page 1 top

VOLUME 4

NO 2

MAY 2012

WWW.REASONS.ORG

biocheMistrY 4 | Biochemical Turing Machines Reboot the Watchmaker Argument By Fazale (Fuz) R. Rana uniVerse desiGn 7 | A Flat Universe After All By Hugh Ross General relatiVitY 8 | An Innite Speed of Light? By Jeff Zweerink defense of the faith 10 | Best Explanation Apologetics By Kenneth Richard Samples huMan oriGins 12 | Neanderthal Extinction Supports Creation Model By Fazale (Fuz) R. Rana earth desiGn 13 | The Resources in Shortest Supply By Hugh Ross particle phYsics 14 | Not-So-Fast Neutrinos By Jeff Zweerink World reliGions 15 | A Jewish Christian Muslim? By Kenneth Richard Samples

EDUCATORS HELP DESK | BIBLE BOOKEND From The Editor | Help Support Reasons To Believe

FROM THE EDITOR

If youre like me, you enjoy reading at least some of the comments following web-based news stories. Aside from the usual e-gurgitation, people can be witty, poignant, even enlightening.

Anytime theres a new study affirming what seems obvious to most peoplesuch as the fact that men and women are different, or that eating fast food can make you fatI look to the remarks trailing the piece. The onslaught can be summarized as Whos the Einstein who figured this out? or How much money was spent on what my four-year-old could have told these researchers? or Another product of the public school system, and so on.

Hopefully, that will be the last thing to come to mind when you read the latest research and conclusions from RTBs apologetics team. Combining advances from the scientific frontiers with trusted theological and philosophical reasoning, the authors offer bite-sized articles and other resources for your apologetics consumption. What is a Turing machine and how does it bolster the classic Watchmaker argument? Does a flat universe provide evidence for supernatural creation of the cosmos? Has Einsteins relativity been challenged? Can neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light? Dont settle for less than the full course. Read on and learn. New Reasons to Believe is easy to navigate (see the prompts in the top bar). And youll find links and resources for further exploration. Share it with friends and let me know what you think (jaguirre@reasons.org). Integrating science and faith, What is abductive reasoning and how is it well-suited for Christian apologetics?

Heres a Costco-type sampling of the morsels youll find in this issue of New Reasons to Believe:

Joe Aguirre

CONTRIBUTORS
KRISTA KAY BONTRAGER, MA, MA
Theologian, writer, educator, and dean of online learning at Reasons To Believe (RTB)

KENNETH RICHARD SAMPLES, MA

Philosopher, theologian, author, educator, and RTB senior scholar

FAZALE (FUZ) RANA, PHD

Biochemist, author, RTB executive, and former senior scientist with Procter & Gamble

JEFF ZWEERINK, PHD

Astrophysicist, journal author, RTB scholar, and member of the research faculty at UCLA

HUGH ROSS, PHD

Astronomer, author, pastor, international lecturer, and president and founder of RTB

DYNAMIC CONTENT KEY

Website Link Internal Link Product Link Audio Link Video Link File Download

NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE | 2 | VOL 4 / NO. 2 | MAY 2012

In Appreciation for Your Support

Discover Christianitys Most Dangerous Ideas

Have you ever wondered why the world is intelligible rather than unintelligible? Or what kind of world is necessary for science to work? In his new book, 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianitys Most Dangerous Ideas, RTBs Kenneth Samples notes that the God of the Bible offers the most reasonable explanation not only for the worlds intelligibility but also for reason itself. This book offers a feast for thought and spiritual enrichment as it describes the consequences of world-changing ideas introduced by Christianity. We want you to have your own copy of 7 Truths That Changed the World in appreciation for your gift to RTB today. We hope that youll be encouraged by Kens new book.

Kenneth Samples is now on Facebook!

Visit his page and be sure to click like.

Your gift keeps each member of the RTB scholar team researching, speaking, and writing for one purposeto point to the truths in which our faith is rooted.
Donate

NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE | 3 | VOL 4 / NO. 2 | MAY 2012

BIOCHEMISTRY
Fazale (Fuz) R. Rana

BIOCHEMICAL TURING MACHINES REbOOt tHE WAtCHMAKER ARGUMENt

When he was 24 years of age, the British mathematician developed the theoretical framework that makes digital computing possible. This framework is embodied by an abstract, conceptual machine called a Turing machine.

hos the father of computer science? Although not a household name, Alan Turing (19121954) and his work have impacted nearly every facet of human existence.

NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE | 4 | VOL 4 / NO. 2 | MAY 2012

BIOCHEMISTRY
Fazale (Fuz) R. Rana

Turing Machines
At a fundamental level, all computer operations are based on so-called Turing machines. Named for British mathematician Alan Turing, the machines are not real, but conceptual in nature. Turing machines consist of three components: the input, the output, and the nite control.

In reality, Turings influence extends far beyond computer science. He founded the field of artificial intelligence, speculated on the limits of computation in physics, and wrote about biological pattern formation that occurs during development. He even played the key role in deciphering the German Enigma Code (secret messages) during World War II. Turings work also carries significance for the creation/evolution controversy, as attested by a provocative article in Nature.1 Due to Turings importance (and relative obscurity), Nature celebrated the 100th anniversary of his birth in their February 23, 2012 issue. A number of scholars, including Nobel Laureate Sydney Brenner contributed essays describing Turings influence in their discipline.

In other words, in order to develop a (badly needed) theory of biology, it is necessary to view biochemical and biological systems as Turing machines.

concept of the gene as a symbolic representation of the organisma code scriptis a fundamental feature of the living world and must form the kernel of biological theory.3

Turing Machines and DNA Computing

Brenner is not the first scientist to appreciate the close similarity between the abstract, conceptual machines envisaged by Turingmachines that define the operation of digital computersand biochemical systems. Computer scientist Leonard Adleman recognized more than a decade ago that the proteins responsible for DNA replication, repair, and transcription operated as Turing machines.4 This insight inspired the advent of DNA computing, a new arena of biotechnology. DNA computing treats the nucleotide sequences of DNA as input and output strings. The different chemical, biochemical, and physical processes that can be used to manipulate DNA in the laboratory correspond to the finite control that then transforms the input DNA sequences into output sequences.5 Complex operations can be accomplished by linking together simple laboratory operations performed on DNA with the output of one laboratory operation serving as the input for the next.

