Planet Kepler- 452b and a Premature Farewell to God

Planet Kepler- 452b and a Premature Farewell to God

By Norman L. Geisler, Ph.D.

With the discovery of Kepler-452b, an earth-like inhabitable planet, one overzealous scientist has proclaimed “Bad News for God.”  Jeff Schweitzer (in “Earth 2.0: Bad News for God,” 7/23/15) prognosticated the death of God with the discovery of Kepler 452b.  He argued that any life elsewhere disproves the religious hypothesis that there is a God who created all things.  However, upon careful examination his thesis is lacking logically, scientifically, and theologically.

Logically, there is no contradiction between these two premises: (1) There is life in outer space, and (2) God exists.  Both are possible.  Indeed, if God exists and created the universe (Gen. 1:1), then it makes sense that two are compatible. What is more, Schweitzer is short on logic, insisting that there cannot be life elsewhere in the universe since it is nowhere mentioned in Genesis or the rest of the Bible.  This is a logical fallacy named Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance).  From nothing, nothing can be proved.  When we find homes, cars, and machines on other planets, then we can talk.

Scientifically, even agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow saw the general confirmation of Genesis through Astronomy.  He wrote, “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world…. The chain of events leading to man commence suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy” (God and the Astronomers, 14).   Astronomer Hugh Ross has filled in many of the details in his book The Creator and the Cosmos (NavPress, 1993).

Nonetheless, Schweitzer insists that “life on another planet is completely incompatible with religious tradition.”  He declares, “be clear I am talking here of how just the simple existence of life elsewhere undermines religion.”  Why?  Because “From Genesis 1:1, we get: ‘Let us make man in our image….’ Nothing in that mentions alien worlds.”  For we are told in unambiguous terms that all life was created in six [literal] days.”  Further, there was light 10 billion years before the Bible said, “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3).

However qualified Schweitzer may be in “marine biology,” he falls seriously short in theology.  First, he misquotes the Bible reference. It is not, as he said, Genesis 1:1  that speaks of creating man in God’s image; it is Genesis 1:27.  Second, he wrongly assumes the Bible teaches that light began in the universe the week human beings were created.  Yet the Bible mentions light being present from the very beginning (Gen. 1:3), before the other days, including the sun appearing (Gen. 1:16-19).  Third, he assumes (not proves) that the “days” of Genesis were all 24-hour days with no long time periods anywhere.  Actually, the word “day” (yom) is used in Genesis 1 in many ways other than 24 hours.  It is employed of the daytime versus the night (1:3).  It is also used of all six days, namely, “in the day (yom) that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” (Gen. 2:4).  It is also used of thousands of years when speaking of God resting on the seventh day (Gen. 2:2) which is still going on (Heb. 4:9-10).  Indeed, since as early as the time of St. Augustine (4th cent), many Christians have held that the creation events are not limited to 6-24 hours of time.  Finally, nowhere does the Bible affirm how old the universe is; it simply states that it had a “beginning” (Gen. 1:1) whenever that was.  In fact, nowhere does the Bible add up all the genealogies, nor assume there are no missing generations.  Indeed, there are demonstrable gaps.  For example, Matthew 1:8 says “Jorum begat Uzziah,” yet 1 Chronicles 3:10-12 reveals that there were three generations between them. The Bible gives accurate genealogies but not always complete chronologies.

Further, at best, the existence of Kepler-452b proves only that some kind of life is possible on it.  But this is two gigantic steps from claiming that intelligent life actually exists there.  First, it only shows life is possible there, not that it is actual.  After all the condition for a fire exists with dry leaves, but it still takes something to ignite it.  Second, there is another leap from the premise that some simple life exists to the conclusion that intelligent life exists.  An appeal to naturalistic macro-evolution to fill in the gigantic gap begs the question. For even it has unproven presuppositions, such as, (a) spontaneous generation is possible (even though Redi and Pasteur disproved it).  (b) New forms of life are possible without intelligent intervention, even though no observation or experimentations—the basis for scientific conclusions — support this view.

Schweitzer’s interpretation of Genesis is that when it says God created “all living beings” (Gen. 1:21) it definitively excludes the possibility of some forms of life elsewhere in the universe.  However, this violates a fundamental rule of interpretation, namely, every text must be understood in its context. Clearly, the context of God creating life in Genesis 1-2 is “the earth,” not the universe.  And taking a text out of context is a pretext.

Is there animal-like or human like life anywhere else in the universe?  We don’t know.  We have not seen any evidence for it.

Is it possible for physical life to exist elsewhere in the universe? Yes, but we can’t legitimately deduce the actual from the merely possible.  Again, dry leaves alone don’t make a fire.  There is a significant difference between a condition and a cause.

What if there is human-like rational life elsewhere in the universe?  That’s a lot of “ifs.”  (1) If there is life in outer space, and (2) if there is rational life, and (3) if it is fallen life, then what?  Then, C.S. Lewis’s speculation is worth reading (“Religion and Rocketry” in The World’s Last Night: And Other Essays).  If there is fallen life, then God who is love (1 Jn. 4:16), loves them and has provided redemption for them.  The details are left for further theological development.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, we know two things.  First, Kepler- 452b is not grounds for “bad news for God.”  If anything, it is good news about God.  Johann Kepler, after whom the planet is named, was a devout believer in God.  He desired, namely that “belief in the creation of the world be fortified through this external support, that thought of the creator be recognized in its nature, and that his inexhaustible wisdom [will be] shone forth daily more brightly.”  (Mysterium Comographicum).

