Two Beautiful Books: Science... err... correction: Nature and Scripture (Part 6)

Over the past several blog posts, I have been in a series on thinking about science biblical and consistently as a Christian. The previous post summarized the first four posts, so you can head back there fore that summary. It also began us on the journey of moving forward, using the biblical view of science that we talked about from Scripture to learn how to live in a world like ours, which puts a great deal of weight on science. To use the analogy that I have been using in this series, we started to put "walls" and a "roof" on the "foundation" and "framework" of the intellectual houses we are building, and we are going to continue to do that in this post. 

At the end of the last post, we talked about mutual correction: the idea that proper interpretations of scientific data can help correct misinterpretations of Scripture and proper interpretations of Scripture can help correct misinterpretations of scientific data. And, I left that post with a question I was asked by a student, which is quite relevant: "How can I know where I should stand firm with my theology no matter what a scientist says and how can I know where I can perhaps let their theories alter my interpretation of Scripture?" That is a good place to pick back up the topic of moving forward to learn how to live in our day and age with this biblical view of science. 

So, how can we know where to stand firm with theology and where we can perhaps let a scientific theory affect our interpretation of Scripture? Well, we will get into this in more detail below when I will give what I think is a helpful method for handling apparent conflicts between science and Scripture, but there are few things that can be said here that should help with this question: 

1. First, you and I should never make that determination alone. Scripture is one of God's great gifts to the Church as a whole and we interpret it as a community. So, seek help from others by talking to a pastor, campus minister, Christian friends, reading books, etc. Do not try to make the determination by yourself. Sometimes you might end up disagreeing with some of the people with whom you discuss the issue, but the mere fact that you do it together will help keep you from gross error and keep you humble. 
2. Second, the creedal statements of Christianity are non-negotiable. The Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Creed of Chalcedon put parameters around the Christian faith. They leave a lot of room when it comes to many, many doctrines, but they define Christianity in its outermost limits. If we stray beyond the theology of those creeds, then we have strayed beyond Christianity. Any statement of a scientist that attempts to overthrow a statement of those creeds--like God being the maker of heaven and earth, from the Apostles Creed--is just wrong. Stand firm on them. (By the way, this does not mean we do not need to know how to defend these creedal statements to non-believers, for we should be able to give the reason for the hope they give Christians, but it does mean we cannot budge on them. If we do, we do not have Christianity anymore and therefore there is nothing to defend.)
3. Take into account the great confessions of Church history. These things are not infallible like the Bible itself, but they are great statements of theology that have stood the test of time. They have not been around as long as the creeds, but they still have a lot to teach us and we should not just haphazardly dismiss them. For example, I, as a PCA teaching elder, am bound by the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Westminster Catechisms. I can differ from them slightly, which I do in a few places, but even there I do not do that alone. My presbytery, which is the other teaching elders in my local geographic area, corrects me if I go too far in my differences from the confessions. In the next post, I will give some resources I recommend, and in it I will put links to the historic Reformed confessions that are still quite helpful here.
4. Finally, Do not jump to any conclusions one way or another right way, but pray a lot, study a lot, and talk a lot to other Christians.

Now, in what I have said here and in the previous post, let us not forget the mutual correction of science and Scripture. Scripture properly interpreted can also correct scientific theories where they misinterpret nature. Scripture does not give a lot of detail about most of the areas that scientists study, but where it does give details, they are details that are from God, have His authority, and provide interpretive parameters or corrections for scientific theories. One example of this might be scientific theories that attempt to claim that humans and animals have really no substantial difference other than cognitive abilities. Some scientists attempt to claim that animals are just as valuable as humans because the only difference between us is how smart we are. That, of course, comes from their interpretation of the evidence based on the assumption that naturalism and evolution are indisputable facts, which they are not. The Bible can help correct this error by pointing out that humans are made in God's image, while animals are not. God may have used a lot of the same building blocks to make humans as He did to make animals, but that does not mean He did not endow humans with a natural value and dignity that far surpasses animals. Furthermore, God gave dominion over animals to humans, thus further defining human value far above animal value. Now, that does not mean we can just abuse animals, but it does mean that animal life is not even close to being as equally valuable as human life.

Understanding how scientific data can help us correct a misinterpretation of Scripture and Scripture can help us correct misinterpretations of scientific data (mutual correction) is one way that we start putting "walls" and a "roof" on our intellectual and spiritual houses. The last thing we need to discuss is how to handle apparent conflicts when they arise because they will arise, and we need to know how to deal with them wisely. This will also help us put "walls" and a "roof" on our house. 

So, how do we handle them? Well, let me say upfront that there is probably more than one "right" way to handle these things. What I am about to give you is a method I have found helpful and others have found helpful too. It is not foolproof, for nothing is, but I think it can help you make your "houses" livable enough to help you live confidently and comfortably as a Christian in our day and age.