The input is a stream of data that is read and transformed by the nite control according to a specic set of rules. The result of this transformation is a new stream of data, the output. The input and output data streams consist of sequences of characters called strings. The nite control operates one by one on each character of the input string to generate the output string. The transformations achieved by the nite control are relatively simple in nature. Complex computations and operations can be affected by linking together several Turing machines, so that the output string of one Turing machine becomes the input string of another.

Turing Machines in Biology

He goes on to write, Arguably, the best examples of Turingsmachines are to be found in biologyThe

Brenner, who made significant contributions to molecular biology, proposes that the concept of a Turing machine may provide the theoretical framework that contemporary biology needs to understand lifes operation at its most basic level. According to Brenner, Biology research is in a crisis and in Alan Turings work there is much to guide us. Technology gives us the tools to analyze organisms at all scales, but we are drowning in a sea of data and thirsting for some theoretical framework with which to understand it.2

Some of the operations that can be executed on DNA strings include: separating and fusing strands of the DNA double helix; lengthening and shortening individual DNA strands; cutting and linking together DNA molecules; and modifying, multiplying, and reading the DNA nucleotide sequence.6 Linking these simple operations together makes complex operations possible.

Researchers recognize several advantages to DNA computers.7 One is the ability to perform a massive number of operations at the same time (in parallel) as opposed to one at a time (serially) as demanded by silicon-based computers. Secondly, DNA has the capacity to store an enormous quantity of information. One gram of DNA can house as much information as nearly 1 trillion CDs. And a third benefit is that DNA computing operates near the theoretical capacity with regard to energy efficiency.

Its mind-boggling to think that the information-based activities of biochemical systems, which routinely take place in the cell, can be used to construct computers in a laboratory setting. The direct correspondence between input and output strings and DNA sequences makes two things clear: (1) DNA is, at its essence, information and

NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE | 5 | VOL 4 / NO. 2 | MAY 2012

BIOCHEMISTRY
Fazale (Fuz) R. Rana

(2) the cells machinery that manipulates DNA consists of an ensemble of Turing machines. Molecular-level computers have long been the dream of nanotechnologists. By making use of the cells information systems to build DNA computers, this dream may become a reality.

DiG Deeper
For more information on Turing Machines browse our many podcasts and articles online.

Turing Machines and the Watchmaker Analogy

DNA computing and the biochemical Turing machines found inside the cell exhibit a very powerful Watchmaker-type argument for Gods existence.

British natural theologian William Paley (17431805) advanced this argument by suggesting that the characteristics of a watch and the complex interaction of its precision parts for the purpose of telling time implied the work of an intelligent designer. Paley asserted by analogy that just as a watch requires a watchmaker, so too, life requires a Creator, since organisms display a wide range of features characterized by the precise interplay of complex parts for specific purposes.

UpcoMinG EVents
Hear a Scholar Near You

Date May 2331 May 30 June 89 June 1116 June 18 June 2425 June 28 October 813

Scholar Kenneth Samples and Hugh Ross Kenneth Samples Jeff Zweerink Hugh Ross Kenneth Samples Hugh Ross Hugh Ross Hugh Ross and Jeff Zweerink

Location London, England KPDQ Phoenix, AZ Redding, CA KTIS Sierra Madre, CA La Mirada, CA Matthews, NC

Over the centuries, skeptics have maligned this argument. But the discovery of molecular motorsbiochemical complexes with machine-like characteristicsrevives Paleys argument. The mounting recognition that the biochemical machines that operate on DNA are veritable Turing machines adds a compelling component to the revitalized Watchmaker argument. Turing machines are conceptual machines that exist only in human minds, yet inside the cell several actual Turing machines operate on DNA. This recognition presents a powerful double analogy for intelligent design. Not only do biochemical Turing machines highlight the informational aspects of DNA, but also they serve as a remarkably profound Watchmaker-type of analogy. However, in this instance, the analogy is between the concrete biochemical Turing machines already present inside the cell and the conceptual Turing machines that have come to exist in the human mind. The wonder and impact of Alan Turings life and work are far-reaching, indeed.
E NDNOTES:
1. Sydney Brenner, Lifes Code Script, Nature 482 (2012): 461. 2. Brenner, 461. 3. Ibid. 4. Leonard M. Adleman, Computing with DNA, Scientic American, August 1998, 5461. 5. Ibid. 6. Gheorghe Pun, Grzegorz Rozenberg, and Arto Salomaa, DNA Computing: New Computing Paradigms (Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1998), 1941. 7. Pun et al., 16; Leonard M. Adleman, 5461.

eVent hiGhliGht
October 1920, 2012
Hear Hugh Ross, Jeff Zweerink, and Fazale Rana speak alongside other key Christian leaders and inuencers at the National Apologetics Conference at Southern Evangelical Seminary. For more details and registration information, click here.

NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE | 6 | VOL 4 / NO. 2 | MAY 2012

UNIVERSE DESIGN
Hugh Ross

A Flat UniVerse After All

k < 0

k = 0

k > 0

Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation (radiation left over from the cosmic creation event) made over a seven-year period tell us that the time back to the beginning of the universe is 13.75 0.11 billion years.1 However, one (and only one) assumption underlies this cosmic age determination: that the universe departs by no more than one or two percent from a perfectly flat geometry. The CMB temperature fluctuations provide a rough indication that the universe manifests a flat geometry (see figure). Specifically, the data sets from the WMAP placed these limits on the universes curvature, k. Where k = 0 defines perfect flatness, the best measurements showed k to lie between 0.199 and 0.017.2 Researchers anticipated that better constraints on the universes geometry would be possible if and when astronomers could (1) make precise observations of the cosmic expansion rate(s) throughout cosmic history, and (2) determine the power spectrum of luminous red galaxies over a sufficiently large extent of the observable universe. Im pleased to report that in recent months, the desired level of precision has been achieved.

