Today’s New Reason To Believe

After the first appearance of life on Earth, the Great Oxygenation Event marked the biggest chemical transformation of the planet. This event occurred approximately 2.4 billion years ago. The oxygen content of Earth’s atmosphere rose from just one thousandth of a percent (10^-5) of its present level (about 21 percent of the total volume of the atmosphere) to several percent of its present level.

Before the Great Oxygenation Event only unicellular life was possible. After the event, more complex life could be introduced. Also, the extra oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere meant that the great oxygen sinks on and in Earth (the crust and the mantle) could be filled up. This ample supply paved the way for the Second Great Oxygenation Event and the possibility for large, active animals. Unless the First Great Oxygenation Event had occurred as early as it did in Earth’s history, human life would never have been possible on Earth.

Recently, a team of British environmental scientists discovered how Earth transitioned from a low atmospheric oxygen state to a high one and how it did so as early and as quickly as it did. The team determined that a certain minimum level of oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere will trigger the development of effective ultraviolet shielding in the troposphere through the formation of ozone. That shielding not only permits more efficient photosynthesis to occur, but it also gives oxygen molecules in the troposphere a longer lifetime. These effects result in a large and rapid boost in the oxygen content of the atmosphere.

The development of these conclusions is where the research of the British team stops. What they overlooked is that the trigger will not be “pulled” unless considerable supernatural intervention occurs. For the trigger to be pulled early enough and effectively enough that human life becomes an eventual possibility, photosynthetic life must be introduced on Earth at the earliest possible moment; that is, immediately after the late heavy bombardment event ends (date = 3.8 billion years ago). This early photosynthetic life must be both abundant and ubiquitous throughout the Earth. For the abundance and ubiquity to be possible, there must be many diverse species of photosynthetic life. Furthermore, photosynthetic life must remain abundant, ubiquitous, and diverse continuously for many hundreds of millions of years. Such life, therefore, either must be hardy enough to survive the many life-disturbing events occurring during Earth’s early history and/or the Creator must be aggressively re-creating life during this era (see Psalm 104:27-30).

Thanks to the many supernatural interventions on the part of the Creator, all these conditions were met and the Great Oxygenation Event did indeed occur.

David H. Rogstad, Ph.D.

The other day I read an article written by Alvin Plantinga, arguably one of the greatest living Christian philosophers, entitled Evolution vs. Naturalism. I had to read it over several times to fully appreciate his argument, but found it fascinating and well worth the effort. Basically, Plantinga presents another form of what has become known as the Argument from Reason, popularized by C. S. Lewis in his book Miracles and discussed more recently in an article by Victor Reppert.

Without going into all of the details (I recommend you read the article), the argument goes something like this:

Materialistic evolution is purported to be an adaptive mechanism that controls the development of life and guarantees the survivability of that life. In particular, the neurophysiological processes that make up a species produce behavior that results in a species more suited for survival. In this evolutionary view, these same neurophysiological processes also produce beliefs. But while natural selection rewards adaptive behavior, it does not care whether beliefs are true. Plantinga argues that a naturalistic process like evolution cannot be guaranteed to produce true beliefs, and he quotes several evolutionists who confirm this view. He concludes that naturalistic evolution is a self-defeating explanation in that it cannot guarantee the reliability of the reasoning processes that lead to it.

Plantinga’s argument rests on the claim that evolution doesn’t care if beliefs are true. Upon reflection, however, I am not convinced that this claim is strictly true. There must be some beliefs that are produced that affect behavior, so they are being selected for survival in the same way behavior is selected. If those beliefs are not true, then I would expect survivability to be impacted. Can the development of these behavior-affecting true beliefs then lead to the forming of processes that could produce other true beliefs that do not directly affect behavior and, therefore, are not in the survivability loop? I suspect that Plantinga would say it is this limited set of beliefs that he had in mind in the first place when he was making his case, and since they are not in the survivability loop, there is no guarantee they are true. So his argument stands.

