Reflections on a Flat Earth

There is a widely known criticism that the Bible teaches a flat earth and that Christians in the past used to all believe in a flat earth, bullying any poor rebellious scientist or explorer the argued otherwise. It is a very prominent accusation leveled against Bible believing Christians with some very reputable figures behind it. Robert J. Schadewald, former president of the National Center for Science Education, claims that many of the early church fathers were flat-earthers.[1] Massimo Pigliucci, chair of the Department of Philosophy at CUNY-Lehman College, claims that for most of western history Christians believed in a flat-earth.[2]  Famous medical officer and historian Charles Singer writes, “The sphericity of the earth was, in fact, formally denied by the Church, and the mind of Western man, so far as it moved in this matter at all, moved back to the old confused notion of a modulated ‘flatland’, with the kingdoms of the world surrounding Jerusalem, the divinely chosen centre of the terrestrial disk.”[3]

I’m sure you are, like myself, reminded of the story of Columbus, in which our history textbooks taught us in elementary school and onward that Columbus was the one who discovered the earth was round and that he had to convince his superiors that he would not sail off the edge of the world in order to get funding for his expedition. But Columbus lived in the 15^th century, so that must mean that prior to the 15^th century everyone (including the authors of the Bible from the first century and earlier) thought the earth was flat too, right?

Naturally, pictures like this come to mind when thinking of Columbus and his declaration that the earth was round.

So I began to research the issue myself and found that the vast majority of Christians maintained the same views, but a few were divided on the issue. There are Christians that do believe in a round earth and do not believe the Bible teaches a flat earth. But there are also Christians who maintain that, yes the earth is round, but agree that the Bible teaches the earth is flat.[4] Worse, there are Christians that do not believe in a round earth, but do believe the Bible teaches a flat earth. They are known as the Flat Earth Society, www.flatearthsociety.org. So to find clarity on the subject I researched the history of the flat earth myth as well as what the Bible actually says about the subject. Here are my findings:

Is the Earth Flat?

No, the earth is not flat, obviously. It is round and spherical, with a slight bulge at the equator due to the earth’s rapid rotation.[5] So then the question naturally follows; where and when did the flat earth myth originate?

History of the Flat Earth Myth:

When we look back at history it is easy to speculate that people thought the earth was flat, since it obviously appears to be flat and they did not have the ability to fly at high altitudes or travel into space to see earth’s curve. However, such speculation is shallow and inaccurate. Some ancient civilizations actually did understand the earth to be curved, especially those civilizations that were sea faring nations. After all, their boats and ships were traveling over the horizon and not falling off the edge of the earth. Additionally, the curve of the earth could be seen in that when ships appeared on the horizon, their mast would appear first, then the hull. Likewise, from the sailors perspectives, the tops of mountains would appear on the horizon before the shores did, evidence of the earth being curved.

Outside of how objects appeared on the horizon, there were other inclinations to the ancient Greeks that the earth was round. For example, during a lunar eclipse the earth casts a circular shadow on the moon as it slips into the shadow regardless of the earth’s orientation. This would only be possible if the earth was round.[6]

The first documented claim that the Earth was round came from Pythagoras in the sixth century BC.[7] Aristotle (384-322 BC) reasoned the earth was round.[8] As did Euclid, Aristarchs, Crates, Strabo, Ptolemy, and so on and so forth.[9]  Eratosthenes (276-196 BC), director of the great Library in Alexandria, Egypt, actually calculated the circumference of the earth! One day he read that in the Egyptian town of Syene the sun cast no shadows on vertical objects every year on June 21, meaning the sun was directly overhead. So naturally on June 21 Erathosthenes placed vertical sticks in the ground to see if the same results would happen in Alexandria. But in Alexandria, the sticks did cast a shadow. He figured the shadows must be due to the curve of the earth, so he measured the degree of divergence from the shadows on the ground to the sticks, which was about seven degrees. He then hired a man to pace out the distance from Syene to Alexandria, which came out to 800km. Since seven degrees is roughly 1/50 of the circumference of a circle, all one must do is multiply 50 x 800 and you get 40,000 km for the circumference of earth.[10] The current estimate of earth’s circumference is 40,075 km at its widest, and an average circumference of 40,041km.[11] It is remarkable how close Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth in the 3^rd century BC with basic geometry.

According to physicist and cosmologist Dr. John Hartnett, “There is a common myth that ancient peoples thought the earth was flat. Some may have thought so, but most others certainly did not.”[12]

You may be thinking to yourself, well that is ancient Greece and Rome, but when Christianity came around in the first century everything changed, right? Wrong. When considering Christian early church fathers and theologians, only two within the entire history of early Christian theology can be accused of believing in a flat earth: Lactantius of the 4^th century (200+ years after the origin of Christianity), and a 6^th century Egyptian monk named Cosmas Indicopleustes (400+ years after the origin of Christianity).[13] Both men’s writings were almost completely ignored by the church, their writings having very little to no impact in medieval scholarship.[14] It should also be noted that Cosmas’ writings, being from Egypt, were not in Latin. His writings were not translated into Latin until 1706,[15] so no one in Europe would have been influenced by his writings until 1706.

In the 7^th century lived Venerable Behe, an English monk known for his scholarly work in history, theology and science. More importantly, Behe considered the earth a spherical orb.[16] Saint Hildegard (1098-1179), Roger Bacon (1220-1292), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), John Buriden (1301-1358) and Nicholas Oresme (1320- 1382) all maintained a round earth.[17] University of California Santa Barbara emeritus professor of history, Jeffrey Burton Russell, writes, “A few–at least two and at most five–early Christian fathers denied the sphericity of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise.”[18]

This image comes from Saint Hildegard’s Liber Divinorum Operum from the 12th century, showing the four seasons on a curved earth.

13^th century scholar and astronomer Johannes de Sacrobosco wrote, “If the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for Westerners as for Orientals, which is false.”[19] Clearly there was no widespread notion of a flat earth among scholars. As world renowned paleontologist and science historian Stephen Jay Gould writes, “There never was a period of ‘flat earth darkness’ among scholars (regardless of how many uneducated people may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology.”[20]

The following image comes from Johannes de Sacrobosco’s Tractatus de Sphaera (On the Sphere of the World) written in 1230 AD. It showcases the knowledge that the appearance of ships on the horizon testified to a curved earth.