Many astronomers yearn for a flat universe. In fact, theyve been on such a quest for forty years. Thats because cosmic geometry carries important implications for life and for cosmic design and age.

latness can be good or bad. Flat champagne or a flat tire is not good. On the other hand, everybody seems to want a flat stomach.

k = 1 - m -
Figure: Geometry of the Universe
Angular sizes of the temperature uctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation reveal the shape, k, of the cosmic space surface. Galaxy survey maps and cosmic expansion-rate measurements throughout cosmic history independently establish the universes geometry by determining the values of m, the cosmic mass density, and , the cosmic space energy density (dark energy density). Image credit: NASA

hundred million trillion times smaller than the diameter of a proton to about the size of a grapefruit. Evidence for that event came initially from a WMAP measurement of the cosmic scalar spectral index.5 New measurements establishing cosmic flatness provide a confirming piece of evidence.

What It Means
Cosmic flatness adds one more layer of support to the case for a cosmic origin scenario perfectly aligned with the biblical creation account.6 It speaks of Gods supernatural design of the cosmosincluding its specific age and a specific geometryfor humanitys benefit. (Reasons for tight constraints on cosmic age, size, homogeneity, and uniformity for humanitys sake are explained more fully in my books, Why the Universe Is the Way It Is and The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd edition.)
E NDNO TE S:
1. N. Jarosik et al., Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Sky Maps, Systematic Errors, and Basic Results, Astrophysical Journal Supplement 192 (February 2011): 14. 2. E. Komatsu et al., Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation, Astrophysical Journal Supplement 192 (February 2011): 18; E. Komatsu et al., Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Constraints, Astrophysical Journal Supplement 180 (February 2009): 33076. 3. M. Sullivan et al., SNLS3: Constraints on Dark Energy Combining the Supernova Legacy Survey Three-Year Data with Other Probes, Astrophysical Journal 737 (August 20, 2011): 102. 4. N. Suzuki et al., The Hubble Space Telescope Cluster Supernova Survey. V. Improving the Dark-Energy Constraints Above z > 1 and Building an Early-Type-Hosted Supernova Sample, Astrophysical Journal 746 (February 10, 2012): 85. 5. Jarosik, Seven-Year WMAP Observations. 6. Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004), 13948.

In August 2011 the Supernova Legacy Survey team published results showing that k = 0.002 0.006.3 In February of 2012 the Hubble Space Telescope Cluster Supernova Survey team determined that k = 0.002 0.005.4 A combination of these two results confirms that the universe possesses a flat geometryto within three places of the decimal (much less than one percent). Now that astronomers have established the veracity of the cosmic flatness assumption, no scientific doubt remains that the universe came into existence about 13.75 billion years ago. According to the latest findings, in the infinitesimally brief moments after its creation, the universe experienced a hyperinflation event, during which it grew from one

NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE | 7 | VOL 4 / NO. 2 | MAY 2012

GENERAL RELATIVITY
Jeff Zweerink

An Infinite Speed of LiGht?

oung-earth (YE) and old-earth (OE) creationists disagree on a great number of scientific issues most prominently the ages of the Earth and universebut both groups generally agree on the astronomical distances measured with telescopes. The Sun sits just over eight light-minutes away, the center of the Milky Way Galaxy at 25,000 light-years, the Andromeda Galaxy around 2.5 million light-years, and the most distant quasars up to 13 billion light-years away. These distances pose no problems for inflationary, big bang models of the universe (consistent with an OE view), but the YE creationist models have a distant starlight problem. How do observers see such distant objects in a few-thousandyear-old universe?

Astronomer Jason Lisle,1 until recently at Answers in Genesis, has proposed a novel solution to the distant starlight problem. His article describing the model provides details,2 but here are the salient features of what he calls the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC). 1. A subtle (but important) feature of relativity theory is that one must choose a convention or standard for synchronizing distant clocks in the universe. In contrast to the absolute space and time featured in Newtonian mechanics (predecessor to general relativity), space and time exhibit a dynamic nature in Einsteins relativity. Consequently, simultaneous events in one reference frame are not necessarily simultaneous in another frame moving with respect to the first. Also, clocks in relative motion run at different rates. These relativity effects mean that one must choose a synchrony convention.3

Lisle then argues that the Genesis 1 creation account suggests that God used the ASC in His miraculous work during the creation week. For example, all the stars created on the fourth day would need to be visible from Earths surface in order to perform their function (to serve as signs for seasonsGen. 1:14). Choosing the ASC would mean the light from these stars arrived instantaneously on day four.

4. He also introduces a directional dependence such that light travels at infinite speed toward the Earth.

one direction and half the speed of light on the return trip.

Lisles solution highlights how important the frame of reference is for determining the proper nature of the creation miracles and that Earths surface provides that reference frame. It also acknowledges the strength of the scientific evidence for the antiquity of the universe. Assuming the ASC is the correct convention, when one transforms back to the standard Einstein synchrony, all of the distant objects have ages far beyond a few thousand years.

2. The scientific community continues to use the convention chosen by Einstein (isotropic or same synchrony convention), namely that light from two distant but stationary clocks arrive at the midpoint at the same time. This reasonable and simplest convention means that the speed of light is the same in all directions. 3. Lisle adopts a different synchrony convention where light travels at infinite speed in

The pressing question becomes: which convention is the correct one to use? Without a doubt, the standard convention provides the easiest framework for calculating a sequential history of the events in the universe as well as for computing how to build particle accelerators, GPS systems, and many other technological instruments. Unfortunately, Lisles choice of conventions is untestable, as he acknowledges: The anisotropic synchrony convention is just thata convention. It is not a scientific model; it does not make testable predictions. It is a convention of measurement and cannot be falsified any more than the metric system can be falsified.