What is the end of all this? In the words of Plantinga:

The obvious conclusion, so it seems to me, is that evolutionary naturalism can’t sensibly be accepted. The high priests of evolutionary naturalism loudly proclaim that Christian and even theistic belief is bankrupt and foolish. The fact, however, is that the shoe is on the other foot. It is evolutionary naturalism, not Christian belief, that can’t rationally be accepted.

Posted by Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana, Ph.D.

Invention of a New Type of Microscope Delineates the Difference between ID and Science

Is it science or isn’t it? This question lies at the heart of the controversy about intelligent design (ID) and whether it should be included in high school science curricula.

Many in the scientific community reject ID because they claim it isn’t science. There are two primary reasons for their rejection: the appeal to a supernatural agent to explain the universe and life; and the absence of a scientific theory of intelligent design.

RTB’s position on intelligent design has surprised some and has raised the ire of others. We agree with some of the scientific community’s criticisms of ID, namely that ID isn’t science. (For a good discussion about ID and science, see RTB apologist Richard Deem’s article

Interestingly, the invention of a new type of miniaturized microscope helps clarify RTB’s position on ID and illustrates why we don’t think it qualifies as science, at least as currently conceived by the ID movement.

Our complaints about ID don’t mean that we think the work done by the ID community lacks value. We largely agree with their criticisms of methodological naturalism as the sole philosophy guiding science. We are on board with many of the scientific challenges they have raised against biological evolution. (For example, see my books Origins of Life and Who Was Adam?.)We also concur with much of the arguments and evidence ID scholars cite in favor of intelligent design. (As a case in point, see my book The Cell’s Design.)

Can Science Detect the Work of an Intelligent Agent?

Additionally, we agree with ID proponents that ID shouldn’t be excluded from the scientific enterprise simply because it appeals to the work of an intelligent agent. Even though many scientists would claim otherwise, science has the capacity to adopt explanations for the universe and life that rely on the work of a Creator.

Science routinely deals with directly unobservable phenomena, such as forces, fields, and subatomic particles. Scientists infer the properties and monitor the effects of unobservables indirectly by examining observable macroscopic phenomena that directly affect our senses. It should be possible to do the same for a Creator’s activity.

Within a Christian framework, ID naturally integrates with science. Christians believe that God reveals himself through nature. If this is true, then scientists should be able to ascertain God’s fingerprints in nature if he has intervened to bring about life’s origin, for example. Though scientists may not be able to directly detect the Supernatural Being, they can examine the material realm looking for telltale signs of God’s work.

Science also possesses the capacity to investigate intelligent causation. Criminal investigators who utilize the principles of forensic science routinely detect and characterize intelligent activity at crime scenes. Archeologists study artifacts produced by humans, and anthropologists, who study the hominid fossil record, discriminate between stones intelligently shaped into tools and those artificially resembling tools but formed by the forces of nature. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a search for signatures in the cosmos that reflect the existence of aliens living in another star system. Finally, Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel’s model of directed panspermia appeals to intelligent activity to explain life’s first appearance on Earth?an idea they demonstrate to be testable. By extension, life’s appearance on Earth by a supernatural, extra-universal Intelligence should, too, be detectable and testable.

Is Intelligent Design Science?

It’s true that the case for ID rests in large measure on the scientific evidence for design and the scientific challenges to biological evolution. Still, this doesn’t make ID a scientific enterprise. Rather, it is a program that draws philosophical and theological implications from the scientific data—at least as it currently operates.

ID proponents point out that their scholars have developed techniques and methods to detect the work of an intelligent designer, and that this design detection represents a scientific endeavor. This would include Michael Behe’s use of irreducible complexity to detect design and William Dembski’s explanatory filter and concept of specified complexity.

Unfortunately, most in the scientific community would disagree with this point. In fact, we at RTB would also disagree with it. Next week I describe how the invention of a new type of microscope helps illustrate why.