1. Remember what the biblical view of nature and Scripture is: Remember, as we learned in the previous posts, God is the author of both books, as we talked about yesterday, so this conflict that arises is only apparent; it is not real. Now, sometimes it may take a lot of work to figure out which book is being interpreted incorrectly and how to think about them properly, but while we work on that, we can rest in this truth. And, rest keeps us from anxiety, which helps us think more clearly about the issue. Christians have nothing to fear from scientific research because the scientist is researching God's domain--God's book. I meet many Christians who are afraid of science, but it is a tool God has given us to discover truth from His universe, so we have nothing to fear from it. 
2. Remember the world in which we live, and do not be surprised: As we discussed in part four, we should expect there to be cases where a scientific theory appears to conflict with our interpretations of Scripture. Many scientists are interpreting the data from the worldview of naturalism, which does conflict with Scripture's theistic worldview, and, as we have talked about a lot, we are simply fallible beings, so we make mistakes. Because of those things, we know apparent conflicts will arise. A biblical view of science tells us to expect this, so do not be shocked when they come. Shock only increases our anxiety of these issues, which, again, clouds our ability to think through them, but if we can look at it and say, "Huh, that's odd, but it doesn't really surprise me that they might think that," then we will remain calm enough to think through the issue biblically and rationally.
3. Remember not to jump to any conclusions too quickly: A biblical view of science and Scripture reminds us that either our interpretation of Scripture or the scientist's interpretation of nature is incorrect or both, and we need to be humble enough to jump to any conclusions before we have thought it through. 
4. Check the source and wait: Things that come up in popular media via news, blogs, books, etc. all have a source behind them that points to the scientific research, and very often claims in the popular media are either reported incorrectly, too early, or are overturned by further scientific research. For example, here as some things to think about:
1. When you read something in the news, did it come from a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal like Science, Nature, or The Astrophysical Journal or did it come from something someone present at a conference? There can be a big difference in the reliability of the data. At conferences, researches often share raw, infant ideas that can range from Nobel prize concepts to junk and dead ends. Sometimes unpublished, un-peer-reviewed claims are portrayed as scientific fact by the media when even the researchers would not say that. Whenever I presented a paper at a conference, I cringed when I saw journalists sitting on the front row because I new generally that they would not understand what is going on or report it as fact when it was not. Now, luckily for me, my research was not really important enough for them to report, but it does happen often. Check to see if the source is a journal or something less reliable like a conference. 
2. If you have the ability, check out the source yourself. Even if it comes from a journal article, I have seen several occasions where the author was not saying anything close to what the news article claimed. If you do not have access to the journal through a university or a friend, then see if you can find someone who does. There are great ministries on that can help you think through these things here. One I really like is called Reasons to Believe. Email and ask them. They may have a resource that can help you or they may plan to comment on it. I would not mind helping you either, though I would be a distant second to the brilliant men and women at RTB, but feel free to ask me. 
3. And, remember to wait. Stuff in the best journals is still debatable, and further research may change the claim. For example, does anyone remember the fossil Ida that was introduced back in 2009? It was claimed to be a "missing link" that would totally change the way scientists view human evolution and would solidify the theory of evolution. It was introduced with a huge media circus and got so much hype that even Google dedicated a logo to it. Well, after several months, other papers started coming out questioning how helpful the fossil really was, and eventually the scientists who introduced it had to admit that their claims were far overblown. Just waiting would have shown many stressed-out Christians that this "discovery" does not really change anything at all and does not solidify anything with Darwinian evolution. 
4. So, check the source and wait. And, waiting can be done very easily with Google's handy "Google alerts" tool. If you are concerned about an apparent conflict, create a Google alert that will send the most recent information your way without you having to go looking for it, and then see what comes up. 
5. Attempt to separate the data from the interpretation of the data: Again, a biblical view of science reminds us that science is a tool that produces data and then that data is interpreted within a worldview. The data itself will not conflict with Scripture if it is properly extracted and recorded, but the interpretation might easily conflict because it might come from a scientists whose worldview is naturalism. But, if we can separate the data from the interpretation, then we can take a clear look at it and see how it fits within Scripture. Sometimes a biblical interpretation will look almost identical to the original; other times there will be significant differences. Now, this may take a lot of time and discussion with colleagues, friends, or consulting books or ministries that help Christians with apologetics, but if we really believe God wrote the books of nature and Scripture, then we know the data will fit within a biblical model, we just have to do the work of separation and interpretation within a biblical worldview. If you want an example of this, check out my posts on Adam and Eve here, here (this one especially illustrates this point), here, and here.
6. Remember to consider your interpretation of Scripture as well: In these apparent conflicts our goal is not to prove ourselves right (at least it should not be). Our goal should be to discover God's truth in order to bring Him glory. While we have considered so far how to think about the scientific side of the apparent controversy, we cannot skip over the possibility that the error may be on the theological side. We need to examine our exegesis of the Scripture passages that address the issue, we need to consult others like a pastor or campus minister, we need to do some reading on the subject, and we need to be as certain as we can be that the error is not in our interpretation of Scripture. And, like with the scientific research, sometimes this takes time. Sometimes we have to consider a number of different views before we can try to determine which seems the most faithful to God's revelation in Scripture and in nature. But, if we are resting in a biblical view of science and Scripture, we can take the time without becoming anxious because know there is a resolution, even if we cannot find it right away. 
7. Strive to be humble: Honestly, this is contradiction in terms because one cannot "strive" to be humble, but what I mean is that in this whole process, we must remember that we are just as fallible, biased, and sinful as the most hardened, virulent "new atheist." The only difference between us and them is that we have God's grace, forgiveness, salvation, and Holy Spirit (not from anything in us but as a gift so no man can boast, Eph. 2:8-9). The only reason that you and I understand and believe the Scriptures is the Spirit's illumination (1 Co. 2:9-12), therefore we need to be humble when responding to critics, evaluating someone's work, or discussing apparent conflicts with others.
8. Do not go it alone: I have already said this several times, but this is not something we need to be trying to do alone. We need the wisdom of the Christian community. We need friends, family, campus ministers, pastors, etc. to help us think through these things. Some of the people we consult might not be helpful in the pursuit of truth but some probably will be, and even if we end up not agreeing with them, their viewpoint will help us refine our own. 
9. Pray: When Nehemiah stood before the King Artaxerxes to request permission to go to Jerusalem and rebuild the walls around the new Temple, he was in a tenuous spot. He could have been killed for his request. In 2:4 the king asks the question "What are you requesting?" and before Nehemiah responded, Scripture tells us that he prayed. In that moment--a second or two--he prayed for wisdom and God gave it to him. We need to pray for wisdom when trying to figure these things out. Sometimes they are very difficult. We need to pray that God will help us sort out the truth from interpretation, and we need to pray that He will help us come to a proper understanding of both His Word and His world, for His glory and our good. 
10. Remember that God is still God and Jesus is still coming back: Sometimes you will not be able to figure it out, even after having studied the scientific data and Scripture. Sometimes you will not be able to figure out which interpretation is in error. Even the best scholars and academics have to say, "I don't know" sometimes. Hopefully these times will be rare, but they will probably happen every now and then. In those times, a biblical view of science and Scripture reminds us that just because we cannot figure it out does not mean there is no solution, and we need to be humble enough to admit that. The issue might be a paradox, but a biblical view of science and Scripture reminds us that it is not a contradiction, so we can rest in that truth. Do you know the difference between a paradox and a contradiction?
1. A paradox is something that seems contradictory but actually is not. The reason it seems contradictory is because we cannot find the solution, but we know there is one. Every theology and scientific model has its share of paradoxes. For example, in theology, Scripture upholds the sovereignty of God over everything, including man's salvation, and Scripture also upholds human responsibility for their actions. Are those contradictory? No, because God teaches them both and cannot contradict Himself. There is a solution to how those two work together, but God has chosen not to share it with us. When Paul considers this paradox, he does not even try to pose a resolution but simply says, "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" (cf. Ro. 9), and if it was too much for Paul writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit, it is too much for you and I. Another example from the sciences would be wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics. This is the evidence from nature, that a subatomic particle exhibits both particle and wave properties. How can something be a point in space and also a wave at the same time? No one really knows, but we do know that it happens. It is a paradox because there is a solution, we do not have it yet.
2. A contradiction means there is no possible solution. It is like saying 1+1=2 and 1+1=5. There is no way to reconcile those statements, so they are contradictory.
3. A biblical view of science and Scripture tells us that God is the author of both books, so there is no contradiction, but sometimes paradoxes will arise because either God has chosen not to give us all the information we need to solve the problem or we just have not figured it out yet. We live in a fallen world full of sinful people who do not know everything and make mistakes, so sometimes the solution is beyond you and me, and that is okay because God is still God and Jesus is still coming back. I hate not being able to figure something out as much as the next guy, but sometimes (rarely but sometimes) we need to admit it is too much for us, trust God, and go get a milkshake.