However, Lisle uses the ASC to develop a model that does make predictions about how the universe should look. Specifically, distant and local regions of

NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE | 8 | VOL 4 / NO. 2 | MAY 2012

GENERAL RELATIVITY
Jeff Zweerink

the universe should appear the same and show evidence of youth, i.e., consistent with ages of a few thousand years. His examples of youth (abundance of young blue stars, spiral galaxies, planetary rings) represent negative evidence against great age rather than a positive case for something thousands of years old. Furthermore, scientists have made significant progress in solving these problems in the last few decades.

E NDNO TE S:
1. 2. Jason Lisle now works as Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research. See http://www.icr.org/article/6734/. Jason Lisle, Anisotropic Synchrony ConventionA Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem, http://www.answersingenesis.org/ articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention. It might seem that some physical principle species a single, proper convention, but philosophical and scientic research favors the conclusion that the synchrony convention is genuinely a choice.

3.

Lisles addition of a directionality condition (item 4 above) may prove the most problematic aspect of the ASC. Although the synchrony convention is a genuine choice, the anisotropic nature of the ASC would produce observable consequences. The biggest consequence would be a detectable gravitational field (apart from the one caused by Earths mass) and scientists measure no such field.4 This new approach to solving a YE creationist problem illustrates one of the counterintuitive features of our universe, namely the difficulty in deciding what simultaneous and instantaneous really mean. Lisles solution basically works by proposing a definition where distant starlight instantaneously reaches Earth, regardless of an objects distance, and claiming this is the definition God used in Genesis 1. Such a definition seems counter to how humanity thinks about lights behavior. That doesnt mean it is wrong, but the ASC falls short of supplying evidence to supplant Einsteinian relativity. The venerable physicist appears to have chosen correctly, and his breakthrough has advanced scientific understanding of the wondrous cosmos.

4. Jian Qi Shen, Generalized Edwards Transformation and Principle of Permutation Invariance, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 47 (March 2008): 75164.

DiG Deeper
How Old is the Universe? Danny Faulkner and Hugh Ross discuss young-earth astronomy on the John Ankerberg show. Special Edition Primetime IDKT Podcast: Interview with young-earth physicist John Hartnett

CONNECT & SHARE We Believe New Reasons to Believe is Made For Sharing!
VOLUME 4
page 1 top

NO 2

MAY 2012

WWW.REASONS.ORG

1. To share your digital copy of New Reasons to Believe with friends and associates simply forward the email that you received from RTB with the e-Zine cover in the body. They will be able to download or view New Reasons to Believe immediately. 2. You can also download the e-Zine as a PDF, save it to your computer and attach the le to an email if you like. 3. To post a link to your Facebook or Twitter account, simply copy the link below into the appropriate social network eld: www.reasons.org/nrtb We would love to hear how you have used New Reasons to Believe, so drop us an email at ezine@reasons.org. If you have received New Reasons to Believe in any of the above ways, you can start getting your own subscription to this e-Zine by signing up at www.reasons.org.
BIOCHEMISTRY 4 | Biochemical Turing Machines Reboot the Watchmaker Argument By Fazale (Fuz) R. Rana UNIVERSE DESIGN 7 | A Flat Universe After All By Hugh Ross GENERAL RELATIVITY 8 | An Innite Speed of Light? By Jeff Zweerink DEFENSE OF THE FAITH 10 | Best Explanation Apologetics By Kenneth Richard Samples HUMAN ORIGINS 12 | Neanderthal Extinction Supports Creation Model By Fazale (Fuz) R. Rana EARTH DESIGN 13 | The Resources in Shortest Supply By Hugh Ross PARTICLE PHYSICS 14 | Not-So-Fast Neutrinos By Jeff Zweerink WORLD RELIGIONS 15 | A Jewish Christian Muslim? By Kenneth Richard Samples EDUCATORS HELP DESK 16 | Evaluating Christian Science Curricula By Krista Kay Bontrager BIBLE BOOKEND 17 | Development of Design By Krista Kay Bontrager

From The Editor

Help Support Reasons To Believe

NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE | 9 | VOL 4 / NO. 2 | MAY 2012

DEFENSE OF THE FAITH

Kenneth Richard Samples

Best EXplanation ApoloGetics

Most people recognize two basic forms of logical argumentation: deductive and inductive reasoning. But logicians sometimes speak of a lesser-known way of thinking called abductive reasoning. This third form of reasoning attempts to arrive at the best explanation for an event or series of facts. Unlike deduction, abduction provides something less than total certainty in its conclusion. Similar to induction, it yields only probable truth, and yet it doesnt attempt to predict specic future, probable occurrences the way inductive reasoning does. Rather, it seeks to provide the most plausible broad, explanatory hypothesis.

hat is the best way to show that the historic Christian faith and worldview are true? Christian apologists through the centuries have taken different approaches, but a powerful method gaining acceptance among Christian thinkers today is called best explanation or cumulative case apologetics.1

Criteria of Judgment
While logicians have formally set forth no hard and fast testing rules, they generally accept that the best explanatory hypothesis meets the following six criteria:

1. It offers a balance between complexity and simplicity (the simplest fully orbed explanation is best) 2. It is logically coherent 3. It corresponds to the facts (matches and makes sense of the facts)

4. It avoids unwarranted presumptions and ad hoc explanations 5. It can be tested 6. It successfully adjusts for possible counterevidence

The hypothesis that scores highest on these criteria can be said to possess genuine explanatory power and scope.

Who Uses Abductive Reasoning?

Diagnosticians: moving from facts or data or events to a coherent, plausible explanation.

A Cumulative Case for God

Just as a lawyer presents a brief in court or a physician arrives at a diagnosis by considering multiple symptoms and tests, a cumulative case consisting of multiple lines of converging evidence can be marshaled for the Christian worldview. Consider Christian philosopher Richard Swinburnes assessment of this approach: Scientists, historians, and detectives observe data and proceed thence to some theory about what best explains the occurrence of these data. We find that the view that there is a God explains everything we observe, not just some narrow range of data. The very same criteria which scientists use to reach their own theories lead us to move beyond those theories to a creator God who sustains everything in existence.2

Detectives: evidence Historians: facts Scientists: data Physicians: symptoms Mechanics: problem

theory explanations hypothesis diagnosis solution

Abductive reasoning can be helpful in efforts to determine which argument for a given event is best. For example, one may use an abductive approach to decide which explanation best settles the controversy surrounding these two provocative apologetics issues:

1. What is the best explanation for Jesus Christs true identity? Was He man, myth, madman, menace, mystic, Martian, or messiah? 2. What is the best explanation for complex life on planet Earth? Was it more likely the result of divine creation or naturalistic evolution?

