanding of science was not so narrow. He objected to making the "explanatory power" of the theory almost equal to "fact." Gould's article went on to introduce an unfamiliar term - consilience of induction - to describe how evolutionary scientists work.

Consilience of induction? Consilience is an obscure word, meaning the joining or jumping together of knowledge and information across disciplines to create a unified framework of understanding. I respect the inductive insights scientists are blessed with, along with the value of consensus. But when the main support structure for evolution’s major thesis boils down to consilience and consensus rather than traditional scientific evidence, we may be dealing more with wishful thinking than with TRUTH.

Macroevolution vs. Microevolution

2008-03-30T19:23:00.003-04:00

Apologists for evolution frequently cite examples of microevolution to exemplify their major paradigm of “descent with modification from a common ancestor.” Microevolution involves small scale changes within a species. Let’s give two examples. Recently I read an article on “evolutionary” research by a scientist at Max Planck Institute. His research was “laboratory evolution” of M. Xanthus bacteria. Researchers provoked the bacteria into interesting behavioral changes. Later they reversed the changes. Generously salted into the report was the term evolution for the changes in both directions.

One of my former students once inquired, “What about Darwin’s finches?” He expected me to confirm an evolutionary scenario. To his surprise, I replied, “Yes, but they’re still finches!” Recently I challenged an evolutionary scientist, asking, “When has a new species actually appeared in historic time and under what circumstances has such a phenomenon been duplicated?” His answer: “There are many examples of ‘observing’ speciation, which, because of generation times, can only occur in organisms with very fast generation times.” My research revealed that he was referring to populations of organisms greater than a quadrillion and smaller in size than one centimeter. This would include microbes like M. Xanthus bacteria. In that experiment the researchers observed one thousand generations. He suggested we know speciation occurs “via inference from the fossil record,” and directed me to Richard Dawkins’ books.

Macroevolution, by contrast, is the production of a new species from previously existing species. The same scientist who recommended reading Dawkins’ books suggested I consider purported whale speciation from four-footed herbivores. This is an unproven, notoriously bad example of speciation, especially in view of his previous mention of fast generation times, a reference to tiny microbes. Real macroevolution, he said, is supported by inference. There is no solid evidence that it occurs, or ever occurred. Microevolution, however, is acknowledged to occur even by creationists. It is a type of adaptation which favors survivability but does not produce a new species. Darwin’s finches and M. Xanthus bacteria are still finches and bacteria at the end of the day. Adaptive ability can be seen as an advantage programmed by the Creator. In light of unproven and unobserved macroevolution, we may view scripture as more than mere majestic literature containing figurative language when it proclaims, “God made the wild animals according to their kinds” (Gen. 1:25 NIV).

Establishment of Religion?

2008-03-27T10:10:00.005-04:00

Imagine the following as part of a discussion taking place in a public school biology class: “Each of the eleven major human body systems is so incredibly complex, efficient, functional, and seamlessly integrated with the ten other major systems, that the option of design by an intelligent agent cannot be ruled out.” Government jurists would rule (and have ruled) that permitting such discussions would be an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Any similar proposal with the faintest hint of a religious overtone would be excluded because naturalism is the only permissible investigative option in the science community. The concepts of design and supernatural cause and effect may not be involved in any challenge to naturalist proposals of evolution within our public school walls.

Now we may ask, "Could religion, or religions, be enlisted to support the teaching of evolution by an agency receiving federal funds?" The answer is a surprising "Yes." The NCSE (National Center for Science Education) receives funding from the NSF (National Science Foundation), which, in turn, is an agency funded by the federal government to the tune of $6.06 billion. The NSF supports basic scientific research. It has given $450,000 to NCSE to support a website called “Understanding Evolution.” Its purpose is to instruct teachers about how to teach evolution. The website lists seventeen major church denominations and religious organizations that endorse evolution. It encourages teachers to tell their students that “most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution.” Religious beliefs, therefore, MAY NOT be used to question evolution, but MAY be cited in support of evolution. More astonishing, government money may be used to support the campaign.

A lawsuit to prevent such use of government funds was dismissed by controversial San Francisco federal judge Phyllis J. Hamilton in 2006, on the grounds that the internet is an Establishment-Clause-Free-Zone. In theory, therefore, the government could promote any sort of religion on the internet. The case is still in the legal pipeline. This amounts to government endorsement of particular religions - those endorsing evolution! What an irony that NCSE executive director Eugenie Scott, a self-proclaimed secular humanist and non-theist, counsels teachers to have students read statements by theologians and interview ministers!

