From: Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Reasons_To_Bel?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?ieve:_Facts_Fo?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?r_Faith_Issue_?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?4=2C_2000?= Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:12:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00FD_01C3DEEA.183C62B0"; type="text/html" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3314.1001 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00FD_01C3DEEA.183C62B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: =?iso-8859-1?B?aHR0cDovL3d3dy5yZWE=?= =?iso-8859-1?B?c29ucy5vcmcvcmVzb3U=?= =?iso-8859-1?B?cmNlcy9mZmYvMjAwMGk=?= =?iso-8859-1?B?c3N1ZTA0L2luZGV4LnM=?= =?iso-8859-1?B?aHRtbD9tYWlu?= Reasons To Believe: Facts For Faith Issue 4, = 2000

Facts for Faith

Issue 4, 2000

Articles

Repeatable=20 Evolution or Repeated Creation=20
Bob=20 Stewart: Soldier, Astronaut, and Compelling Apologist=20
God=92s=20 Plan for Humanity=97Paradise Restored or Paradise Replaced?=20
Convergence:=20 Evidence for a Single Creator=20
The=20 Measurability of the Universe=96=96a Record of the Creator=92s = Design=20
First=20 Detection of Earth-sized Planet?=20
Protein=20 Structures Reveal Even More Evidence for Design=20
Problem=20 of Evil (Part Two)=20
Thinking=20 About The Incarnation: The Divine Word Became Flesh=20
Book=20 Review: Finding Darwin=92s God

* Due to copyrights, original graphics and = tables do=20 not appear in these articles

Repeatable=20 Evolution or Repeated Creation?

By Fazale Rana

Any casual observer of nature recognizes that many creatures = bear some=20 resemblance to one another. Many species of frogs, lizards, fish, = and=20 other animals and plants from different parts of the world appear = to be=20 nearly identical. This similarity has been the pattern throughout = life=92s=20 history. Recent biological studies have shed light on the nature = of this=20 physical resemblance and carry significant apologetic = implications. Many=20 species that look identical are, in fact, genetically different, = and=20 therefore unrelated. In accounting for these unexpected = differences,=20 evolutionary biologists have proffered inadequate explanations. = This=20 article will discuss a few of the many recent discoveries that = continue to=20 buttress the case for a biblical creator while continuing to erode = the=20 foundation for the evolutionary paradigm.

According to evolutionary theory, organisms that possess = identical=20 morphologies (forms or structures) must share a common = ancestry.=20 Evolutionary biologists, therefore, have employed morphological = systematics=96=96the study of the relationships among = organisms according=20 to physical characteristics=96=96when classifying species, and = thus have=20 concluded that similar groups share common ancestry. However, with = the=20 advent and widespread application of molecular systematics, = in=20 which DNA sequences are used instead of morphologies to determine=20 biological relationships, science now is beginning to identify an=20 increasing number of challenges to the evolutionary = classification.=20 Biologists are uncovering numerous examples of organisms that = cluster=20 together morphologically (structurally), and yet are = genetically distinct. Frogs, lizards, or herbs that appear = to be=20 identical are actually different at the genetic level. An = evolutionary=20 interpretation of this data, then, demands that the = morphologically=20 identical organisms must have evolved independently of one = another=20 in a =93repeatable=94 fashion.

The Contingent Nature of the Evolutionary Process

The evolutionary paradigm cannot accommodate =93repeatable=94 = evolution.=20 When evolutionists observe a tree frog ideally suited for its = environment,=20 they assert that natural selection=96=96environmental, predatory, = and=20 competitive pressures repeatedly operating on random inheritable=20 variations for long periods of time=96=96has led to this = relationship. Chance=20 governs the evolutionary process at its most fundamental level. = Because of=20 this, it is expected that repeated evolutionary events will result = in=20 dramatically different outcomes. The concept of Historical=20 Contingency embodies this idea and is the theme of Stephen J. = Gould=92s=20 Wonderful Life:

=93=85No finale can be specified at the start, none = would ever=20 occur a second time in the same way, because any pathway = proceeds=20 through thousands of improbable stages. Alter any early event, = ever so=20 slightly, and without apparent importance at the time, and = evolution=20 cascades into a radically different channel.=94¹⁼²⁰

Gould=92s metaphor of =93replaying life=92s tape=94 asserts = that if one were to=20 push the rewind button, erase life=92s history, and let the tape = run again,=20 the results would be completely different.² The very = essence of=20 the evolutionary process renders evolutionary outcomes as = nonreproducible=20 (or nonrepeatable). Therefore, =93repeatable=94 evolution is = inconsistent with=20 the mechanism available to bring about biological change.

A Test for Evolution, A Test for Creation

The idea of Historical Contingency suggests that one powerful = way to=20 discriminate between the =93appearance of design=94 that results = from the=20 evolutionary process and Intelligent Design is to determine if = contingency=20 is operating in the biological realm.³ If life is = exclusively the result of evolutionary processes, then biologists = should=20 expect to see few, if any, cases in which evolution has = =93repeated=94 itself.=20 This is simply not the case. During the last six years numerous = examples=20 of =93repeatable=94 evolution have come to light as molecular data = has been=20 increasingly used in biological systematics. These findings = demonstrate=20 that the evolutionary paradigm fails the test of contingency. The=20 discovery of morphologically identical, yet genetically unrelated=20 organisms does, however, offer powerful support for biblical = creation.=20 These examples of =93repeatable=94 evolution include anolis = lizards, ranid=20 frogs, cichlids, sticklebacks, mangabeys, river dolphins, and=20 Pericallis, an island plant.

Anolis Lizards

Anolis lizard species found on the = islands=20 of the Greater Antilles (Cuba, Hispaniola, Jamaica, and Puerto = Rico) are=20 perfectly adapted to fit into six distinctive ecological=20 niches.⁴ A species that is perfectly suited for a = particular ecological niche is termed an ecomorph. Two examples of = Anolis lizard ecomorphs found on the Greater Antilles are = small=20 lizards with short legs that live on fragile twigs, and large = lizards with=20 large toe pads that occupy the crowns of trees. Morphological = analysis of=20 the Anolis lizards that populate the Greater Antilles = reveals=20 objectively recognizable groups of ecomorphs.⁵ = Based on=20 their morphological features (or close resemblance), members of = the same=20 ecomorph grouping from the different islands were found to be more = closely=20 related to one another than lizards from the same island.

Given the contingent nature of the evolutionary process, = therefore, it=20 would be expected that each ecomorph evolved a single time from an = ancestral species. Each ecomorph produced by a single evolutionary = sequence of events would have then dispersed among the islands of = the=20 Greater Antilles. However, when this model was tested by comparing = mitochondrial DNA sequences of the different Anolis species, it = was=20 discovered that lizards in the same ecomorph class were not = related to one=20 another.⁶ This study concluded that it would have = taken=20 at least 17-19 separate evolutionary pathways to produce all the = Anolis=20 ecomorphs, if natural process evolution was the explanatory agent. = Commenting on this work, biologists P.H. Harvey and L. Partridge, = state,=20 =93It seems that as the tape of life has been replayed in separate = islands,=20 there has been a remarkable amount of convergent=20 evolution.=94⁷

Ranid Frogs

Ranidfrogs=96=96 comprised of over 1000 species=96=96are common = throughout the=20 world. These frogs have adapted to a wide range of lifestyles and=20 habitats. Two of the Ranid subfamilies, Rhacophorinae = (tree=20 frogs) and Tomopterninal (burrowing frogs) are found both = in=20 Madagascar and on the Indian sub-continent of Asia. They are = nearly=20 indistinguishable in their morphological, physiological and = developmental=20 characteristics and form two groups of ecomorphs.

Frogs, specifically, and amphibians, in general, cannot migrate = through=20 salty environments. Therefore, it has long been held, from an = evolutionary=20 standpoint, that the tree frogs and burrowing frogs evolved prior = to the=20 separation of the Madagascar-Seychelles-Indian tectonic plate from = Gondwanaland (the earth=92s one land mass prior to tectonic = separation). It=20 is believed that this tectonic plate drifted away from = Gondwanaland about=20 130 million years ago, separated to form Madagascar, and finally = attached=20 onto Eurasia to form the Indian sub-continent. Some tree and = burrowing=20 frogs were passively carried along and became isolated from one = another.=20

Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA analyses of Madagascar and Indian = Ranid=20 frogs demonstrate, however, that the evolutionary explanation is=20 untenable.⁸ DNA sequence analysis clusters these=20 ecomorphs based on geography not morphological = features. In=20 other words, from an evolutionary perspective, burrowing frogs and = tree=20 frogs in Madagascar and India must have evolved = independently. This=20 same study has also identified examples of =93repeated=94 = evolution for Ranid=20 ecomorphs located in Sri Lanka and India.⁹ Even more = amazing,=20 researchers conclude from the DNA sequence analysis that the = larval=20 characteristics of several Madagascar and Indian ecomorphs are = also=20 identical. This means that the complex developmental pathways and = larval=20 lifestyles must have evolved independently on several = occasions to=20 produce the same result=96=96if the data is viewed from an = evolutionary=20 perspective.¹⁰

Cichlids

Cichlids=96=96freshwater fish that are widely diverse in form, = color and=20 habits=96=96are scattered throughout the Southern Hemisphere.^=
11=20 Numerous examples of cichlid ecomorphs have been recognized in = lakes=20 Victoria, Malawi and Tanganyika of East Africa. An evolutionary=20 explanation would postulate that each of the ecomorphs evolved a = single=20 time and then was independently isolated in each lake after water = levels=20 subsided, causing a single lake to split into three geographically = separated lakes.¹²

Sequence analysis of mitochondrial DNA, however, indicates that = the=20 ecomorphs found in the three East African lakes must have evolved=20 independently, multiple times, assuming an evolutionary=20 explanation.^{13, 14, 15, 16, 17} Also, researchers have = noted the=20 independent emergence of ecomorphs for cichlids in two lakes in=20 Cameroon.¹⁸ Even more striking is the recent = recognition=20 that multiple independent origins occurred for ecomorphs within = different=20 regions of a single lake, Tanganyika.¹⁹ That is, = from an=20 evolutionary perspective, some cichlid species in Lake Tanganyika = are=20 viewed as separate, morphologically indistinguishable species that = =93evolved=94 in exactly the same way multiple times.

Like the cichlids, scientists believe the sticklebacks species = found in=20 British Columbia evolved several times independently to produce = the same=20 ecomorphs. The same two stickleback species, bulky benthic=20 (bottom-dwelling) feeders and streamline open-water feeders, live = in=20 isolated lakes near the Pacific coast of British Columbia. The = standard=20 evolutionary explanation maintains that these two species evolved = from one=20 marine stickleback species, became trapped and isolated in the = lakes after=20 sea levels changed, and then independently populated the=20 lakes.²⁰ Mitochondrial DNA analysis provides results = contrary=20 to the most plausible evolutionary explanations.²¹ = These=20 results indicate that the stickleback species from the same lake = have a=20 greater degree of genetic similarity than do morphologically = identical=20 species from different lakes. From an evolutionary viewpoint, = therefore,=20 stickleback ecomorphs in the isolated lakes must be the = product of=20 =93reproducible=94 evolutionary events.

A recent breeding experiment affirms the previous=20 conclusion.²² In a laboratory environment, = researchers=20 discovered that corresponding ecomorphs from different lakes = attempt to=20 interbreed with one another, while eschewing the different = ecomorphs that=20 share their lakes. This result is interesting in light of the = biological=20 definition of a species. Biologically, a species is = considered to be=20 an interbreeding population of individuals. The willingness of the = same=20 ecomorphs from different lakes to interbreed points to just how = profound=20 the similarity is among the stickleback ecomorphs=96=96both = morphologically=20 and behaviorally.

