|
03/12/2010 -Why Would a Good God Create That? Part 1Animal Death Before the Fall
As little girls, my sisters and I deeply mourned our pets’ deaths, be they lizard, fish, bird, or other. But no pet of ours experienced a demise as gruesome as did our lop-eared rabbit, Chewy. We allowed Chewy free reign of the backyard. But one afternoon it dawned on us that we hadn’t seen her for a few days. Had she escaped? Was she hiding? My youngest sister solved the mystery of Chewy’s disappearance when she visited the nearby field. Around the base of a eucalyptus tree known for housing red-tailed hawks and owls she found tufts of soft, white fur. Poor Chewy, it seemed, had become some creature’s lunch.
Picturing our fluffy bunny rabbit struggling in the talons of a sharp-beaked hawk filled me with horror. Was the natural world always this harsh and violent?
 Before or After?
Animal death before humanity’s fall from grace represents one of the biggest disagreements between young-earth and old-earth creationists. It seems paradoxical that an all-loving Creator would purposefully include carnivorous activity in pre-Fall creation; yet fossil records indicate that this may have been the case.
Young-earth proponents argue that Scripture teaches no death was part of God’s original creation, but rather entered the world as a result of sin. Thus, today’s carnivores started out as herbivores. (Some young-earth creationists stipulate that plants and certain lower life-forms, such as bacteria and insects, do not qualify as life in the same sense as birds and mammals.) Biblical passages used to support this viewpoint include Genesis 1:29–30 and Romans 5:12–19 and 8:18–21.
Yet the physical evidence remains. The fossil record reveals billions of years of death, from the first bacteria to the mighty dinosaurs to the mysterious hominids. Can this reality fit with the Bible? Yes, it can.
The case for animal death before the Fall can be argued from Scripture. For example, RTB philosopher/theologian Kenneth Samples points out that Psalm 104:19–28 shows “carnivorous activity...was ordained by God (the lions ‘seek their food from God,’ verse 21).” In Job 38, God himself reiterates his role as provider for the carnivores. He goes on in chapter 41 to praise the leviathan (thought to be a crocodile). It is obviously a very violent creature, yet God extols the very merits that make the leviathan so frightening and dangerous. Revelation 5:5 calls Jesus “the Lion of the tribe of Judah,” thus using the fearsome king of beasts to illustrate a facet of Christ’s holy character.
Even Scripture passages used to support the young-earth view can also be explained from an old-earth perspective.
So animal death, even before the Fall, seems in tune with Scripture. I’ll be continuing this series with an exploration of the purpose behind God’s inclusion of carnivores within his “very good” original creation.
— Maureen 03/05/2010 -Curiouser and Curiouser“There is a place like no place on Earth—a land full of wonder, mystery, and danger.”
Last night, a group of us journeyed into the strange and whimsical realm that is Alice in Wonderland.
Director Tim Burton’s work has been described as intensely original, and his latest film—an epic 3D fantasy adventure—certainly meets that description. And, as scientific evidence indicates, so, too, does our galaxy.
 In fact, the case for cosmic fine-tuning (see here, here, and here) is so strong, astronomers and philosophers who hold a strictly naturalistic worldview are now proposing the existence of a multiverse.
The term “multiverse” can mean a variety of things, but generally speaking it requires the existence of other regions beyond our own. Basically, multiple universes. Curiouser and curiouser.
Some, as RTB astrophysicist Jeff Zweerink points out, propose regions with different laws of physics while others posit that the physical laws match our own. Multiverse advocates propose a number of different models, the most popular being categorized as Levels I, II, III, and IV.
But a multiverse doesn’t provide the instant escape hatch naturalists may be looking for. A multiverse model would still need to meet a number of requirements in order to “provide an adequate explanation for this universe and our existence.”
As Jeff explains, these requirements are:
So how do believers in supernatural creation respond to the multiverse? Jeff offers his perspective: “As with any other perceived challenge to Christianity, the multiverse should direct us to search out what both the Bible and science really say about creation.” In fact, he adds, “the whole issue provides a tremendous opportunity to engage science-minded people and draw them into discussion of the Gospel.”
Research continues on this mind-boggling topic, and the findings thus far “greatly strengthen the cosmological case for the universe having a beginning.” Further, as the cosmological argument articulates, whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist, therefore, the universe had a cause—an argument that Jeff has demonstrated applies to the multiverse as well.