The issue of evolution stretches beyond the scientific realm into cultural, political, and theological territory. The Christian must be thoroughly familiar with these implications, for they are among the most vital issues of our day.

The Power of Endorsement

2008-03-25T15:16:00.002-04:00

Belief in evolution is strengthened by support from religious authorities, ranging from two recent Roman Catholic popes to an array of mainline protestant clergy. In a culture where celebrities endorse commercial products and presidential candidates, we may wonder whether endorsements of a controversial theory like evolution by religious figures are effective. Discussions on this topic may rival the intensity of political exchanges.

Pope Pius XII, in his 1950 Humani Generis encyclical, stated, “The Teaching Authority of the church does not forbid that…research and discussion…take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution.” He added a clear caveat, however, saying, “The Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.” Pope John Paul II went much farther in 1996, addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, stating, “The theory of evolution is much more than a hypothesis.” He cited its progressive acceptance by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The pope said such convergence “is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory,” but reiterated the fact that “the spiritual soul is immediately created by God.”

Why did Pope John Paul II encourage the faithful to accept the theory of evolution? Because the community of science professionals had accepted it. What had they accepted, we may ask? The pope continued: “A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation.” He went on to say that verification and testing of the theory continues. Pope John Paul II spoke of a “spiritual soul” to set man uniquely apart, but believed man’s physical body evolved from lower life forms.

Catholics, therefore, have two levels of support for belief in molecules to man evolution: (1) The pope’s reminder that secular scientists have accepted the “metascientific elaboration” known as the theory of evolution; and (2) His sanction of the theory. These support structures should not prevent the thinking Christian from a critical scriptural and scientific truth search concerning the origin of earth’s remarkable life forms, especially man in the Image of God.

Implications of NOMA

2008-03-18T12:29:00.003-04:00

Several years ago I initiated written communication with two well-known evolutionary scientists. Much of the discussion centered on the interaction of science and religion. I cannot report that minds were changed. It was, however, a useful and respectful exchange. At the end, we all gave each other permission to share the conversation with friends and colleagues, a most encouraging development.

We have previously spoken about Stephen Jay Gould’s NOMA principle—that science and religion are separate domains and should not overlap. Evolutionary scientists guard their domain with intense jealousy lest their paradigm be eroded by the intrusion of religion. Theistic explanations undermine their belief that naturalism explains everything. Though evolutionists might acknowledge that some scientists have deep religious beliefs, a science scholar’s paper presenting evidence for theism would certainly be refused by an academic journal. This is partly because evolutionary biology academia is heavily atheistic and agnostic. Even scientists with deep religious beliefs practice their science with an overlay of methodological naturalism (9-29-07 post).

Let’s paraphrase a few points of objection made by my friends: (1) We just explain our ignorance when we inject religion; (2) Religion should not be part of scientific inquiry; (3) We should respect scientists’ right to pursue secular aspects of research; (4) Science is not charged with application of a religious doctrine; (5) Religionists may attempt to explain anything with the supernatural; (6) Intelligent design represents a dead end in a science class; (7) We don’t want to come to the science room for religious enlightenment; (8) Neither religion nor science needs validation from the other; (9) Mixing the domains insults both and works to the detriment of both; and (10) Science is not science anymore when it goes beyond the “natural.”

Thorough analysis of each of these objections demands far more time and space than we have. Some objections possess elements of truth. I submit, however, that most border on emotional, psychological appeals having little relevance to the issue of truth discovery. When “inference to the best explanation” points toward an interpretation which may run counter to modern science ideology, the science community should acknowledge that “thinking outside the box” may offer a more fruitful account of reality. In the historical sciences, few, if any, complex issues are proven beyond any doubt. Sometimes painstaking attempts at naturalistic explanations lead to a dead end. When such dead ends occur, science professionals in the future may be willing to investigate all options to explain reality. On rare occasions this may include theistic supernatural options.

The NOMA principle

2008-03-13T16:28:00.001-04:00

Stephen Jay Gould, the self proclaimed agnostic who helped construct many support pillars of modern evolutionary science until his death in 2002, is famous for articulating the NOMA principle. This is an acronym for “non-overlapping magisteria.” It means science and religion are distinct and separate domains (schools of knowledge). One should not impinge on the other. Science should not influence religious beliefs, and religious beliefs should not influence science. Gould’s principle does not advocate antagonism toward religious views. It merely states that scientific and religious views should be quarantined from each other.