Mangabeys

Mangabeys are large Old World monkeys found in Africa. = Morphological=20 similarity has traditionally led biologists to place all the = mangabey=20 species into a single genus, Cercocebus. Baboons, drills,=20 mandrills, and geladas are closely related to mangabeys. Earlier = molecular=20 studies and mitochondrial DNA sequence analysis challenged the=20 morphologically based classification that places mangabeys into a = single=20 group.^{23, 24} These studies indicated that = the single=20 mangabey genus should have been separated into two groups, and = that the=20 nearly identical mangabey morphologies must have evolved = independently two=20 times. Recent nuclear DNA analyses have confirmed that mangabey = morphology=20 =93evolved=94 on two separate occasions, when viewed from the = evolutionary=20 paradigm.²⁵

These results not only support two morphologically = indistinguishable=20 genera, Cercocebus and Lophocebus, but also indicate that the = strong=20 morphological similarities of drills, mandrills and baboons must = have=20 evolved independently as well. Nuclear DNA sequence analysis = aligns drills=20 and mandrills with the mangabey genus, Cercocebus, and baboons and = geladas=20 with the mangabey genus, Lophocebus.²⁶ Inspired by the = results=20 of the molecular studies, two biologists have recently recognized = subtle=20 morphological differences in dental features and in the arm and = leg bones=20 of the Cercocebus and Lophocebus mangabeys.²⁷ = However,=20 these skeletal and dental differences are so slight that without = the=20 supporting DNA sequence data it is questionable if these = differences would=20 have been recognized at all, let alone accepted as significant. =

River Dolphins

Unlike other marine mammals (whales, porpoises, and dolphins), = river=20 dolphins live in freshwater, river environments. There are four = extant=20 river dolphin species. Three of these species live exclusively in=20 freshwater and one (the La Plata dolphin) lives both in estuaries = and=20 coastal waters. The freshwater dolphins inhabit the Ganges and = Brahmaptura=20 Rivers of India, the Yangtze River of China, and the Amazon River. =

River dolphins share similar and characteristic morphologies. = The most=20 commonplace view among biologists is that the river dolphins = emerged from=20 a single evolutionary pathway. Mitochondrial and nuclear DNA = sequence=20 analysis now demonstrates otherwise.²⁸ In other words,=20 if the DNA sequence data is interpreted within an = evolutionary=20 context, the four river dolphin species must have evolved the same = characteristic features independently and repeatedly.

Pericallis

Pericallis, a genus of plants related to sunflowers, are = found=20 in the Macaronesian archipelago (Azores, Canary Islands, Cape = Verde,=20 Madeira and Selvagens) off the west coast of = Africa.²⁹ Of=20 the Pericallis species found in the Macaronesian islands, = six are=20 woody and nine are herbaceous. This is not surprising, since many = island=20 plants are woody variants of mainland herbs or soft-bodied plants. =

The most reasonable evolutionary explanation for the origin of=20 Pericallis woodiness is that it evolved on the mainland and found = its way=20 to the Macaronesian islands. However, nuclear DNA sequence = analysis=20 betrays this explanation by revealing no genetic similarity. When = examined=20 employing evolutionary assumptions, therefore, the data indicates = that=20 Pericallis woodiness musthave evolved on at least two separate=20 occasions.³⁰

Evolutionary Attempts to Account for Repeatable Evolution

In isolation, each case of =93repeatable=94 evolution can be = viewed as an=20 oddity and poses no real threat to the =93truth=94 of biological = evolution.=20 However, the many cases of =93repeatable=94 evolution=96=96in = which entire=20 organisms seem to evolve independently and = reproducibly=96=96simply doesn=92t=20 follow, given the nature of the mechanism available to drive the=20 evolutionary process, chance. Biologists who embrace = methodological=20 naturalism=96=96the notion that only natural explanations can be = used to=20 account for phenomena in the physical and material world=96=96do = indeed regard=20 the occurrences of =93repeatable=94 evolution as unexpected and = remarkable.=20 However, their philosophical predisposition does not allow them to = be open=20 to the possibility that a Creator is responsible for the repeated=20 occurrences of ecomorphs found in nature. These = morphologically=20 indistinguishable, yet genetically distinct ecomorphs can be = properly=20 considered as one of the many fingerprints that the Creator has = left on=20 His creation. In fact, if a single Creator was responsible for = life, one=20 could anticipate seeing repeated examples of the same blueprint = throughout=20 the biological realm. One would expect that a single Creator would = reuse=20 successful designs over and over again.

Given the examples cited previously, evolutionary biologists = cannot=20 seem to account for =93repeatable=94 evolution. One attempt at = explaining this=20 phenomenon is to attribute =93special=94 capability to the forces = of natural=20 selection.³¹ Since organisms are perfectly suited for = their=20 ecological milieu, and therefore more likely to survive to = reproductive=20 age, it is thought that the forces of natural = selection=96=96competitive,=20 predatory, and environmental influences=96=96repeatedly = =93channel=94 the=20 evolutionary process down the same pathway to produce the same = organisms.=20 This explanation for recurrent evolution neglects the fact that = selective=20 forces are nothing more than a blind filter. Natural selection can = only=20 operate on traits made available by random changes in the = population=92s=20 genetic makeup. It is not likely that these changes would be = repeatable,=20 given the complexity of genomes, nor that they would occur in the = same=20 historical sequence.

Additionally, it is unlikely that the factors that made up an=20 organism=92s ecology would be identical throughout time. Changes = to the=20 ecological environment in Madagascar, for example, would not be = identical=20 to the changes in the ecological environment in India. The = components of=20 natural selection are influenced by chance and by history. = Therefore,=20 natural selection would not be expected to guide separate = evolutionary=20 sequences and then produce morphological traits in an organism = that=20 somehow remarkably converge.

One well-known experiment with bacteria has led evolutionary = biologists=20 to conclude that natural selection can direct the convergence of = features=20 in the evolutionary process.³³ These experiments = demonstrated=20 that bacterial populations subjected to identical environments = achieved=20 similar fitness (a measure of the ability of an organism to = survive)=20 regardless of chance, mutational events, and history. However, the = conclusion drawn from these experiments does not support such a = directive=20 role for natural selection for two reasons.

First, fitness is different from morphological characteristics. = Fitness=20 describes the capability to survive independent of the = organism=92s=20 features. It is not surprising that natural selection converges on = optimal=20 fitness in mathematical modeling or when characterizing the = response of=20 bacteria to environmental stress. Yet, it does not follow that = convergence=20 to optimal fitness explains the improbable convergence of = morphological=20 features. Second, what is true for bacterial communities (single = cell=20 organisms that are morphologically nondescript, comprised of large = population sizes, and short generation times) is not necessarily = true for=20 the advanced multi-cellular organisms that have been shown to = display=20 =93repeatable=94 evolution.³³ The population and = reproductive=20 characteristics of these advanced, complex organisms preclude = their=20 capability to evolve.

Another attempt to account for =93repeatable=94 evolution = within the=20 evolutionary paradigm is based on inherent biological and = developmental=20 constraints.³⁴ The idea is that these constraints = only=20 allow certain variations to occur in the evolutionary = process. When=20 evolution occurs, then, it can only produce a limited number of = ecomorphs,=20 therefore the same ecomorphs result repeatedly. This explanation = falls=20 short. Developmental and inherent biological constraints would = have no=20 =93knowledge=94 of the environmental, predatory, or competitive = pressures=20 facing the organism. Therefore, one would not expect there to be=20 ecomorphs. In the face of this explanation one must ask, =93Why do = we see=20 organisms that are perfectly suited to their ecological niche?=94 = The=20 universal occurrence of perfect adaptation is inconsistent with = any=20 limitations on biological variation.

Conclusion

Prior to the influence of Charles Darwin (Origin of = Species was=20 first published in 1859) scientists viewed the nature of the = similarities=20 among organisms as due to the variation of a fundamental design or = archetype.³⁵ This =93blueprint=94 for life was = acknowledged as=20 having come directly from the mind of God. Organisms classified = within a=20 particular grouping were viewed as variations of the design = provided by=20 the Creator.

When the tide began to shift toward Darwinian evolution, = however,=20 biologists came to understand the relationships among organisms as = reflecting descent with modification from a common ancestor. The = ancestral=20 species that gave rise to a group of related organisms replaced = the=20 archetype, and natural selection operating on random biological = variation=20 replaced the creative hand of God.

As both evolutionists and creationists seek to account for the = features=20 found in the biological realms, different predictions flow = consequentially=20 from these explanations. Chance and a historical sequence of = events=20 control biological evolution, at its essence. One would expect = therefore,=20 few, if any, instances in which the evolutionary process would = repeat=20 itself. On the other hand, if a single Creator were responsible = for life=20 on earth, one would expect to see recurrent design throughout = nature.

The widespread availability of molecular systematics now allows = scientists to test these two interpretations of nature. As = molecular=20 systematics is used increasingly to characterize the relationship = among=20 organisms=96=96both living and extinct=96=96numerous examples of = morphologically=20 identical and genetically distinct groups are being uncovered. The = widespread occurrence of repeatable evolution cannot be = accommodated=20 within the evolutionary paradigm. Any attempt to account for this=20 phenomenon from a naturalistic standpoint violates the very nature = of the=20 evolutionary process or has implications that are inconsistent = with what=20 biologists observe in nature.

The evolutionary paradigm fails in the face of the discovery of = =93repeatable=94 evolution while biblical creation gains support = from this=20 phenomenon. What is interpreted as =93repeatable=94 = evolution=96=96morphologically=20 indistinct and genetically unique organisms=96=96is what one would = expect if a=20 single Creator has generated life throughout earth=92s history. As = time goes=20 on, scientists expect to see more examples of =93repeatable=94 = evolution. Each=20 new discovery of this phenomenon weakens the evolutionary paradigm = and=20 strengthens the case for creation.

References:

Stephen J. Gould, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and = the=20 Nature of History (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, = 1989),=20 51.=20
Gould, 48.=20
John Cafferky, Evolution=92s Hand: Searching for = the Creator=20 in Contemporary Science (Toronto, Canada: East End Books, = 1997,)=20 66-69.=20
Jonathan B. Losos and Kevin de Querioz, =93Darwin=92s = Lizards,=94=20 Natural History, December /January, (1997/1998): 34-37.
Jonathan B. Losos, et al., =93Contingency and Determinism in = Replicated Adaptive Radiations of Island Lizards,=94 = Science 279=20 (1998): 2115-2118.=20
Losos, et al., 2115-2118.=20
Paul H. Harvey and Linda Partridge, =93Different Routes to = Similar=20 Ends,=94 Nature 392 (1998): 552-553.=20
Frankly Bossuyt and Michel C. Milinkovitch, =93Convergent = Adaptive=20 Radiations in Madagascar and Asian Ranid Frogs Reveal = Co-Variation=20 Between Larval and Adult Frogs,=94 Proceedings of the = National Academy=20 of Sciences, USA 97 (2000): 6585-6590.=20
Bossuyt and Milinkovitch, 6585-6590.=20
Bossuyt and Milinkovitch, 6585-6590.=20
Melanie L.J. Stiassny and Axel Meyer, =93Cichlids of the = Rift Lakes,=94=20 Scientific American, February (1999): 64-69.=20
Erik Verhegen et. al., =93Mitochondrial Phylogeography of=20 Rock-Dwelling Cichlid Fishes Reveals Evolutionary Influence of=20 Historical Lake Level Fluctuations of Lake Tanganyika, = Africa,=94=20 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London = B 351=20 (1996): 797-805.=20
Stiassny and Meyer, 64-69.=20
Verheyen et al., 797-805. =20
Axel Meyer et. al., =93Monophyletic Origin of Lake Victoria = Cichlid=20 Fishes Suggested by Mitochondrial DNA Sequences,=94 = Nature 347=20 (1990): 550-553.=20
John C. Arise, =93Flocks of African Fishes,=94 Nature = 347 (1990):=20 512-513.=20
Axel Meyer, =93Phylogenetic Relationships and Evolutionary = Processes=20 in East African Cichlid Fishes,=94 Trends in Ecology and = Evolution=20 8 (1993): 279-284.=20
Ulrich K. Schliewen, et. al., =93Sympatric Speciation = Suggested by=20 Monophyly of Crater Lake Cichlids,=94 Nature 368 (1994): = 629-632.=20
Lukos Ruber et. al., =93Replicated Evolution of Trophic=20 Specializations in an Endemic Cichlid Fish Lineage from Lake=20 Tanganyika,=94 Proceedings of the Natural Academy of = Sciences, USA=20 96 (1999): 10230-10235.=20
Elizabeth Pennisi, =93Nature Steers a Predictable Course,=94 = Science 287 (2000): 207-208.=20
Eric B. Taylor and J.D. McPhail, =93Evolutionary History of = an=20 Adaptive Radiation in Species Pairs of Threespine Sticklebacks=20 (Gasterosteus): Insights from Mitochondrial DNA,=94 = Biological=20 Journal of the Linnean Society 66 (1999): 271-291.=20
Howard D. Randle, et. al., =93Natural Selection and Parallel = Speciation in Sympatric Sticklebacks,=94 Science 287 = (2000):=20 306-308.=20
John E. Cronin and Vincent M. Sarich, =93Molecular Evidence = for Dual=20 Origins of Mangabeys Among Old World Monkeys,=94 Nature = 260 (1976):=20 700-702.=20
Todd R. Disotell, et. al., =93Mitochondrial DNA Phylogeny of = the Old=20 World Monkey Tribe Papionini,=94 Molecular Biology and = Evolution 9=20 (1992): 1-13.=20
Eugene E. Harris and Todd R. Disotell, =93Nuclear Gene Trees = and the=20 Phylogenetic Relationships of Mangabeys (Primates: = Papionini),=94=20 Molecular Biology and Evolution 15 (1998): 892-900.=20
Harris and Disotell, 892-900.=20
John G. Heagle and W. Scott McGraw, =93Skeletal and Dental = Morphology=20 Supports Diphyletic Origins of Baboons and Mandrills,=94 = Proceedings of=20 the National Academy of Sciences, USA 96 (1999): 1157-1161.=20
Insa Cassens et. al., =93Independent Adaptation to Riverine = Habitats=20 Allowed Survival of Ancient Cetacean Lineages,=94 Proceedings of = the=20 National Academies of Sciences, USA 97 (2000): 11343-11347.=20
Kathryn S. Brown, =93Why Woodiness?,=94 Natural History,=20 December/January (1999/2000): 74-77.=20
Jose L. Panero, et. al., =93Molecular Evidence for Multiple = Origins of=20 Woodiness and a New World Biogeographic Connection of the = Macroneasian=20 Island Endemic Pericallis (Asteraceae: Senecimeae)=94 = Proceedings of the=20 National Academy of Sciences, USA 96 (1999): 13886-13891.=20
Losos, et. al., 2115-2118.=20
Michael Travisano et. al. =93Experimental Test of the Roles = of=20 Adaptation, Chance and History in Evolution,=94 Science 276 = (1995): 87-90.=20
Hugh Ross, =93How Speciation =93Rules=94 Rule Out = Darwinism,=94 Facts for=20 Faith 1, no. 2 (2000): 56-57.=20
David B. Wake, =93Homoplasy: The Result of Natural = Selection, or=20 Evidence of Design Limitations?,=94 American Naturalist 138 = (1991):=20 543-567.=20
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: = Adler=20 & Adler, 1985,) 93-117.

Bob=20 Stewart: Soldier, Astronaut, and Compelling Apologist

By Elaine Ervin

General Robert L. Stewart, a decorated Army combat pilot, test = pilot,=20 and former astronaut, has flown 38 types of airplanes and = helicopters.=20 Born in Washington D.C. and raised in Alabama, he received his = bachelor=92s=20 degree in mathematics from the University of Southern Mississippi, = and a=20 master=92s degree in aeronautical engineering from the University = of Texas=20 at Arlington. He served his country in Vietnam, where he flew = UH1-B=20 gunships and saw comrades fall in battle. He earned numerous = medals,=20 including two Purple Hearts, four Distinguished Flying Crosses, a = Bronze=20 Star, and a Meritorious Service Medal. After the war he flew = cutting-edge,=20 experimental aircraft and completed Army aviation programs that = prepared=20 him for selection as a NASA astronaut. He flew on the shuttles=20 Challenger and Atlantis, and was one of two men who = first=20 walked in space without a tether. A member of Reasons To = Believe=92s=20 Speakers Bureau, General Stewart has blended his scientific and = military=20 training with a calling to ministry by making apologetics = presentations=20 throughout the world.

FfF: You=92ve lived an exciting and dangerous life. What was = it like=20 to fly armed helicopters in Vietnam?

General Stewart: In Vietnam it got to where I feared the = words,=20 "Sir, you've got to see this," because one time I had a crack in = the pitch=20 change horn (the linkage which controls the main rotor). That = pitch change=20 horn should never have held together, but it did. If I had ever = lost that=20 pitch change horn, I would have lost control of the vehicle, and = we would=20 have all died. Another time the 42-degree gearbox was shot out. = The gears=20 should have seized but didn't.

Having been in constant danger, did you think about life and = death?

Before I became a Christian death was something that I wanted = to avoid,=20 but I didn't fear it. Now I know that if I had been killed in = Vietnam, or=20 had I been killed in an accident as a test pilot, then I would = have had to=20 spend an eternity away from God.

Did this realization bring you to faith in Christ?

No. That realization came afterward. During the war I was = determined=20 that I would not be a "foxhole Christian." I was at such a point = in my=20 life that I said that this is not going to drive me to believe = something=20 just to take out a "fire insurance policy" on my own soul. My = conversion=20 came years later.

Tell us about it.

One day my daughter was bitten by a squirrel that she had been = feeding=20 by hand. Squirrels have been known to carry rabies, of course, so = my wife=20 [Mary] and I immediately consulted the NASA doctors. We were told = that the=20 chances of contracting rabies were remote so we opted not to treat = her. On=20 the morning I had to leave Houston for Denver to train for an = aspect of my=20 first space flight, my daughter awoke with a high fever and a very = sore=20 throat=96=96two possible symptoms for rabies! As I flew to Denver, = I couldn=92t=20 get it out of my head that I might have killed my daughter. When I = got to=20 Denver and checked into my motel, I was distraught with fear = because it=20 wasn=92t my life at risk but that of my daughter. I said my first = real=20 prayer: =93God, if you are really there, I don=92t know why you = want my=20 daughter now, but please don=92t take her that way.=94 I called = home to find=20 that Jenny [my daughter] was fine, the fever had broken, and the = sore=20 throat was gone. I then got down on my knees and said, =93Thank = you, Lord,=20 now what will you have me do?=94 I realized that all those times I = should=20 have been dead [in Vietnam], it was He who was with me even though = I=20 refused to acknowledge Him.

People are fascinated with the many aspects of space travel. = Describe some of the sensations of the launch.

You are enveloped in a noise and vibration far beyond your = training, as=20 over seven million pounds of thrust hurl you off the pad. = Astronauts are=20 trained to know the character of the event but cannot be trained = to its=20 true magnitude. It is a noise that is felt more than heard=BEa = sharp,=20 staccato noise that hammers directly at the core of your being! = Once in=20 space, your second impression is =93Boy, are we going fast.=94 In = an airliner=20 you travel at 500 mph, 40,000 feet above ground, and it hardly = seems like=20 you=92re moving. In a shuttle, however, at speeds over 17,000 mph, = you know=20 you are smoking along!

You=92re one of very few people who has seen the earth from = the unique=20 perspective of space. Can you describe it for us?

Your first view of the home planet is breathtaking. Maybe = that=92s how=20 God intended it to be viewed. You see the lovely azure of the = Atlantic=20 overlaid by the pristine white of swirling clouds, and here comes = the=20 green of Africa, the whole floating in a velvety black universe. = The=20 colors come alive, and the visible detail is far beyond that which = can be=20 brought back on film or tape. It is truly an experience that = borders on=20 indescribable.

After having spent some time in space, what does it feel = like to be=20 back home?

The thing that you notice right away is the oppressive feeling = of=20 gravity. On one of my flights, we landed on a Saturday. I got up = Sunday=20 morning to go to Sunday school and almost couldn't walk because I = was=20 stumbling over my feet. I found that the way that I got to the = floor was=20 completely different. In space, I actually had to pull myself to = the=20 floor, using one set of muscles, whereas on Earth you relax = muscles and=20 gravity pulls you down. There is a little bit of muscular weakness = but not=20 any worse than if you got sick for a week and had to stay in = bed.

How did you become involved with Reasons To Believe?

I had been teaching a Sunday school class here at High View = Baptist=20 Church in Woodland Park [Colorado], and the class had decided that = they=20 wanted to study Genesis. So I began research into Genesis with = scientific=20 as well as religious publications. One of the books that I came = across was=20 Dr. Ross' The Creator and the Cosmos. The more I read [of = Dr. Ross=92=20 books], the more fascinated I became. The books became a part of = my class.=20 Then, I went to the Web site where I learned about RTB=92s = apologetics=20 course. I applied, and the rest, as they say, is history.

What do you hope to communicate as a Christian = apologist?

The message I hope to get across is that you don=92t have to = give up your=20 intellect to be a Christian. I am afraid that the church in the = past has=20 evangelized only the third world. It seems that the poor and the = poorly=20 educated have received priority in church evangelism because they = are the=20 easy problem. It gets harder to reach a person for Christ when = that person=20 is highly educated and sure of the primacy of science in this = world.=20 Reasons to Believe is the first organization I know of that = attempts to=20 tell those people that there is no conflict between religion and = science.=20 They both use their own peculiar language to communicate the same = eternal=20 truths: that this universe was brought into existence out of = nothingness;=20 that it is especially fine-tuned for the existence of life on this = rare,=20 if not unique planet; and that God did it.

How do you approach this challenge?

I try to learn as much as I can about the Scriptures and about = science=20 so that I can communicate at whatever level is required to advance = the=20 good news of Jesus Christ. I learned from [the apostle] Paul that = you have=20 to approach people where they are if communication is to take = place. When=20 I began to teach Genesis in my Sunday school class, I led off with = a=20 primer on relativity so my class could see the historical and = logical=20 background of this theory and lose their fear of it. This was = necessary=20 because I intended to talk about the creation event in terms of = the big=20 bang, and I wanted my class to understand that this was not just = something=20 physicists thought up in a vacuum. I wanted to approach the = existence of=20 human beings on this planet from the standpoint of their unique=20 relationship to the Creator and back that up with some modern = numerical=20 biology statistics concerning the probabilities of life existing = at=20 all from random processes.

I hope to continue to challenge the person who is = scientifically=20 oriented with the idea that life would be prohibitively unlikely = unless it=20 were created by God. I also hope to reassure those not conversant = with=20 modern science that the truth of the Scriptures is still intact = and even=20 stronger as a result of real, objective science.

In my life I have made a remarkable transition from a person = whose=20 faith was in science to the exclusion of religion, = to being=20 a person who holds the Scriptures to be truth with science just = catching=20 up after 4000 years.

God=92s Plan for=20 Humanity=97Paradise Restored or Paradise = Replaced?

By Hugh Ross and Mick Ukleja

Christians argue and divide over many issues, from core issues = such as=20 the doctrine of free will to peripheral issues such as the age of = the=20 Earth. Ironically, some of the least weighty questions draw the = most=20 vigorous public debate while the more important ones receive less=20 attention. One of these ignored controversies has significant = implications=20 for worldview, a question that either lumps Christianity with = other=20 theistic and deistic religions or sets it distinctly apart.

The many-faceted question is this: What is the Creator=92s = ultimate plan=20 for humanity? Is it a grand scale restoration of the Garden of = Eden, i.e.,=20 a terrestrial paradise, or is it an entirely =93new=94 creation = beyond the=20 confines of the universe? What is the =93heaven=94 awaiting those = who receive=20 His offer of eternal salvation?

A consideration of the big picture, a look at what God=92s Word = says in=20 answer to this set of questions, can shed invaluable light on the = subject=20 of creation and focus attention on the issues that matter most. = How one=20 thinks about the future helps shape his or her response to current = and=20 past events.