To this, those with a naturalistic worldview might say, “This is impossible!” To which one could respond, just as the Mad Hatter does, “Only if you believe it is.”
– Sandra
For more on the multiverse, check out the following:
By the way, the Take Two fan page has been up and running for some time now. If you’re not a fan by now, “You’re terribly late, you know…Naughty.”
02/26/2010 -The Hunt for Dark MatterThis topic was suggested via the Take Two Facebook fan page by Dr. Nick Tavani of the RTB Washington DC chapter. If you have ideas for Take Two articles, just contact us via Facebook!
Mysterious and elusive, dark matter is for astronomers and cosmologists what the White Rabbit is for Alice. It’s described as a “hypothetical form of matter...whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter.” In other words, scientists know dark matter exists because they can observe its impact on its celestial surroundings—but they have yet to directly detect it.
The hunt for dark matter has been on ever since observations by astronomer Fritz Zwicky first suggested the existence of a “non-luminous substance” in 1934. Subsequent observations have confirmed Zwicky’s discovery, but direct detection remains unattainable. It’s kinda like searching for an ingredient in a big and unfamiliar supermarket—you know the item you seek is in the store, yet you just can’t seem to locate it. As RTB astrophysicist Jeff Zweerink puts it, dark matter “has proven remarkably difficult to study since it emits no detectable electromagnetic radiation—no radio waves, no visible light, no x-rays, etc.”
So why bother expending time and energy looking for something so slippery? Two reasons: (1) dark matter comprises around 22% of the stuff in the universe; and (2) it plays a major role in big bang creation models.
"[Bear] in mind that big bang cosmology echoes the biblical description of the universe, in which the cosmos continually expands after the creation event. However, scientific discoveries demonstrate that the initially smooth, homogeneous early universe could not have produced the galaxies and clusters of galaxies seen today without a fine-tuned amount of dark matter."
In other words, evidence for the existence of dark matter buttresses the case for a 13.7 billion-year-old universe designed by a Creator. And direct detection may not be all that far away. Jeff reports in a Today’s New Reason to Believe article that recent experiments using an underground laboratory in Minnesota may have edged scientists closer to direct detection of dark matter.
So the hunt for dark matter continues. Hopefully this elusive substance is just on the next aisle over.
-- Maureen
Resources: Jeff, along with RTB physicist Dave Rogstad and astronomer Hugh Ross, has written quite a few articles documenting the search for dark matter. Check them out here:
Jeff:
Dave:
Hugh:
02/19/2010 -Puttin' on the RitzMy plans that day were simple: do as little as possible. Committed to that goal, I sauntered over to the couch with casual conviction. Oh! Young Frankenstein is on, I thought, as I scrolled through the channels. A serendipitous discovery considering I was vegging in preparation for the hectic schedule of editing a book about scientists’ efforts to create life in the lab.
The editorial stage of Fazale “Fuz” Rana’s latest magnum opus is nearing its end. By this time next week it will be on its way to our publisher for additional polishing. Till then, I and several others are fervently searching for grammar no-no’s (tough to find in Fuz’s work) to get the manuscript prepared. For that reason, this week’s blog is short and focused on the respective work. In Creating Life in the Lab, Fuz explains scientists’ attempts to assemble a living entity in the lab and what that endeavor means for the creation/evolution controversy. Step-by-step, he describes the research involved in creating a novel life-form, including defining life’s characteristics, life’s minimum complexity, and the conditions of early Earth. For Christians, the initial response to these pursuits may be this: If scientists’ goal is to discover how life could arise from nonliving chemical systems and then to re-create that life, what does that say about the need for a Creator? As the book unfolds, it becomes clear just how daunting a task it is to re-create even the first steps in the origin-of-life process. The world’s greatest minds are devoted to understanding how life originated through natural processes. Yet, should some of these great minds eventually succeed in creating life in the lab, it will merely “reflect what’s possible when a researcher—an intelligent agent—orchestrates physicochemical processes.” “It seems more likely,” Fuz adds, “[this endeavor] is emulating God’s handiwork than making the Creator irrelevant.”