Indeed, contrary to Carl Sagan’s charge that unless there is intelligent life in outer space, there is a lot of “wasted space,” astronomers now know with the discovery of the “Anthropic Principle” that the universe was made for human life (anthropos).  As the psalmist declared, “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork” (Psa. 19:1).  Even the great agnostic philosopher Immanuel Kant confessed belief in God, saying, “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heaven above and the moral law within me” (Critique of Practical Reason, 166).  Certainly, the discovery of the vastness and variety of the universe does not diminish but fulfills Kepler’s desire.

Second, the only verified space travel was when the Logos (Christ) came into the world at His Incarnation (Jn. 1:14) and returned to outer space or beyond in His Ascension (Acts 1:9-10).   Meanwhile, back on planet earth, He has left us with an engaging task: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,…teaching them to observe all that I [Christ] have commanded you” (Matt. 28:18-20).  When we have completed extending God’s love to all the other earthlings on this planet which are within our reach, then, if it ever becomes possible, we can extend that love to any of our cosmic cousins who may exist beyond our reach now.

Epigenetics Offers New Solution to Some Long-Standing Theological Problems (2010)

Epigenetics Offers New Solution to Some Long-Standing Theological Problems:

Inherited Sin, Christ’s Sinlessness, and Generational Curses Can be Explained

Copyright by Norman L. Geisler 2010

Revision Note

I sent this article to one of the top experts on this subject in the country, Dr. Fuz Rana.  He was kind enough to say the following, “Your ideas on how epigenetics can contribute to our understanding of important theological concepts parallels some of my preliminary thoughts.”  He added, “ From a scientific standpoint, I really don’t see any issues with anything you have written.  I think the section on Epigenetics and Generational Curses is particularly strong.  I also think you may be on to something with your proposal that epigenetics may help explain how all humans inherit a sin nature from Adam.” Dr. Rana made one suggested revision that we have added, namely, “While some exceptions are known, the general mechanism for transmitting information about ancestral environment is down the male line”[add in the 3rd paragraph under Christ’s Sinlessness].

What Are Epigenes

I am not a geneticist, but I follow its discoveries with great interest. As a philosopher and theologian, I was intrigued by a recent article in Time (Jan 18, 2010) claiming that “The new field of epigenetics is showing how your environment and your choices can influence your genetic code-and that of your kids” (p. 49). According to scientists, “powerful environmental conditions (near death from starvation, for example) can somehow leave an imprint on the genetic material in eggs and sperms” (50) that can affect ones offspring. That is, “Epigenetics is the study of changes in gene activity that do not involve alterations to the genetic code but still get passed down to at least one successive generation” (50). In fact, fruit flies exposed to a drug called geldanamycin “show unusual outgrowths on their eyes that can last through at least 13 generations of offspring even though no change in DNA has occurred…” (51) In humans it is believed that the grandchildren of grandparents who gorged themselves die earlier than normal. Baby lotions containing peanut oil may be partly responsible for the rise in peanut allergies (53). Bad habits like smoking can predispose ones children to disease and early death (50). Anxiety during pregnancy may lead to asthma in ones children (53). And poor eating habits of a mother can lead to heart problems in her children (49).

How does this work? Dramatic changes in the environment can place epigenetic marks on top of the gene. “It is these epigenetic ‘marks’ that tell your genes to switch on or off, to speak loudly or whisper” (50). While the gene does not change, the epigenes do influence the gene. Scientists explain, “If the gene is the hardware, then the epigene is the software.” That is, “you’re going to have the same chip in there, the same genome, but different software. And the outcome is a different cell type” (51).

How Epigenes May Help Solve Some Long-Standing Theological Problems

Evangelical theology has long been plagued with difficulties that have not to date been satisfactorily answered. The usual response is that it is a mystery. One of these is the problem of how we inherit original sin.

The Problem of Original Sin

Following St. Augustine and the Reformers, evangelical theologians have long held that human beings since Adam inherit a sin nature. David said, we “are born in sin” and “in sin did our mother conceive us” (Psa. 51:5). Paul added, we are “by nature children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3). This is because somehow we “all sinned” in Adam (Rom. 5:12). Hence, as Augustine put it, “We are born with the propensity to sin and the necessity to die.” Just how this occurred has long been considered a “mystery” by biblical theologians. There is no evidence that depravity is transmitted in the genes. Nor, in the light of the biblical data, is the Pelagian view acceptable which claims that we have no inherited propensity to sin but everyone simply sins of their own free will. But this does not accord with the biblical data, nor does it explain the universal tendency to sin.

However, in view of the developing science of epigenetics, it is possible that while sin is not inherited through the genes, nonetheless, it may be passed on through the epigenes. Just what are epigenes? They are “marks” left on the genes from dramatic events in the environment. We now know that epigene changes can last many generations (51). But “Can epigenetic changes be permanent? Possible, but…it doesn’t change DNA.” Epigenetic effects transmitted from parents to their offspring can last many generations. If so, then why could not the traumatic event of the Fall of Adam have placed on his posterity “marks” that have lasted all these generations? In short, even though the effects of the Fall are not in the genes, they could be in the epigenes. Thus, we could all be born with the effects of Adam’s Fall, even though they do not come from nor change our basic genetic human nature.