Furthermore, the claim that 15^th century explorer Christopher Columbus was the first to discover that the world was round is, and by now you should agree, false. Also false, is the claim that Columbus’ expedition was opposed because the royal authorities thought he was going to sail off the edge of the planet. Columbus’ expedition was actually opposed because it was widely known that the earth was round, but more importantly it was known how large the earth was (remember the works of Eratosthenes). What wasn’t known was the existence of North and South America. So it was assumed that traveling west from Europe to India would mean traversing one large super ocean, and thus, be too far of a journey. In other words, Columbus’ voyage was opposed because no one thought he could logistically make it across such a vastly massive ocean. As Samuel Morrison, a renowned maritime historian, wrote on the subject, “The sphericity of the globe was not in question. The issue was the width of the ocean.”[21] Gould agrees, “As a major critique, they argued that Columbus could not reach the Indies in his own allotted time, because the earth’s circumference was too great.”[22]

Even NASA’s website, in explaining the curvature of earth’s surface, makes reference to the claim that Columbus’ expedition being opposed due to belief in the earth being flat is a false notion.[23]  Additionally, Columbus was a Bible believing man.[24] So surely there would be some conflict between his faith and his knowledge of the earth being round, if the Bible taught such. There, however, was no such conflict, because the Bible does not teach a flat earth. So where did this historically-incorrect myth come from? It can be sourced back to 19^th century American writer Washington Irving, who concocted the flat earth claims in his 1828 biography about Columbus called,  History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus.[25] This biography has since, in more modern times, been highly criticized for its false claims.

 

Russell writes, “It was he [Irving] who invented the indelible picture of the young Columbus, a ‘simple mariner,’ appearing before a dark crowd of benighted inquisitors and hooded theologians at a council of Salamanca, all of whom believed, according to Irving, that the earth was flat like a plate. Well, yes, there was a meeting at Salamanca in 1491, but Irving’s version of it, to quote a distinguished modern historian of Columbus, was ‘pure moonshine. Washington Irving, scenting his opportunity for a picturesque and moving scene,’ created a fictitious account of this ‘nonexistent university council’ and ‘let his imagination go completely…the whole story is misleading and mischievous nonsense.’”[26]

This picture is taken from the 16th century astronomy textbook, On the Sphere of the World.

So we’re up to the 15^th century and still there is no case for Christianity propagating a flat-earth cosmology. There is hardly any mention of it anywhere in history at this time. Moving onto the 17^th century, there is still no history of flat earth claims and Christianity. There is however historical record that Jesuit missionaries introduced the round earth cosmology to Ming China, which was still at that time under the impression earth was flat. That is, Christian missionaries introducing the round earth to other parts of the world, which doesn’t sound like the works of a religion that believes in a flat earth. Moving onto the 18^th century, the age of Enlightenment, where there was popular skeptical inquiry of religion from all of academia. Yet no where during this time do we see Christianity criticized for flat-earth cosmology.[27] Not one word from Franklin, Condillac, Condorcet, Diberot, Gibbon, or Hume about a flat earth? It seems rather odd that these men would not have used such a fallacy as ammunition against Christianity. That is, unless, there was no grounds for making such a claim.

Russell writes, “In my research, I looked to see how old the idea was that medieval Christians believed the earth was flat. I obviously did not find it among medieval Christians. Nor among anti-Catholic Protestant reformers. Nor in Copernicus or Galileo or their followers, who had to demonstrate the superiority of a heliocentric system, but not of a spherical earth. I was sure I would find it among the eighteenth-century philosophes [sic], among all their vitriolic sneers at Christianity, but not a word. I am still amazed at where it first appears.”[28]

So where did it first appear? Claims that Christianity maintained a flat earth mentality did not appear until the 19^th century, which alone should raise some scepticism being 1,800 years after the origin of the religion. Irwing’s Columbus biography, though the beginning of published flat-earth claims against Christianity, did not take hold until the time ofAntoine-Jean Letronne (1787-1848), who was an academic with anti-religious prejudices that were evident in his 1834 book On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers.[29] This was subsequently followed by William Whewell’s 1837 book History of the Inductive Sciences, in which Whewell points out Lactantius and Cosmas to prove that the entire medieval period adopted a flat-earth cosmology, ignoring the overwhelming majority of other Christians that did not maintain a flat-earth cosmology.[30]

 

Also during the 19^th century, Darwin’s Evolution theory began to take shape, which naturally met opposition from Christians. And so it was claimed that religion and science were at odds with one another. At least, that is what was declared by John Draper’s 1874 book The History of Conflict Between Religion and Science, and Andrew Dickson White’s 1896 book, A History of Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. In both books gross exaggerations are made of Christians, including the claim that Christianity is a flat earth believing religion. Unfortunately these claims have persisted today in academia, despite modern academia’s criticism of both books for their false dichotomization of western history as a war between science and religion.[31]

Russell writes, “The reason for promoting both the specific lie about the sphericity of the earth and the general lie that religion and science are in natural and eternal conflict in Western society, is to defend Darwinism. The answer is really only slightly more complicated than that bald statement. The flat-earth lie was ammunition against the creationists. The argument was simple and powerful, if not elegant: ‘Look how stupid these Christians are. They are always getting in the way of science and progress. These people who deny evolution today are exactly the same sort of people as those idiots who for at least a thousand years denied that the earth was round. How stupid can you get?’ But that is not the truth.”[32]

Biologist, chemist, and geologist Dr. Jerry Bergman writes, “This history clearly supports, not a war of religion against science, but instead a war of evolutionary propagandists against religion.”[33] Gould writes, “I would not be agitated by these errors if they led only to an inadequate view of the past without practical consequences for our modern world. But the myth of a war between science and religion remains all too current, and continues to impede a proper bonding and conciliation between these two utterly different and powerfully important institutions to human life.”[34]

If one searches the history books for flat-earth believing Christians they might be put off at the miniscule amount that can be unearthed. If it is so transparent that the Bible taught a flat-earth, then why would the overwhelming majority of Christians in the entire history of Christianity NOT believe in a flat earth? The most reasonable and obvious answer is that the Bible does not teach that the earth is flat.

Oh, how I wish that was the end of the story for the flat earth. But it is not. In the late 19^th century John Dowie began a campaign in the little town of Zion, Illinois to propagate the theology of a flat-earth. After he died in 1906, Wilbur Voliva took over as the organizations leader until he, himself, died in 1942. It is noteworthy that the movement was very unsuccessful in converting most of the Zion residents to their flat earth dogma, and after the death of Voliva, the movement died.[35]  They were, however, not the only flat earth organization.