–Sandra
Look for Creating Life in the Lab in early 2011. In the meantime, check out the Science News Flash podcast and Today's New Reason to Believe blog, where Fuz Rana and the rest of the scholar team share headline-grabbing discoveries and how they harmonize with the Bible. 02/12/2010 -Gold-Medal-Winning DesignToday marks the opening of the twenty-first Winter Olympic Games, held this time in Vancouver, British Columbia. Athletes representing over 80 countries will compete in fifteen winter sport events, all hoping to hear their national anthem played for them.
Though the Olympics have long been considered an amateurs’ competition, there’s nothing unprofessional about the competitors. They’ve spent years conditioning their bodies and training their minds for their respective sports. Meanwhile, scientists and corporations continually work together to produce uniforms and equipment that aid participants in competitions. Everything about these athletes, from their technique and form to their specially designed apparel, is optimized for the best performance possible.
 To optimize means “to make [something] as perfect or effective as possible.” It is a purposeful activity that requires intelligence, understanding, foresight, and planning to achieve maximum potential in a thing, be it a machine or athletic performance. In other words, optimization is not accidental.
Like Olympians, systems occurring in nature are fine-tuned for optimization. The remarkably complex genetic code provides a prime example. RTB biochemist Fuz Rana states, “Experience teaches that intelligible messages...come from intelligent sources. A code requires someone to create it, and this common experience makes the genetic code a potent indicator of intelligent design.” Fuz points to DNA features such as its structure, photostability, and even suboptimal deviant codes as examples of exquisite design practices found in the natural world.
Optimal designs extend throughout nature. Caltech doctoral candidate Katie Galloway says people can learn to better their own designs by observing those in nature. Examples of such “biomimicry” include:
From a spiritual standpoint, optimization also plays a role in the purpose and destiny of the universe and its human inhabitants. In an interview for his book Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, RTB astronomer and founder Hugh Ross maintains that “this universe has the best-designed physics to bring about as efficiently and rapidly as possible the end of all evil and suffering.”
Optimization of the natural world provides not only a powerful argument in favor of intelligent design, but also a strong indicator of the Creator’s love of His creation. Jesus makes the connection in Luke 12:24, “Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds!”
If God has optimized even birds for the sake of their survival, how much more does He care about you?
-- Maureen
Resources:
The Cell’s Design, by Fuz Rana, explores masterful design at the molecular level, while Hugh Ross’s Why the Universe Is the Way It Is looks to the cosmos for indicators of God’s perfect plan for the universe and humanity in particular. Both books are available for purchase in the RTB Web store.
02/05/2010 -15-Yard Penalty
It’s the first big holiday of the year (after New Year’s, that is). Stores overflow with themed decorations, and ads persuade consumers to buy their honeys a grand gift in honor of the big day.
But it’s not St. Valentine’s Day I’m referring to. This celebration involves more than one Saint—in fact, a whole slew of Saints, at least this year. Yes, folks. I’m talking ‘bout the Super Bowl—the most watched television program of the year.
This Sunday, February 7, RTB’s fantasy football participants will be among those glued to the TV when the New Orleans Saints take on the Indianapolis Colts.
For four years now, staff from virtually every department in RTB have converged on the virtual playing field in hopes of earning a bulky football trophy. During the fantasy football season it’s not uncommon for a playful gibe to make its way down the halls of RTB. In fact, RTB philosopher/theologian Ken Samples even confessed (in an episode of Straight Thinking) that “Some of the time we waste in the halls is talking about sports.”
Though a number of RTB staff belong to the same fantasy league, in the real sports world our team loyalties (we’ve got Chiefs, Packers, Bengals, and Steelers aficionados, among others) often rival others’.
When fans go head-to-head, sometimes it takes extra effort to uphold the Golden Rule. It’s all too easy to succumb to smack talk. We sports enthusiasts would do well to avoid unsportsmanlike conduct.
 Ken Samples offers his perspective on the subject: “I think people let their passion for sports get the best of them…or the worst of them.” He adds that people often use sports as a way to “act out in an inappropriate way.”
Overzealous Christians can sometimes do the same in other contexts. When “witnessing” to nonbelievers or talking with believers of a different faith or denomination, some fervent folks often do more dissuading than anything else. Those already won over are left embarrassed, hoping to repair the damage and, maybe one day, get the spectators to consider their side once more.
Whether talking about sports or salvation, devotees may need to be reminded of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 5:6, “Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?”