Alright, that is my general "method" for handling apparent conflicts between what scientists say and what we read in Scripture. Hopefully you will find it helpful enough to help you put "walls" and a "roof" on your intellectual and spiritual "house." This also brings my discussion of a biblical view of science to a close. Certainly there is more that can be written on this topic, but I hope and pray this will give you a solid start as you consider the tool of science. Please feel free to ask me any questions you might have or check out my "science" tag for stuff I have written on various subjects. 

In the next post, I will list out a number of resources that you might find helpful for various sub-topics of science and Christianity. It will not be an exhaustive list by any means, but it will give you enough material to keep you reading for a while. 

By His Grace,

Taylor

Jesus' Wife? Really?

"Jesus was married. None. There is nothing about Jesus being married in the canonical gospels, in apocryphal gospels, in the church fathers, or anywhere else. Even if this new gospel claims that Jesus was married, it is out of step with all the other credible historical evidence we have about his life." ~ "The Far Less Sensational Truth about Jesus' 'Wife'" Michael J. Kruger, Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC

I am sure many of you have read the recent articles that have been entitled things like "Jesus said, 'My wife'" or "A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus' Wife." Somehow discoveries like this seem to get a lot of media hype. I suppose it is because the media cannot get enough alternative versions of Jesus' life and love to give them historical value equal to the NT Gospels. (I have written about this type of discovery and media reaction here.)

Below I am going to give you some resources that go into much more depth than I do, but here are a few things to remember. First, this fragment is from the fourth century AD (Update: recent studies push it back to the eighth or ninth century AD). That means it was written about 300 (Update: 700-800) years after Jesus incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension. Even if this fragment were to be authenticated, it was written way too late to take seriously. Even Karen King, the scholar who revealed the fragment, gives this caution. Furthermore, we have no way to identify the genre of literature from which this fragment came. We have no idea whether the original author was even claiming to record history. Given its date and the lack of information about its genre, giving this fragment historical weight is somewhat analogous to a historian fifteen-hundred years from now discovering fragments of "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" and publishing a paper entitled "Ancient US President Lincoln May Have Slayed More Than Just Slavery," even though all historical evidence points to the contrary. There is no reason to give credence to this fragment when the full NT Gospels (dated to the first century!) and all other earlier historical evidence all indicate the contrary.

If you want more detailed information, here are some resources:

• Quote from above: "The Far Less Sensational Truth about Jesus' 'Wife'," by Dr. Michael Kruger
• NT Manuscripts
• "Did Jesus have a wife?", RTB Kenneth Samples' Science News Flash
• "An Ancient Manuscript and Jesus’ Wife?", by Dr. Jeffery Gibbs

By His Grace,
Taylor

Science vs. Religion: Thoughts on Handling Apparent Conflicts

"While many Christians and non-Christians see the two [love of science and a desire to serve God] as in perpetual conflict, I find they integrate well. They operate by the same principles and are committed to discovering foundational truths. My passion... is helping Christians see how powerful a tool science is to declare God's glory and helping scientists understand how the established scientific discoveries demonstrate the legitimacy and rationality of the Christian faith." ~ Dr. Jeffrey Zweerink, UCLA Assistant Researcher and RTB Scholar

When people find out that my educational background is in physics and that I just graduated from seminary, I am often asked about the alleged conflict between science and religion/faith. When the questions come from a fellow Christian, they generally ask how I can merge the two without giving up my commitment to the inspiration, authority, inerrancy, and infallibility of Scripture (all things to which I am completely committed). This is a very important question and usually I find it comes from people hungry to hear something besides "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" or "religion simply causes fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering." I enjoy being asked the question because it gives me a chance to try to help others realize there is no inherent conflict between science and the Christian faith, and that the alleged conflict is simply played up by many of the so-called "new atheists" and media hype.

What is a Christian to do when they come across "scientific fact" that seems to conflict with Scripture? Below are several things that I keep in mind when I see headlines or read the latest "new atheist" rant. Not all these things will be possible all the time, but they are things to look for and keep in mind that will help us sort these issues out (this is by no means an exhaustive list and I or others may modify or add to it later):