Someone may offer, for example, a suggestion that the cell’s complexity and function points to “design” as an explanatory option. That idea must not even be granted a hearing in the context of the science lab. Why? Because the domain of science has been, by acclamation of science professionals, restricted only to natural cause and effect. Any supernatural option is seen as religion and must be viewed as an “illegal border crossing.” Scientists are obligated to continue their study of naturalistic processes forever. They may self-congratulate and claim they are finding out more and more about how things work, and indeed, they are. Their knowledge gain, however, merely substitutes for “inference to the best explanation.” Perpetual knowledge gain is not an answer for some of the recurring deeper questions. When we look at the information-laden complexity and function of bio-systems and the many examples of fine tuning in the physical cosmos which makes life possible, we sense, intuitively, that there is something deeper than naturalism to account for it.

Science and theology had a mutually supportive relationship several centuries ago. Early theistic scientists were not God-of-the-gaps theorists at every turn. Their concept of God inspired and motivated them in their discovery process. In contrast, modern scientists have locked themselves into NOMA’s philosophical box. Some naturalistic scientists like Stephen Jay Gould have attempted to claim the high ground of public opinion by appearing supportive of the domain of religion. Others are openly antagonistic. NOMA has become a clever catchword designed to preserve the naturalistic purity of modern science.

Stephen Jay Gould’s 1997 essay in Natural History codified the NOMA principle, establishing today’s “rules of the game” for the operation of science. While these rules have helped maintain objectivity in the process of science, they may shield us from a hidden agenda. Gould dedicated the essay to astronomer and science popularizer Carl Sagan, saying, “Carl also shared my personal suspicion about the nonexistence of souls.” Denial of the existence of the human soul should be of utmost concern to the Christian. It is crucial to our concept of man created in the image of God.

God-of-the-gaps reasoning

2008-03-10T08:55:00.001-04:00

Evolutionists frequently criticize those who believe in supernatural interventions in our natural world for subscribing to the God-of-the-gaps position. Theists are accused of crediting God with a miracle whenever we can’t explain the natural causation for some phenomenon. Evolutionists rest in the confident assurance that eventually all questions will have a naturalistic explanation. They claim we just haven’t had enough time to figure things out. They say, for example, “We haven’t found enough fossils. But when we do, the mysteries will be solved.”

In my discussions with both naturalistic and theistic evolutionists, this God-of-the-gaps accusation has been made many times. In 2005 I had a lengthy exchange with a well-known professor of ecology and evolutionary science at a Midwestern university. He said, “Science…does not revert to supernatural explanations of the unknown. Rather, it prefers to wait for tomorrow’s research discoveries to turn more bits of unknown to the known.” He went on to expand the idea that scientists should NEVER give up seeking naturalistic explanations for nature’s phenomena. It’s a theme I’ve heard over and over.

Theologian Ken Samples recently made the following points in his article in Connections entitled “God-of-the-gaps…or Best Explanation?” Let’s review the highlights of his argument. Since only physical and material explanations are allowable in science, the supernatural is ruled out a priori. The future will explain all reality. This is called the argumentum ad futuris fallacy (accept this because future evidence will support it). Samples says, “Ironically it might even be called ‘naturalism-of-the-gaps’ reasoning.”

Samples states that “most sophisticated Christian theists don’t engage in a God-of-the-gaps form of reasoning. Rather, Christian scholars appeal to God as an inference to the best explanation… The abductive form of thinking yields only probable truth.” We’ve discussed abductive reasoning in the last few posts, pointing out its importance as both a starting and ending point in scientific discovery. If naturalistic scientists exclude abductive reasoning whenever theistic options are offered, they may also be rejecting the possibility of truth discovery. Some theistic scientists are currently developing scientific models which leave open the possibility of theistic explanations. It is a new approach, going beyond merely pointing out weaknesses in evolutionary theory.

Job's Epiphany

2008-03-07T13:06:00.004-05:00

Among the many scriptural creation passages other than Genesis 1-2, the Old Testament book of Job contains a majestic epiphany expressing profound perception, sensitivity, and appreciation for the manifestation of the Creator’s power in the natural world. This is some of the finest literature anywhere, sacred or secular. The book is filled with creation references along with a narrative containing counsel from three “friends” following the tragedy which befell Job. Chapters 36-41 contain instruction from Elihu, and finally, from God Himself on the awesome beauty of nature and its creatures. As we read, we alternately marvel, laugh, and even fear as meteorological, astronomical, and biological events are reviewed.

