Today’s New Reason To Believe

Bio: Dr. Millam received his doctorate in theoretical chemistry from Rice University in 1997, and currently serves as a programmer for Semichem in Kansas City.

The most important biblical doctrine related to creation is creation ex nihilo, which means “creation out of nothing.” This theologically fundamental belief was taught in important creedal statements [part 1]. It represents a clear line of demarcation between Christianity and Greek philosophy, which held that matter was eternal [part 2].

Creation ex nihilo, however, was also very important in responding to Gnostic claims. (Gnosticism represents a group of related heresies that arose around the mid-2nd century and combined elements of Christian theology with Greek ideas.) One belief that the Gnostics inherited from the Greeks was the idea that matter was evil. They rejected any connection between God and matter and therefore denied creation ex nihilo, as well as Jesus’ virgin birth, incarnation, and literal bodily death and resurrection. Creation ex nihilo had apologetic significance in responding to the Gnostics by demonstrating that God could use matter for His good purpose.

The most extensive rebuttal of Gnosticism comes from Irenaeus of Lyons, in his masterwork, Against Heresies. He clearly taught creation ex nihilo as a defining principle of Christianity, in contrast to Gnostic speculation.

“They [the Gnostics] do not believe that God (being powerful, and rich in all resources) created matter itself, inasmuch as they know not how much a spiritual and divine essence can accomplish…For, to attribute the substance of created things to the power and will of Him who is God of all, is worthy both of credit and acceptance. It is also agreeable [to reason], and there may be well said regarding such a belief, that ‘the things which are impossible with men are possible with God.’ While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point preeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.10.3-4)

Irenaeus discusses creation ex nihilo in several other passages as well.

Tertullian (3rd century), the father of the Latin (Western) Church, provides the most significant defense of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. He wrote extensively against Gnosticism and argued for creation ex nihilo in six of his 30 surviving works. The most important of these works is Against Hermogenes (AH), where he defends creation ex nihilo against Hermogenes’ belief that God created the world out of eternal (preexisting) matter. Tertullian points out that Hermogenes borrowed his view from Greek Stoic philosophers (AH 1) and that it was heretical because it put matter on the same level as God Himself (AH 1-4). He further argues that Genesis 1 teaches that matter is good (not evil) (AH 12, 25) and that Genesis 1:1 specifically teaches that God created matter (AH 19-22). In another passage, he argues that the universe must have a beginning just as it has an ending (i.e. God will destroy this universe) (AH 34).

Tertullian goes one step farther in arguing that creation ex nihilo is not only true but a part of the “rule of faith” (Latin regula fidei), which he states on three different occasions (Against Hermogenes, 33; The Prescription Against Heresies, 13; The Veiling of Virgins, 1). The “rule of faith” represented those key doctrines held in common by all believers (distinct from debatable issues) and served as an important dividing line between Christian orthodoxy and heresy. Tertullian’s views in these three passages can be distilled into four essential points:

Creation ex nihilo is essential doctrine. He placed it in the “rule of faith,” meaning that it was universally accepted from the beginning and beyond debate. He specifically places creation ex nihilo alongside other foundational doctrine, such as the nature of God, Jesus’ virgin birth, and Jesus’ literal physical death and resurrection.

Matter has a beginning. Only God is eternal and uncreated; therefore, matter must have a beginning (i.e. it must have been created).

Matter is created by God. It is not enough to say that matter is created; God must be its creator. This cuts to the heart of Gnosticism, which held that matter was evil and hence that God would not have created it. Tertullian rejects such fanciful ideas and clearly declares God to be the author of matter.

God could have shaped previously existing (but not eternal) matter. Genesis 1:3-31 could represent God forming things from matter that He previously created (Genesis 1:1) but was initially shapeless (Genesis 1:2). This distinction is important because it leaves room for the view previously taught by Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria (see [part 2]).

Origen (3rd century) follows closely along the lines of Tertullian in declaring creation ex nihilo to be among the “teaching of the apostles” (First Principles, Preface 4) and “articles of the Church” (First Principles, 3.5.1). In both cases, these statements are synonymous with Tertullian’s “rule of faith.” Origen likewise places creation ex nihilo alongside other essential Christian doctrine.

In addition to those already quoted, we know that Minucius Felix, Lactantius, Victorinus, Athanasius, Ephrem the Syrian, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Basil, and Augustine also believed in creation ex nihilo. Altogether, 18 early church fathers included in this study taught creation ex nihilo and none taught eternal matter. This widespread acceptance has continued down to recent times.

Part 4 will look at the importance of this doctrine to modern science.

The information presented here is based on unpublished research. Inquiries regarding it should be directed to the author (kansascity@reasons.org).

Further reading:

Robert Bradshaw, “Creationism and the Early Church”.

Robert Lethem, “‘In the Space of Six Days’: The Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly,” Westminster Theological Journal 61, no. 2, (1999), 149-74.

Kenneth Richard Samples, A World of Difference, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007).

David H. Rogstad, Ph.D.