• Remember the world in which we live... and do not be surprised: I sometimes find myself astonished that someone would treat me with contempt or patronize me like a child when they find out I am a Christian and a scientist, and then, when I come to my senses, I remember that I should expect nothing less. This is exactly what Jesus told us to expect. Christians are a people whose highest allegiance is God Himself and His written Word is the highest authority in our lives. We, however, live in a world whose highest allegiance is any number of idols, particularly human reason. These ultimate allegiances are going to come into contact and, as the man used to sing, "something's gotta give." But, neither side is willing to give up their allegiance. The world looks to reason as the only self-authenticating authority and will not tolerate Christians who look to the Bible as the only self-authenticating authority (of course, Christianity does not deny the value of reason but places it in its rightful place: under God). So, do not be surprised when the alleged conflict is amplified or someone claims your belief is "unwarranted." This is part of the world in which we live.
• Check the source and wait: Sometimes discoveries made by scientists are either reported by the media too early (and incorrectly) or later debunked by further testing and experimentation. In the first case, take note of what you are reading in media articles and from where the information came. Did it come from a published, peer-reviewed article or from a presentation at a scientific conference? There can be a big difference in the reliability of the data. At conferences, researches share raw, infant ideas that can range from Nobel prize concepts to junk and dead ends. Sometimes unpublished, un-peer-reviewed claims are portray as scientific fact when even the researchers would not say that. If you have the knowledge and ability to check the claims, do it. If not, wait and see if further information on the subject comes up after the research has made it through the peer-review system (make use of Google Alerts). If the media story does come from a reputable journal, try to check the reporting and claims by doing your own research or asking a friend who might have expertise in the area. If that is not possible, I would recommend asking my friends at Reasons to Believe, but, as a distant second, I offer my assistance (at times I talk about scientific discoveries from a biblical perspective, some examples are here, here, here, here, and here). When all else fails, wait and follow the story (again, make use of Google Alerts)  Sometimes mistakes can happen, like the recent neutrino debacle (read the before and after) or claims can be over blown, like the Ida circus stunt. When so many people are trying to make a name for themselves, this is the nature of the beast and eventually bogus claims are exposed. 
• Try to separate the data from the interpretation of the data: This can be a huge help when trying to deal with scientific claims that apparently contradict Scripture. There is a difference between scientific data and interpretation of that data. The data is the raw information brought to light by a study or a discovery and that data has to be interpreted with a model or paradigm to figure out what it means and where it fits. Everyone interprets data within a model or paradigm (whether we know it or not) based on our beliefs and worldview. A scientific model refers to the schematic description of a system (or set of data) that accounts for observations and inferences as well as origin and history. It is a paradigm that attempts to offer reasonable explanations for the entire scope or history of a particular system in nature, as well as for its relationship to other phenomena. Particle physics has the Standard Model, for example. There are other models, like naturalistic evolution. Data taken in by various fields of science is generally interpreted within the accepted model. What you are likely reading in a media article (even a journal article) is not the data itself (for that would not sell advertising) but an interpretation of that data. Christians need to separate the data from its interpretation and interpret it within a biblical model. If we really believe God created the universe and wrote Scripture, then we know the data will fit within a biblical model, we just have to do the work of separation and interpretation. Sometimes the interpretations will be almost identical; other times there will be significant differences. For example, see my articles on the historicity of Adam and Eve. Now, again, this can be a very difficult thing to do for someone who does not have access to journal articles (to get the data) or the necessary training to understand and interpret the data. As mentioned above, try to check the claims by doing your own research or asking a friend who might have expertise in the area. If that is not possible, again I would recommend asking my friends at Reasons to Believe, but, again as a distant second, I offer my assistance.
• Remember that everyone is biased... everyone: If there is one good thing that postmodernism has done for society, it is to shown that everyone is biased and no one has the ability to lay aside completely their personal presuppositions. We interpret every piece of data not only in a model (see above) but according to our own presuppositions. As stated above, one of the common modern presuppositions is that human reason is a self-authenticating authority. Another might be that evolution is a scientific fact. We need to look for the hidden presuppositions in bold statements and ask how they might be affecting a person's interpretation of the data. We should not berate others because they have biases (for we all have them), but we should try to help them see how their biases are affecting their interpretation and how other interpretations from other presuppositions are equally valid.
• Remember that God is the God of general and special revelation: Article 2 of the Belgic Confession states: "We know Him [God] by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: His eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20. All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse. Second, He makes Himself known to us more openly by His holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for His glory and for the salvation of His own." What the authors of this great confession were pointing out is that God is the God of all truth, whether it comes from nature or Scripture. This means that science and Scripture will perfectly harmonize when we are interpreting both correctly. The apparent contradictions crop up when we or others are misinterpreting one or both "books." All apparent contradictions are just that, apparent, and not real. Sometimes it takes a lot of hard work and time to figure out where we or someone else has gone wrong in interpretation, but we must never forget that any contradictions are a manifestation of human fallibility, not inherent to God's Word or world. 
• Be humble: Remember, you and I are just as fallible, biased, and sinful as the most hardened, virulent "new atheist." The only difference between us and them is that we have God's grace, forgiveness, salvation, and Holy Spirit (not from anything in us but as a gift so no man can boast, Eph. 2:8-9). The only reason that you and I understand and believe the Scriptures is the Spirit's illumination (1 Co. 2:9-12), therefore be humble when responding to critics, evaluating someone's work, or discussing apparent contradictions with others.
• Pray: When Nehemiah stood before the King Artaxerxes to request permission to go to Jerusalem and rebuild the walls around the new Temple, he was in a tenuous spot. He could have been killed for his request. In 2:4 the king asks the question "What are you requesting?" and before Nehemiah responded Scripture tells us that he prayed. In that moment, few seconds, he prayed for wisdom and God gave it to him. We need to pray for wisdom when trying to figure these things out. Sometimes they are very difficult (if they were not, there would not be all the controversies we find ourselves in today). We need to pray that God will help us sort out the truth from interpretation, the facts from presuppositional errors; and we need to pray that He will help us come to a proper understanding of both His Word and His world. 
• Remember that God is still God, even if you cannot figure it out: Friends, let us be honest, we are not going to figure everything out. Even the best scholars sometimes have to say, "I don't know." We must remember that even if something seems contradictory and after all our research we still cannot figure it out, God is still God and Jesus is still coming back. I hate not being able to figure something out as much as the next guy, but sometimes (rarely but sometimes) we need to admit it is too much for us, trust God, and go get a milkshake. 

By His Grace,

Taylor

Redefining the Chemistry of Life? Followup

In January 2011, I wrote a blog post on a (media-hyped) discovery of a strain of bacteria that appeared to be using arsenic instead of phosphorus in its biochemistry. In the post, I argued that this organism does not at all "redefine the chemistry of life" or find "arsenic tasty," as the study and media commentary suggested. I concluded that (at best) this organism is a facultative arsenophile, which means it seems that it can use arsenic in its biochemistry when necessary but prefers phosphorus and needs it to thrive.