The Problem of the Christ’s Sinlessness and the Virgin Birth

Conservative theologians have also been long troubled by how the Virgin Conception of Jesus is related to his sinlessness. In short, if Mary was his actual mother, then why wouldn’t the inherited depravity from Adam be passed on to Jesus anyway? Why isn’t a sinful mother, which Mary was (Lk. 1:46), as much of a problem as a sinful father in channeling original sin? The Roman Catholic view of positing an immaculate conception of Mary does not solve the problem. First, there is no biblical evidence that Mary was sinless. Indeed, she considered herself to be in need of a Savior (Lk. 1:46). Second, by the same logic there would need to be a long regress of immaculate conceptions back to Eve to explain why sin is not passed along.

Another solution offered is that Jesus’ human nature was miraculously created in Mary’s womb and is not genetically connected to her. But this runs into other serious problems. First, the Bible declares that Jesus is, to use modern terms, genetically connected to Mary. He as “born of a woman” (Gal. 4:4) and came from “the loins of David” (Acts 2:30 cf. 1 Kgs. 8:19). Second, he could not be the “last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45), unless he was genetically connected to Adam. Nor could he redeem Adam’s race unless he had “flesh and blood” of Adam and was the actual “offspring of Abraham” (Heb. 2:14-15).

This is where epigenetics may solve this previous “mystery.” According to scientists, “While some exceptions are known, the general mechanism for transmitting information about ancestral environment is down the male line” (53). If this is so, then perhaps a person born of a virgin mother would not inherit the epigenetic information resulting from Adam’s Fall. Whether this is so or not, we are not in a position to say. And, of course, there may be other factors. But certainly epigenetics has opened the door to a possible solution of this long-standing and vexing problem for evangelical theology.

The Problem of Generational Curses

The Bible speaks of the results of parent’s sins being passed on to their children. Moses wrote from God, “I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generations of those who hate me…” (Ex. 20:5). We have long known that this refers only to the consequences of parental sins, not the guilt. For Ezekiel wrote, “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the inequity of the father…” (18:20). So, the children can suffer from the consequences of their parents sins but not from the guilt of their sin. Each person bears the guilt for his/her own sin (Rom. 14:12).

However, we have not known precisely how these generational curses work. We do know that children of alcoholics often have a tendency in that direction. We also know that other evil tendencies of parents show up in children, but we do not always know how they get there. We do know, for example, that no alcoholic gene or homosexual gene has been identified. But until recently we had to attempt to explain the generational influence by nurture, not by nature. However, with the emergence of the epigenes we now have some possible new insight as to how this may work.

Perhaps, there is an inherited tendency to one form of behavior or another that are not rooted in the genes. But maybe they are in the epigenes. Perhaps the serious sins of the fathers have left an epigenetic “mark” on the children that can last for generations. If so, then there is still good news. First, epigenetic tendencies are not irreversible. Second, scientists are already treating and correcting these epigenetic marks. And maybe another traumatic experience (like divine regeneration) can also reverse their effects.

No Good News for Macro-Evolution

Epigenetics has opened the door for a solution to some of the more sticky long-standing theological problems. However, so far it has not provided any good news for macro-evolution. According to the Time article, “…it’s important to remember that epigenetics isn’t evolution” (51). Why? Because “it doesn’t change DNA” (51). As Stephen C. Meyer’s has demonstrated in his excellent book (Signature in the Cell, 2009), it takes an infusion of genetic information to make or change the genetic code. In short, the argument for intelligent design is not hampered by the discovery of epigenetic activity. For the only power known to be able to produce complex genetic information, such as is needed for first life and new kinds of life, is intelligence or a Mind. As famous former atheist, Anthony Flew, put it: “It is simply inconceivable that any material matrix or field can generate agents who think and act…. A force field does not plan or think. So…the world of living, conscious, thinking beings has to originate in a living Source, a Mind” (There is a God, 183).

Epigenetics is Good News for the Future

Furthermore, we are told that over time, the effects of the epigenetic impact fade and even vanish (51). In short, they are not irreversible. This is very good news for depraved human beings. This means that perhaps another traumatic event could reverse the course of depravity and we would lose our propensity to sin. This certainly fits well with the biblical teaching that one day the effects of Adam’s sin will be erased when, by another dramatic event, we will see Christ face to face. Paul said, “now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face” (1 Cor. 13:12). John tells us this will take place at the dramatic event of Christ’s second coming when “we shall be like him because we shall see him as he is” (1 Jn. 3:2). This means that without changing our human nature we could be delivered from out sinful nature which by epigenetic transmission we inherited from Adam.

Whether this is all true or not, we do not know. We do believe, however, that a new possibility for explaining some long-standing difficulties in evangelical theology is now possible. As the science of epigenetics develops, it remains to see whether or not these suggested solutions are plausible. One can only say that, at least at this stage, it seems possible.


Footnotes will be aded later.