If you’ve ever been to a professional ball game, you can probably testify that a little “yeast” can rapidly rile up a whole crowd (especially if it’s mixed with hops). But this unsportsmanlike conduct can bring shame to the very team one means to support.
So, for Sunday’s big game and for the bigger game, may we play fair and go for first and goal! Now pass the hot wings. Oh, and uh…I’m taking the Colts by seven.
-Sandra
Check out Ken Samples podcast Straight Thinking, where he uses culturally relevant topics to address the importance of the Christian mind.
If you're on Facebook, check out the Take Two fan page and become a fan!
01/29/2010 -A Spirited NatureThere are many high-quality nature shows on television these days, but none as spectacular as Planet Earth. Co-produced by the BBC and the Discovery Channel, the series took five years to complete as crew members took their cameras quite literally to the ends of the earth. The final result transports audiences to never-before-seen locations and introduces them to a wild array of animals, some almost alien.
While watching an episode at my parents’ house, I marveled at the unique creatures profiled by the show. Yet I couldn’t help thinking that as fascinating as animals are, it’s humans that God considers as the crown of creation.
Evolutionary theories promote the idea that all life, including human beings, evolved from a common ancestor via strictly natural processes. In other words, humans are highly evolved animals, differing in degree, but not kind, from other members of the animal kingdom. The absence of a supernatural Creator in the evolutionary paradigm also implies that humans, like animals, lack a spiritual component.
The Bible teaches otherwise. Genesis 2 describes God personally forming both man and woman in His image. They are the only creatures thus distinguished. The Creator further elevates humans by placing them in charge of the entire planet. Right off the bat, humanity differs from animals in a radical way.
But outside of the Bible, is there any evidence supporting the notion that each person possesses an individual spirit? Of course, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to test for the spirit empirically. However, we can observe dramatic differences between human and animal behavior that imply the existence of a spirit in persons.
 Curiosity: RTB founder and astronomer, Hugh Ross, points out that human curiosity extends far beyond that of other animals: “Even when creatures ‘store up’ for the season or ‘prepare’ for a coming event, such as a birth, they function in patterned ways according to their survival instinct. Humans, on the other hand, want to know about the earliest moments of life, of cosmic existence, and of the farthest reaches of the future.”
This thirst for knowledge represents a distinctively human characteristic. Certainly many animals exhibit the capability to learn and a curiosity about their immediate environment, but only humans do reason on abstract levels involving mathematics, logic, philosophy, etc. Art and technology: Evidence indicates that from the beginning, humans have expressed themselves through visual art and music. In his book Who Was Adam? biochemist Fuz Rana writes, “Perhaps one of the most important advances in prehistoric archeology in recent years is the recognition that artistic (including musical) expression simultaneously with humanity’s appearance about 40,000 years ago.1 Archeologists and anthropologists refer to this surge of human culture as ‘the big bang of art.’”
The level of technological sophistication also rose dramatically once humans arrived on the historical scene. Tools and weaponry associated with early humans display an ingenuity of mind entirely lacking in other animals.
Morality: Seeing seals maul king penguins was one of the hardest things to stomach while watching Planet Earth. It made me glad to think the seals would get their comeuppance if they strayed into shark territory. Upsetting as the scene was, it didn’t mean the seals’ behavior was evil. Animals are not moral creatures; humans alone hold this distinction. We contemplate right and wrong and create societal structures and laws to regulate behavior and punish wrong-doing. RTB philosopher/theologian, Kenneth Samples, comments, “Animals can perform good, even heroic acts. A dog might save its owners from a burning house or guide soldiers through dangerous obstacles during combat, but it does not make morally reflective judgments about such acts.”
Hugh puts it this way: humans are “uniquely evil among all life on Earth but also uniquely righteous.”
Spirituality: Of all creatures on Earth, only humans are capable of forming a relationship with their Creator. Kenneth says, “Pursuit of God or the transcendental is a defining characteristic of mankind and is evidenced in such common practices as prayer and worship—so much so that some have designated humans as homo religiosus—‘religious man.’”
Because we have the capacity to think and communicate at conceptual levels, humans inevitably ask, “Why?” Why am I here? How did I get here? What will happen to me when I die? No other animal worries about what will happen to it after it dies.