In the most recent issue of Science (the journal in which the original study was published), two more papers have been published by teams who did independent research on the bacteria in question (GFAJ-1), and their findings refute the contention that GFAJ-1 is using arsenic at all. One shows that there is no evidence for arsenates being incorporated into the bacteria's nucleic acids. The other argues that GFAJ-1 is really an arsenic-resistant bacteria (a possibility I noted in my original post) that still needs phosphates to survive and thrive.

If you want my take on the research, the original post I wrote on the topic is still relevant. My original conclusion, which appears to still be valid, was as follows:

It is not an organism that has a "redefining" biochemistry, it is not an "arsenic-base" organism, it does not find "arsenic tasty"; at best it an extremophile that can possibly make use of arsenic when it is the only thing available in the environment but its preference would be phosphate.

Before I wrap this post up, I want to comment on one more thing that I quoted from Dr. Rana above. It has been suggested that this type of organism could represent an alternate way that life could emerge. Sorry, but this kind of organism does not provide a different possible pathway for life to originate. The reason why Dr. Rana says that, and I agree, is because this type of organism not only has the biochemistry of normal bacteria but has extra mechanisms that allow it to live under the harsh condition of excess arsenic. In short, it is an organism that is significantly more complex than normal bacteria that is based on phosphates alone. Arsenate is unstable, so unless you already have in place mechanisms that could stabilize the arsenates, there is no way life could form with arsenates. Origin of life in an arsenate system (vs. a phosphate system) is a significantly more complex pathway and even more improbable than the existing, phosphate-based origin of life scenarios. The same is true for all extremophiles. In fact, there have been papers written by other biologists arguing this point.

So, after time for further research and peer-review, life is still CHNOPS-based (see the original post for explanation on that) and no other alternate pathway for the origins of life is evidenced by this study. Life is still as delicate and complicated as science has consistently shown and requires an Intelligent Designer for its existence.

By His Grace,
Taylor

The Beginning of the Universe

"He asserts that the universe came from 'nothing' rather than from God. However, the different 'nothings' that Krauss appeals to for his explanations are really 'some things'—'some things' that demand nothing less than the existence and involvement of the biblical God." ~ Dr. Hugh Ross, "Universe from Nothing?: A Critique of Lawrence Krauss' Book, Part 1"

Another set of Big Bang news articles have hit the popular media. This time with headlines like "The Big Bang Didn't Need God to Start Universe, Researchers Say." This is similar to what Stephen Hawking wrote in his book The Grand Design, which I wrote about a while ago. The impetus behind such assertions is the desire to remove God from the equation when it comes to the origins of the universe. This has been a problem for naturalistic scientists ever since the first indications that the universe is expanding. So, let's talk about Big Bang cosmological theory and see if the above claims stand up within that framework.

Why is this such a big deal to Big Bang cosmologists? Well, it is often believed that "Big Bang" automatically means an atheistic world-view, but, while that may seem to be common now, that was not the original response to Big Bang cosmology. In fact, the Big Bang was originally seen by steady-state cosmologists as an inherently religious idea. Geoffrey Burbidge, for example, once lamented that his fellow scientists were running off to join the "First Church of Christ of the Big Bang." Sir Fred Hoyle first coined the phrase "Big Bang" in a 1949 BBC broadcast as a pejorative name because of its religious significance (though he did later recant). Why did they see it as religious? Because saying that the universe has a beginning means that it must have had a Beginner, and they did not want to admit the possibility of a Beginner.

Recently, however, many noted scientists have begun theorizing how the universe could have created itself from nothing. That is, of course, the holy grail of a naturalistic world-view--if you can show that the universe did not need a Beginner, then God is not necessary (at least, that is the assumption). So, we get articles like the one list above and books like Hawking's The Grand Design. As I have already written about Hawking's work, I will make a few comments about the recent articles.

The basic premise of such arguments is that "the Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there. With the laws of physics, you can get universes." What I find most interesting about this is that the scientist quoted (Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley) admits that the laws of physics cannot explain themselves. He even admits that they would require a divine Creator, though he goes on to ask who created the divine Creator, which he believes leads to a never-ending chain of causes. But does it really? Basically, Filippenko is showing the validity and necessity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is a classic argument for an uncaused Cause or a Creator. Eventually the chain of causality throughout the history of being has to have a beginning. String Theory posits a type of multiverse to explain the beginning of our universe. Filippenko and Hawking posit that the laws of physics cause the universe to create itself. Both of these simply push the need for a Creator back a step. They simply add another link to the chain of causality. Where did the multiverse come from? Where did the laws of physics come from? Believing they are simply "brute realities" takes as much faith as, if not more than it takes to believe in a Creator (I have written about this here, here, here, and here). Such theories do not solve the problem but are basically mathematical ways of skirting the question.

Furthermore, Filippenko positing quantum fluctuations as a creative event has problems. (Warning, this is going to get a little bit technical.) A consequence of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is that quantum fluctuations in the fabric of space-time will generate particles out of "nothing" (it is not really nothing as we will soon see). Seth Shostack from SETI asserts, "Quantum mechanical fluctuations can produce the cosmos." In the article, Filippenko draws on this idea and says, "If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It's not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it." The first problem with this, that is not mentioned in the articles, is that while the uncertainty principle allows for the random creation of particles, it also requires that these particles revert back to fluctuations before they can be observed. They will not stick around long enough to create anything, about a quintillionth of a second (that is 0.000000000000000001 seconds)! The second problem is even larger than the first. The article and the scientists call this creation from nothing but it is in no way creation from nothing. It is creation from other "some things" (as the quote from Dr. Hugh Ross above states). When he says, "If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way..." Filippenko reveals a major problem in his theory: quantum fluctuations require space-time (which is something, not nothing) to already exist for any type of particles (or universes) to be created. Rather than coming from nothing, they come from pre-existent physical laws and pre-existent space-time. Space-time must already exist for quantum fluctuations to create anything. So, one must again ask, "Has the need for a divine Creator really been removed from the situation?" Not hardly. If the fabric of space-time is necessary for quantum fluctuations to create anything, then space-time first had to be created by something or Someone else. Again, this pushes the need for a Creator back a step but in no way rids us of that need.