A Review of Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism

A Review of Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution:

The Search for the Limits of Darwinism

By Norman L. Geisler


This book is the follow up of Behe’s revolutionary work, Darwin’s Black Box. Like the first volume, this 307 page tome will also created a stir in the perennial creation-evolution debate. Unlike the first book, the emphasis here is on the limits of evolution rather than the need for intelligent design. Behe’s general conclusions are based largely on the Malaria and HIV studies which enable scientists to determine the rate of “helpful” chance mutations (13) for micro evolution. When this is applied to mutations in living things, Behe believes the mathematical odds eliminate the Darwinian belief that the origin of all living forms can be explained by random mutations and natural selection. This attempt to define the limits of Darwinism provides a way to determine the borders for micro-evolution within an overall intelligent design framework. It is one of the most sophisticated attempts to define the border between macro and micro evolution. The previous effort was by Ray Bolin’s book, The Limits to Biological Change (1984). Much of Behe’s work deals with a technical microbiological discussion of the nature of the cell. However, because of the use of good illustrations, even the scientifically untrained reader can understand the overall argument.

The Central Thesis

Behe concludes that everything from biological classes, types, and phyla clearly need a designer. Everything from species, varieties, and individuals can be explained by purely natural processes like “random mutations, natural selection, and common descent” (1). The Line, then, between, Darwin and design is somewhere in the area of orders, families, and genera (218), though he thinks it is likely that even the orders are designed (193, 199).

In other words, micro evolution (changes within different types) can be accounted for Darwinian processes without any intelligent design. Before that level, however, only an Intelligent Designer can account for the irreducible complexity in living things. Thus, the origin of new life forms cannot be accounted for by a completely Darwinian random processes of chance mutations, and natural selection.

Theistic Evolution

Creationists who missed the fine print in Behe’s first book, acknowledging that he held an overall evolutionary common ancestry thesis, will be disappointed with The Edge of Evolution. For here Behe makes it clear that he is a theistic evolutionist (166, 182, 232). He says: “I’ll show some of the newest evidence from studies of DNA that convinces most scientists, including myself, that one leg of Darwin’s theory–common descent–is correct” (65). He adds, “when two lineages share what appears to be an arbitrary genetic accident, the case for common descent becomes compelling …. This sort of evidence he sees in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees” (70-71). “More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from …a broken hemoglobin gene” which they share (71). Creationists, however, have shown that a common Creator explains this same data as a result of intelligent design (see Fazele Rana and High Ross, Who Was Adam?, 2005, Chapter 14).

Behe seems to favor the position that “intelligent design is quite compatible with the view that the universe operates by unbroken natural law, with the design of life perhaps packed into its initial set-up” (166). Thus, “the bottom line is this: Common descent is true; yet the explanation of common descent … is in a profound sense trivial” Why? Because “It does not even begin to explain where these commonalities came from, or how humans subsequently acquired remarkable differences” (72). Behe believes that it comes from pre-planned and pre-set intelligent design, perhaps from the moment of the Big Bang.

Random Changes are Inadequate

As one would suspect from his first work, Behe reaffirms his initial thesis that “Random duplicating a single gene, or even the entire genome, does not yield new complex machinery… [or] novel, complex forms of life” (74). Indeed, he insists that the studies since his first book show that “the problems of its [cilium’s] irreducible complexity has been enormously compounded” (94). And “The cilium is no fluke. The cell is full of structures whose complexity is substantially greater than we knew just ten years ago” (95). He also points to the incredible timing it takes to construct a cell, comparing it to the preparation and execution of the material and machinery necessary to erect a large building (96).
Returning to the bacterial flagellum (motor mechanism), he calls it “mind-boggling complexity” (101) since we know there are control switches that exert control over its construction. Citing noble laureate Francis Crick, Behe concludes that “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going” (216).

Possible Divine Interference

In spite of his common descent thesis, Behe allows for the possibility of divine “interference” after the initial creation at the Big Bang. He concludes: “The bottom line is that, if one allows that a being external to the universe could affect its laws, there is no principled reason to rule out a priori more extensive interaction as well” (210). In short, “If there really does exist an agent who tuned the general laws of nature with the goal of producing intelligent life, then it’s reasonable to think the agent would have taken whatever further steps were necessary to achieve its goal” (213). However, typical of evolutionists, with or without and initial Creator, Behe agrees with the party-line criticism that this positing a series of creative events after the beginning is an unnecessary God-of-the-gaps move.

The Anthropic Connection

Behe skillfully ties his intelligent design thesis in with the anthropic principle (207-208), saying, “It’s reasonable to conclude not only that the universe is designed, but that the design extends well beyond general laws, at least down into particularities of the physical and chemistry of certain molecules” (210). This has the advantage of showing that the designer is beyond the world and that He preplanned emergence of complex life before the Big Bang. He declares that “the hard work of many scientists across many scientific disciplines in the past century unexpectedly demonstrated that both the universe at large and the earth in particular were designed for life. The heavens and earth–and life itself–alike are fine-tuned” (210). In spite of this, Behe strangely allows the view that the Designer may be within the universe like Fred Hoyle proposed (228). However, this is not consistent with the fact that the Designer preplanned the original Big Bang event before the natural world existed and pre-packed it with the necessary conditions for human life to emerge.

The Evidence for Intelligent Design

Behe posits two criteria for an intelligent cause. First, the odds against a natural cause must be great. Random mutations cannot explain the irreducibly complex nature of life for “the majority of even helpful mutations are lost by chance before they get an opportunity to spread in the population” (111). In short, the complex structure of the cell makes it unreasonable for blind Darwinism to navigate the maze necessary for life (113). For both the necessary parts and the action to achieve cell construction make it highly improbable that it would occur naturally (121).