The book of Revelation offers the best starting place for such = an=20 inquiry. In fact, its final chapters may be the best place for a = person to=20 begin reading Scripture. Rather than killing suspense, this = end-first=20 reading of the story quells fear and gives birth to a lively, = healthy=20 hope. And hope, according to Romans 5:3-5 and 1 John 3:3, carries = us=20 through the difficulties of our sin-marred existence and keeps us = going=20 through God=92s purification process.

Redemption=92s story culminates in this triumphant shout: = =93Now the=20 dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will = be his=20 people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He = will wipe=20 every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or = mourning or=20 crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away=94 = (Rev.=20 21:3-4).

In what context does redeemed humanity enjoy the glories of=20 face-to-face fellowship with God? Is it here on this planet, in = this=20 universe? Again, Scripture gives the answer. Revelation 21 = identifies our=20 destination as the =93new heaven and new earth, for the first = heaven and the=20 first earth had passed away. . . .=94 The King of Kings = declares, =93I=20 am making everything new!=94 Most of the chapter is devoted to a=20 mind-boggling description of the Holy City, the New Jerusalem. Its = magnificent features not only stretch the limits of human = imagination but=20 also reveal that familiar physical laws exist no more.

In this passage God gives a preview of the fulfillment of = Romans=20 8:22-23. The whole =93groaning=94 creation=97its time and space, = matter and=20 energy, and =93we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the=20 Spirit=94=97receives deliverance from =93bondage to decay.=94 This = is the moment=20 of our =93adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.=94

Humanity=92s deliverance from death and decay is the focal = point of the=20 passage; however, the reference does encompass the entire physical = universe, to which space, time, matter, and energy belong. The = passage=20 would seem to suggest, then, that the deliverance applies even to = the=20 physical laws, which began in effect at the cosmic creation event. = They=20 are, thus, finite and the One who created them brings them to an = end as=20 soon as their purpose is fulfilled.

To say that the universe and its thermodynamic laws are eternal = is to=20 contradict both Scripture and the record of nature. To say that = Adam and=20 Eve=92s sin introduced those laws is to overlook three biblical = doctrines.=20 First, rebellion against God=92s authority, i. e., =93sin,=94 = existed prior to=20 Adam=92s rebellion in Eden. The Bible does not record = exactly when=20 Satan sinned, but that event certainly predates his invasion of = Eden. It=20 could have occurred before Earth was formed. Job 38:7 says that = the=20 angels, of whom Lucifer was one, were witnesses to God=92s laying = the=20 foundations of the earth.

Second, God decided to allow Satan=92s entrance to Eden. The = doctrine of=20 God=92s omnipotence and omniscience leads to the conclusion that = He had a=20 plan for using Adam and Eve=92s tragic rebellion, with all its = horrific=20 effects, to bring about a greater and better future than even the = wonders=20 of Eden could afford.

Third, whatever the timing of Satan=92s rebellion, God created = the=20 universe knowing that Satan would be the first to sin. = Consequently, the=20 universe He designed would be a universe perfectly suited to bring = about=20 the glorious victory He planned. In other words, He made a = universe=20 governed by the second law of thermodynamics (and other laws) = wherein=20 humans would be tested by Satan but with the possibility of being=20 permanently rescued from Satan=92s grasp by God=92s conquering = love and=20 grace.

The precipitating event, the time marker, for the climactic = =93adoption=94=20 event is described in the final paragraphs of Revelation 20. Satan = and his=20 henchmen have been sent to their inescapable doom, and their = captives=20 stand before God=92s judgment seat to receive the penalty, which = they insist=20 on paying, for their pseudo autonomy. In other words, God=92s = conquest of=20 evil, which was =93finished=94 on Calvary=92s cross, has at this = point been=20 fully carried out. This is in part an answer to the question, if = there is=20 an all-loving God then why does evil exist? The answer is that = evil is in=20 the process of being defeated, and humankind has the privilege of=20 partnering with God in that battle to conquer evil. The result is = that one=20 day all that which is evil=96=96everything that is = irredeemable=96=96will be=20 quarantined in a place called =93Hell.=94 The result is that the = new creation=20 will be eternally secure. Temptation=92s source can no longer come = into=20 contact with the creatures God made for His own eternal = delight.

One can reasonably infer that God=92s plan and purpose for the = creation,=20 as described in Genesis 1 and amplified elsewhere in Scripture, = has been=20 accomplished. That plan involves the conquest of evil, which was=20 introduced not at the time of Adam and Eve=92s fall into = sin but=20 rather when Lucifer rebelled. Sin and its consequences came to = humanity=20 when the first humans gave in to the serpent=92s temptation. And = those=20 consequences were, and still are, devastating.

The biblical worldview we propose says that Adam and Eve=92s = fall into=20 sin radically changed the human race, impacting the entire planet. = It did=20 not, however, change all the physical laws of the cosmos. Genesis = 2=20 explicitly states that Adam worked physically and ate earthly food = before=20 he sinned. Such work=97including the digestion process=97implies = that gravity=20 and thermodynamics, for example, were in effect before the fall, = as they=20 are today. The existence of stars, including the sun, also implies = the=20 operation of thermodynamic laws.¹

Work and the possibility of physical pain did not come as part = of the=20 curse God pronounced at the time of Adam and Eve=92s sin. God = designed=20 productive work to be satisfying, enjoyable.² He gave = Adam and=20 Eve a job before they committed any sin.³ Sin, however, = destroyed both the productivity and joy of their work. This = destruction=20 still makes work frustrating and painful.

Physical pain is a necessary partner to physical pleasure. Such = pain=20 also warns of impending danger. The capacity for pain, then, = cannot be=20 considered a bad thing. The introduction of sin means that we all=20 experience more pain than would otherwise be necessary. = Furthermore, it=20 introduces an entirely new and more excruciating kind of = pain=97spiritual=20 and emotional pain. When a woman suffers to give birth to a child, = her=20 greatest pain comes from the heart-rending awareness that this = little=20 person, to whom her heart is inextricably attached, must = experience the=20 awful effects of sin, both within and without.⁴ Such = pain=20 completely overshadows the physical pain of childbearing.

The end of that pain, the enactment of God=92s judgment against = it at the=20 Great White Throne, comes with the end of the physical universe as = we know=20 it. Revelation is not the only portion of Scripture in which this = point is=20 made. The Psalmist declares:

In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth,
and = the=20 heavens are the work of your hands.
They will perish, but you=20 remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
Like clothing = you=20 will change them
and they will be discarded.⁵

Isaiah says that =93all the stars of the heavens will be=20 dissolved,=94⁶ that =93the heavens will vanish like=20 smoke,=94⁷ that God =93will create new heavens and a = new=20 earth,=94⁸ and that =93the former things will not be = remembered,=20 nor will they come to mind.=94⁹ Jesus proclaims that = =93heaven and=20 earth will pass away.=94¹⁰ The author of the book of = Hebrews=20 quotes directly from the Psalm above.¹¹ Peter = explains:

Long ago by God=92s word the heavens existed and the earth was = formed. .=20 . . By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved = for fire,=20 being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. = . . .=20 The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be = destroyed by=20 fire. . . . Everything will be destroyed in this way. . . . That = day will=20 bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the = elements will=20 melt in the heat. But in keeping with His promise we are looking = forward=20 to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of=20 righteousness.¹²

When Christ takes His seat to judge Earth=92s rebels, the earth = and the=20 sky =93flee=94 from His presence.¹³ Obviously this seat = exists=20 beyond the confines of =93the heavens and the earth=94 mentioned = in Genesis=20 1:1. Living beings, angels and humans, remain alive in place = beyond the=20 =93very good=94 Earth. Some go to the place of =93second = death,=94¹⁴=20 and some remain in the glorious presence of God. At this point, = God has no=20 more use for this planet and cosmos.

Just how new is the new creation? It is more than just a remake = or=20 renovation of the old creation. It is completely and radically = new. The=20 laws of gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics are gone. = The text=20 directly claims that everything associated with the second law of=20 thermodynamics (decay, death, pain, etc.) never again = exists.¹⁵=20 Gravity as we know it no longer exists. (Gravity does not allow a=20 structure of the dimensions ascribed to the New Jerusalem. Gravity = would=20 force it into a spherical shape.)¹⁶ Electromagnetism as = we know=20 it no longer exists, for light in an electromagnetic environment = coexists=20 with darkness and shadows. The new creation will be filled with = =93light=94=20 without any darkness or shadows and without such entities as the = sun,=20 stars, and light bulbs as sources of = illumination.¹⁷

What can be said, then, of Old Testament verses that seem to = suggest=20 the Earth and universe last forever? The interpretation we proffer = must=20 account for the following passages:

He set them [the sun, moon, stars, highest heavens and waters = above the=20 skies] forever and ever. (Psalm 148:6)

I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing = can be=20 added to it and nothing taken from it. (Ecclesiastes 3:14)

[Those] who lead many to righteousness [will shine] like the = stars for=20 ever and ever. (Daniel 12:3)

[God=92s] work has been finished since the creation of the = world.=20 (Hebrews 4:3)

The Hebrew word translated as =93forever=94 in Psalm 148:6 = (also in=20 Ecclesiastes 3:14, and Daniel 12:3) is olam. In Psalm 148:6 = and=20 Daniel 12:3, the Hebrew word =91ad is included in the = phrase as well.=20 These words carry slightly different meanings in different = contexts=20 (unlike the Greek word for =93forever=94), and one of their = literal meanings=20 is a =93long continuance into the future.=94¹⁸ In the = light of the=20 rest of Scripture, that meaning seems to apply here.

Many Bible scholars view Ecclesiastes 3:14 and Hebrews 4:3 as=20 declarations of God=92s sovereign, immutable plan for humanity. In = other=20 words, God=92s has determined what He will do and nothing can = change that.=20 As for Daniel 12:3, the shining =93forever=94 seems in the context = of the=20 larger passage to describe =93those who lead many to = righteousness.=94

Better Than Eden¹⁹

One argument for a completely and radically new creation comes = from 1=20 Corinthians 2:9. In this passage Paul explains that no human can = =93conceive=20 or imagine what God has prepared for those who love Him.=94 = Imagining or=20 visualizing phenomena within the laws of physics and space-time = dimensions=20 of our universe certainly is possible. We can picture, at = least in=20 a limited way, what Eden, or a renewed earth might be like if we = could go=20 there, but we humans simply cannot picture life in a realm beyond = the=20 dimensions and physical laws of our universe.

God has promised to His believers a reward far beyond what = anyone, no=20 matter how spiritual or imaginative, can conceive. Moreover, the = doctrine=20 of heaven is one of the chief distinctions between Christianity = and other=20 belief systems. Many cults, for example, promise an Earth-bound = (or=20 planet-bound) paradise replete with physical pleasures, including = sexual=20 pleasure; Christianity promises deliverance from earthly paradise, = no=20 matter how magnificently restored its condition. In one sense, any = earthly=20 paradise may be compared with Egypt in Moses=92 time. It was a = land of=20 splendor and plenty but also a land of slavery.

Slavery of one kind or another is inherently associated with = the laws=20 of thermodynamics. If we eliminate the law of entropy, for = example, we=20 have not eliminated all decay in the universe. As people age, they = observe=20 that certain body parts begin to lose the battle with gravity. = Skin breaks=20 down under long-term exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of Eden=92s slavery has to = do with=20 time. Our original parents were confined, as we humans still are, = to a=20 single time dimension. Time=92s forward march can be neither = stopped nor=20 reversed. This time line limits each one of us to just a few close = relationships in our lifetime. In fact, the deepest level of = intimacy=20 possible in this creation, inside or outside Eden, can be = experienced with=20 only one fellow human at a time. For this reason God gave us = marriage,=20 monogamous marriage.