For more on this topic, I would suggest you read Dr. Hugh Ross' review of Lawrence M. Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing. Krauss' book is a much more highly developed argument than the article I have been citing or even Hawking's book. Dr. Hugh Ross does a very good job of laying out the issues with it in part 1 and the theological explanations in part 2.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Galileo's Trial: An Epic Struggle of Science Against Religion?

"The notion that Galileo's trial was a conflict between science and religion should be dead. Anyone who works seriously on Galileo doesn't accept that interpretation anymore." ~ Thomas F. Mayer

It has long been held in popular media and high school textbooks that the trial of Galileo in 1633 was the righteous stand of science against the oppressive, outdated traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. It is said that this started the unstoppable rise of science that would soon overtake and make irrelevant church tradition. This conception provides an exciting story; the only problem is that it did not actually happen that way. The popularized view is simply incorrect, as stated above in the quote by Dr. Mayer taken from this popular article. It has been overblown by those who want to exaggerate an alleged chasm between science and religion. Any good history of science book, like Science and Religion edited by Gary B. Ferngren (relevant article by Richard Blackwell), will give a more accurate picture of the Galileo affair.

So what really happened? The Aristotelian, Ptolemaic geocentric view of the solar system had dominated the scientific and theological discussions of the solar system for centuries. Then, in 1543, the heliocentric view developed by Nicolas Copernicus was published over 70 years before Galileo came on the scene.

In 1610, Galileo built his first telescope and began using it to observe the sky. He used it to gather all sorts of data on stellar objects like caters on the Moon, the Galilean moons orbiting Jupiter (named for him, of course) the phases of Venus (like we see with the Moon), and spots on the Sun. His observations, particularly the moons orbiting Jupiter and the phases of Venus, brought him to question the dominant geocentric model and start to look more seriously at the heliocentric model. Though the growing body of data supported the the Copernican model, Galileo could not conclusively prove that it was correct. (This is a fact that is often missed. All theological discussions aside, the scientific community of the time was not fully convinced of the heliocentric model. It did not gain full acceptance until many years after Galileo's death.)

Being a devout Catholic, Galileo knew that the model he was developing should agree with Scripture, so in 1616 he went to the Scriptures in order to reinterpret several key passages so that he might harmonize his model with God's Word. This is where things started to get hot and when we consider this we cannot forget what time Galileo was doing this. This was the early 17th century, only about 100 years after Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of Wittenberg. The Reformation had taken the sole authority to interpret Scripture away from the clergy and the Catholic Church was intent on taking it back. The Protestant Reformation and the following Catholic Counter Reformation over the past century had heightened sensitivity in the Roman Catholic Church. The Council of Trent had just reaffirmed that only bishops and church councils count interpret the Bible. In this first trial, Galileo was not as much in trouble for his heliocentric view (though that certainly was a factor) but because he tried to prove it by interpreting Scripture at a time when the Catholic Church was really sensitive about that. The impact of this drama between the Reformation and the Counter Reformation on the whole Galileo situation cannot be overstated. Blackwell states in Science and Religion:

If Copernicus’s book had been published either one hundred years earlier or one hundred years later, the Galileo affair would probably not have happened. But, in fact, it was published in 1543, when the Reformation was in full bloom and the Counter Reformation was just beginning. Hence it was that by 1616 all of the actors and cultural forces were in place for the drama of the Galileo affair to begin.

To be blunt about it, both Galileo and the Catholic Church were at the mercy of really bad timing.

In 1616, when Galileo’s case was brought to trial before the Roman Inquisition, they issued a precept that ordered him to cease to promote and defend the heliocentric model, which Galileo promised to obey. Fifteen years later, there was a newly appointed Pope and Galileo decided to ask the new Pope if he could publish a review of the heliocentric and geocentric views. The new Pope, unaware of the previous trial, granted him permission. Galileo, however, failed to mention the precept during his request and it was this omission led to Galileo’s second trial, his conviction, and his house arrest. During this second trial, the trial that ultimately led to Galileo's recanting, the issue was not the two solar system models but Galileo's disregard for the precept. As Dr. Mayer has shown in his paper on the subject and talks about in this popular article, the issue of the precept was raised in very narrow legal terms and was compounded by sloppy records of the earlier trial and Galileo's own testimony. Mayer argues that the Inquisition was actually trying to give Galileo a way to negotiate a settlement, a common practice with precepts at the time, but Galileo dug himself a big hole by first claiming not to have received the precept, then saying he did not violate the precept (the one he just claimed he did not receive), and then quoting from the precept (again, the one he just claimed he did not receive). In the popular press Dr. Mayer said, "When push came to shove in the second part of trial, [Galileo] made every imaginable mistake."

So, this event in history, which has long been hailed as the clash of the science and religion, is really more about who has the authority to interpret Scripture (because of the drama of the Reformation) in the first trial and a legal matter in the second (compounded by sloppy record keeping and Galileo's inconsistent testimony). Rather than being a monumental clash between science and religion, where the Catholic Church is painted as a "monolithic, omnipotent organization conspiring to bring down the astronomer", Galileo’s final conviction was a legal matter confused by sloppy record keeping and handled poorly by Galileo himself.

By His Grace,
Taylor

First Century Codices or Media Hype (Again...)

"The mainstream media need to do a much better job of checking in on academic blogs and other social media tools that are readily at their disposal. They need to be more skeptical, in general, and specifically when dealing with obvious problems. Antiquities fraud is a serious issue and the model of hyping a discovery in the press is a common route for less-than-savory characters involved in the trade. It’s understandable that a reporter and editors can be had, but when they discover they’ve been had, they need to correct quickly." ~ Mollie Ziegler in her recent post: "It’s all Greek to me(dia)?"

I assume that most of you have seen the media hype about some alleged codices discovered in a Jordanian cave that could be the "earliest Christian writings in existence". I will admit, when I first saw the article I got pretty excited because discovering documents from the first century would be an incredible find. However, I was a little wary when I read the BBC reporter saying, "They could, just possibly, change our understanding of how Jesus was crucified and resurrected, and how Christianity was born." No such claims were being made by any of the people who actually had seen the relics. After some waiting and reading, it seems I should have been even more skeptical.