By comparison with the HIV virus in which nothing “significantly new or complex” (155) developed in 1020 copies, Behe concludes that the likelihood of even simple helpful changes for complex cell construction are virtually nil. It is in this connection that Behe offers a helpful distinction between mere theoretical possibility (which Darwinian evolution depends on to make its case) and biologically reasonable expectation (103), namely, something that is likely to occur in nature (which Darwinians is not).

Second, the evidence of purpose is necessary to posit an intelligent cause. Indeed, Behe defines “design” as “the purposeful arrangement of parts” (168). Rational agents can coordinate things into a large system like a ship. Such an arrangement is not only highly unlikely to occur by chance, but we know from previous experience that an intelligent agent can organize things in this manner. All necessary parts must not only fit together but they must stick together (124-126). Even two new useful properties need an intelligent cause since the odds are 1040 against it. This is more than all the mammals that ever lived (135). This is so unlikely that it calls for an intelligent cause at the outer edge of evolution (145-146).

The Role of Chance (220).

The design thesis is not extended by Behe to every detail of the universe. He asks: “Is nothing left to chance? No, there is no reason to think that any but a minuscule fraction of the details of the universe or life are intended” (219). So, “we have no scientific evidence of the design of the details of most inorganic matter” (220). Hence, “Explicit design appears to reach into biology to a certain level, to the level of the vertebrate class, but not necessarily further, Randomness accounts perfectly well for many aspects of life. Contingency is real” (220). In making this claim, Behe is not discounting that even the tiniest cells are elegantly designed. He insists that random mutations can not take many coherent steps by purely natural processes (179).

Addressing Objections
Behe addresses several objections to His view. One deals with the possibility of numerous universes of which this one is the lucky shot that turned up where life emerged, as improbable as it may have been in a single universe.

The Multi-Universe Hypothesis

Behe addresses the atheistic response that this universe is only an isolated oasis of apparent design in a vast dessert of chance involving multi-universes (221) which make this unusual universe in which we live a plausible result of chance. He believes this hypothesis actually undercuts Darwinism for the models are purely speculative and iffy. That is, there is no observational evidence for such an hypothesis–which is the very basis for science. Further, on such a scenario only a bare-bones universe would be produced, not the lush one we have (223). Science can only deal with what is–not with what one imagines or wishes there to be.

Behe struggles with the infinite universes possibility which would explain this one as one of the many that would actualize in that amount of time and space. However, being unarmed with solid philosophical reasoning, he does not seem to realize that one cannot have an actual infinite number of actual universes (but only abstract ones). He does note that an infinite universes hypothesis would undermine both any meaningful sense of evidence and the fact that all false thought will appear endlessly in such a scenario. More fundamentally, he asserts that science is based on the premises that the universe is real and our senses are reliable. Without this even the first steps of reasoning are impossible (226). But granted these, the infinite universe scenario is unfounded.

The Religious Connection

In answer to the objection that the design position leads to God, Behe quotes Nick Bostrom with approval, affirming that “The ‘agent’ doing the designing need not be a theistic God …,” even though that is one possibility (228). He believes–I think wrongly–that “To reach a transcendent God, other nonscientific arguments have to be made–philosophical and theological arguments” (229). Much of the book deals with a technical microbiological discussion of the nature of the cell. However, by the use of good illustrations even scientifically untrained readers can understand the overall argument.

The God of the Gaps Objection

This reasoning, Behe insists, is not “God of the gaps” because non-randomness “encompasses the cellular foundation of life as a whole” (147). In short, it is not the lack of evidence for a natural cause but the presence of an all-permeating presence of purpose that points to a designer. According to Behe, “purposeful designer” is taken in a broad sense (229) to include either a supernatural cause beyond the universe or one inside the universe. For “the designer need not necessarily even be a truly ‘supernatural’ being.” Thus, he argues that “if one wishes to be academically rigorous, he can not leap directly from design to a transcendent God” (228). But this conclusion is unnecessary in view of Behe’s own argument since the anthropic evidence points to a supernatural cause beyond the universe, as does the evidence for the Big Bang to which he alludes. For the cause of the whole natural universe cannot be part of the universe. And the only Cause beyond the natural universe is by definition a supernatural Cause. Indeed, on his own definition of science as a conclusion relying on physical evidence, “plus standard logic” (233) one can logically infer a supernatural cause from the Big Bang origin of the entire natural universe, as we just did.

Common Ancestor or Common Creator

Behe argues that: “If mammals and flies use the same switching genes, it is reasonable to think that they inherited them from the same ancestor or ancestors” (182). Indeed, it is true that “every Hox gene seen in the fruit fly has a very similar counterpart in humans!” (180). However, Behe forgets that from this we need not infer common ancestry. For it is also reasonable to conclude that they have a common Creator. For common design points more reasonably to a common Designer than to a common ancestor. For example, the progressive models of airplanes from the Wright brothers to space ships are not evidence of a common ancestor but a common creator. And in many case a function that worked well in a previous model was incorporated into a later one.

Is the Bible Scientific?