If The Weather Channel’s “Storm Stories” fascinates you, you would also enjoy Elihu’s descriptions of mighty downpours, flashing lightning, God’s voice expressed in thunder, falling snow, ice production, frost, broad frozen waters, driving winds, heat waves, and swirling clouds, not to mention evaporation and abundant showers resulting in the production of plentiful food. Animals take cover, presaging storms. After the storm comes the bright sun, revealed after the wind sweeps away the clouds. Poetic astronomical references to the binding of the beautiful star group Pleiades and the loosing of the cords of Orion signal an understanding of gravitational attraction among heavenly bodies.

Animal Planet fans would be in their element with the prophet’s descriptions of a lioness hunting prey, mountain goats and deer birthing their young, escaped wild donkeys ignoring men’s instructions, and an untrustworthy, untamed wild ox throwing off a harness. We could laugh at the joyful wing-flapping of the ostrich who stupidly leaves her eggs to warm in the sand, treats her young harshly, but then laughs at the horse and rider because she runs so swiftly. Space prevents us from describing the antics and adventures of hawks, eagles, storks, and ravens.

Even the late risk-taking naturalist Steve Irwin would have found he was overmatched by the behemoth and leviathan. In Job 40-41, the Lord Himself challenges Job with fearsome descriptions of the beasts He created (probably the hippopotamus and crocodile). We need not tackle wild beasts in the manner of wildlife naturalists on The Discovery Channel to conclude that “inference to the best explanation” is expressed in Job's concluding statement to the Lord: "My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you (Job 42:5).

Abductive reasoning

2008-03-04T15:20:00.003-05:00

Evolution's explanation for life on earth is said to be "good science." Is this pronouncement sufficient to establish the truth of the tenets of evolution, we may ask? Scientists have discussed the effectiveness of various methods of science discovery for several centuries. They also discuss, and often disagree, on how to interpret their data and the results of their experiments. This is a healthy process because it enables them to correct errors. The self-correcting nature of the process of science is one of its many strengths. Books on science philosophy would fill all the shelves in my library, and many more.

If you look for descriptions of "scientific method" you will almost certainly find one, two, or all three of these terms: induction, deduction, and abduction. Charles S. Peirce (1839-1914), giant of American philosophers, placed induction and deduction into a complementary relationship as cornerstone methods of science discovery. Then he added "abduction" to the mix. This three-fold blend is a foundation of modern science, but not many non-scientists know how these terms apply to today's science.

Let's discuss a few things science philosophers write about. Abductive reasoning is "an inference to the best explanation." We observe natural phenomena, collect evidence, study facts, and organize data. Then we propose the most plausible explanation for what we see. In Peirce's three-pronged method of scientific inquiry, abduction is not the concluding activity, but rather a starting point, an initial conjecture about what is going on. This conjecture originates in the mind of the scientist, perhaps a result of his past experience, and then guides the inductive/deductive activities to follow. Therefore, the scientist's mindset or bias may drive the way he approaches and proceeds with his work, as well as the conclusions he draws.

Supporters of the concept of evolution look at the fossil record and "see" evolution. Thereafter, their research is often selectively reported and interpreted in order to support their initial concept. Charles Peirce coined the term "fallibilism," the idea that the conclusions of science are always tentative and subject to revision. In view of the self-correcting nature of science, the discovery of contradictory evidence, or in some evolutionary biology cases, lack of evidence, does not seem to tilt evolutionists away from their staunchly held views. We've spoken about fossil evidence that displays the sudden onset of many new forms without intermediate transitionals. By applying abductive reasoning at the end of the evidence-gathering process, we may rationally infer that transcendent creation events may trump evolution as the best explanation for what we observe in the fossil history of earth life.

Mount Improbable

2008-02-28T12:29:00.004-05:00

Richard Dawkins has achieved fame speculating on the mechanisms of evolution. One of his books a decade ago was "Climbing Mt. Improbable." The "fact" of evolution is not in question for him and his followers, but he speculates cheerfully on its mechanisms. We may ask just how "improbable" production of effective new organs or new species by happy accident really is.

Evolutionists mostly agree that the "rare and rapid" changes which characterize the entire fossil record (punctuated equilibrium) must occur in a population of organisms which has become isolated from the main population. The change to a new species is said to occur in a large number of the isolated organisms all at once, using the theoretical processes of random mutation and natural selection. Voila! That is supposed to explain how a new species is produced. We may ask, "Is there is anything wrong with that picture?"