Recently several of the scholars quoted in various articles have stated that they were misquoted to make the discovery sound genuine when they retained a healthy attitude of skepticism awaiting further confirmation. Others have called into question David Elkington's credentials (the man who is making grand claims about this discovery). Still others have pointed out the discrepancies in the claims. Peter Thonemann of Oxford has even staked his career on them being forgeries and has backed up his statement with pretty good evidence. He actually received pictures of the codices from Elkington last year, analyzed the Greek, and concluded that "the text on the bronze tablet was copied directly from the inscription in the museum at Amman by someone who did not understand the meaning of the text of the inscription, but was simply looking for a plausible-looking sequence of Greek letters to copy." Elkington failed to mention that in his press release and the media did not do much digging before it reported the find.

It still remains to be seen if Dr. Thonemann is right (the Greek in the images is really hard to read so I cannot confirm his transcription) but the case for the codices authenticity is not looking good. Again, we have another example of hype in the media. Unfortunately, the outlets that ramped up the hype have not retracted anything or even given air-time to those who doubt the authenticity of the codices. I agree with Mollie Ziegler's conclusions in her post. In general, the media does need to be more skeptical of claims, they need to not claim more than the scholars who present discoveries claim, they need to report the dissenting views, and they certainly need to have the courage to retract claims they have made when serious doubt is cast on discoveries they report on (though they rarely do).

By His Grace,
Taylor

Redefining the Chemistry of Life?

"The way I like to think about this organism is that it's an extremophile. They've discovered a new extremophile... This is an organism that they have discovered that would prefer phosphorus but can make use of arsenic if it is present... Just because life exists under extreme conditions doesn't mean that it is more likely to originate under those conditions than more moderate conditions... Whether... high temperature, high acid, high alkalinity, high salinity, or high radiation environments, all those circumstances... will actually disrupt pre-biotic chemistry needed to generate life and this would be the same situation. Just because it exists under high arsenate conditions does not mean it could originate under those conditions." ~ Dr. Fazale "Fuz" Rana

Last month there were a bunch of headlines floating around touting a discovery made by NASA astrobiology research fellow Felisa Wolfe-Simon ("Fe Lisa" or "Iron Lisa") that she and her team published in Science. A few popular headlines were "Arsenic-eating microbe may redefine chemistry of life", "Microbe Finds Arsenic Tasty; Redefines Life", or (my favorite) "Arsenic-Eating Bacteria Opens New Possibilities for Alien Life". A few of you out there have asked me about this privately and I have given some short answers, but I have wanted to write up a more detailed comment on this work for the last month. Because December was so busy, as I am sure it was for all of you, I have not gotten to it until now. Of course, that might be a good thing because I have now had the chance to read the paper and look at some peer criticism of how this was communicated to the public. But, now that I have a little time, here it goes...

Before we get into the actual paper and discovery, I would like to talk a little about the history of thought in chemistry and biology that led to this research and Dr. Wolfe-Simon's discovery. This is going to get a little bit technical but I will do my best to explain it clearly and it is necessary to talk about this discovery.

Life as we know it has six major elements that are crucial for it: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur. You might see these abbreviated as CHNOPS because they are commonly talked about as a group in reference to life. These particular elements are among the most abundant in the universe and have unique chemical properties that allow them to assemble into complex, stable molecules that can then further aggregate into complex, stable super-systems (DNA and RNA would be examples of these) to create an organism. Most scientists today believe that life must have these elements to exist. There are, however, a few that believe life could possibly be built on an alternative biochemistry. For example, it has been suggested that silicon could replace carbon or, in the case of this discovery, arsenic could replace phosphorus.

Why these particular replacements? Well that has to do with the chemistry of the elements in the Periodic Table (PT). The PT is one of the greatest achievements of science (I say that even though I am a physicist, not a chemist) and one of the reasons I say that is because of its construction. One can look at the PT and get a lot of information about the elements just by the position of those elements in the table. For example, elements in the same column have similar chemical properties. The closer they are, the more similar the chemistry. That is what is important for our purposes here. Take a look at the cutout from the PT on the left. Carbon's chemical symbol is C, silicon's is Si, and silicon is right below carbon in the PT, which shows us that there are chemically similar. Phosphorus' chemical symbol is P, arsenic's chemical symbol is As, and arsenic is right below phosphorus in the PT, which, again, tells us that they too are chemically similar. Some scientists think that the chemistry may be similar enough to represent possibilities for alternate biochemistries other than CHNOPS. Perhaps one could replace Si for C, thus the biochemistry would be SiHNOPS or perhaps As could replace P creating a CHNOAsS biochemistry. It is this kind of thinking that motivated the study.

Before we go further to the pertinent study, a few words need to be said about phosphorus and arsenic since they are the important elements for this particular discovery. In nature phosphorus primarily exists as phosphates (an ion with four oxygen atoms bound to a phosphorus atom). In this form, phosphorus plays an extremely important role in biochemistry. It is crucial to a number of biochemical functions (like regulating protein activity and the formation of the cell membrane) and biomolecules (like DNA, RNA, and metabolites). It has been generally thought that it is phosphorus' unique qualities that allow it to play an integral role in all of these functions but, as described above, arsenic is chemically very similar to phosphorus. Could arsenates (similar to phosphates) serve the above functions?

Arsenic does form into arsenates (an ion with four oxygen atoms bound to an arsenic atom) but they are toxic. Since arsenates are so similar to phosphates, organisms can incorporate them into biomolecules but since they are different from phosphates, the bonds in those biomolecules created with arsenates (instead of phosphates) will become unstable and break down, creating havoc in the metabolic system of the organism. So arsenate is similar enough to phosphate to be allowed into the cell but dissimilar enough that, once incorporated, the cell starts to break down. If this happens on a large enough scale the organism will die. So, life should not be capable of existing in an arsenate system.