Behe claims that it is “silly” to treat the Bible “as some sort of scientific textbook” (166).
However, while the Bible is not a systematic science text on the various sciences, nonetheless, there is no evidence to demonstrate that it is not scientifically accurate when it speaks on matters of origin. Indeed, modern science has confirmed the basic facts of Genesis one: 1) There was a Creator of the universe (Gen. 1:1). 2) First life was created (Gen. 1:21). 3) The basic kinds of multi-cellular life “exploded” on the scene in the Cambrian (Gen. 1:21-24). 4) All forms of life appeared fully formed from the beginning. 5) These forms of life remain basically the same throughout their geological existence, producing after their kind (Gen. 1:24). 6) Human beings are unique creatures with distinctive intellectual and moral capacities, even God-consciousness (Gen. 1:27). Even the Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow concluded, “”Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commence suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy” (God and the Astronomers, 14).

Does Nature Self-Organize?

Darwinian evolutionist claim that nature performs self-organizing acts such as hurricanes. But, as Behe points out these systems are not like “complex genetic systems” (159). They have no irreducible complexity, nor do they have any specified complexity such as the DNA has. Hence, this Darwinian analogy is fallacious.

Origin vs. Operation Science

Behe shows no evidence that he understands the distinction between origin and operation science distinction that we made in our book, Origin Science (1987). In fact, he seems to blur them in his definition of science as “any conclusion that relies heavily and exclusively on detailed physical evidence, plus standard logic” (233). But this is too broad and does not bring out the distinctives of each domain. Operation science deals with observed regularities in the present, but origin science treats unobserved singularities in the past. The first one is an empirical science which includes micro-evolution, but not macro evolution. It relies on observation (and experimentation) and repetition. Each theory, therefore, must be measured against a recurring pattern in the present.

However, origin science operates like a forensic science. It involves neither repetition nor direct observation of events. Rather, it relies on two other principles: causality and uniformity. The first principle posits that there is a cause for every event. The second principle declares that the kind of causes know by repeated observation in the present to produce certain kinds of events in the present are assumed to be the same kind of causes to produce like events in the past. And the two basic kinds of causes are intelligent and non-intelligent natural causes. Sciences that deal with intelligent causes in the past includes both forensic science and origin science. Had Behe explicitly used this distinction, he could have solved more problems more readily. Likewise, speaking of “testing” (233-234) an origin hypothesis is misleading in the normal sense of an empirical test. In a forensic situation, being a singular unobserved past event, there is no such way to “test” the event. One can only posit a certain kind of cause (known from repetitions in the present) as the most likely cause of that past event of origin, whether a non-intelligent natural cause or an intelligent cause.

Prediction or Retrodiction?

Failing to distinguish origin science form operation science, Behe labors to explain how intelligent design can make predictions better than Darwinian evolution (188-189, 234). But neither theory as such is primarily concerned with making predictions, though some may be inferred from them. Origin science, such as macro evolution and creation, deals with projecting back (retrodiction) from present evidence to past causes based on uniformity (the present is the key to the past). Hence, the main concern is not with verifying the theory by predictions, but with identifying the proper cause for the specific events, whether non-intelligent natural one or an intelligent one.

Suffering and Design

Behe briefly tackles the painful problem of suffering (237f.). He responds to the argument that “because it is horrific, it was not designed” by pointing out that the “revulsion is not a scientific argument.” Indeed, he insists that “denying design simply because it can cause terrible pain is a failure of nerve, a failure to look at the universe fully in the face” (239). Of course, this is a less than satisfying answer to the problem. A more direct response would be to point out two things. First, suffering does not negate the strong evidence for design. At worst, it only raises questions about the nature and purposes of the Designer. Second, the attempts to disprove the Creator based on the apparent lack of purpose for suffering are notoriously unsuccessful. At best they boil down to this: “The Creator cannot have a good purpose for allowing suffering because the creature cannot think of one.” But clearly if the Creator is infinite in knowledge, then we would expect that He would know infinitely more than we do. And if He is absolutely good (which He must be or else we could not know the world is not-perfect without this absolute standard of Perfection by which to measure it), then He must have an absolutely good purpose for everything, even if we do not know it (Deut. 29:29; Rom. 11:33).

Purpose for Apparent Randomness

Behe seems to lack a full understanding of the relation of randomness and design. They are not mutually exclusive. There is a purpose or design for randomness. For example, the random mixing of carbon dioxide which humans exhale has a good purpose, namely, it keeps them from inhaling the same poison because it did not mix with the air we inhale. Likewise, random natural selection has a good purpose: It enables various kinds of animals to survive by adapting to adverse circumstances. In short, it helps the race survive when weaker individuals are eliminated. Just as a saw mill uses the “wasted” saw dust to make other products, even so there is a purpose for the “wasted” animals who did not survive. They provide food and fertilizer for those who do survive.

Likewise, Behe’s argument for common ancestry based on alleged common mutations in genes between primates an humans is fallacious. Just as the once 180 vestigial organs of Darwin’s day have diminished to virtually none, even so, the recently so-called “junk” genes are now known to have a crucial purpose in the development of life. Any alleged “ waste” in God’s universe is probably a byproduct of a good purpose such as higher life living on lower forms. But even this byproduct of a good process (like saw dust from cutting logs) has a good use. Darwin’s view of nature that is “red in tooth and claw” was not the paradise God made in Eden (Gen. 2), nor will it be the Paradise regained in the end (Isa. 65:25; Rev. 21-22). It is the Paradise lost because of man’s sin (Gen. 2:16-17).