Jesus tells His followers that in the new creation there will = be no=20 marriage and, evidently, no sexual relationships or nuclear=20 families.²⁰The relationship all believers will enjoy = with=20 Christ and with each other is likened to a marriage. Jesus often = refers to=20 believers in the new creation with singular nouns and=20 pronouns.²¹ We are, He says, His bride, and we all will = be one=20 as He and the Father (and of course the Holy Spirit) are one. The = oneness=20 of the Godhead implies that the Father, Son, and Spirit are in = continuous=20 communication and fellowship with one another. For us to = experience a=20 comparable kind of oneness we, too, must be in continuous = communication=20 and fellowship with one another and with Him. Somehow, the new = creation=20 will allow us to communicate and relate intimately with billions = of others=20 all at once and always in perfect harmony.

Given this new capacity for knowing and being known, for loving = and=20 being loved, our need and desire for marriage and family are more = than=20 fully met. According to God=92s promise, we will continuously = enjoy=20 something superior to the pleasures of the very best earthly=20 relationships, including marriage, with all fellow believers=20 simultaneously. Whatever responsibilities He assigns to us will be = fulfilled with complete and unhindered joy. Just as this universe = was=20 designed for the purpose of Redemption, the new creation is = designed for=20 Reward.²² In fact, even our limited comprehension of = the place=20 He is preparing for us gives new meaning to that word.

References:

Job 38:33.=20
Ecclesiastes 3:13.=20
Genesis 1:28.=20
Genesis 3:16.=20
Psalm 102:25-26.=20
Isaiah 34:4.=20
Isaiah 51:6.=20
Isaiah 66:22.=20
Isaiah 65:17.=20
Matthew 24:35.=20
Hebrews 1:10-12.=20
2 Peter 3:5-13.=20
Revelation 20:11.=20
Revelation 20:14.=20
Revelation 21:4.=20
Revelation 21:16-17.=20
Revelation 21:23, 22:4.=20
R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. = Waltke,=20 Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, v. 2 (Chicago: = Moody=20 Press, 1981), 673.=20
See Hugh Ross, chapter 17 in Beyond the Cosmos,=20 2^nd ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1999).=20
Matthew 22:29-30; Luke 20:34-35.=20
John 17:11, Romans 12:5, 15:5-6, Revelation 21:9-27.
Matthew 5:12, 16:27; Luke 6:23, 35; 1 Corinthians 3:14; = Ephesians=20 6:8; Colossians 3:24; Hebrews 11:26; Revelation 22:12. =

Convergence:=20 Evidence for a Single Creator

By Fazale (Fuz) R. Rana, Ph.D.

Closely related to the phenomenon of repeatable evolution is=20 convergence. Convergence refers to the widespread tendency in = nature of=20 unrelated organisms to possess nearly identical anatomical and=20 physiological characteristics.¹ The wings of birds and = bats is=20 one textbook example of convergence. Birds and bats are = unrelated=20 organisms, with birds belonging to the class Aves and bats to the = class=20 Mammalia. Though superficially similar, the wing structures = of birds=20 and bats are fundamentally different. Another common example = of=20 convergence=BEone in which the fundamental structural differences = are not so=20 obvious=BEis the remarkable anatomical similarity shared by the = modern=20 placental wolf and the extinct Tasmanian wolf.²

Both the creation and evolutionary paradigms offer an = explanation for=20 convergence. Creationists view convergence as the intelligent = activity of=20 a single Creator who employs a common set of solutions to address = a common=20 set of problems facing unrelated organisms in their quest for = survival.=20 Evolutionists assert that convergence results when unrelated = organisms=20 encounter nearly identical selection forces (environmental, = competitive,=20 and predatory pressures). Natural selection then channels the = random=20 variations believed to be responsible for evolutionary change = along=20 similar pathways to produce similar features in unrelated=20 organisms.³

Since both the creation and evolutionary frameworks attempt to = explain=20 biological convergence, an analysis of this feature of nature can = be used=20 to evaluate the two paradigms. When critically assessed, the = evolutionary=20 paradigm is found to be woefully inadequate when accounting for = all the=20 facets of biological convergence. On the other hand, = biological=20 convergence is readily explained by an origins model that evokes a = single=20 Creator.

One of the challenges that convergence creates for the = evolutionary=20 paradigm is the frequency with which it occurs throughout life=92s = history.=20 Convergence is a common characteristic of life. This commonness = makes=20 little sense in light of evolutionary theory. If evolution is = indeed=20 responsible for the diversity of life, one would expect = convergence to be=20 extremely rare. The mechanism that drives the evolutionary = process=20 consists of a large number of unpredictable, chance events that = occur one=20 after another. Given this mechanism and the complexity and = fine-tuning of=20 biological systems, it seems improbable that disparate = evolutionary=20 pathways would ever lead to the same biological = feature.⁴

Two remarkable examples of complex biological features recently = recognized as being convergent are bat echolocation (the ability = of an=20 organism to orient itself based on perceiving reflections of sound = it=20 emits) and parrot, songbird, and hummingbird forebrain = structure. A=20 recent DNA sequence analysis has just confirmed two earlier = studies that,=20 from an evolutionary perspective, requires echolocation in bats to = have=20 evolved independently in two separate groups (microchiroptera and=20 megachiroptera).^{5, 6, 7} This study, along with = previous=20 analyses also indicate that the strikingly similar limb structures = of bats=20 and flying lemurs used for flying, likewise, must have evolved=20 independently, when the data is interpreted from an evolutionary=20 perspective.

Another recent study, employing behavioral differences in gene=20 expression in brain tissue, has demonstrated that the brain = structure of=20 hummingbirds, songbirds, and parrots responsible for vocal = learning (the=20 ability to =93learn=94 vocalizations by imitation rather than by = instinct) is=20 essentially identical.^{8, 9} This is surprising, = since=20 these three birds are unrelated to one another. That is, the seven = distinct structures in the forebrain of these three groups of = birds that=20 are responsible for vocal learning are convergent. From an = evolutionary=20 perspective, these structures must have evolved independently of = one=20 another on three separate occasions.

It is difficult to accept, even when biased towards naturalism, = that=20 the complex structures involved in bat echolocation, bat and lemur = flight,=20 and bird vocal learning could have emerged strictly through random = events.=20 However, the remarkable convergence just described would be = expected if a single Creator was responsible for creating = bats,=20 lemurs, parrots, songbirds, and hummingbirds.

Even more challenging for the evolutionist are the cases in = which=20 convergence occurs in organisms from radically different = environments.=20 Under these circumstances, the forces that comprise natural = selection must=20 be different by definition. The classic example of this type = of=20 convergence is found in the eye structure of the cephalopods = (nautili,=20 cuttlefish, squids, and octopods).¹⁰ Their = similarity to=20 vertebrate eyes is remarkable from an evolutionary perspective, = given that=20 1) mollusks, which include cephalopods, are classified as a member = of a=20 fundamentally different group (lophotrochozoan) than vertebrates=20 (deuterostomes)¹¹; and 2) the selective forces that = would have=20 shaped the formation of both the cephalopod eye and vertebrate eye = must=20 have been quite different. Evolution would have required an = aquatic=20 environment for the cephalopods and a primarily terrestrial = environment=20 for the vertebrates.

An even more remarkable example of convergence occurring in = aquatic and=20 terrestrial environments can be seen in the sandlance (fish) and = chameleon=20 (reptile), respectively. Recent experiments have uncovered = an=20 extraordinary similarity in the visual systems and behavior for = these two=20 creatures.^{12, 13, 14, 15} Both the chameleon and = the=20 sandlance move their eyes independent of one another in a jerky = manner,=20 rather than in concert. While one eye is in motion the other eye = is=20 motionless. Moreover, both animals use the cornea of the eye = to=20 focus on objects. All other reptiles and fish use the lens = of the=20 eye to focus images on the retina. The chameleon and sandlance = both rely=20 on a specialized muscle (the cornealis muscle) to adjust the = focusing of=20 the cornea. The chameleon determines depth perception using a = single eye.=20 Scientists believe the sandlance also determines depth perception = in this=20 manner. Both the sandlance and the chameleon have skin coverings = over=20 their eyes to prevent them from being conspicuous to both = predators and=20 prey. The feeding behavior of both animals is also the same. = The=20 trajectory that the chameleon tongue takes when attacking its prey = is the=20 same as that taken by the sandlance when it lunges for its prey. = (The=20 sandlance buries itself in sand beds with its eyes above the = surface of=20 the sand and waits for tiny crustaceans to pass by.)

The words of the team of researchers who were among the first = to=20 discover this convergence are compelling: =93When faced with a = beautifully=20 coordinated optical system such as this, it is a challenge to = provide an=20 explanation for the convergence of so many different finely-tuned=20 mechanisms.=94¹⁶

These examples highlight the difficulty that convergence = creates for=20 the evolutionary paradigm. No known evolutionary mechanism can = account for=20 the nature of biological convergence. Convergence has been far too = common=20 throughout life=92s history, has involved exceedingly complex = structures,=20 and has occurred in situations in which the forces of natural = selection=20 have been vastly different. Biological convergence is an = important=20 component in the argument that life, throughout earth=92s history, = is a=20 result of the supernatural activity of a Creator.

References:

Monroe W. Strickberger, Evolution, 3d ed., (Sunberg, MA: = Jones and=20 Bartlett Publishers, 2000), 632; 637.=20
Mark Ridley, Evolution, 2d ed. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell = Science,=20 1996), 470-72.=20
Strickberger, 632; 637.=20
Kurt Wise, =93The Origin of Life=92s Major Groups,=94 in The = Creation=20 Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, = J.P.=20 Moreland, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), = 212-15.=20
Emma C. Teeling et al., =93Molecular Evidence Regarding the = Origin of=20 Echolocation and Flight in Bats,=94 Nature 403 (2000): 188-92.=20
Dorothy E. Pumo et al., =93Complete Mitochondrial Genome of = a=20 Neotropical Fruit Bat, Artibues Jamaicensis, and a New = Hypothesis of the=20 Relationships of Bats to Other Eutherian Mammals,=94 Journal of = Molecular=20 Evolution 47 (1998): 709-17.=20
James M. Hutcheon et al., =93Base Compositional Biases and = the Bat=20 Problem III. The Question of Microchiropteran Monophyly,=94 = Philosophical=20 Transaction of the Royal Society of LondonB 353 (1998): 607-17.=20
Erich D. Jarvis et al., =93Behaviorally Driven Gene = Expression Reveals=20 Song Nuclei in Hummingbird Brain,=94 Nature 406 (2000): 628-32.=20
Annette Heist, =93Singing in the Brain,=94 Natural History, = October=20 (2000): 14-16.=20
Robert D. Barnes, Invertebrate Zoology, 3d ed., = (Philadelphia, PA:=20 W.B. Sanders Company, 1974), 424-27.=20
Anna Marie A. Aquinaldo and James A. Lake, =93Evolution of=20 Multicellular Animals,=94 American Zoologist 38 (1998): 878-87.=20
Mandyam V. Srinivasan, =93When One Eye Is Better Than = Two,=94 Nature 399=20 (1999): 305-07.=20
J.D. Pettigrew and S.P. Collin, =93Terrestrial Optics in an = Aquatic=20 Eye: The Sandlance, Limnichthytes fasciatus (Creediidae, = Teleostei),=94=20 Journal of Comparative Physiology A 177 (1995): 397-408.=20
John D. Pettigrew et al., =93Convergence of Specialised = Behavior, Eye=20 Movements and Visual Optics in the Sandlance (Teleostei) and = Chameleon=20 (Reptilia),=94 Current Biology 9 (1999): R286-88.=20
Kerstin A. Fritsches and Justin Marshall, =93A New Category = of Eye=20 Movements in a Small Fish,=94 Current Biology 9 (1999): R272-73. =
Pettigrew and Collin, 407.

The = Measurability of the=20 Universe=96=96a Record of the Creator=92s Design

By Guillermo Gonzalez

If the universe were not measurable, scientific study = would be=20 impossible. Astronomy, biology, chemistry, cosmology, geology, = physics,=20 and the other disciplines of science would be no less quixotic = than=20 alchemy or astrology. Science would not=97could not=97shed much = light in the=20 cosmic darkness.