Another flat earth organization is the one founded by Charles K. Johnson of LancasterCalifornia, who died in 2001. The organization is known as the Flat Earth Society of America. Again, like that of Zion’s small organization, they never had more than 100 members.[36] Johnson also went onto to claim that the sun was as far from earth as San Francisco is from Boston and that the sun and moon were both the same size, about 51 km in diameter.[37]

The Flat Earth Society today is led by Daniel Shelton, who oddly enough believes in evolution and global warming, but not in a round earth…[38] This is troubling for those who claim that creationists believe in a flat earth (aside from the fact that creationists don’t make this claim), since Shelton believes in evolution, something creationists do not adhere to. So out of the few remaining flat-earth believers, we see a belief in evolution. Both are theories that creationists do not adhere to. With all this considered, it can be concluded that claiming creationists preach a flat earth is incredibly false. However, as troubling as it might be to know that there are Christians that still maintain that the earth is flat, it is worth while to note that Shelton’s following is only in the hundreds, maybe a thousand.[39] While the rest of the Christian population in America totals 228 million as of 2008.[40] A thousand flat-earthers versus over two hundred million Christians that don’t believe in a flat earth (not counting the billion other Christians worldwide) should be enough to convince skeptics and critics, that a flat-earth cosmology is not a part of Christianity.

Lastly, before I end this segment on the sad history of the flat earth myth, I think it would be appropriate to share one humorous quote from Shelton: “I haven’t taken this position just to be difficult… To look around, the world does appear to be flat, so I think it is incumbent on others to prove decisively that it isn’t. And I don’t think that burden of proof has been met yet.”[41] That is, the work of countless astrophysicists, cosmologists, and other bright minds amidst rigorous scientific disciplines for the last 100 years in combination with the countless photos of earth from space, have yet to provide Shelton with sufficient proof. It is humorous to say the least. But it is even more laughable when people try to project this dogma onto Christianity as a whole.

What The Bible Doesn’t Say:

So we can agree that the flat earth myth isn’t rooted in Christianity. Yet, still, those that maintain a flat earth in modern times are almost solely Christian. Clearly there is a connection, and that has lead many to thumb through the Bible and point out the many verses that seem to suggest the earth is flat. After all, even if Christians have historically not believed in a flat earth, if the Bible teaches a flat earth and the Bible is supposed to be the inherent word of God, then we have a serious problem, don’t we? How can the Bible be the word of an all-knowing God if it describes the earth as flat?

Schadewald points out the versus he believes testifies to a flat earth, “Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth’s surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king ‘saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth…reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds.’ If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to ‘the earth’s farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, ‘Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.’ Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: ‘Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him…’”[42]

The following verses (all NIV) are used to support the claim that the Bible teaches a flat earth:

 

Job 37:3- “He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth.”

Job 38:13- “…that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?”

Psalm 104:2-3- “He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters. He makes the clouds his chariot and rides on the wings of the wind.”

Daniel 4:11 – “The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.”

Matthew 4:8 – “Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.”

Revelation 1:7 – “Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.”

Revelation 7:1 – “After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.”

At first glance, yes, these verses seem to convey a flat four cornered earth. But as with all situations involving quoting the Bible one should always take into consideration context and use of language, and never isolate verses by themselves to pass judgment on them. Alone and out of context, a verse can mean whatever you want it to. So with that said, here is an explanation for these verses.

“He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth.” (Job 37:3): This verse, and others like it that refer to the “ends” or “edges” of earth, are commonly brought up as evidence of a flat earth since a round earth obviously does not have edges or ends. In the case of this verse, and others like it in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word used is “nk”[43] which is translated into, “ends” or “extremities” meaning lands far away. Which in proper context would denote a meaning of lighting striking all over earth, even in the remote far away regions. According to prominent apologist James Patrick Holding “… Job 37:3 hardly requires a flat-earth reading — it merely states that lightning occurs all over the earth. Even if it did teach a flat-earth reading, it would prove only that Elihu believed such a thing — not everything reported in the Bible is endorsed in the Bible.”[44] Holding makes a point to bring up that Elihu was speaking when this was said, and as is commonly pointed out, Job’s friends (one of which is Elihu) came to confide him with theology which proved to be inaccurate. So even if this verse is taken as the earth being flat (which it should not), it would then only be chalked up to the inaccurate theology of Elihu.

“…that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?” (Job 38:13): Theologian Paul H. Seely, who believes the Bible DOES teach a flat earth, argues, “In a clearly cosmological context, not just local, this verse speaks of dawn grasping the earth by its ‘extremity or hem’ …and shaking the wicked out of it. The verse is comparing the earth to a blanket or garment picked up at one end and shaken. A globe is not really comparable to a blanket or garment in this way. You cannot pick up a globe at one end. It does not even have an end.”[45]

However, Holding argues that the verse is being taken out of context, and when the previous verse (12) is taken into consideration the context can be clarified, “Are the wicked literally ‘shaken’ by the sunrise? Is the bringing of dawn accompanied by the sight of nighttime burglars rolling through the dusty streets of villages like tumbleweeds? Clearly this verse refers to no more than the visible horizon that the dawn ‘grasps’ as the sun rises. It is phenomenological and poetic in every sense of its expression.”[46] Holding’s argument is on point. If we are to take the description of the earth having edges literally, then one must also take the rest of the verse literal, which would necessitate wicked people being shaken from a flat earth after the sun somehow grabs a hold of its edges to shake it. Though no one would honestly believe the author meant this.

Methodist bible scholar and theologian Adam Clarke takes a different approach: “That the wicked might be shaken out of it? – The meaning appears to be this: as soon as the light begins to dawn upon the earth, thieves, assassins, murderers, and adulterers, who all hate and shun the light, fly like ferocious beasts to their several dens and hiding places; for such do not dare to come to the light, lest their works be manifest, which are not wrought in God.”[47] Thus again, we see a more proper use of this verse is that of a poetic and metaphorical nature, not literal.

 “He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters. He makes the clouds his chariot and rides on the wings of the wind.” (Psalm 104:2-3): Anyone who has read Psalms knows it is a book of symbolic poetry. Beams of chambers on waters, wind with wings, wrapped with light as a garment; all metaphors one would expect in poetic writings, not literal descriptions.