The Phoenix spacecraft that recently landed on Mars is getting a lot of attention in the media. This NASA mission left Earth about 9 months ago and successfully landed a spacecraft near Mars’ north polar cap on June 25, 2008. Using a scoop on the end of a 7-foot arm, Phoenix has and will continue to dig down below the surface to investigate if there is frozen water and other conditions that might have supported life. You can read about the details of the mission here

The event of its safe landing was of special interest to me. My group at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory helped build the navigation equipment used to guide Phoenix to its landing spot and the receiving equipment used to follow the spacecraft during its entry, decent, and landing (EDL) on the surface of Mars. Besides the original launch, EDL is the most dangerous phase of the mission because any error in performance can be catastrophic. Our EDL equipment does not prevent such a catastrophe but provides information that can be used in future designs as to where and how the potential failure may have taken place. Fortunately, this landing was a success.

Because one of the goals of this mission is to search for the signatures of life, it is critical that the spacecraft itself does not bring life from Earth to contaminate Mars. I have written earlier about the efforts taken to build the spacecraft in a clean environment and the difficulty in keeping it bacteria-free. At least two recent news articles have called attention to the problem, one in Nature and another in The New Scientist.

As reported in the second article, just before the launch in August 2007, tests showed the presence of at least 26,000 cells per square meter of area in the lab representing about 100 kinds of bacteria. While this amount is very small compared with billions of bacteria in a normal environment, it still poses an obstacle for a mission seeking for a rare signature of life. When these remaining bacteria were tested for their ability to tolerate heat, cold, salt and radiation, one species, called Bacillus pumilus survived doses of UV radiation that killed nearly all other life. While every effort has been made to reduce the chances of contamination of Mars with Earth life, scientists for the mission acknowledge that “there is a possibility you’d get contamination, but the probability is very low.”

RTB scholars posit that, now or in the future, life will be found on Mars. However, its source will not likely be contamination from a man-made spacecraft but, instead, a naturally formed spacecraft—namely, a meteorite blasted off of Earth by a collision with a large asteroid or comet sometime in the past. Since Earth is teeming with life it is not unreasonable to consider that some of this life made its way to Mars in such a fashion. In the RTB model, life on Earth came about not by natural processes, but by the acts of God who created with a purpose.

Posted by Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana, Ph.D.

Newly Discovered Example of Convergence Challenges Biological Evolution

I love TiVo. It’s a lot of fun to pause live TV (particularly when the big game is on), rewind it, and play it back again.

Biological evolution has nothing in common with TiVo, however. As the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould highlighted in his book Wonderful Life, if one were to push the rewind button, erase life’s history, and then let the tape run again the results would be completely different each time.

The very essence of the evolutionary process renders evolutionary outcomes nonrepeatable. According to the concept of historical contingency, chance governs biological and biochemical evolution at its most fundamental level. Evolutionary pathways consist of an historical sequence of chance genetic changes operated on by natural selection, which, too, consists of chance components. As a consequence, if evolutionary events could be repeated, the outcome would be dramatically different every time. The inability of evolutionary processes to retrace the same path makes it highly unlikely that the same biological and biochemical designs should appear repeatedly throughout nature among unrelated organisms.

Contrary to what’s expected, evolutionary biologists note that biological convergence is widespread. As I noted last week, convergence refers to the extensive pattern in nature where unrelated organisms possess nearly identical anatomical, physiological, behavioral, and biochemical characteristics. According to the evolutionary paradigm, undirected natural processes yielded the identical outcome because the forces of selection channeled evolutionary pathways to the same endpoint.

Researchers Brian Beatty and Bruce Rothschild have uncovered another remarkable example of biological convergence. From an evolutionary standpoint, it appears as if toothed and baleen whales developed the ability to dive deep into the ocean independently from each other. (Go here for a popular article on this discovery and here for a technical paper.)

For whales to dive, they must have physiological adaptations that allow them to avoid decompression syndrome. Rapid pressure changes—such as what occur during deep diving—can force air bubbles out of the blood vessels. When this happens, it can cause the blood vessels to rupture, denying cells of blood, oxygen, and nutrients. This loss causes the cells to die, leaving lesions behind.

The scientists used this principle to assess susceptibility of ancient whales to decompression syndrome. They analyzed vertebrae of 331 individual modern and 996 fossil whales. The conclusion was that the two lineages of whales must have evolved the ability to avoid decompression syndrome independently. This scenario contravenes the expectation of most evolutionary biologists, who postulated that the shared ancestor of toothed and baleen whales must have had the ability to dive deep without suffering from decompression problems.

According to Erich Fitzgerald, an Australian paleontologist, “They have come up with a quite surprising story.” The surprise expressed by Fitzgerald stems from the notion that evolutionary outcomes should not repeat. Yet, in this instance and others it appears as though evolution has generated the same outcomes over and over again.

Biological convergence not only raises questions about the validity of biological evolution, it also points to the work of a Creator. As I argue in my new book The Cell’s Design designers and engineers frequently reapply successful strategies when they face closely related problems. Why reinvent the wheel? It’s much more prudent and efficient for an inventor to reuse the same good designs as much as possible, particularly when confronted with a problem he or she has already solved.

The tendency of engineers and designers to reuse the same designs provides insight into the way that a Creator might work. If human engineers, made in God’s image, reutilize the same techniques and technologies when they invent, it’s reasonable to expect that a Creator would do the same. If life stems from the work of a Creator then it’s reasonable to expect that the same designs would repeatedly appear throughout nature. Use of good, effective designs over and over again would reflect His prudence and efficiency as a Divine Engineer.

It looks as if life is God’s TiVo.