Most scientists take the measurability of the physical realm = completely=20 for granted: It is measurable because scientists have found ways = to=20 measure it. Scientists (myself included) may take pride in our = ability to=20 make measurements=96=96especially those measurements requiring = ingenuity,=20 persistence, and skill=96=96but why take the universe=92s = measurability for=20 granted? Is there any deep significance to the measurability of = the=20 universe? The answer springs from the very foundations of science, = from=20 the philosophical assumptions (chiefly drawn from the=20 Judeo-Christian Scriptures¹) on which scientific = endeavor=20 rests. These assumptions include, among others, the existence of a = theory-independent external world, the existence of order in the = external=20 world, the reality of truth, the validity and reliability of the = laws of=20 logic and mathematics, the basic reliability of sense perception, = and the=20 adequacy of the human mind to comprehend the universe.²⁼²⁰ The Judeo-Christian vision of reality predicts a = unique=20 correspondence between the physical universe and the human = mind.

By identifying the aspects of measurability humans = cannot=20 influence or control, one can determine (at least roughly) whether = or not=20 the measurability of the universe requires supernatural = fine-tuning, and=20 if so, to what degree. This study begins with a look at the nearby = cosmos=20 and from there moves outward in space, backward in time.

The Measurability of the Earth

One of the characteristics that makes Earth such an ideal = =93recording=20 device=94 is its built-in set of time markers=96=96cyclical = rhythms on time=20 scales of days, months, seasons, years, centuries, periods, eras, = and=20 eons. Humanity could have found itself in a far less measurable = place. The=20 Moon, for example, does not have active weather, seasons, or = tectonics,=20 and therefore offers few time markers. The Moon looks ancient, yet = ageless. Jupiter and the other gas giants have active weather, but = they=20 lack any solid surface on which to record their rhythms and = events. The=20 thin crust of the Earth provides not only a safe and comfortable = place for=20 living creatures of all kinds, but it also serves as the = planet=92s=20 information storage space. The deep, hot interior of the planet, = the=20 atmosphere, and the oceans are all too fluid to preserve much of = the=20 past.

Earth=92s cycles provide the steady beat of time markers, with = other,=20 more subtle, fluctuations superimposed. Because of seasonal = changes in=20 weather and plant life in a given locale, growth and deposition = phenomena=20 leave easily distinguishable (and measurable) features. Growth = rings in=20 trees not only yield information on the rain and temperature for a = given=20 season, but they also provide a unique tool for measuring the = carbon-14=20 content of the atmosphere, which is modulated, in turn, by the = sunspot=20 cycle. Research on tree rings gives astronomers information about = solar=20 variations on a wide range of time scales, from decades to = millennia.

Snow deposits in Greenland and Antarctica have created a four=20 hundred-thousand-year record of the composition of Earth=92s=20 atmosphere.³ Ancient air bubbles trapped within these = deposits=20 allow us to measure the concentration of carbon dioxide and other = gases in=20 past eras. The snow deposits give us a measure of ancient dust = levels,=20 which are indicative of large volcanic eruptions or very dry = conditions.=20 They also enable us to measure the ratios of three oxygen = isotopes, which=20 indicate the mean global temperature in past epochs. According to = a very=20 recent study, nitrate spikes in Antarctic ice deposits may help us = trace=20 supernova events (gigantic star explosions) of the past thousand=20 years.

Certain features of the ocean floor allow us an even = longer-range view,=20 hundreds of millions of years back into Earth=92s history. At the = mid-ocean=20 ridges (=93spreading centers=94), new sea floor is produced when = molten rock=20 upwells from the hot mantle below. When the molten rock solidifies = it=20 records the state of the earth=92s magnetic field at that time. By = studying=20 these sea-floor records at varying distances from the spreading = centers,=20 oceanographers can =93read=94 the history of fluctuations in = Earth=92s magnetic=20 field. A phenomenon so subtle as to be unnoticeable in everyday = life is=20 reliably recorded and preserved for later discovery and = deciphering.

Ancient =93tidalites=94 (tidal sediment layers) and coral, = mollusk, and=20 stromatolite growth layers record the lunar and solar tidal = cycles, giving=20 us unique data on the length of terrestrial days and lunar months = in=20 ancient times. Such data tell us that 500 million years ago, a day = was=20 about 20 hours long and a month was about 27.5 (present-epoch)=20 days.⁴

Meteorites that have hit the earth provide another treasure = trove of=20 data (preserved for billions of years) waiting to be unlocked. = Many=20 meteorites come from the asteroid belt, where collisions between = asteroids=20 send shards hurtling throughout the inner solar system (planets = from Mars=20 inward) and occasionally to the earth. Fragments falling on the = ice fields=20 of Antarctica are the best preserved ones, and their dark = appearance makes=20 them easy to distinguish against the uniform blue-white = background. Today,=20 a meteorite=92s individual grains, each measuring less than a = millimeter in=20 width, can be separately analyzed. These grains yield invaluable = clues to=20 the sources of short-lived (now extinct) =93radionuclides=94 = present in the=20 gas-and-dust cloud from which our sun and solar system formed. = They also=20 give us clues to the timing of certain key events in the formation = of=20 neighboring planets.

Even more amazing is the discovery that meteorites carry what = appear to=20 be individual interstellar dust grains, each from a different star = that=20 existed before the Sun. These dust particles give us rare and = important=20 data on the chemical history of the Milky Way. It appears that as = part of=20 God=92s grand design of the cosmos, He has provided a method of = collecting,=20 preserving, and delivering to our doorstep tiny bits of distant = (both in=20 the spatial and temporal sense) stars. What more could an = astronomer ask=20 for?

On a less grand scale, small bits of the moon and Mars have = been=20 blasted to the earth by large impacts. The most famous of these is = the=20 Martian meteorite, ALH 84001 that stirred much media attention a = few years=20 ago. The Moon probably contains a rich reserve of unaltered planet = shards=20 from the early history of the solar system. One might think of the = Moon as=20 the earth=92s attic, where ancient artifacts are stored and = forgotten,=20 perhaps to be retrieved one day.

The Measurability of the Sun

Total eclipses of the Sun as seen from the surface of the earth = may be=20 described as both =93useful=94 and =93exceptional.=94⁵ = Apart from the=20 deep awe they inspire in every people group from remote tribes to=20 astrophysicists, these eclipses allow us to study the Sun=92s = corona, test=20 general relativity, and calculate the slowdown of the earth=92s = rotation.=20 They are exceptional in that they are nearly =93perfect;=94 that = is, the earth=20 and Moon are similar in size, the solar and lunar profiles on the = sky are=20 nearly perfect circles, and the Sun appears to be larger when it = is viewed=20 from Earth than when it is viewed from any other planet with = moons. The=20 likelihood of finding this combination of features is remote. Of = the=20 roughly 65 natural satellites (moons) in the solar system, none = even comes=20 close to producing such clear and spectacular eclipses.

What=92s more, humans live at a special time with respect to = the=20 observability of total solar eclipses. Since the Moon is spiraling = away=20 from Earth and the Sun is swelling due to its changing internal = structure,=20 such eclipses are possible only for a relatively brief time span. = They=20 will continue only for about 250 million years. That may seem like = a long=20 time, but it constitutes only approximately 5% of Earth=92s = history.

The Sun=92s radiation conveys a wealth of information. By = observing its=20 spectrum, researchers learn about the Sun=92s composition, surface = temperature, and surface gravity. This =93readable=94 spectrum is = not unique=20 to the Sun, but the Sun=92s spectrum is nearly optimal in terms of = measurability and the number (and abundances) of chemical elements = it=20 reveals.

This optimal quality of the Sun=92s measurability derives from=20 characteristics other than its proximity to Earth and the large = number of=20 photons arriving at Earth-based instruments. In comparison to the = spectra=20 of other stars with similar =93signal-to-noise ratio=94 (data = quality), the=20 Sun=92s spectrum contains more extractable information. The = Sun=92s particular=20 surface temperature and its relatively low luminosity allow for = the=20 extraction of more information. The remarkable convergence of = these=20 just-right characteristics maximizes its readability.

The Astronomical Realm

The light sent to Earth from sources outside the solar system = contains=20 a wealth of information about stars, nebulae, galaxies, and even = the=20 intervening matter. Using various techniques and instruments, = astronomers=20 have used that light to map out most of the Milky Way disk, = clearly=20 delineating its spiral arm structure.

The measurement of the three-dimensional space motions of stars = in the=20 Milky Way is possible only because stars can be treated as if they = were=20 mathematical points. This feature allows astronomers to measure = the=20 relative positions of stars very precisely, and it means that = stars can be=20 used as simple probes of the Milky Way=92s gravitational field. If = stars=20 were larger and the distances between them smaller=96=96like = nebulae, for=20 example=96=96then the mathematics would be much more complex. = Stars=92 positions=20 and other features would be far less measurable, because their = light would=20 be spread over a larger volume of space. Also, if the Milky Way = contained=20 fewer stars, it would yield fewer and more obscure clues about its = history=20 and structure.

Astronomers have discovered that certain light sources are = particularly=20 useful as =93standard candles=94 (see sidebar). Examples of = standard candles=20 are Cepheid and RR Lyrae variable stars. The pulsation period of a = Cepheid=20 variable is related to its intrinsic luminosity in a simple way. = By=20 measuring the period and mean apparent brightness of a particular = Cepheid=20 variable star, one can easily calculate its distance. Because of = the=20 simplicity and consistency with which these objects operate, they = provide=20 invaluable reference points, or units of measure. Astronomers rely = on this=20 important data to reveal some of the fundamental constants of the=20 universe.

The cosmic microwave background radiation, first detected in = 1965, has=20 enabled cosmologists to extract information on enormous size- and=20 time-scales. With the launch of the Cosmic Background Explorer = (COBE)=20 satellite in 1989, astronomers were able to make measurements = precise=20 enough to confirm several predictions of the Big Bang theory (a = theory=20 consistent with the Bible) and effectively kill both the Steady = State=20 hypothesis and the oscillating universe hypothesis. Atheistic = cosmologists=20 as a way to avoid a beginning for the universe had favored these=20 hypotheses. Two upcoming space missions, the NASA Microwave = Anisotropy=20 Probe (MAP) and the European Space Agency (ESA) Planck Surveyor, = promise=20 orders of magnitude improvement over the measurements the = pioneering COBE=20 satellite recorded. The background radiation is sufficiently = intense that=20 we can measure it precisely with modern instruments, but not so = strong=20 that it is unaffected by processes shortly following its creation. = Therefore, we can learn about certain parameters of the universe = at very=20 early times, constrain some aspects of fundamental physics, and = garner a=20 glimpse at early large-scale structure and formation.

As the universe ages, the background radiation will become less = measurable. First, the continued expansion of space-time will = cause it to=20 become less intense and more redshifted. Second, as stars continue = to form=20 in the Milky Way, they will contribute to greater foreground=20 contamination, resulting in greater difficulty in measuring the=20 ever-fading background.

Teleological Implications

In terms of its mass, the Sun is among the top 10% most massive = stars=20 in the solar neighborhood.⁶ Aside from obvious = questions of=20 habitability, what if humans were attempting to scan the skies = from a=20 planet orbiting one of the less massive stars, one of those among = the 90%=20 majority? What would they be able to detect and measure? The most=20 fundamental ruler in their astronomical =93tool chest=94 would be = less=20 effective. It is the method called stellar parallax. Earth=92s = inhabitants=20 can use the changing position of the earth in its orbit around the = Sun to=20 detect the apparent reflex motion of nearby stars relative to = distant=20 background stars. By this method they can measure the distance = from the=20 earth to those nearer stars.