Some argue the human brain simply adapted to provide an evolutionary advantage to our species. Yet, as Hugh suggests, “For tens of thousands of years humanity carried intellectual capacities that offered no discernable advantage. From a Darwinian perspective, such capacities would be unlikely to arise and, even if they had randomly emerged, they would likely have been eliminated or minimized by natural selection.”
Maybe there’s more to humans than meets the eye.
- Maureen
1. Tim Appenzeller, “Evolution or Revolution?” Science 282 (1998): 1451–1454.
01/22/2010 -It Never Rains in Southern CaliforniaMost non-native Californians travel to the Golden State to bask in its seemingly endless sunshine. But over the last few days, our typical 70-degree weather has been replaced with torrential rains. Back-to-back winter storms continue to slam Southern California cities—with some areas getting as much as an inch and a half of rain per hour. And residents, especially those in burn areas, are definitely recognizing the power of water.
In just four days, the heavy rains have caused flooding and car accidents, and threatened beachfront and hillside homes. Imagine, then, what damage was caused from the 40-day flood described in Genesis 6–9.
Some Christians say the downpour was powerful enough to carve out something as grand as, well, the Grand Canyon. This belief is based on a young-earth interpretation of the biblical creation story. From this perspective, Noah’s flood covered the entire Earth and is responsible for the planet’s major geological features, including the bulk of sediments that comprise the Grand Canyon walls.
Another interpretation is the local flood view, which explains the event as “relatively minor one, affecting only a tiny fraction of the planet and of the human population.”
So where does RTB fit in the Genesis flood debate?
Astronomer Hugh Ross clarifies, “The RTB scholar team takes a view that differs from both of these, as will become clear in a series of three articles on the topic. Based on the meaning of the word universal, ‘encompassing all members of a category or group,’ in this case ‘all humanity,’ our position can best be described as the universal [or worldwide] flood view.”
 Throughout the Old and New Testaments, passages discussing “the earth” and “the world” often refer to people groups and societies, not the entire planet.
Here are a few examples:
Genesis 41:57 – “[A]ll the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the world.”
1 Kings 10:24 – “The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart.”
Romans 1:8 – “Your faith is being reported all over the world.”
Colossians 1:6 – “All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you.”
Hugh explains that these and other Bible passages “refer to geographical or geopolitical regions somewhat less extensive than planet Earth’s entire surface. Therefore, one may reasonably conclude that references in Genesis 6–8 to ‘all the surface of the earth,’ and ‘under the entire heavens’ need not imply a globally extensive event.”
RTB’s perspective is that the Genesis flood covered at least the Mesopotamian Plain, if not more, and God used it as a means of limiting the spread of wickedness. Earth’s major geological features—and the Grand Canyon, for that matter—developed over a long period of time (millions of years), as geologists’ research indicates.
Even though the flood of Noah’s time didn’t carve out the Grand Canyon, it was still extraordinary. So much so that it would make the storms hitting Southern California look like an insignificant drizzle.
–Sandra
01/15/2010 -Of Hominids and Humans“You get that from your dad’s side of the family.”
I hear this comment a lot—and with good reason. Of the three daughters born to my parents, I’m most like my father in personality and looks.
Ancestry is an interesting thing. It’s easy to see what traits we’ve inherited from parents, grandparents, and even great-grandparents. But who else resides in our family tree?
Some people argue in favor of Neanderthals as members of humanity’s kinfolk, particularly within European heritage. (As someone of European descent, I’m not thrilled by this suggestion.) Although many paleoanthropologists and others who study Neanderthals and early modern humans maintain that evidence points to Neanderthals as an evolutionary dead-end, some secular researchers insist these creatures were part of our ancestry. On the other hand, certain groups of creationists claim that Neanderthals were actually humans descended from Adam and Eve!
 RTB takes a different stance altogether. We view Neanderthals and other hominids strictly as animals created by God, but distinct from humanity in both degree and kind. Despite some biological similarities between hominids and humans, the latter exhibit behavioral characteristics on par with beings made in the image of God, such as language capabilities and, along with that, sustainable and advanced culture.