“The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.” (Daniel 4:11): This verse provides probably the most imperative lesson on context. That is, if one were to actually read all of Daniel 4 they would see that this verse is describing a vision, a King’s dream. Do the fantastic details of YOUR dreams constitute literal reality? Of course not. So we should not therefore penalize the Bible for containing the description of a King’s fantastic dream. Furthermore, the King was not a Jew, but a pagan. According to Holding, “The Daniel passage is actually a statement by a pagan king, which doesn’t mean that the Bible endorses that view. And it is a vision, and is therefore not intended to be a picture of reality…”[48]

“Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.” (Matthew 4:8): How could Jesus see the all the Kingdoms of the world from a high mountain unless the world was flat? Theologian Albert Barnes explains, “It is not probable that anything more is intended here than the kingdoms of Palestine, or of the land of Canaan, and those in the immediate vicinity. Judea was divided into three parts, and those parts were called kingdoms; and the sons of Herod, who presided over them, were called kings. The term ‘world’ is often used in this limited sense to denote a part or a large part of the world, particularly the land of Canaan. See Romans 4:13, where it means the land of Judah; also Luke 2:1, and the note on the place.”[49]

Expositor John Gill takes another approach, pointing out the supernatural aspects of Satan’s visit to Jesus, “Now the view which Satan gave Christ of all this, was not by a representation of them in a picture, or in a map, or in any geographical tables, as some have thought; since to do this there was no need to take him up into a mountain, and that an exceeding high one; for this might have been done in a valley, as well as in a mountain: and yet it could not be a true and real sight of these things he gave him; for there is no mountain in the world, from whence can be beheld anyone kingdom, much less all the kingdoms of the world; and still less the riches, glory, pomp, and power of them: but this was a fictitious, delusive representation, which Satan was permitted to make; to cover which, and that it might be thought to be real, he took Christ into an high mountain; where he proposed an object externally to his sight, and internally to his imagination, which represented, in appearance, the whole world, and all its glory.”[50]

So we have two different possibilities, one in which Jesus is literally taken to a mountain top to see the regions of Canaan which was commonly referred to as the kingdoms of the “world.” The other possibility being a supernatural apparition from Satan which corresponds to their instantaneous arrival to a mountain top, which is only possible via the supernatural. Besides, even if the earth was flat, you still couldn’t see all the kingdoms of the world on the simple premise of atmospheric haze preventing visibility to far off lands. Something any ancient man standing on a hill or mountain top would be aware of. That is, visibility is not infinite and cannot go as far as one may physically travel.

“Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.” (Revelation 1:7): Here is another verse being taken far from context. The book of Revelation is a book of prophecy for the end times and the second return of Christ. Thus there are a few ways that this verse can be understood. The one popular explanation is that the return of Jesus will be widely publicized on television, internet, etc. It is today, in this modern time, very possible for “every eye” to see Jesus. The other, more agreed upon, explanation is related to the Day of Judgment in Revelation 20 when God judges the entire earth, and thus “every eye” would see Jesus sitting to the right of God’s throne, clothed in the clouds, a common symbol for majesty and glory. Obviously, Jesus’ second return will have supernatural implications, and thus it may be very possible for Jesus to appear to every individual at a supernatural level when He returns. Just as it is possible for God to be anywhere and everywhere at once since He is not bound by our natural dimensions, likewise Jesus would not be either, and it would therefore be possible for everyone to see Him at once.

One can go still further to say that even if the earth was flat, Jesus appearing in a cloud in the sky would still not make it possible for everyone to see him considering the horizontal distance of the known land. Even the ancients were well aware of the vast size of the earth regardless of whether the earth was flat or round. A vision in the skies in one area would hardly be visible at all a thousand miles away. It is therefore more appropriate to understand this verse in a supernatural sense.

“After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.” Revelation (7:1): This verse seems to suggest a flat rectangular earth with four corners. The four corners are not in relation to corners on a flat surface, but are in fact reference to the four points on a compass.[51] This is supported by Ezekiel’s similar reference to the four corners of Israel (Ezekiel 7:2). Gill agrees, “Four angels are mentioned, in allusion to the four spirits of the heavens, in Zec 6:5; and though the earth is not a plain square with angels, but round and globular, yet it is said to have four corners, with respect to the four points of the heavens; and though there is but one wind, which blows sometimes one way, and sometimes another, yet four are named with regard to the above points, east, west, north, and south, from whence it blows.”[52]

At that, it is clear to see that the charges of flat-earth cosmology leveled against the Bible can hardly stand in the face of critical analysis of the text. The Bible doesn’t speak of a flat earth. But then why do modern flat earthers tend to be Christians? A key consideration is that people who believe in a flat earth draw their conclusions from their own visual experience regardless of whether they’re Christian or not. Those who are Christian however, will come across particular verses, like those mentioned above, and fit them into their pre-conceived opinion of the earth being flat. Others are roped into it by the teachings of their pastors. Either way, they are, unfortunately, all the more brazen about it since they feel justified in their beliefs since (in their opinion) the word of God agrees with them, and are much less likely to change this opinion on the earth since such a change could be perceived as compromising on God’s word. This is the reason why the few remaining flat earthers tend to be Christian.

What the Bible Does Say:

So if the Bible doesn’t preach a flat earth, does it preach a round earth? Some would argue that it does:

Isaiah 40:22- “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.”

Now granted, in context, this language is metaphorical. So then what is meant by the “circle” of earth? It could be a genuine remark at the sphericity of earth, since the word used for circle; “chud,” refers to a circular, spherical or round object according to Barnes.[53] Gill writes, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,…. Or, ‘the globe’ of it; for the earth is spherical or globular: not a flat plain, but round, hung as a ball in the air; here Jehovah sits as the Lord and Sovereign; being the Maker of it, he is above it, orders and directs its motion, and governs all things in it.”[54]

Seely disagrees, arguing that if Isaiah wanted to describe the earth as a sphere he would have used the word “dur” which means “ball.”[55] The counter argument, however, is that dur can have multiple meanings as well. Case in point: Dur is used in Isaiah 29:3 to describe camping around a city to lay siege to it. In this context, dur must be used in accordance with encircling or rounding around the city, since one cannot obviously camp spherically over a city, at least not in ancient times. Therefore one cannot argue that Isaiah would have used “dur” if he wanted to convey a sphere, since it too has multiple meanings. So it remains possible that Isaiah was referring to earth as a spherical object.

The last reference I would like to make that the Bible supports a round earth is a deduction from the following verses:

Job 26:10- “He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.”

Luke 17:31-34- “On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. Remember Lot’s wife! Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left.”

Matthew 24:47- “For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”

After reading those verses we can establish from Job that as one side of the earth is in daylight, the other is in night, from Luke that when Jesus returns some will be in bed while others will be working out in the field, and from Matthew that Jesus’ return will be in an  instant, like a flash of lightening.  The implications are this; that the sudden instance Jesus returns there will be people in bed at night and others out in the field working during the day. This could only be possible if earth was spherical with people experiencing daylight while others experienced night.

Thus, between Isaiah 40:22 and a deduction from Matthew 24:47, Luke 17:31-34 and Job 26:10, one could assert that with some confidence that the Bible speaks of a round spherical earth.