The idea that new species have been produced in such a manner is subject to doubt on many counts. Random mutations (harmful to the organisms 99.99% of the time) and natural selection would need to successfully produce new and vital proteins/genes, then new cell types, followed by new tissues, new organs, and new body plans before a new species could be recognized. This random process needs to occur in every specimen of the isolated group. The likelihood of this scenario is remote beyond comprehension. Lack of transitional fossils casts doubt on any gradualistic process.

Let's conclude our discussion with a few quotes from two scientists with no theological basis for their views. David Berlinski, self-proclaimed agnostic, has expressed strong skepticism for evolution's paradigm. "Evolution is the object of superstitious awe," he says, and claims evolution's "...difficulties are resolved by 'sleight of hand.' " Berlinski also says, in reference to evolutionary claims such as the mechanism of PE, "Religiously-based objections may reflect nothing more than skeptical good sense." Michael Denton has also raised significant questions about evolution's claims: "Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the cosmogenic myth of the Twentieth Century."

Experimental, observational, or historical?

2008-02-26T16:02:00.002-05:00

Levels of science investigation are threefold. Science may be classified as experimental, observational, or historical. This sounds simple enough, but public confusion about these terms may match their uncertainty about what scientists mean by fact, hypothesis, and theory, or even about "scientific method" and when or how it is used. Let's try to bring more clarity to the picture.

You may recall your early science courses as being mostly "experimental." Simple experiments affirmed the behavior of water when it froze, salt when it dissolved, or objects when they fell. You were able to control the conditions. Mathematics helped quantify the results beautifully. "Observational" sciences were a little different. You studied the motions of stars and planets. You made field visits to study rocks or plants and collected a few specimens. Perhaps you did experiments to illustrate apparent movement of stars or duplicate rock forming processes. Methods of observing and reporting observations were of primary importance.

Finally, we have the "historical" sciences such as evolutionary biology. Such sciences do not possess the same opportunity for testing and proof. Therefore, we gain knowledge in a more subtle way. We study events which occurred long ago when no one was present to see what actually happened. Events of long ago cannot be duplicated and observed. We must rely heavily on inference and weight of evidence. This is not to say historical sciences are not useful, but the certainty of knowledge is more tentative, even controversial. Scientists keep searching for new and better explanations. Whether we study history of life on earth in the distant past or history of events in the early Christian church, we must still view our study as a search for objective truth.

Evolutionists think their historical science conclusions about origins are completely certain. They confidently claim successive forms of life arose from each other. But what do evolutionists actually see when they look at fossil history? They observe that the fossil column does not manifest gradual changes, but rather, sudden changes with no antecedents. Our blog has previously noted this reality, dubbed "punctuated equilibrium" by scientists. Evolutionary gurus Eldredge, Mayr, Dawkins, Gould, and Dennett have been having an intramural "food fight" for years over how the process is supposed to work. Their disagreement over theoretical process apparently does not trouble the evolutionary science community. Their reaction is to tout the certainty of evolution, promote it ever more stridently, and force-feed the public education system with evolution, evolution, and more evolution.

Cultural spin zone

2008-02-24T13:21:00.003-05:00

Evolutionary theorists have captured not only the hearts of a vast majority of science professionals, but the education and media establishments as well. Consider this: the educational establishment controls almost constant attention of our young people for approximately 35 hours per week. In public schools, our children's science teachers are the product of a higher education establishment overwhelmingly pro-evolution. Media journalists are intensely pro-evolution. With the combined effect of these influences we may conclude that our population has been heavily indoctrinated with evolutionary concepts. Perhaps partly as a result, Pope John Paul's 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences supported evolution, thereby strengthening its credibility for a large segment of religious people. It is, therefore, all the more remarkable that only about 40% of Americans endorse evolution.

The non-scientist population has been relentlessly propagandized to the extent that many people, not having made an impartial study of the evidence, pro and con, claim confidently that evolution as "science" has been "tested and proven." This is not so. Even Christians familiar with the fallacy variously called "argument by concensus," "appeal to authority" or "the bandwagon fallacy," have used the authority of the scientific, educational, media, and religious establishments as one of their primary reasons to accept evolution. Speaking as a science educator, I feel strongly that scientific concensus is a good thing if bias, philosophy, special interest, and worldview are minimized. In science, we should not filter truth about the natural world through the filter of philosophical preference. Even the leaders of the scientific, educational, and media establishments may acknowledge the existence of such filters when considering the explanation for life's uniqueness and diversity.