M dwarfs are the most common type of star in the Milky Way. The = habitable zone comprises the place around a star where liquid = water can=20 exist on the surface of a terrestrial-like planet continuously. = The=20 estimated diameter of the habitable zone around an M dwarf is only = about=20 10% that of the zone around the Sun, the zone in which Earth = resides.=20 Therefore, for a planet orbiting an M dwarf, the effectiveness of = the=20 stellar parallax method would be severely diminished. In fact, = astronomers=20 on such a planet would be able to observe only one-thousandth the = volume=20 of space Earth-bound astronomers can observe. The distances to = many rare=20 types of stars, such as O and B stars, and Cepheid and RR Lyrae = variables,=20 would remain a mystery, and information they provide would be=20 inaccessible. Clearly, M dwarfs would be less hospitable for life, = and the=20 cosmos far less measurable from their environs.

Since measurability is not a requirement for habitability, one = cannot=20 invoke the Anthropic Principle⁷ to make the remarkable=20 measurability of the universe seem less remarkable. Evidence = suggests that=20 the universe was designed not only for human habitability but also = for=20 human measurability and comprehensibility. The same processes and = features=20 that make Earth habitable also make and preserve a record of = activity and=20 provide a means for measurement. Those very places in the Milky = Way that=20 would be most dangerous to humans (e. g., the galactic center, = globular=20 clusters, and spiral arms) also offer the poorest visibility and=20 opportunity to make measurements. Does it seem a mere coincidence = that=20 Earth=92s location in the Milky Way affords an optimal view of = most of the=20 universe? Humanity=92s home planet is a comfortable porch from = which curious=20 humans can gaze out to the ends of time and space.

This argument allows us to ascribe purpose to any fine-tuned,=20 measurable aspect of the universe, such as stars and galaxies,=20 earthquakes, neutrinos, and the Moon. If anyone asks, =93Why are = there so=20 many stars and galaxies in the universe?=94 One can respond = with=20 double impact: Not only is a universe as big as this one required = for any=20 kind of life, but only a vast number of stars and galaxies permits = intelligent creatures to measure (reliably) the basic parameters = of the=20 universe. Earthquakes are important not only because life needs = the=20 effects of plate tectonics but also because they allow us to probe = the=20 internal structure of the Earth, which could not be done any other = conceivable way. Neutrinos give us a way to measure the = temperature of the=20 sun=92s core and to study the details of neutron star formation in = supernovae explosions. The Moon records some of the early history = of the=20 solar system and takes part in producing wonderful eclipses. And = so=20 on.

Of course, this consideration brings us to the deeper, = theological=20 question: Why would the Creator make the universe so measurable? = What=92s=20 the point of allowing humans to measure the characteristics of the = universe? To those who hold a Christian worldview, the answer is = clear. In=20 fact, the Bible explicitly states it: =93For since the creation of = the world=20 God=92s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, = have been=20 clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that = men are=20 without excuse=94 (Romans 1:19-20).

Sidebar: Standard Candles

Astronomers employ some types of stars as =93standard = candles.=94 These=20 are stars that have luminosities that are in some way standard. As = a=20 simple everyday example of a standard candle, consider an ordinary = 100-watt light bulb. Because a light bulb has a constant = luminosity (or=20 intrinsic brightness) we can estimate its distance from us if we = can=20 measure its apparent brightness. This technique only works if we = have good=20 reason to believe the luminosity of a given light source is some = standard=20 value. For a distant light bulb, one can verify its luminosity by=20 observing it with a telescope and looking for the phrase =93100 = watts.=94 Of=20 course, this does not work with stars, but the principle is=20 similar.

References:

See Stanley L. Jaki, The Savior of Science = (Washington, D.C.:=20 Regnery Gateway, 1988).=20
J. P. Moreland, The Creation Hypothesis (Downers = Grove:=20 InterVarsity Press, 1994), 17.=20
J. R. Petit, et al., =93Climate and Atmospheric History of = the Past=20 420,000 Years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica,=94 Nature = 399(1999): 429-36.=20
C.P. Sonett and M.A. Chan, =93Neoproterozoic Earth-Moon = Dynamics:=20 Rework of the 900 Ma Big Cottonwood Canyon Tidal Laminae,=94=20 Geophysical Research Letters 25 (1998): 539-42.=20
Guillermo Gonzalez, "Wonderful Eclipses," Astronomy & = Geophysics, (June 1999): 3.18-3.20.=20
Guillermo Gonzalez, =93Is the Sun Anomalous?=94 Astronomy = &=20 Geophysics 40 (October 1999): no. 5, 25-29.=20
Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos 2d ed. = (Colorado=20 Springs, CO: Navpress, 1995), 92, 121-25, 128.

First = Detection=20 of Earth-sized Planet?

By Hugh Ross

A team of 41 astronomers from Australia, Japan, New Zealand, = and the=20 United States took advantage of a naturally occurring telescope to = image a=20 small planet orbiting a star somewhere between us and the Galactic = Bulge=20 (the dense concentration of stars that exists at the core of our = Milky Way=20 galaxy).¹ The natural telescope consisted of a large = star=20 functioning as a gravitational lens. According to general = relativity, a=20 sufficiently massive body can bend the path of a beam of light = that passes=20 close enough to it. Therefore, if such a body lies between = us and=20 another object located directly behind it, it can magnify for us = the image=20 of the more distant object (see diagram). The more massive = the lense=20 object is, the more it will magnify.

Gravitational lenses that astronomers are fortunate = enough to=20 find exhibit widely varying magnifying properties. In this = particular case=20 the magnification exceeded twenty times.

The team=92s results demonstrate that relative to the star, = MACHO=20 98-BLG-35, that provided the gravitational lens phenomenon, the = planet=20 orbiting it is between 0.004 and 0.02 percent of the mass of the = star. For=20 star masses that could possibly give rise to such a spectacular=20 magnification, the planet mass orbiting it would fall between 3 = and 35=20 times the mass of the Earth (or, 0.17 and 2.0 Neptune masses). =

While not so small as an Earth-sized planet, the discovered = object does=20 rank as the smallest extrasolar planet yet found. The next = smallest is=20 about ten times more massive.

Can this gravitational lens technique ever find planets as = small as=20 Earth? Yes, but probably not more than a handful and never with = any=20 certainty as to the mass of the planet, its distance from its = star, or any=20 of the features of its orbit. That job must be left to the space=20 interferometer project discussed in the accompanying article.

The apologetic significance of the planet discovered orbiting = MACHO=20 98-BLG-35 is that the data demonstrates the planetary system is = lacking in=20 large gas-giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn. Since such = gas-giants,=20 located where they are in our solar system and manifesting stable=20 near-circular orbits, are essential ingredients for the support of = life on=20 Earth,² we know that the MACHO 98-BLG-35 system is not = a=20 candidate for a possibly life-supporting planet. Indeed, not one = of the 42=20 extrasolar planetary systems discovered so far offers any = possibility of=20 harboring a planet with the capacity to support life.

The hope expressed by many non-theists before all this research = got=20 started was that planetary systems like ours would prove to be=20 common. This hope appears to be dashed. Our solar system so = far=20 remains alone in exhibiting the extraordinary properties necessary = for the=20 maintenance of a planet with the capacity to support = life. =20

References:

S. H. Rhie, et al, =93On Planetary Companions to the MACHO = 98-BLG-35=20 Microlens Star,=94 Astrophysical Journal, 533 (2000), pp. = 378-391.=20
Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, second edition = (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1995), pp. 137-138. =

Pr= otein=20 Structures Reveal Even More Evidence for Design

By Fazale (Fuz) R. Rana, Ph.D.

Recent structural characterization of three proteins, RNA = polymerase=20 II, thioredoxin reductase (from E. coli), and chloroplast=20 F₁-F₀ ATPase, provides exciting additional = evidence=20 for Design at the subcellular level.^{1, 2, 3} These = three=20 proteins possess, as part of their architectural make-up, = components that=20 are literally machine parts. These new discoveries add = to the=20 growing list of molecular motors (enzyme assemblies responsible = for=20 cellular movement) and other enzyme systems that are direct = analogs to=20 man-made devices.^{4, 5, 6}

A team of researchers from Stanford University has recently = solved the=20 structure of the RNA polymerase II backbone at 3.5 =C5 = resolution.⁷⁼²⁰ RNA polymerase II is a 12-protein subunit complex that = synthesizes messenger RNA using DNA as a template. Messenger RNA = produced=20 this way contains the information needed to direct the synthesis = of=20 proteins at subcellular particles called ribosomes. For this = reason, RNA=20 polymerase II plays a central role in gene expression.

The structural analysis of RNA polymerase II has been nearly 20 = years=20 in the works.⁸This has been due to such = factors as=20 the small amount of it in the cell, as well as its fragility, its = large=20 size, and its complexity. Diligent effort over the years coupled = with=20 technological advances has finally allowed the team from Stanford=20 University to visualize the structure of RNA polymerase II.

The results of this work have been well worth the wait. The = molecular=20 basis for understanding RNA polymerase II function is now in = place.=20 Equally as exciting are the theological implications of this = work.

RNA polymerase II has remarkable machine-like=20 character.⁹ RNA polymerase II subunits form a = channel=20 that houses the chain-like DNA template. =93Jaws=94 help grip the = DNA template=20 holding it in place during RNA synthesis. The newly formed RNA = chain locks=20 into place a hinge clamp as it exits the RNA polymerase II = channel. A=20 funnel-like pore delivers the small subunit molecules to the RNA=20 polymerase II channel. Then the small subunit molecules in the = channel are=20 added to the growing end of the RNA chain.

In a similar vein, structural characterization at 3.0 =C5 = resolution=20 reveals that thioredoxin reductase function is built around a ball = and=20 socket joint.¹⁰ This enzyme, isolated from the = bacterium=20 E. coli, assists in the transfer of electrons between=20 molecules. During the catalytic cycle, the enzyme undergoes = a=20 conformational rearrangement that involves the 67=B0 rotation of = one of its=20 domains around a clearly defined swivel surface.

Finally, recent image analysis by a team from Germany and = Switzerland=20 using atomic force microscopy has revealed structural information = about=20 chloroplast F₁-F₀ ATPase. On the basis = of this=20 work, we can now add this enzyme to the growing list of ATPase = enzymes=20 that are rotary motors.¹¹ As with the other = rotary motor=20 ATPases, chloroplast ATPase has a rotor, stator, and turbine.

The recent recognition that these three enzymes have = machine-like=20 domains, along with previous structural characterization of other = enzymes=20 with machine parts (such as F₁-F₀ ATPase,=20 V₁-V₀ ATPase, bacterial flagellar proteins = and=20 myosin) serve to revitalize the Watchmaker = argument.¹² =20 Popularized by William Paley in the 18^th century, this = argument=20 states that as a watch requires a watchmaker, so too, nature = requires a=20 Creator.

This simple, yet powerful, argument has been challenged by = skeptics=20 like David Hume, who asserts that the necessary conclusion of a = Creator,=20 based on analogical reasoning, is only compelling if there is a = high=20 degree of similarity between the objects that form the=20 analogy.¹³ Skeptics have long argued that nature = and a=20 watch are sufficiently dissimilar so that the conclusion drawn = from the=20 Watchmaker argument is unsound.