Final Thoughts:

It is my hope that after reading this you can agree that Christianity has never been one that maintains a flat earth cosmology and that the Bible does not teach a flat earth. Unfortunately, this myth has spread like an infectious disease, being gladly accepted by those with a predetermined dislike for Christianity and religion in general. Dr. Danny Faulkner, Chair of the math and Science Dept and Professor of Astronomy and Physics at the University of South Carolina, declares, “Many critics of creationists attempt to malign by suggesting that what creationists teach is akin to belief in a flat Earth. This attack is easy to refute, because the Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat, and virtually no one in the history of the church taught this. In fact, the belief in a flat Earth is a 19th century myth that was concocted to discredit critics of Darwinism. The supposed lesson of this myth was that the Church got it wrong before, so the Church has a chance to redeem itself by getting it right on the issue of evolution. This false lesson has been indelibly impressed upon common perception.”[56]

Bergman writes, “The idea that Christians once commonly believed in a flat earth for theological reasons is a myth. The story was invented to promote the claim that Christians have widely resisted scientific advancement due to doctrinal constraints.”[57]

Unfortunately, historically and scripturally inaccurate portrayals of Christianity (or in this case Intelligent Design, which is not affiliated with any religion) remain today.

Russell writes, “Contortions that are common today, if not widely recognized, are produced by the incessant attacks on Christianity and religion in general by secular writers during the past century and a half, attacks that are largely responsible for the academic and journalistic sneers at Christianity today. A curious example of this mistreatment of the past for the purpose of slandering Christians is a widespread historical error, an error that the Historical Society of Britain some years back listed as number one in its short compendium of the ten most common historical illusions. It is the notion that people used to believe that the earth was flat–especially medieval Christians. It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat.”[58]

 

With that I’m left with the image of a thought provoking T-shirt from an anti-religious T-shirt brand. The T-shirt shows a flat earth and reads, “Teach the Controversy.” I completely agree! Even though the T-shirt is obviously under the influence of the false notion that Christianity teaches a flat earth. I say, let us indeed teach the controversy. The controversy that Christians never maintained a flat earth cosmology which was unfairly smeared on them by a handful of biased historians in an effort to propagate an unnecessary and unwarranted war between science and religion. Let us all become properly educated on the controversy and put an end to this ignorance of religion and history which blemishes our culture.

---

[1] Schadewald, R., (Winter 1981) “Scientific Creationism, egocentricity, and the flat earth,” Skeptical Inquirer, Pp. 44

[2] Pigliucci, M., (2002) Denying Evolution; Creationism, Scientism and the Nature of Science, (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates) pp. 38.

[3] Singer, C., (1917) Studies in the History and Method of Science, (Oxford: Clarendon Press) pp. 352

[4] Seely, P.H. (1997) “The geographical meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in Genesis 1:10,” Westminster Theological Journal 59(2): pp. 231-256.

[5] Cain, F., (September 2009) “Earth’s Circumference,” http://www.universetoday.com

[6] Williams, A. & Hartnett, J., (2005) Dismantling the Big Bang, (Green Forest, AR: Master Books) pp. 24.

[7] Russell, J.B. (August 4, 1997) “The Myth of the Flat Earth,” http://www.veritas-ucsb.org

[8] Williams, A. & Hartnett, J., (2005) Dismantling the Big Bang, (Green Forest, AR: Master Books) pp. 23-24.

[9] Russell, J.B. (August 4, 1997) “The Myth of the Flat Earth,” http://www.veritas-ucsb.org

[10] Sagan, C., (1980) Cosmos, (London:MacDonald & Co.) pp.14-15.

[11] Cain, F., (September 2009) “Earth’s Circumference,” http://www.universetoday.com

[12] Williams, A. & Hartnett, J., (2005) Dismantling the Big Bang, (Green Forest, AR: Master Books) pp. 23.

[13] Bergman, J., (August 2008) “The Flat-Earth Myth and Creationism,” Journal of Creation, 22(2) pp. 116.

[14] Gould, S.J., “The Late Birth of a Flat Earth,” pp. 3, which can be accessed here: http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/SS05/efs/materials/FlatEarth.pdf

[15] Gould, S.J., “The Late Birth of a Flat Earth,” pp. 3, which can be accessed here: http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/SS05/efs/materials/FlatEarth.pdf

[16] Gould, S.J., “The Late Birth of a Flat Earth,” pp. 1, which can be accessed here: http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/SS05/efs/materials/FlatEarth.pdf

[17] Gould, S.J., “The Late Birth of a Flat Earth,” pp. 3, which can be accessed here: http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/SS05/efs/materials/FlatEarth.pdf

[18] Russell, J.B. (August 4, 1997) “The Myth of the Flat Earth,” http://www.veritas-ucsb.org

[19] As quoted in Robert Kulwich’s “What Columbus Already Knew,” (Oct 2010) http://www.npr.org

[20] Gould, S.J., “The Late Birth of a Flat Earth,” pp. 2, which can be accessed here: http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/SS05/efs/materials/FlatEarth.pdf

[21] Morrison, S.E. (1942) Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus, (Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.) pp. 89.

[22] Gould, S.J., “The Late Birth of a Flat Earth,” pp. 2, which can be accessed here: http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/SS05/efs/materials/FlatEarth.pdf

[23] www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htm

[24] Lang, J.S. (1999) 1,001 Things You Always Wanted to Know About the Bible but Never Thought to Ask, (New York, NY: Thomas Nelson, Inc.) pp. 19.

[25] Bergman, J., (August 2008) “The Flat-Earth Myth and Creationism,” Journal of Creation, 22(2) pp. 117.

[26] Russell, J.B. (August 4, 1997) “The Myth of the Flat Earth,” http://www.veritas-ucsb.org

[27] Gould, S.J., “The Late Birth of a Flat Earth,” pp. 3, which can be accessed here: http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/SS05/efs/materials/FlatEarth.pdf

[28] Russell, J.B. (August 4, 1997) “The Myth of the Flat Earth,” http://www.veritas-ucsb.org

[29] Russell, J.B. (August 4, 1997) “The Myth of the Flat Earth,” http://www.veritas-ucsb.org

[30] Gould, S.J., “The Late Birth of a Flat Earth,” pp. 3, which can be accessed here: http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/SS05/efs/materials/FlatEarth.pdf

[31] Gould, S.J., “The Late Birth of a Flat Earth,” pp. 5, which can be accessed here: http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/SS05/efs/materials/FlatEarth.pdf

[32] Russell, J.B. (August 4, 1997) “The Myth of the Flat Earth,” http://www.veritas-ucsb.org

[33] Bergman, J., (August 2008) “The Flat-Earth Myth and Creationism,” Journal of Creation, 22(2) pp. 120.

[34] Gould, S.J., “The Late Birth of a Flat Earth,” pp. 5, which can be accessed here: http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/SS05/efs/materials/FlatEarth.pdf

[35] Bergman, J., (August 2008) “The Flat-Earth Myth and Creationism,” Journal of Creation, 22(2) pp. 115.