Let us add a theological dimension to this truth search discussion--something scientists boldly tell us we are not permitted to do. When we consider the uniqueness of God's highest creative achievement--modern man--we realize, with David of old in Psalm 8, that the Creator has "crowned [man] with glory and honor." Belief in either naturalistic or theistic evolution is problematic when we attempt to reconcile it with archaeological evidence showing a well-defined "cultural explosion," a burst of technological, artistic, and spiritual advancement, in very recent geological times. It is also problematic if we regard holy scripture as divinely inspired in passages such as these verses: "Ask now about the former days, long before your time, from the day God created man on the earth; ask from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything so great as this ever happened, or has anything like it ever been heard of?" (Deut. 4:32-33 NIV). Are you judging scripture based on the opinions of others? Exercise caution!

Disparate views of evolution

2008-02-19T07:57:00.006-05:00

Evolutionists cannot understand why so many Americans do not share enthusiasm for their theory. Members of the science profession overwhelmingly support evolution. But public support for evolution in the United States is near the bottom among western nations. Only about 40% of adults accept the theory. Another 40% outright reject it, while roughly 20% are unsure. These figures vary depending on how questions are asked.

Researchers report anywhere from 95% to 99.9% of all scientists accept common descent evolution. Only 4.7% of evolutionary biologists endorse any sort of theism, according to the 2003 Cornell Evolution Project. A survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences revealed 93% to be either atheist or agnostic. Polls differ, but they all reveal a similar picture. In my discussions with Christian friends and Christian authors who support theistic evolution, frequent citations of statistics showing overwhelming support for evolution in the science profession are given. They say this support is a good reason for us to accept it. This is the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Our fervor for investigating supporting and conflicting evidence on our own should be as strong as our enthusiasm for appeal to authority, perhaps even stronger!

Scientists who relentlessly promote evolution view evidence for and against it through lenses which do not permit passage of a theistic option...anywhere, anytime, anyplace. This is true, in part, because (1) they have wedded themselves to a view of science as a totally naturalistic enterprise, and/or (2) a significant number of scientists are atheist or agnostic. We might ask, therefore, if their "findings" are worthy of our acceptance? The conclusions of such scientists are driven by their potent bias and worldview as much as the evidence or lack of evidence. Science is presented as an evidence-based enterprise, but evolutionary scientists seldom speak about the bias and worldview they bring to the table.

In light of 20th and 21st century archaeological and biological discoveries which actually strengthen interpretations of theistic design and intervention, evolutionists claim they are more confident of their paradigm than ever. They claim current and future discoveries will eventually resolve all questions from a naturalistic standpoint. A significant number of Americans find evolutionary claims to be hollow. Evolutionists are not winning this battle. They are slowly losing it, even as they claim victory.

Theistic evolution

2008-02-14T09:58:00.003-05:00

When you read the title of this post, what did you think? When you read several descriptions of "theistic evolution" in previous posts using imagery of God creating, then winding a watch and stepping aside, did you interpret those descriptions as support for theistic evolution, or merely a description of what theistic evolutionists believe? Let's be perfectly clear. I support neither naturalistic neo-Darwinism nor theistic evolution. Let's explain why...

Several major transcendent creation events are evident along the timeline of history of earth life. Powerful evidence in the fossil and archaeological record supports this belief. The first event was the remarkably sudden appearance of microbial life. There is no naturalistic explanation. There were several other geologically sudden appearances of fully formed creatures, including the "Cambrian Explosion" 530 million years ago. Dozens of new phyla (body plans) appeared in a geological overnight. This has been called a "riot of disparity." Much later, following several major extinction events, there were other abrupt appearances of new life forms such as birds and later, mammals. Finally, modern man himself burst on the scene in what even secularists call a "cultural explosion," a proliferation of technological advance, creative thinking, and artistic and spiritual capabilities.

Ancient Hebrew scripture has several words (bara, asah, yasar) having different shades of meaning centering on "create." "Bara" sometimes, but not always, refers to creation ex nihilo, out of nothing. However, the term always refers to God's action in events such as creation of the heavens and the earth (the entirety of matter and space) in Genesis 1:1, creation of a great variety of living creatures in Genesis 1:21, and the creation of man in Genesis 1:27. Theistic evolution does not allow for transcendent miracles along the timeline of life's history on earth. It places emphasis on natural processes and de-emphasizes supernatural events. In this way it alters the meaning of "bara" in the scripture quotations above. The geological record, with its periodic sudden appearances of new forms, and scripture, with its references to God's direct creative action, appear to be in harmony.