Historic Christianitys Explanatory Scope

Christianitys ability to account for and justify the many diverse and undeniable realities of life ranks as one of the strongest evidences that God exists and that the truth-claims of the historic Christian worldview are correct.

NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE | 10 | VOL 4 / NO. 2 | MAY 2012

DEFENSE OF THE FAITH

Kenneth Richard Samples

The Universe: its source and singular beginning, order, regularity, and ne-tuning Abstract Entities: the existence and validity of mathematics, the laws of logic, and scientic models (which include their correspondence to the time-space universe as conceived in the mind of human beings) Ethics: the existence of universal, objective, and prescriptive moral values

Christian theism best accounts for:

aVailable noW...

A NEW book by Kenneth Samples. Discover Christianitys most dangerous ideas!

Human Beings: their existence, consciousness, rationality, free agency, enigmatic nature, moral and aesthetic impulse, and their need for meaning and purpose in life

Religious Phenomena: humankinds spiritual nature and religious experience, the miraculous events of Christianity, and the unique character, claims, and credentials of Jesus Christ

This data (summarized above and expanded in 7 Truths That Changed the World) represents a cumulative case of compelling evidence for the God of the Bible; that is, while each of the individual points carries a certain logical or evidential force of its own, it is also true that the data taken collectively offers an even more formidable case in favor of the existence of the God of the Bible. Other worldviews, both secular and religious, struggle to explain lifes critical realities. By logical inference the God of Christian theism best accounts for and explains the meaningful array of realities encountered in the world and in life.

Other Resources
by Kenneth Samples

So how would the world look if the Christian worldview were indeed true? Based on the evidence, much the way it does look right now.
E NDNOTES:
1. Christian thinkers such as C.S. Lewis, Basil Mitchell, Richard Swinburne, and C. Stephen Evans have held this view. Paul D. Feinberg explains and defends a cumulative case approach in Five Views on Apologetics, Steven B. Cowan ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000). Richard Swinburne, Is There A God? (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 2.

2.

Without a Doubt
(book)

RTB Live! vol.13: Everyday Apologetics (DVD)

DiG Deeper
Podcasts with Kenneth Samples
Best Explanation Apologetics: Abductive Reasoning, Part 1 Abductive Reasoning, Part 2 Abductive Reasoning, Part 3
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE | 11 | VOL 4 / NO. 2 | MAY 2012

Reflections
(blog)

Straight Thinking
(podcast)

HUMAN ORIGINS
Fazale (Fuz) R. Rana

Neanderthal EXtinction Supports Creation Model

Neanderthals appear in the fossil record around 200,000 to 150,000 years ago and lived in the Middle East, Europe, and western Asia. Many paleoanthropologists believe these hominids went extinct around 28,000 to 30,000 years ago. Since humans made their way into Europe around 40,000 years ago, they must have coexisted there with Neanderthals for perhaps as long as 10,000 years. Nobody knows what caused Neanderthals extinction. Some researchers believe humans killed them off. Others think humans outcompeted Neanderthals. And yet another theory posits that Neanderthals may have died off because they lacked the cognitive ability to survive the harsh climate of Europe. Genetic data that suggests humans and Neanderthals interbred, thereby introducing Neanderthal genes into the human genome, further deepens the mystery. (Although other studies raise questions about the likelihood of human-Neanderthal interbreeding.)

Another scientific whodunit could be even more intriguing than any episode of CSI: What caused Neanderthals to become extinct? Researchers have run into unexpected twists and turns in the drama as theyve applied increasingly sophisticated scientific methods to solve this mystery.1

ho doesnt enjoy a good mystery? The CSI franchise of television crime dramas ranks among the most popular TV programs in the world.

This new insight means that humans probably didnt drive Neanderthals to extinction. Instead, it suggests that Neanderthals likely disappeared for other reasonsperhaps as a consequence of their limited cognitive ability. In contrast, when the first modern humans made their way into the colder climates of Europe and Asia they thrived. Some researchers have asserted that the thinking capacity of Neanderthals and humans would have been similar. The latest work suggests otherwise. The implied cognitive differences uncovered by investigators between the two species help solve the Neanderthal extinction mystery and provide solid evidence for RTBs human origins model.
E NDNO TE S:
1. Love Daln et al., Partial Genetic Turnover in Neanderthals: Continuity in the East and Population Replacement in the West, Molecular Biology and Evolution (February 23, 2012), doi: 10.1093/ molbev/mss074. 2. European Neanderthals Were on the Verge of Extinction even before the Arrival of Modern Humans, (February 25, 2012) Sciencedaily.com.

According to Love Daln, one of the ancient crime scene investigators, The fact that Neanderthals in Europe were nearly extinct, but then recovered, and that all this took place long before they came into contact with modern humans came as a complete surprise to us. This indicates that the Neanderthals may have been more sensitive to the dramatic climate changes that took place in the last Ice Age than was previously thought. 2

Using sophisticated forensic techniques, an international team of researchers tried to solve the case by analyzing tiny fragments of mitochondrial DNA painstakingly isolated from the remains of thirteen Neanderthals. Based on their work, the team concluded that Neanderthals from western Europe younger than 48,000 years in age possessed limited genetic diversity. On the other hand, older Neanderthals and those from eastern Europe displayed a much more extensive genetic diversity. Investigators interpreted these results from the scene of the crime to indicate that Neanderthals in Europe nearly went extinct around 50,000 years ago, well before modern humans arrived. Then, after the near extinction, Neanderthals recovered to recolonize central and western Europe.

NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE | 12 | VOL 4 / NO. 2 | MAY 2012

EARTH DESIGN
Hugh Ross

The Resources in Shortest SupplY

ne of the ways a creation perspective differs from an evolutionary perspective may be seen in its explanation of humanitys arrival time. Evolutionists say we humans showed up after 3.8 billion years of Earth history because natural processes required that amount of time to transform the first relatively simple life-forms into immensely complex human beings. As I read Psalm 104, I encounter a different story. Its a message of Gods thoughtful provision of layer upon layer upon layer of life, all to benefit human existence and, specifically, our development of civilization, even advanced technology. To those who claim biodeposits are in short supply, geoscientists would say, Look again.

amount.4, 5 Marine organism skeletal fragments comprise 8090 percent of all Earths limestone and marble.6 Limestone and marble make up at least 6 percent of the total volume of Earths sedimentary rock,7 which, in turn, makes up 7.9 percent of the total volume of Earths crust.8 Given the continental crust averages 40 kilometers in thickness and oceanic crust, 7 kilometers,9 biological material in Earths limestone adds up to at least 75 quadrillion tons.10 The minimum quantity of Earths biological material not counting topsoil, phosphates, or sulfate-reduced metal oresequals at least 76 quadrillion tons. The maximum quantity stands at 217 quadrillion tons.

While it is obvious we humans have depleted a large fraction of traditional fossil fuel resources (coal, oil, and natural gas),1 which once stood somewhere between 9 and 13 trillion tons,2 these easily accessible fossil fuel

To those who claim biodeposits are in short supply, geoscientists would say, Look again.
resources comprise just a small fraction of the usable residue from once-living matter. The major components are these: (1) kerogenremains of diatoms, spores, plankton, bacteria, and pollens embedded in sedimentary rock; (2) clathratethe crystalline combination of natural gas and water formed under either below freezing temperatures or high pressure conditions (thus, under oceans and in permafrost); and (3) limestonelargely composed of calcium carbonate from skeletal fragments of coral, mollusks, ooids, peloids, intraclasts, extraclasts, and foraminifera (marine life), plus silica from diatoms, sponge spicules, and radiolarians.

For comparisons sake, this amount of biological material exceeds Earths current living biomass11 by 122,000 348,000 times. The fossil fuel component exceeds per annum solar energy capture by photosynthetic organisms by 12,0001,255,000 times.12 What a wealth of usable material! God packed Earth with as much life as possible for as long as possible, and then He commanded humanity, through Adam and Eve, to manage it wisely for the benefit of allthe biggest benefit, of course, being the spread of the Gospel and fulfillment of the Great Commission.13 It seems the greatest shortage facing humanity is not a shortage of resources, but rather a shortage of wisdom and goodness in the ways we use them, riches available in Christ alone. The citation list for this article can be found here: The Resources in Shortest Supply.

Geochemists estimate the total quantity of kerogen in Earths crust at somewhere between 100 and 10,000 times the total quantity of traditional fossil fuel resources. (Note: These estimates do not account for the enormous quantities of kerogen consumed by bacteria throughout the past 3.8 billion years.3) As for the quantity of natural gas trapped in clathrate, estimates range from 742 quadrillion cubit feet to perhaps 360 times that
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE | 13 | VOL 4 / NO. 2 | MAY 2012

DiG Deeper
For more on global warming themes, listen to our visiting scholar, Kevin Birdwell.
Are Greenlands Glaciers Disappearing? Blame Wild Weather on Global Warming? Oceans Salinity Changed

PARTICLE PHYSICS
Jeff Zweerink

Not-So-Fast Neutrinos

Using the powerful particle accelerators at CERN (Geneva), the research team directed a beam of neutrinos at a detector more than 450 miles away in Gran Sasso, Italy. After accounting for distances, reading clocks, and checking a slew of other details, the OPERA collaboration announced that their measurements showed the neutrinos had made the journey faster than the speed of light.1 Although many additional papers have appeared in the scientific literature, no other experiments have verified the OPERA result. Consequently, most scientists take a skeptical view of superluminal neutrinos.

Well, it wasnt exactly scuttlebutt, but a team of scientists created quite a stir in the physics and astronomy community last September (2011) with a subatomic particle speed measurement. According to their research, neutrinos traveled from the France/Switzerland border to a detector in Italy at superluminal (faster-than-light) speeds. Numerous popular and semitechnical publications as well as countless blogs reported and discussed the finding, and rightfully so. If the result withstands scientific scrutiny it would undermine one key tenet of Albert Einsteins almost-universally-accepted general relativity.

hat travels faster than the speed of light? You know the punchline: gossip.

that would either confirm or falsify the OPERA results. Second, the whole process demonstrates the integrity of the scientific process. The OPERA collaboration carefully checked its analysis, published the results for further scrutiny by the larger community, and did not take offense at the general skepticism and subsequent contrary findings. Third, the OPERA, ICARUS, and two other collaborations plan an imminent experimental run that should provide data settling the issue one way or the other. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Faster-than-light neutrinos certainly fall into the category of an extraordinary claim. As it stands now, it does not appear that extraordinary evidence backs up the claim. Consequently, it looks like Einsteins theory of general relativitya unifying principle of physics and a tool for understanding features of our universestill rests on solid footing.
E NDNO TE S:
1. The OPERA Collaboration, Measurement of the Neutrino Velocity with the OPERA Detector in the CNGS Beam. 2. Marc Antonello et al., Measurement of the Neutrino Velocity with the ICARUS Detector at the CNGS Beam. See gure 3 specically for a comparison of the OPERA and ICARUS measurements. 3. Anthony G. Cohen and Sheldon L. Glashow, New Constraints on Neutrino Velocities.