In summation, Behe’s work is a mixed blessing to the creation and intelligent design movements. It is a blessing in that: 1) It strengthens the already good argument from specified complexity to an intelligent Designer; 2) It provides a scientific basis for the limits of biological change known as micro-evolution or variation within created kinds or types of life. On the down side: 1) Behe does not seem to understand the difference between operation science and origin science (see my book Creation in the Courts (Crossway, 2007), Chap. 8); 2) He does not see how the scientific evidence leads to a supernatural Cause; 3) He buys into the unfounded argument that similarity shows a common ancestor, rather than a common Creator; 4) He wrongly assumes that some apparent mutations are evidence for common ancestry when they are really highly complex means produced by an intelligent Designer. Thus, so-called “junk” genes are not really junk. Crucial roles have been discovered for them in the increasing complexity of life. And not all apparent mutations are real ones. Granted that it took a supernatural and super intelligent Cause to produce this world (as the Big Bang and Anthropic evidence shows), there is good reason to believe that “God does not make junk!” And if it looks like junk, then scientists need to take another look. For the history of science has shown that apparent left-over organs and junk genes have turned out to have important functions. Any One who can pre-plan and produce a highly complex universe as this one should not be charged with purposeless activity. It is more likely that we are dumb than it is that a supernatural Creator is dead.


Does Believing in Inerrancy Require One to believe in Young Earth Creationism?


by Norman L. Geisler


The age of the earth is a hotly debated issue among evangelicals.  Old Earthers believe, like most scientists, that the universe is billions of years old. Young Earthers, measure the age of the universe in terms of thousands of years. The debate is not new, but the insistence by some Young Earthers that belief in the inerrancy of the Bible demands a Young Earth position is relatively new.

                                         The Biblical Status of the Young Earth View

            In order to establish the Young Earth view one must demonstrated that there are (1) no time gaps in the biblical record and that (2) the “days” of Genesis are six successive 24 hour days of creation.


Possible Gaps in Genesis


Unfortunately for Young Earthers, these two premises are difficult to establish for many reasons.  (1) There could have been a gap of long periods of time before Genesis 1:1 (called Recent Creationism).  (2) There could be a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (called the Gap Theory with or without and intervening fall of Satan, as C. I. Scofield had it). (3) There could be long gaps between the six literal 24-hour days (Alternating Day-Age Theory).  The point here is not to defend any one of these views, but it is to note that belief in an Old Earth is not incompatible in principle with belief in inerrancy and a literal interpretation of Genesis. (4) There are known gaps after Genesis. For example, Mathew 1:8 affirms that “Joram begat Uzziah.”  But in 1 Chronicles 3:11-14 it mentions three missing generations between Joram and Uzziah.  Likewise, Luke 3:35-36 lists one missing generation (Cainan) not mentioned in Genesis 11:20-24.


So, with demonstrable gaps in the genealogies, the “Closed-Chronology” view needed to support the strict Young Earth view is not there. This would mean that a Young Earth view of creation around 4000 B.C. would not be feasible.  And once more gaps are admitted, then when does it cease to be a Young Earth views?



Evidence that the “Days” of Genesis May Involve more than Six 24 hour days of Creation


Not only is it possible that there are time gaps in Genesis 1, but there is also evidence that the “days” of Genesis are not 6 successive 24 hour days, called the Day-Age View (see Hugh Ross, Creation and Time and Don Stoner,A New Look at an Old Earth).  Consider the following:

(1) First, the word “day” (Hb. yom) is not limited to a 24 hour day in the creation record.  For instance, it is used of 12 hours of light or daytime (in Gen.1:4-5a).

(2) It is also used of a whole 24 hour day in Genesis 1:5b where it speaks day and night together as a “day.”

(3) Further, in Genesis 2:4 the word “day” is used of all six days of creation when it affirms: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day [yom] that the LORD God made them” (Gen. 2:4).

(4) What is more, on the “seventh day” God “rested” from His work of creation.  But according to Hebrews 4:4-11, God is still resting and we can enter into His Sabbath rest (v. 10).  So, the seventh day of creation rest is still going on some 6000 plus years later (even by a Young Earth chronology).

(5)  Further, there are biblical alternatives to the strongest argument for a 24 hour day.  (a) For example, numbered series with the word “day” (as in Genesis 1) do not always refer to 24 hour days, as Hosea 6:1-2 shows.  (b) Also, “evening and morning” sometimes refers to longer periods of time rather than 24 hours, as they do in the prophetic days of Daniel 8:14.  (c) And the comparison with the work week in Exodus 20:11 need not be a minute-for-minute but a unit-for-unit comparison.  Further, the seventh day is known to be longer than 24 hours (Heb. 4:4-11).  So, why cannot the other days be longer too?  (d) As for death before Adam, the Bible does not say that death of all life was a result of Adam’s sin.  It only asserts that “death passed upon all men” because of Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:12, emphasis added), not on all plants and animals, though the whole creation was subject to “bondage to corruption” (Rom. 8:21).

(6)  Others like Hermon Ridderbos (Is There a Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science?) took the “days” of Genesis as a Literary Framework for the great creative events of the past.  Still others (Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture) considered the “days” of Genesis to be six 24 hour days of revelation (wherein God revealed what he had done in the ancient past to the writer of Genesis) but not literal days of creation.Again, the point here is not to defend these views but to point out that there are alternatives to a Young Earth View, most of which are not incompatible in principle with a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.