[36] Bergman, J., (August 2008) “The Flat-Earth Myth and Creationism,” Journal of Creation, 22(2) pp. 116.

[37] Bergman, J., (August 2008) “The Flat-Earth Myth and Creationism,” Journal of Creation, 22(2) pp. 116.

[38] Wolchover, N., (June 2011) “Ingenious ‘Flat Earth’ Revealed in Old Map,” http://www.livescience.com

[39] Wolchover, N., (June 2011) “Ingenious ‘Flat Earth’ Revealed in Old Map,” http://www.livescience.com

[40] This is according to the 2012 Census, Table 75, which can be accessed here: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0075.pdf

[41] Wolchover, N., (June 2011) “Ingenious ‘Flat Earth’ Revealed in Old Map,” http://www.livescience.com

[42] Schadewald, R.J. (1995) “The Flat-Earth Bible,” http://www.lhup.edu

[43] As noted here: http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_endsearth.htm

[44] Holding, J.P. (December 2000) “Is the ‘Erets (Earth) Flat?” http://www.answersingenesis.org

[45] Seely, P.H. (1997) “The geographical meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in Genesis 1:10,” Westminster Theological Journal 59(2): pp. 239.

[46] Holding, J.P. (December 2000) “Is the ‘Erets (Earth) Flat?” http://www.answersingenesis.org

[47] Clarke’s commentary can be accessed here: http://bible.cc/job/38-13.htm

[48] Holding, J.P. (December 2000) “Is the ‘Erets (Earth) Flat?” http://www.answersingenesis.org

[49] Barnes’ Notes can be accessed here: http://bible.cc/matthew/4-8.htm

[50] Gill’s Exposition can be accessed here: http://bible.cc/matthew/4-8.htm

[51] Hodge, B., (2006) “Don’t Creationists Believe in Some ‘Wacky’ Things?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 1, (Green Forest, AR: Master Books) pp. 199.

[52] Gill’s exposition can be accessed here: http://bible.cc/revelation/7-1.htm

[53] As noted at: http://bible.cc/isaiah/40-22.htm

[54] As noted at: http://bible.cc/isaiah/40-22.htm

[55] Seely, P.H. (1997) “The geographical meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in Genesis 1:10,” Westminster Theological Journal 59(2): pp. 238.

[56] Faulkner, D., (August 2001) “Geocentrism and Creation,” http://www.answersingenesisi.org

[57] Bergman, J., (August 2008) “The Flat-Earth Myth and Creationism,” Journal of Creation, 22(2) pp. 114.

[58] Russell, J.B. (August 4, 1997) “The Myth of the Flat Earth,” http://www.veritas-ucsb.org

First Life

The very first life form on earth. What was it? What did it look like? When did it appear? How did it come to be? These are all very good questions. Questions which are usually answered with more imagination than actual science since we weren’t there to observe of course. But the biggest question has to be the “how.” It is the “how,” that plagues the scientist’s mind when it comes to the first life.

There are only two means by which the first life could have appeared: natural origins or supernatural origins. Natural origins means the life came from non-living chemicals. Supernatural origins means the life came from an Intelligent Designer, a Creator God. Now immediately science throws out supernatural origins because it is of course not natural, and therefore, in the minds of most scientists, not science. Yet science itself cannot seem to yield any satisfying answers to the origin of life on earth. If life came from non-life, this brings with it a wide variety of problems and dead ends.

The Environment Problem

As much as we understand this planet to be hospitable for life, it is only hospitable for life fitted to live on it. For example, oxygen and water are required for life to exist, but are also detrimental to the internal components of an organism.

Let us take oxygen for example: It is a poisonous gas that oxidizes organic material.[1] The only way organisms can tolerate it is because they are already capable of tolerating it, with membranes that protect oxygen from damaging internal components of the cell. Therefore there is no way the organisms could have evolved from non-living material unless protective membranes were already present to protect the vulnerable internal organelles from oxidization. What are the odds that the first life form ever just so happened to have a protective membrane already in place?

Some evolutionists argue that this is not a problem because it assumes oxygen was not present in the early atmosphere of earth, and therefore not a threat. But the evidence does not support this claim. Even earth’s oldest rocks contain evidence of formation in an oxygen rich atmosphere.[2] Atmospheric physicists believe the earth has been fully oxidized for at least 4 billion years.[3] A fairly recent article published on crystals dated to 4.4 billion years ago show heavy evidence of oxidation.[4] Additionally, oxygen is needed for life as protection from harmful UV rays which we have via from the ozone layer, which is made out of oxygen![5] If there was no oxygen UV rays would eradicate all early life forms. Biochemist and molecular biologist Michael Denton writes, “What we have is sort of a ‘Catch 22’ situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don’t have oxygen we have none either.”[6]

To get around this concern of oxidization, scientists propose life formulated in the oceans and therefore was not subjected to oxygen initially. But just as with oxygen, water is hazardous to life as well. Organic molecules would be destroyed through the process of hydrolysis (also called “water splitting”) in which water bonds between two molecules causing them to split apart.[7] Any amino acid trying to form a protein would have its bond broken in a short matter of time. The US National Academy of Sciences confirms, “In water, the assembly of nucleosides from component sugars and nucleobases, the assembly of nucleotides from nucleosides and phosphate, and the assembly of oligonucleotides from nucleotides are all thermodynamically uphill in water. Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored at any plausible concentrations: polypeptide chains spontaneously hydrolyze in water, yielding their constituent amino acids.”[8] Physicist Richard Morris concurs, “… water tends to break chains of amino acids. If any proteins had formed in the ocean 3.5 billion years ago, they would have quickly disintegrated.”[9] Thus, the first life form would have needed a protective membrane already in place to protect it from oxygen and water. Yet, where did this membrane come from?

Additionally, the cytoplasm of living cells contain essential minerals of potassium, zinc, manganese and phosphate ions. If cells manifested naturally, these minerals would need to be present nearby. But marine environments do not have widespread concentrations of these minerals.[10] This has lead researchers to propose that life originated not in oceans, and not in locations exposed to oxygen, but instead in geothermal pools, geysers and mudpools, much like the primordial soup Darwin proposed. Yet all these geothermal features have one thing in common: They are incredibly acidic.[11] They also tend to be very hot, which would destroy many vital amino acids.[12] How did the cell develop protection from this acidity and from this heat? Without such protection initially it could have never come together.