In fact, other analyses provide a strong counterclaim. For example, ICARUS (another neutrino detector at Gran Sasso utilizing a different timing technique) data shows the propagation time slightly less than the speed of lightas expected since neutrinos have a small mass.2 Also, theoretical work by two prominent physicists demonstrates that superluminal neutrinos would lose energy too rapidly to match the energies detected by the OPERA analysis.3 Other obstacles such as clock synchronization and improperly seated cables also raise doubts that the neutrinos detected by OPERA actually exceeded the speed of light. With contradictory stories appearing in the popular press, some level of confusion is understandable. Three points can help bring clarity. First, given the enormous impact on rigorously tested science that superluminal neutrinos would cause, the scientific community demonstrated a healthy skepticism, awaiting further data

DiG Deeper
Discover more about neutrinos on Science News Flash podcasts
Neutrinos Travel Faster than Light? Neutrinos Not Faster-than-Light After All Loose Wire Vindicates Einstein

NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE | 14 | VOL 4 / NO. 2 | MAY 2012

WORLD RELIGIONS
Kenneth Richard Samples

A JeWish Christian MusliM?

ean Stone, son of famous moviemaker Oliver Stone, recently declared: I am a Jewish Christian Muslim.1 Is such a provocative religious claim justifiable?

=?

coequal son and spirit.4 For Islam to be theologically true historic Christianity must be theologically false and vice versa. So when Sean Stone says that Allah is the same God as that of Christianity, he will not receive any support for that claim from Islamic theology. Islam denies the theological heart of historic Christianity: the Trinity, the Incarnation, original sin, and Christs atonement on the cross.

Stone comes from a Jewish family but was baptized in the Christian tradition and has now converted to the religion of Islam. However, he doesnt think he has technically converted to Islam because according to him all three of the monotheistic religions ( Judaism, Christianity, Islam) worship the same God. Conversion is an interesting word because I dont believe you can convert from one Godfrom the same God, Stone says. Ive also believed in the same JudeoChristian God. I think its a misunderstanding of Islam to say that Allah is a different God. Its a different name for the same one.2

Therefore, when it comes to the theological truthclaims of these three important monotheistic religions, it is logically contradictory to claim to be a Jewish Christian Muslim.
E NDNO TE S:
1. Mark Ellis, Oliver Stones son converts to Islam, defends Iranian regime, Godreports, February 25, 2012. 2. Ibid. 3. Statement of Faith, Jews for Jesus website, last modied June 28, 2011. 4. John L. Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path, rev. 3rd ed (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 22.

Straight Thinking about Monotheistic Religion

Two points come to bear on Sean Stones bold theological claim. First, it is possible to be culturally connected to one religious tradition but then to convert to another religion. For example, a person could be culturally or ethnically Jewish and then accept Jesus Christ as the divine Messiah and convert to historic Christianity. Messianic Jews have embraced Jesus (or Yeshua, to use His Hebrew name) as their Messiah but choose to retain their Jewish culture. Such groups like Jews for Jesus are culturally Jewish but theologically Christian. Jews for Jesus is thoroughly Trinitarian in theological orientation and thus explicitly affirms Jesus Christs deity.3

DiG Deeper
More on world views from Kenneth Samples. Book: A World of Difference
by Kenneth Samples

Second, traditional Judaism (excluding Messianic Jewish groups) and Islam categorically reject the historic Christian claim that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate (God in human flesh). Regardless of how much the three monotheistic religions have in common, by denying an essential Christian truth-claim Judaism and Islam hold a contradictory view of God to that of Christianity. Its not just that Judaism and Islam deny what Christianity necessarily affirms, but also Islamic theology declares that Allah is definitely not the Triune God of Christianity. Allah has no partners, equals, companions, or associates. He is not begotten, nor does he beget, nor does anyone proceed from him. Thus Allah has no

Podcast: A Jewish Christian Muslim?

NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE | 15 | VOL 4 / NO. 2 | MAY 2012

EDUCATORS HELP DESK

Krista Kay Bontrager

EValuatinG Christian Science Curricula

he foundation for evaluating any science textbook begins with a consideration of the textbook authors approach to studying the natural world. That methodology will guide how the data is presented and analyzed. Christian curricula generally adopt three different approaches to understanding the relationship between science and Scripture.

3. Dual revelationism or concordism:

Young-earth (creation science) textbooks (i.e., A Beka, BJUP, and Apologia) use the biblicist approach. Students are taught to first construct a framework based on the young-earth approach to the Bible and then to interpret the record of nature through that framework.

1. Compartmentalism: This view considers

science and religion as two legitimate realms of knowledge that are best kept apart, with science rooted in facts and religion grounded in faith (see figure 1). In this perspective, science supplies information about the how and what of the natural world, while theology provides the why. Keeping these realms detached eliminates any pressing need to figure out how biblical details fit with the record of nature.

This strategy proposes that God revealed Himself to humanity in at least two waysthrough the words of the Bible (special revelation) and the record of nature (general revelation). These two revelations must be integrated in such a way that Gods Word and His world are in complete harmony.

On subjects where both revelations speak, they agree. However, there are topics on which one speaks while the other remains silent. Each revelation may overlap the other, while also revealing unique information (see figure 3) Adherents of the concordist position readily acknowledge that certain interpretations of Scripture will conflict with some opinions from the scientific community. They insist, however, that the Figure 3 truth of Scripture and the facts of science themselves will never actually contradict each other. Human interpretation, not the data itself, leads to perceived contradictions. Reasons To Believe embraces the concordist approach to science. Although we advance the use of mainstream science textbooks, we also see the value of incorporating biblical material into science lessons where appropriate. With that approach in mind, it is our hope that your students learn all they can about God and His creation, such that they gain appreciation of His care for them.

Figure 1
Illustrator (gures 1-3): Phil Chien

2. Biblicism: The biblicist approach asserts that

Christians who affirm theistic evolution often favor compartmentalism. They generally promote the use of mainstream science textbooks and prefer religion be taught as a separate subject.

the effects of the first sin were so devastating that they impede the non-Christians ability to accurately study and apprehend the natural world. Moreover, the cursing of the ground makes nature flawed and, therefore, an inferior revelation to the Bible. For this reason, the record of nature must be interpreted through the lens of the Bible; humans cannot study the natural world on its own terms (see figure 2).

EValuate AnY Science CurriculuM in 2 Minutes!