(7) The Relative Time View claims the Earth is both young and old, depending on how it is measured.  Gerard Schroeder, a Jewish physicists (inGenesis and the Big Bang), argued that measured by God’s time when He created the universe it was only six literal days of creation.  But measured by our time, the creation of the universe is billions of years old.

(8) The Apparent Age View proposes that the universe just looks old, even though it is young.  The book by Philip Henry Gosse was titled Omphalos(1857), meaning navel, proposing that Adam had a navel, even though he was created as an adult.   Likewise, on this view the first tree would have had rings in them the day they were created.

If there is evidence for Gaps in Genesis and longer period of time involved in the six day of Genesis, then the Young Earth view fails to convincingly support its two pillars.  At a minimum it leaves room for reasonable doubt.  In view of this, one can ask why is it that many still cling to the Young Earth view with such tenacity.



A Theological Assumption


For some the belief in a Young Earth seems to be based on a kind of intuition or faith in God’s omnipotence.  It reasons that if God is all powerful, then certainly He would not have taken millions of years to make the earth.  However, by reduction ad absurdum, one could ask why God did not create it in six minutes or six second rather than six days? If He is all-powerful and can make something from nothing, then why did He not create the whole thing lock-stock-and barrel instantaneously!

The Evolutionary Fear

Many Young Earthers seemed to be afraid to grant long periods of time for fear that it may help support an evolutionary conclusion.  However, this is unnecessary for two reasons.  First, time as such does not help evolution.  Dropping red, white, and blue confetti from an airplane a thousand feet above the ground will not produce an American flag in one’s yard.  And going up to ten thousand feet (and giving it more time to fall) will not help.  Time as such does not organize things into complex designs; it further randomizes the material.  It takes an intelligent cause to form it into an American flag.  Further, separating God’s supernatural acts of revelation to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and the prophets by many hundreds of years does not make them less supernatural.  It just makes his revelation progressive over a period of time.  The same could be true of God’s acts of creation, if they were separated by long periods of time.

Second, there are plenty of other problems with macro-evolution for it does not explain (without an intervening intelligent cause) how (a) something can come from nothing; b) how non life cannot come from life; c) how non-consciousness can produce consciousness, and d) how non-rational beings can produce rational beings.  Longer periods of time as such do not overcome any of these problems; it takes intelligent intervention to do it.

As we have seen, both premise of the Young Earth View are open to serous objections.  There is no air-tight case for a Young Earth from a biblical point of view.  So, while it may be compatible with inerrancy, nonetheless, inerrancy does not necessitate a belief in a Young Earth.


The Historical Status of the Young Earth Theory


            Historically, the Young Earth View has never garnered an important, let alone a crucial role in the history of the Church.  It was known to the early Church Fathers (see St. Augustine, City of God 11.6), but it was never made an essential doctrine, let alone given a special status.

First of all, Young Earth creationism was never given a creedal status in the early Church.  It does not appear in any early creeds or in any other widely accepted creed in the history of Christendom.


Second, it was not granted an important doctrinal status by the historic Fundamentalist (c. 1900).  That is, it was not accepted or embraced by the Old Princetonians B. B.Warfield, Charles Hodge, or J. Gresham Machen.


Third, Young Earth creationism is notably absent in the famous four volume series (1910-1915) The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truthedited by R. A. Torrey and C. C. Dixon.  In fact, not a single article in this landmark set defends the Young Earth Creationism view.  Indeed, all the articles on science and Scripture were written by scholars favorable to an Old Earth view.


            Fourth, the founders and framers of the contemporary inerrancy movement (ICBI) of the 1970 and 80s explicitly rejected the Young Earth view as being essential to belief in inerrancy.  They discussed it and voted against making it a part of what they believed inerrancy entailed, even though they believed in the “literal” historical-grammatical view of interpreting the Bible, a literal Adam, and the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis. Given this history of the Young Earth view, one is surprised at the zeal by which some Young Earthers are making their position a virtual test for evangelical orthodoxy


If the Young Earth view is true, then so be it.  Let the biblical and scientific evidence be mustered to demonstrate it.  Meanwhile, to make it a tacit test for orthodoxy will serve to undermine the faith of many who so closely tie it to orthodoxy that they will have to throw out the baby with the bathwater, should they ever become convinced the earth is Old.  One should never tie his faith to how old the earth is.


Even if the Young Earth view were true, it would not thereby earn it a position in the Christian Creed or the equivalent.  That is another matter altogether reserved for truth that are essential to the Gospel (see Geisler and Rhodes, Conviction without Compromise).  There are many minor Christian doctrines that have not earned creedal status along with The Apostles’ Creedwhich declares of creation only that “I believe in God, the Father Almighty,the Creator of heaven and earth” (emphasis added) and nothing about how long ago it happened.


Some Concluding Comments


After seriously pondering these questions for over a half century, my conclusions are: (1) The Young Earth view is not one of the Fundamentals of the Faith. (2) It is not a test for orthodoxy.  (3)  It is not a condition of salvation.  (4)  It is not a test of Christian fellowship. (5) It is not an issue over which the body of Christ should divide. (6) It is not a hill on which we should die. (7) The fact of creation is more important than the time of creation. (8) There are more important doctrines on which we should focus (like the inerrancy of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the death and resurrection of Christ, and His literal Second Coming.  As Repertus Meldenius (d. 1651) put it: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things charity.” And by all counts, the age of the earth is not one of the essentials of the Christian Faith.