Some speculate that natural selection of non-living chemicals provided such protective features. This is, however, a common error some scientists make in this arena when they propose natural selection occurred for these protective systems to be in place. As Chemist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati points out, “…when it comes to the origin of first life, natural selection cannot be invoked, because natural selection is differential reproduction. That is, if it worked at all, it could only work on a living organism that could produce offspring. By its very definition, it could not work on non-living chemicals. Therefore, chance alone must produce the precise sequences needed, so these simulations do not apply.”[13]

A significant problem with proposing life arose spontaneously via natural means is that in order to do so, the components of the cell would have to be naturally nearby. In other words, the cell’s chemical makeup would have to be harmonious with the environment’s chemical make up. UniversityCollegeof Londonbiochemist Nick Lanepoints out the problem with this, “To suggest that the ionic composition of primordial cells should reflect the composition of the oceans is to suggest that cells are in equilibrium with their medium, which is close to saying that they are not alive. Cells require dynamic disequilibrium — that is what being alive is all about.”[14] This is a tough fact to accept, but undoubtedly true. How could the first life form have naturally manifested via chemical means with a chemical make up so different and unique from the environment it is within?

The Homochirality Problem

Moving forward brings forth a new set of problems when amino acids are discussed. Often amino acids are discovered in locations where it is suggested they are naturally produced (like being found in meteorites). When this happens there is usually a hype of excitement over uncovering the source of the origin of life via natural means. But simply having amino acids around doesn’t solve the origin of life problem. There is an issue of handedness with amino acids. Out of the twenty amino acids used for life, the atoms that build them formulate two different shapes; right handed and left-handed amino acids. Just like a human hand, they’re slightly different. Your thumb is on the left side on one hand, but on the right side on the other. Amino acids are likewise mirror images of each other and are therefore called chiral.

But this creates a problem. Just like hands clasping together, right and left handed amino acids want to bond, canceling each other out. Yet, the amino acids found in proteins are 100% left handed, where as right handed amino acids are never found in proteins![15] Research indicates that right handed amino acids could never form a functioning protein. The fact that only left handed amino acids can create life is called homochirality. Yet any natural process of creating amino acids would create and equal amount of both left handed and right handed amino acids called racemates.[16]

 

One of the most influential chemist/biochemists of the 20^th century, Linus Pauling, writes, “This is a very puzzling fact… All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants from higher organisms and from very simple  organisms- bacteria, molds, even viruses- are found to have been made of L-amino acids.”[17] This is puzzling of course because what natural process only produces one type of amino acid, and not the other amino acid detrimental to life? The late Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University writes, “The reason for this choice [only L-amino acids] is again a mystery, and a subject of continued dispute.”[18] Biochemist and head of the Department of Nuclear Medicine and Director of Clinical Research at the Singapore General Hospital, Dr. Aw Swee-Eng, is more direct on the subject, “The logical conclusion from these considerations is a simple and parsimonious one, that homochirality and life came together. But evolutionary lore forbids such a notion. It claims to explain how life began, but on the profound issue of life’s “handedness” there is no selective mechanism that it can plausibly endorse.”[19]

The Concept of Information

One factor that is sometimes left out in origin of life talks, that is in my opinion, critical, is the concept of information. All living organisms contain within their DNA information, and not just a little, but a lot! Former physics professor and director of information processing at the Instituteof Physicsand Technology in Braunschweig Germany, Dr. Werner Gitt, writes, “The highest known (statistical) information density is obtained in living cells, exceeding by far the best achievements of highly integrated storage densities in computer systems.”[20] This information leads to highly efficient bio-machinery in our cells that complete a vast array of functions. Every biological function that occurs can be traced back to proteins from genes from reading and transcribing RNA that receives the instructions from the information stored in DNA. It doesn’t simply just happen. It is an immensely complex, sophisticated and detailed process occurring non-stop and very rapidly. In fact, the average cell produces a protein through these processes every four minutes.[21]

Any theory or hypothesis to how life originated naturally must take the source of this information into account. Yet, none can be found. Gitt writes, “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”[22] Biologist Dr. Raymond Bohlin writes, “DNA is information code… The overwhelming conclusion is that information does not and cannot arise spontaneously by mechanistic processes. Intelligence is a necessity in the origin of any informational code, including the genetic code, no matter how much time is given.”[23] Philosopher of Science and founder of the Discovery Institute, Dr. Stephen Meyer, writes, “Our uniform experience affirms that specified information-whether inscribed hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment-always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.”[24]

Thus, we are left with no natural method or process by which non-living chemicals can produce the informational code found in every life form that as ever existed. Biologist, Chemist and Physiologist Dr. Gary Parker writes, “Imagine that you have just finished reading a fabulous novel. Wanting to read another book like it, you exclaim to a friend, ‘Wow! That was quite a book. I wonder where I can get a bottle of that ink?’ Of course not! You wouldn’t give the ink and paper credit for writing the book. You’d praise the author, and look for another book by the same writer. By some twist of logic, though, many who read the fabulous DNA script want to give credit to the ‘ink (DNA base code) and paper (proteins)’ for composing the code.”[25]

Not Enough Time

With all things considered, many scientists try to jettison out the first life dilemma with the “time” argument. The argument being that given enough time anything can happen! Even the impossible…

The late Nobel prize winning scientist George Wald once wrote, “However improbable we regard this event [evolution], or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once… Time is in fact the hero of the plot… Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.”[26]

Now let us logically think about this. Given enough time, anything is possible? First, I feel pressed to point out that there is something irrational in saying that because something is possible, it will occur. Or anything that can happen, will happen. It is possible that in flipping a coin every minute for fifty years you will get heads every time and never tails… but that doesn’t mean it will happen if you tried. Regardless, the notion that given enough time anything can happen is hardly scientific in my opinion, because it flies in the face of observational science. For example, the Law of Biogenesis which firmly points out that life has only been observed coming from existing life, never from non-life. There is also cell theory, which states that cells arise from pre-existing cells. Regardless of the amount of time tacked onto the issue, the law cannot change, and the dimension of time has no characteristic capable of changing this law.

Let us take for example a chair placed in a room. The chair remains in the room for one hundred years, then a thousand years, and eventually billions of years. At any point would that chair become organic or “living” in anyway? Of course not. It would remain just a chair forever. Why? Because there is nothing inherent in non-living molecules that drive them to arrange themselves into living structures. If there were, they’d be doing so to this day at an observable rate. Such is not the case. Life comes from life, and non-life remains non-life everyday.

Another flaw in this argument is the amount of time in question. Such statements like Wald’s seem to have at least a small degree of plausibility in perhaps an infinite time scenario, but time is not infinite. It definitely had a starting point. A starting point which conventional scientists place at 12 to 14 billion years ago. That is a major constraint on how long time is allowed to work its magic. Cosmologist Dr. Hugh Ross writes, “When it comes to the origin of life, many biologists (and others) have typically assumed that plenty of time is available for natural processes to perform the necessary assembly. But discoveries about the universe and the solar system have shattered that assumption. What we see now is that life must have originated on earth quickly.”[27]

This constraint worsens though because conventional geology and biology places the first life forming 3.5 billion years ago, and the earth is only supposedly 4.5 billion years old. So from a naturalist’s or uniformitarian’s point of view there was a billion years from the time earth was formed to the first fossil evidence of life, from which life is said to have manifested. A billion years is a significant time constraint.