“FOXy” Genes
Language forms a pivotal point in the debate over the human-Neanderthal connection. Did these hairy beasts possess the same communication capabilities as humans? RTB’s own biochemist, Fuz Rana, has written extensively on this topic, including:
Sometimes referred to as “the language gene,” FOXP2 in humans is vital to the development of speech abilities, among other things. Fuz’s two-part series on the language gene and Neanderthals, originally posted late 2007/early 2008, discusses the recovery of a portion of FOXP2 from a Neanderthal DNA sample by researchers at the Max Planck Institute. He notes that this was an astonishing discovery, especially since previous studies indicated that FOXP2 first emerged long after Neanderthals and humans would have split from a common ancestor, if they ever had one. Fuz also points out the possibility that the Neanderthal DNA samples may have been contaminated by modern human DNA despite the scientists’ extensive precautions.
Later in 2008, a reassessment of the gene by University of Chicago scientists appeared to support Fuz’s deduction.
“They concluded that the scenario proposed by the Max Planck workers—namely the human variant [of FOXP2] arose prior to the time that Neanderthal and human lineages diverged from a common ancestor—is inconsistent with the genetic patterns observed among modern humans.”
The Chicago team suggested that either FOXP2 appeared in Neanderthals due to interbreeding with humans (again, ew!) or the sample was contaminated accidentally through human handling. Fuz concludes, “It is really beginning to look like Neanderthals didn’t have language capacity after all.”
On that Note
Archeological evidence also strongly suggests that Neanderthals neither possessed language nor were part of human lineage in any way. Certainly Neanderthals and other hominids used rudimentary tools and showed signs of a very elementary “culture,” such as the burying of their dead in shallow graves. Yet they made no advancement in technology and did not express themselves artistically. Only when humans arrived on the scene did history experience a “cultural big bang.” There was no gradual build up from the simplistic stone tools of the hominids to the sophisticated weaponry, jewelry, clothing, musical instruments, and artwork generated by the first humans.
Art, jewelry, and music in particular make humans stand apart from Neanderthals. These developments display an ability to communicate and think on abstract levels and an awareness of self. More importantly, artistic expression indicates a spiritual facet that animals, even “soulish” ones, lack entirely.
No doubt hominids were amazing animals, as are all of God’s creatures. But humans stand alone as the crown of creation. We’re the ones He made in His image, and we’re the ones He loved enough to die for.
— Maureen
Resources: If you want to learn more about hominids and Neanderthals and where they fit in with creation history, check out Fuz’s book Who Was Adam?, coauthored with RTB founder, Hugh Ross. Email questions for Fuz to ask@reasons.org and your query could end up being answered on the I Didn’t Know That! podcast. 01/08/2010 -The Proofing Is in the Pudding
The New Year brings with it a collective “and now for something completely different” mood. A closing of one chapter and the opening of another.
For RTB scholar Fazale "Fuz" Rana, it means the end of the writing stage for his upcoming book (working title Life in the Lab). For the editorial team, it means picking up the baton and running full speed toward the copyediting process (among other things). This is my favorite part of the process—not only do I get to do what I love (edit), but I also get a sneak peek at the scholars’ next book. Bonus!
But of all the books I’ve had an advance look at, there’s one that holds within it the best sentence ever written—at least from this editor’s perspective: “The proofreading and editing steps are critical.” Fuz Rana penned these words in his most recent book, The Cells’ Design. Though Maureen and I might tease that he’s talking about the proofing and editing we do, he’s instead referring to the important work performed by “activating enzymes.”
 Fuz breaks it down like this. There are 20 different amino acids involved in protein synthesis, and each has its own transfer RNA (tRNA) molecule. The tRNA molecule must attach to the right amino acid; otherwise there are errors. As with words in a sentence, if you get the wrong amino acid you have gibberish.
In writing, the editorial process can, at times, seem superfluous—especially when deadlines are looming—but a quick review might prevent an embarrassing mistake. In the case of the activating enzymes, the proofing stage serves as a quality-control checkpoint for proper tRNA binding. And the work that these microscopic editors take on requires “exacting attention to every imaginable detail.”
So quite literally, there’s an editor in every one of us. Or as Fuz puts it, “When I say the editors get under my skin, they really do.” Touché.
This biochemical fine-tuning “further highlights the exceptional ingenuity that defines the cell’s chemistry and reinforces the conclusion that life has a supernatural basis…. Such precise attention to detail clearly indicates a supreme intelligence at work.”
Whether big or small, Christ’s hand is evident in all his creation.
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)
–Sandra
For more on biochemical design, see here or check out Fazale “Fuz” Rana’s book The Cell’s Design.
And if you’re on Facebook, check out the Take Two Fan Page.
|