This brings us to this discovery by Dr. Wolfe-Simon and her team. First, I would like to say that this is very impressive work. These scientists should be commended for this discovery and they should be proud of themselves for opening up the door to what will probably be years of fascinating research on this organism and others like it. That being said, the discovery as portrayed to the media and the general public is overblown. This newly discovered organism is not an "arsenic-based" organism, it does not find "arsenic tasty", and it is not really as "alien" as it is made out to be.

So, what did they discover? Well, Dr. Wolfe-Simon and her team went to Mono Lake in CA to search for bacteria that use arsenic. They chose Mono Lake because it has an extraordinarily high phosphorus and arsenic content so any bacteria found there would at least have to be able to deal with arsenic. They discovered a strain of bacteria, that they labeled GFAJ-1, which appears to be able to use arsenates and phosphates to grow. They then wanted to see if it could survive only with arsenates. In order to test this, they took GFAJ-1 from the lake (where the environment has high levels of phosphorus and arsenic) into their lab and put it in an environment with no phosphates and lots of arsenates. They did this to try to force the bacteria to use only arsenates, if it could, since phosphates were not available at all. They found that GFAJ-1 did survive and appeared to be incorporating arsenates into its biochemistry. Now, since the bacteria was formed in the lake with phosphorus and arsenic, they have not yet proven that it can completely substitute arsenates for phosphates because the bacteria still had plenty of phosphates to run critical systems. They did, however, show that it appears that at least some of the cells functions were using arsenates instead of phosphates, which was thought to be impossible. Through a process known as fractionation they found evidence that the arsenates were being used by GFAJ-1 in proteins, nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), and metabolites. The bacteria was even able to grow and reproduce under these conditions. Conventional biochemical knowledge says that GFAJ-1 should have died because the arsenates should have destabilized almost its entire metabolic system. With all this data, however, the conclusion that this bacteria appears to be able to do what was thought impossible--incorporate arsenates into its biochemistry, stabilize the arsenates (through a yet-to-be-determined mechanism), and survive--seems plausible (though it is also possible that this bacteria could simply be strongly resistant to arsenates).

Did they show that this life is "alien" or discover something that "redefines" the chemistry of life? No, they did not. Let me explain why. Assuming they are right that GFAJ-1 really is incorporating arsenates into its biochemistry: 

• First, even though the organism was able to survive under the extreme arsenate-rich and phosphate-poor environment, it was far from thriving like it did in Mono Lake where phosphate was readily available. The bacteria grew very slowly, reproduced at a proverbial snail's pace, and had a very distorted growth morphology. What is going on here is not completely clear yet, but these issues in the growth of the bacteria show that it probably has some kind of machinery in place to stabilize arsenates yet would prefer phosphates. So while the bacteria can survive in an arsenate-rich environment, it certainly prefers phosphates and will only thrive with phosphates.
• Second, there has been no long-term experiment done to see how long this bacteria can survive under these conditions. The bacteria began with phosphates since it was taken from Mono Lake. As it reproduced in the lab those phosphates were divided up to run critical systems. It is highly possible, as some critics has suggested, that colony could die off after it has spread its phosphate supply too thin. 
• Third, this finding is not proof that there is any bacteria naturally doing this. It only shows that it this bacteria seems to have a mechanism that allows it to use arsenate when it has to. It could potentially do it naturally (no one is sure how long it can) but this is certainly not proof that there are lifeforms regularly doing this.
• Fourth, the team had to create an arsenic-rich, phosphorus-poor environment. Finding a natural environment like this where biochemistry would have to be completely redefined is highly unlikely. Why? Because phosphorus is much more abundant in our universe than arsenic. In the earth's crust there is 667 times more phosphorus than arsenic. In the rest of our known universe there is 2500 times for phosphorus than arsenic. These abundances show that it is highly improbable that there would ever be a naturally occurring environment anywhere in the universe with all arsenic and no phosphorus that would cause life's chemistry to be redefined in a way similar to GFAJ-1.

What is the bottom-line? If it is not "alien" and does not "redefine" life's chemistry, what kind of organism is it? As I quoted from Dr. Rana above, it is (at best) an extremophile--organisms that can grow and survive under extreme conditions like high temperatures, high acidity, or, in this case, environments with high amounts of toxic arsenates. To get a little more specific, it could be a facultative arsenophile, which means it seems that it can use arsenic when necessary. Organisms are either obligatory or facultative. The former means they require a particular set of conditions to live. The latter means that the organism can make use of something if it is present under extreme conditions but do not prefer it. For example, e. coli is a facultative anaerobe, meaning that it would prefer an environment with oxygen but can, if necessary, survive in an oxygen-poor environment. In this case, GFAJ-1 being a facultative arsenophile means that it seems to make use of arsenic under extreme conditions. It is not an organism that has a "redefining" biochemistry, it is not an "arsenic-base" organism, it does not find "arsenic tasty;" at best it an extremophile that can possibly make use of arsenic when it is the only thing available in the environment but its preference would be phosphate.

Before I wrap this post up, I want to comment on one more thing that I quoted from Dr. Rana above. It has been suggested that this type of organism could represent an alternate way that life could emerge. Sorry, but this kind of organism does not provide a different possible pathway for life to originate. The reason why Dr. Rana says that, and I agree, is because this type of organism not only has the biochemistry of normal bacteria but has extra mechanisms that allow it to live under the harsh condition of excess arsenic. In short, it is an organism that is significantly more complex than normal bacteria that is based on phosphates alone. Arsenate is unstable, so unless you already have in place mechanisms that could stabilize the arsenates, there is no way life could form with arsenates. Origin of life in an arsenate system (vs. a phosphate system) is a significantly more complex pathway and even more improbable than the existing, phosphate-based origin of life scenarios. The same is true for all extremophiles. In fact, there have been papers written by other biologists arguing this point.

So what has Dr. Wolfe-Simon's done? She and her team have done some excellent research and made a fascinating discovery but they have not redefined anything or discovered something alien. What they have done is open the door for much more research in this area. There are still a lot of questions to be answered about this bacteria. Is GFAJ-1 really using the arsenates or just surviving as best it can in such an environment? If so, how are the arsenates stabilized? What do the molecules that incorporate arsenate look like? Could a DNA molecule with arsenate instead of phosphate be made in the lab?

By His Grace,
Taylor