Planetary Fine-Tuning and Ancient Chinese Language Point to the Truth of the Origins of Life

     Despite widespread disagreement of those in the sciences, it seems several realities in the sciences point toward the reality of a Being fitting Scripture’s description of God. One subset of such realities is evidence of fine-tuning regarding the origins of life in the cosmos generally, on the earth specifically, and in earth’s history both non-human and human.

    Dr. Drake originally postulated vast numbers of planets in the cosmos being suitable for life. Though many followed in supporting him, numbers regarding planets capable of life plummeted as greater information of the universe is gained. Earth seems an immeasurable anomaly. Fine tuning regarding Jupiter for example. If Jupiter was smaller, it’s gravitational protection of earth would be lost. Yet if more massive (or closer), earth’s orbit would move beyond what supports life. The relative exception of the number of metal-rich stars in the Milky Way is another example of fine-tuning.

    Fine-tuning for life on earth specifically includes life requiring limited amounts of beneficial poisons such as arsenic, iron, chlorine, potassium, etc., which earth has. Additionally, life’s origin requires amino acids and nucleotides. But the presence of oxygen and ultraviolet radiation prevents synthesis. And, all options for earth’s early condition had either or both of these, which explains  the lack of evidence for prebiotics theorized by naturalistic approaches. Further, no amino acids, nucleotides, or even building blocks of nucleotides have been discovered in space (there are certain regions where oxygen and ultraviolet radiation might be absent). 

    Further, the Miller-Urey experiment has been hailed as “proof” of abiogenesis, yet the fact that highly-

trained scientists from varying fields designed and carefully regulated the conditions involved contradict the conclusion that chemical evolution is reasonable and no intelligent mind  was necessary for the beginning of life from non-life.Besides, the building block of life produced are a far cry from life itself. Take the fine-tuning of the complexity of the earliest life. Parasites need 250 functioning gene products, photosynthetic bacteria need over 2,000. And it’s not merely life’s origin requiring fine-tuning, but its sustaining as well. For example, certain sulfate-reducing bacteria transform certain poisons into mineable and useable materials for humanity (zinc, lead, silver, etc.). Even plate tectonics, which are required to maintain proper planetary temperature due to the sun’s light and heat on its surface, requires at least seven other finely tuned factors regarding the core, abundances of certain elements, planetary size ratios, magnetic and gravitational particulars, etc. As Dr. Ross keenly observes, “Each new discovery and more detail to the picture of an intentional, anticipatory, carefully orchestrated plan—a plan that prepared earth for life, which prepared earth for humans.” (Creation as Science, p. 147).

    Archaeological evidence also agrees with the biblical account supported through other sciences. One example involves writing more ancient than the Old Testament (ca. 2700BC). Hundreds of Ancient  Chinese characters aptly depict creation of life paralleling the Bible’s account. For example, characters for create, covet, garden, and more reveal peculiar similarities. Create involves characters for speak/breathe, dust, life/living, and walk. Covet is constructed from a woman and two trees (the most ancient form shows her turning from one tree to the other). Garden involves dust, breathe, two persons (one coming from the side of the other), and an enclosure.  There are hundreds of instances like this. Though none of the evidences presented briefly here are likely sufficient in themselves, they begin to reveal a cumulative case which will grow as one honestly investigates.

__________________________

*For information regarding Chinese language and God in Ancient China, see Chan Kei Thong with Charlene L. Fu, Finding God in Ancient China: How the Ancient Chinese Worshiped the God of the Bible (Zondervan, 2009); Ethel Nelson and Richard E. Broadberry, Genesis and the Mystery Confucius Couldn’t Solve (Concordia Publishing House, 1994); and Ethel Nelson, Richard E. Broadberry, and Ginger Tong Chock, God’s Promise to the Chinese (Read Books Publishers, 1997).

The Conundrum of the “Modern Scientific Outlook”

   In the ABC TV Series Numb3rs, cosmologist professor Dr. Larry Fleinhardt displays the conundrum 

of the “modern scientific outlook.”[1] Bultmann and others seemingly believe science has proven “the universe is a closed system– that is, it is sealed off from any interference from outside the web of cause-and-effect.”[2] But how does avoidance of data increase pertinent information? How can ignoring even investigation of disputed theories be scientific? While the sciences do in fact help identify supernatural events (more on that later), how could a study of only the natural prove nature is sealed off from the supernatural? That’s not a job for the natural sciences; that’s theology’s job.[3]

The Conundrum in Action

    Studied before Darwin, and featured more recently as a cover story,[4] the Cambrian Explosion provides an excellent case study for this conundrum. Evolutionary theory claims identical structures among organisms (convergence) must share common ancestry.[5] Yet, the lack of fossil evidence troubled Darwin and Buckland –particularly regarding the Cambrian Explosion. To address this, Darwin waxes eloquently regarding possible

incompleteness of the fossil record attempting to validate evolutionary arguments based on nothing –which actually confirms the lack of evidence.[6] Yet, even in the massive increase in fossil discoveries since Darwin –not insignificantly the discovery of less-complex life forms much older, today just as then, the aptly called “missing link” is still missing.[7]

    Evolutionary theory claims identical structures among organisms must share common ancestry.[8] However, problems persist. DNA sequencing now reveals that similar structures among diverse organisms, like wings of birds and bats, are genetically distinct.[9] Further, their structures themselves are fundamentally different despite the superficial similarities.[10] An additional problem is the issue of “repeatable” evolution. “No finale can be specified at the start; none would ever occur a second time in the same way;” there are simply too many variables for the thousands of improbable stages.[11] If evolutionary processes produced life, one should expect few, if any, cases of “repeats.” But this is simply not the case.[12] If evolution is responsible for life’s diversity, expectations of convergence would be extremely low.[13] That is not the case either.

Final Thoughts

    Given that even biologists embracing methodological naturalism regard occurrences of repeatable evolution as “unexpected and remarkable,”[14] biological convergence is an important component in arguing that throughout history, life is a result of supernatural activity by a Creator.[15] In fact, the sciences as a whole help identify supernatural events.[16] How? Say science discovers that so-and-so is what happens due to the properties of a thing. Then, imagine an event occurs that “exceeds or overrides the natural properties of the things involved.”[17] Such an event merits the conclusion that something supernatural occurred in that event. This is NOT the “god of-the-gaps fallacy. It’s not about ascribing something to God because we do NOT know or understand properties of things; it’s about ascribing something to God because it’s contrary to what we DO know of things.[18]

    With all this in mind, certain questions remain: What authority  should the “modern scientific outlook” have in what one believes? Is this outlook separate from the practice of science itself –to be a good scientist must you have this outlook?[19]

_______________

[1] C. John Collins, Science and Faith: Friends or Foes? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 217.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Time Magazine, Dec 4, 1995.

[5] Fazale Rana, “Repeatable Evolution or Repeated Creation?”

[6] Fazale Rana “Cambrian Explosion: Biology’s Big Bang”.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Fazale Rana, “Repeatable Evolution or Repeated Creation?”

[9] Ibid.

[10] Fazale Rana, Convergence: Evidence for a Single Creator.

[11] Stephen J. Gould’s Wonderful Life in Fazale Rana, “Repeatable Evolution or Repeated Creation?”

[12] Ibid.

[13] Fazale Rana, Convergence: Evidence for a Single Creator.

[14] Fazale Rana, “Repeatable Evolution or Repeated Creation?”

[15] Fazale Rana, Convergence: Evidence for a Single Creator.

[16] C. John Collins, Science and Faith: Friends or Foes? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 218.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid., 219.

[19] Ibid., 216.