The discovery of enzymes with domains that are direct analogs = to=20 man-made devices addresses this concern, because of the striking=20 similarity between the machine parts of these enzymes and man-made = devices. Furthermore, as the list of enzymes with machine = parts=20 grows, the conclusion of the Watchmaker analogy grows even more = certain.=20 Experts in inductive thinking will point out that the more objects = taking=20 part in an analogy, the more sound the conclusion arrived at = through=20 analogical reasoning.¹⁴

References:

Patrick Cramer, et al., =93Architecture of RNA Polymerase II = and=20 Implications for the Transcription Mechanism,=94 Science = 288=20 (2000): 640-49.=20
Brett W. Lennon et al., =93Twists in Catalysis: Alternating=20 Conformations of Escherichia coli Thioredoxin = Reductase,=94=20 Science 289 (2000): 1190-94.=20
Holger Seelert et al., =93Proton-Powered Turbine of a = Plant,=94=20 Nature 405 (2000): 418-19.=20
Michael Behe, Darwin=92s Black Box: The Biochemical = Challenge To=20 Evolution (New York: The Free Press, 1996), 69-72.=20
Hugh Ross, =93Small Scale Evidence of Grand-Scale Design,=94 = Facts=20 and Faith 4, no. 2 (1997): 1.=20
Fazale Rana and Micah Lott, =93Hume vs. Paley: These = =91Motors=92 Settle=20 the Debate,=94 Facts for Faith 1, No. 2 (2000): 34-39.=20
Patrick Cramer et al., 640-49.=20
Joan Weliky Conaway and Ronald C. Conaway, =93Light at the = End of the=20 Channel,=94 Science 288 (2000): 632-33.=20
Conaway and Conaway, 632-33.=20
Lennon et al., 1190-94.=20
Holger Seelert et al., 418-19.=20
Rana and Lott, 34-39.=20
Rana and Lott, 34-39.=20
Patrick J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction To Logic,=20 6^th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing,1997), = 494-96.=20

Problem of Evil = (Part=20 Two)

By Ron Nash

In the last installment of this series, I noted that the = problem of=20 evil is for most people the toughest question to deal with. = I also=20 pointed out the importance of breaking the problem of evil down = into=20 several smaller components. If we know how to break the = problem of=20 evil into several smaller difficulties, at least we are no longer = facing=20 an enormous issue, and we have a chance of explaining the smaller=20 components. In this issue, we=92ll consider three of = them.

Moral Evil and Natural Evil

A good place to begin our downsizing of the problem of evil is=20 recognizing the difference between two kinds of evil: moral evil = and=20 natural evil. Moral evil results from the choices and = actions of=20 human beings. When the question why is asked about = some moral=20 evil, the answer will include a reference to something that humans = did or=20 did not do. Moral evil sometimes results when a human acts, = for=20 example, by shooting a gun. But moral evil may also occur as = a=20 result of human inaction, the failure to do something. = Perhaps=20 someone could have prevented the person from getting the gun and=20 didn=92t. So moral evil results from human choices and = actions; any=20 other kind of evil is what we call natural evil. The class = of=20 natural evils includes such things as earthquakes, tornadoes, and = diseases=20 not resulting from human choices. Many wise people believe = questions=20 about the two kinds of evil require different kinds of = answers. I=20 hope to consider examples of these different answers in future=20 columns.

The Theoretical versus the Personal Problems of = Evil

It is one thing to deal with evil on a purely theoretical or=20 philosophical level. It is something quite different to = encounter=20 evil in a personal way. Sitting in a philosophy classroom = and=20 thinking about the problem of evil is obviously different from = struggling=20 with the news that a loved one has just died in an automobile=20 accident. At the moment when one is being hammered = existentially by=20 some particular instance of evil or pain, it is easy to forget a=20 philosophical argument that once seemed to suggest answers as to = why evil=20 exists. Someone troubled by aspects of the theoretical or=20 philosophical problem of evil may find help from a respected = philosopher=20 or apologist. But when one confronts a personal problem of = evil,=20 that person may need a wise and caring friend, pastor, or = counselor.

The distinction before us at this point reminds me of an = important=20 lesson we can learn from the life of C.S. Lewis. One of = Lewis=92s more=20 influential books, The Problem of Pain, offers his answers = to the=20 theoretical problem of evil. Many believe there are some = very good=20 arguments in that book. However, after Lewis met and then = married=20 Joy Gresham, he learned the painful truth about the difference = between the=20 theoretical and personal problems of evil. His wife=92s = eventual death=20 from cancer after a long period of painful suffering plunged Lewis = into a=20 time of doubt and depression. At that time he was confronted = by the=20 personal problem of evil, and the philosophical arguments in his = earlier=20 book were of no help to him. What he needed and obtained was = help=20 from one of Joy=92s sons and from his pastor.

Evil in General versus Specific Instances of = Evil

My last distinction notes the difference between evil in = general and=20 particular cases of evil. Like most philosophers and = apologists, I=20 know a number of arguments that I believe help to explain why = moral and=20 natural evil exist. I hope to look at some of those = arguments in a=20 future column. But when I or someone else is confronted by a = specific instance of evil such as a loved one diagnosed with = terminal=20 cancer or a person killed in a car crash, we=92re dealing with an = entirely=20 different matter.

Conclusion

It should be clear that this short essay does not solve the = problem of=20 evil in any of its forms. That was not my intention. = Rather, I=20 have sought to show that our first efforts to deal with the = problem of=20 evil should attempt to cut it down to size, reduce it to smaller = parts of=20 the larger problem. After we have done this, our next steps = may be=20 slightly easier.

Dr. Ronald Nash is Professor of Philosophy at Reformed = Theological=20 Seminary in Orlando, Florida and also at Southern Baptist = Theological=20 Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He is the author of 35 books = including=20 Life=92s Ultimate Questions (Zondervan), The Meaning of History = (Broadman=20 & Holman) and The Word of God and the Mind of Man = (Presbyterian and=20 Reformed). All are easily available from http://www.barnesandnoble.com/=20 and http://www.amazon.com/.

Thinking About = The=20 Incarnation:
The Divine Word Became Flesh

By Kenneth Richard Samples

At the very heart of historic Christianity is a truly = astounding=20 truth-claim that is celebrated all around the world at Christmas. = This=20 central article of the Christian faith is known as the doctrine of = the=20 Incarnation: God became man in Jesus of Nazareth. It is = this truth=20 that sets Christianity apart from all other religions of the world = (including Judaism and Islam). For it is unique to Christianity to = discover a God who takes the initiative in becoming flesh in order = to=20 redeem sinful human beings. As C. S. Lewis aptly put it, =93The = Son of God=20 became a man to enable men to become sons of = God.=94¹

The Christian teaching that the Savior of the world is both = divine and=20 human is certainly a mysterious and unfathomable doctrine. For = that reason=20 it is often misunderstood and misrepresented. This article will = briefly=20 explain the doctrine of the Incarnation, and respond to some = critical=20 questions concerning its origin, importance, historical = development, and=20 coherence.

The Historic Christian Doctrine of the Incarnation

The most important creedal statement concerning the Incarnation = is the=20 Creed of Chalcedon. It was the Council of Chalcedon (the fourth = ecumenical=20 council) in A.D. 451 that laid down the basic boundaries = concerning the=20 orthodox view of Christ=92s person and nature. According to this = council,=20 Jesus Christ is one divine Person in two natures (divinity and = humanity).=20 Thus the Chalcedon Creed became, and continues to be, the = normative=20 standard for the orthodox doctrine of Christ. All of Christendom = (Roman=20 Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) affirms the = Chalcedonian=20 formula that Jesus Christ is both God and man. This creed = enunciates the=20 orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation (specifically Christ=92s two = natures)=20 in the following manner:

We all with one voice confess our Lord Jesus Christ to be one = and the=20 same Son, perfect in divinity and humanity, truly God and truly = human,=20 consisting of a rational soul and a body, being of one substance = with=20 the Father in relation to his divinity, and being of one = substance with=20 us in relation to his humanity, and is like us in all things = apart from=20 sin. He was begotten of the Father before time in relation to = his=20 divinity, and in these recent days was born from the Virgin = Mary, the=20 Theotokos [God-bearer], for us and for our salvation. In = relation=20 to the humanity he is one and the same Christ, the Son, the = Lord, the=20 Only-begotten, who is to be acknowledged in two natures, without = confusion, without change, without division, and without = separation. The=20 distinction of natures is in no way abolished on account of this = union,=20 but rather the characteristic property of each nature is = preserved, and=20 concurring into one Person and one subsistence, not as if Christ = were=20 parted or divided into two persons, but remains one and the same = Son and=20 Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as the = Prophets from=20 the beginning spoke concerning him, and our Lord Jesus Christ = instructed=20 us, and the Creed of the Fathers was handed down to=20 us.²

The Chalcedonian formulation does not explain just how = the two=20 natures are united in one person, but it sets the crucial = theological=20 parameters for orthodox biblical Christology (doctrine of the = person and=20 nature of Christ).

The Christian Theistic View of God and the Incarnation

The doctrine of the Incarnation should properly be understood = within=20 the broader context of the Christian theistic view of God. The God = unveiled in the Bible and later expressed in the historic creeds = and=20 confessions of Christendom is the one sovereign and majestic Lord. = Historic Christianity thus affirms belief in one infinitely = perfect,=20 eternal, and personal (or superpersonal) God, the transcendent = Creator and=20 sovereign Sustainer of the universe. This one God is Triune, = existing=20 eternally and simultaneously as three distinct and distinguishable = persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.³ All three = persons in=20 the Godhead, or Divine Being, share equally and completely the one = divine=20 nature, and are therefore the same God, coequal in attributes, = nature, and=20 glory. The doctrine of the Incarnation then properly emerges = doctrinally=20 from this explicit Trinitarian teaching.

The term =93incarnation=94 is of Latin origin, and literally = means=20 =93becoming in flesh=94 (Lat. in carne, Gk. en = sarki). While the=20 term is not contained in Scripture per se, the Greek equivalent is = (John=20 1:14: Kai ho logos sarx egeneto -- =93And the Word became = flesh=94).=20 The doctrine of the Incarnation is at the heart of the biblical = message=20 for it reveals the person and nature of the Lord and Savior Jesus = Christ.=20 The Christian doctrine of the Incarnation teaches that the eternal = Logos (Word), the second person of the Trinity, without = diminishing=20 His deity took to Himself a fully human nature. Specifically, this = doctrine teaches that a full and undiminished divine nature, and a = full=20 and perfect human nature were inseparably united in the one = historical and=20 divine person of Jesus of Nazareth. According to Holy Scripture, = Jesus=20 Christ is God the Son in human flesh (theanthropos, the=20 God-man).

The Hypostatic Union

As the Incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ is one person with = two=20 natures. In accord with the Chalcedonian definition, these two = natures=20 (divinity and humanity) =93remain distinct, whole, and unchanged, = without=20 mixture or confusion so that the one person, Jesus Christ, is = truly God=20 and truly man.=94⁴Christ is one in substance = (homoousios)=20 with the Father in regard to His divine nature, and one in = substance with=20 humanity in regard to His human nature. The two natures are = perfectly=20 united forever in the one person (hypostasis) of Jesus = Christ. The=20 hypostatic union refers therefore to the union of the two distinct = natures=20 in the one person of Jesus Christ (neither dividing the person nor = confounding the natures). Philosophically speaking, as the = God-man, Jesus=20 Christ is =93two Whats=94(i.e., a divine =93what=94 [or nature] = and a human =93what=94=20 [or nature]) and =93one Who=94( i.e., a single =93person=94 or = =93self=

Facts for Faith

Issue 4, 2000

Articles

Repeatable=20 Evolution or Repeated Creation?

The Contingent Nature of the Evolutionary Process

A Test for Evolution, A Test for Creation

Anolis Lizards

Ranid Frogs

Cichlids

Mangabeys

River Dolphins

Pericallis

Evolutionary Attempts to Account for Repeatable Evolution

Conclusion

References:

Bob=20 Stewart: Soldier, Astronaut, and Compelling Apologist

God=92s Plan for=20 Humanity=97Paradise Restored or Paradise = Replaced?

Better Than Eden19

References:

Convergence:=20 Evidence for a Single Creator

References:

The = Measurability of the=20 Universe=96=96a Record of the Creator=92s Design

The Measurability of the Earth

The Measurability of the Sun

The Astronomical Realm

Teleological Implications

Sidebar: Standard Candles

References:

First = Detection=20 of Earth-sized Planet?

References:

Pr= otein=20 Structures Reveal Even More Evidence for Design

References:

Problem of Evil = (Part=20 Two)

Moral Evil and Natural Evil

The Theoretical versus the Personal Problems of = Evil

Evil in General versus Specific Instances of = Evil

Conclusion

Thinking About = The=20 Incarnation:The Divine Word Became Flesh

The Historic Christian Doctrine of the Incarnation

The Christian Theistic View of God and the Incarnation

The Hypostatic Union

Better Than Eden¹⁹

Thinking About = The=20 Incarnation:
The Divine Word Became Flesh