Watch Kristas new video, Quick Guide to Evaluating Science Curriculum, now available on the Educators Help Desk.

Figure 2: Gods Word furnishes a lens

through which to interpret life and the world.

NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE | 16 | VOL 4 / NO. 2 | MAY 2012

BIBLE BOOKEND
Krista Kay Bontrager

DeVelopMent of DesiGn

iochemist Fuz Rana provides a compelling case for the use of Turing machines as a possible theoretical framework that could help biologists gain greater insight into lifes operation at its most basic level (see Biochemical Turing Machines Reboot the Watchmaker Argument). His discussion is a modern formulation of a long-standing apologetics tradition called the teleological argumentor most commonly known as the argument from design.

The Judeo-Christian worldview describes the world as displaying divine design (Ps. 19:1, Rom. 1:1921). While these verses dont spell out that specific features of creation are evidence of Gods intelligent nature, they do presuppose that the universe exhibits features of detectable divine design. Medieval scholar St. Thomas Aquinas (12251274) long ago laid the foundational ideas for the modern conception of the teleological argument:

(17431805) developed a more sophisticated version of design by incorporating the idea of analogy as a reliable indicator of intelligent design. Paleys Watchmaker argument is the quintessential example of this progression. The watchs ability to keep time depends on a precise arrangement of its parts, suggesting that the watch was designed to meet these specifications. We can then draw an analogy between the watch and the universe, observing that both exhibit the same kind of functional complexity. Since various aspects of nature possess functional complexity, which is a reliable indicator of an intelligent Agent, we can reasonably conclude that an intelligent Agent created these features with this property. Proponents of the contemporary Intelligent Design movement have developed increasingly complex arguments founded on Aquinas and Paleys initial ideas. Scholars such as William Dembski and Michael Behe describe various biological systems and their complexity and then use this data to make a case for divine design. Others such as Stephen Meyer look at information systems and probability arguments. Fuz Ranas exploration of Turing machines stands in this grand stream of Christian apologetics and courses over new territory in its proposal to develop fresh aspects of the teleological argument in the biological realm.

We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 3, Question 2).

DiG Deeper
Book: The Cells Design

Aquinas focused his version of the design argument on an objects existence as having a purpose or end. Aquinas and those who followed him used analogies to argue that the presence of an end-directed system can most reasonably be explained by the existence of an intelligent Deity who put the system in place and directs it toward a goal. The next step in the maturity of the teleological argument built on Aquinas thought. Seventeenth and eighteenth century scholars such as William Paley

Podcast: The Cells Design - 4 of 14

NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE | 17 | VOL 4 / NO. 2 | MAY 2012

NEW RESOURCES FROM REASONS TO BELIEVE

IF GOd MAdE THE UNivERSE...WHY IS IT THE WAY IT IS?
with Hugh Ross

This 8-disc DVD series draws on key points from Hughs book Why the Universe Is the Way It Is (included with the study). The set also includes information on a special leaders website, replete with discussion questions and places to direct participants to find further answers. Each chapter that commits to doing this study is eligible to receive this resource for free. Chapter leaders, to receive a copy email Bryan Rohrenbacher at chapters@reasons. org with your plan for a group study. Additional participants resources available at IfGodMadeTheUniverse.com . $99.00 DVD Small Group Study

DiSSECTiNg EvOLuTiON
with Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, and Kenneth Samples

Questions about the theory of evolution abound. RTB scholars weigh the scientific evidence for biological evolution in comparison with evidence for supernatural creation. This practical series of discussions addresses issues such as the origin of life, bipedal primates, and the origin of humanity. $39.9512-CD set (available as MP3 download for $34.50)

SCHOLAR TESTimONiES PACK

In this set of four audio CDs, each of the RTB scholars shares his personal faith journey. Pack includes: An Astronomers Quest by Hugh Ross Finding God in the Lab by Fazale Rana A Christians Journey to Science by Jeff Zweerink A Philosophers Journey to Truth by Kenneth Samples

$19.954-CD set $6.95 (per CD)/$3.95 (per MP3)

REASONS
TO BELIEVE
An e-Zine Published by Reasons To Believe Managing Editor: Joe Aguirre Editors: Sandra Dimas, Maureen Moser, Kathy Ross Design: Fluid Communications, Inc. (800) 482-7836 www.reasons.org

NEW

WHERE IN THE WORLD ARE RTB CHAPTER NETWORKS?

Our chapters and networks are located throughout the US and around the world. Interested in nding or starting a local RTB chapter or network? Contact Bryan Rohrenbacher at chapters@reasons.org.

NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE | 18 | VOL 4 / NO. 2 | MAY 2012

AN INVITATION TO JOIN AN IMPORTANT GROUP IN SUPPORT OF RTB

RTB has been blessed by a faithful group of supporters who stand with us through their commitment to the ministry each month. Over the years this group of supporters has become the very foundation of our ability to minister effectively. Having the consistent and dependable support of our Monthly Partners allows RTB to plan ministry in a more effective manner and keeps us on track to nancially meet the recurring expenses of our outreach efforts. In recognition of their faithfulness and as an expression of our gratitude to these critical partners in ministry, we have put together some exciting Monthly Partner benets that will equip you and keep you up-to-date and connected on all thats happening at RTB. In addition, all Monthly Partners receive a special message from our scholars each month on a timely and important subject. Click the button to nd out more about becoming a Monthly Partner or call (800) 482-7836 to speak to someone in our ministry care department.

Monthly Partners

reasons institute

Enroll now in the

Creation vs. Evolution course!

with Fuz Rana and Hugh Ross

Starts June 4 Completely rewritten for 2012 Enroll today. Classes ll up! High school students welcome. Questions? learning@reasons.org

Coming this summer!

Astronomy and Design Starts August 20 Enroll today. Classes ll up! Questions? learning@reasons.org
with Hugh Ross and Jeff Zweerink

Find Reasons Institute on Facebook

+
Click Here
NEW REASONS TO BELIEVE | 19 | VOL 4 / NO. 2 | MAY 2012

StaY in touch With all the latest course announceMents.