Yet, the time constraint worsens further. From a conventional scientist’s perspective adhering to the nebular hypothesis of sun and planet formation, time is further restricted. The first millions of years would have been one of intense meteorite bombardment of earth as the solar system was forming. These intense meteorite bombardments would have eradicated any chance of life forming on earth. By the time these impacts are calculated to have ceased and the time of the first life forms appearing in the fossil record we’re left with a 10 million year gap.[28] That is an enormous time constraint. Additionally, some scientists propose this time frame was shorter because of the “faint sun paradox.” Namely, that the sun was 20 to 30% less luminous when it first existed, creating a very cold inhospitable world.[29] This makes it difficult to apply Ward’s philosophy of an abundance of time making the impossible possible because there is, for lack of a better phrase, hardly any time at all…

In fact, Nobel Prize winning cytologist and biochemist Christian de Duve states, “It is now generally agreed that if life arose spontaneously by natural processes—a necessary assumption if we wish to remain within the realm of science—it must have arisen fairly quickly, more in a matter of millennia or centuries, perhaps even less.”[30] So much for having all the time in the world.

Lastly, I do feel it is necessary to point out the entropy dilemma when it comes to time. The more time that elapses the higher the entropy, so if anything more time doesn’t make anything possible, but in fact, decreases the potential of anything to happen. As biochemist Dr. Royal Truman writes, “The claim that, with time, anything is possible, including the creation and perpetuation of life, is not based on any scientific principle. Rather, the opposite is true: complex and improbable structures of any kind tend to disintegrate over time.”[31] Sarfati agrees, “Long time periods do not help the evolutionary theory if biochemicals are destroyed faster than they are formed.”[32]

Panspermia; DNA astronauts

The difficulty with life spontaneously arising via chemical means is such a problematic concept that it lead Nobel Prize winner and DNA founder Francis Crick to instead postulate that life originated someplace else and traveled to earth via meteorite or space craft.[33] He admits, correctly, that this does not solve the origin of life problem, but merely pushes it back to another location, but that is precisely the point. He proposes that another life bearing planet may have had a slightly different environment more hospitable for the natural chemical means for life to originate.[34] This theory relies on the hypothetical existence of other such life bearing planets to which there is no scientific evidence of, period.

There is additionally a whole host of other problems with Panspermia. How do living cells survive an arduously long space flight on a meteorite? Let us not forget how far away the nearest star is much less the nearest hypothetical life bearing planet. Think of how difficult it would be to create and engineer a capsule to keep living cells alive for thousands of years of space flight, yet a random natural meteorite is capable of doing the job? DNA would have succumb to radiation exposure over such a long period of time in space flight. How did the DNA withstand the lethal radiation? So, these same cells that defied death in thousands (if not millions) of years of freezing space exposed to lethal radiation then somehow survived a scorching hot entry into earth’s atmosphere to reproduce on earth’s surface? As chemist Russell Grigg puts it, “All in all, interstellar space travel for living organisms is sheer wishful thinking.”[35]

What about contamination? Many of the meteorites found on earth claimed to have evidence of microbial life could just have easily had been contaminated with microbial life after they landed. Contamination is the number one reason why all these claims have been rejected actually.

To get around these concerns, many scientists instead believe meteorites and comets didn’t have life per se, but had the building blocks of life on them. But this circles back around to the original reason why panspermia was imagined in the first place. The building blocks of life were already present on earth. Adding more to the mix via meteorites doesn’t in anyway increase the likelihood of life arising via chemical means anyways. Ross brings up another good point, “Though comets, meteorites partly composed of carbon, and interplanetary dust particles may carry some prebiotics, they carry far too few to make a difference. In fact, with every helpful molecule they bring, come several more that would get in the way- useless molecules that would substitute for the needed ones.”[36] Life developing from nonliving chemicals is hard enough to prove, but suggesting life was seeded by meteorites from hypothetical life elsewhere in the universe is flat out impossible to prove. Yet, likewise, impossible to disprove… and so many cling to this notion to avoid a supernatural cause.

From Bolts to Boeing 747s

Many scientists additionally fail to properly distinguish the building blocks of life and living organisms themselves. Parker writes, “The pyramids are made of stone, but studying the stone does not even begin to explain how the pyramids were built. Similarly, until evolutionists begin to explain the origin of the ‘orderly mechanism,’ they have not even begun to talk about the origin of life.”[37]Just as there is a huge void between the bolts and small parts of a 747 to them actually all being carefully assembled into a fully functioning 747, likewise, the simple building blocks of life are organized in an immensely complex way in even the most primitive of organisms.

Hoyle writes of this airplane analogy, “What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for take off? The possibilities are so small as to be negligible even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards t fill the whole universe!”[38] Botanist Alexander Williams states, “There is an unbridgeable abyss below the autopoietic hierarchy, between the dirty, mass-action chemistry of the natural environment and the perfect purity, the single-molecule precision, the structural specificity, and the inversely causal integration, regulation, repair, maintenance and differential reproduction of life.”[39]

According to molecular biophysicist Harold Morowitz If you were to take a living cell, break every chemical bond within it so that all you are left with is the raw molecular ingredients, the odds of them all reassembling back into a cell (under ideal natural conditions) is one chance in 10^{100,000,000,000}.[40] Additionally, Morowitz assumed all amino acids were bioactive when calculating these odds.[41] But only twenty different types of amino acids are bioactive, and of those, only left handed ones can be used for life. This further worsens the odds… And with odds like that, time is completely irrelevant because no amount of time could surpass before such an impossible miracle occurred naturally.

Non-theists counter argue that life was not necessarily as complex in the beginning as it is today. Therefore, the odds of a less complex form of life spontaneously assembling are much more probable. The problem with this counter argument is that the earth 3.5 billion years ago was supposedly hardly different at all (environment and atmosphere-wise) than earth today. Meaning the bare necessities required for life to exist on earth today were the same in the past, which is that of great complexity. Additionally minimum complexity presents its own problems in that minimally complex organisms require other larger organisms to survive and are not capable of surviving individually. Thus the first life and its subsequent offspring would have had to have been able to survive independently which requires sophisticated biological features.

Astronomer Michael Hart calculated the odds of DNA spontaneously generating with 100 specific genes (what he declared to be the minimum possible for life) in the most unrealistic yet optimistic conditions over the course of ten billion years. The odds? One in ten to the negative three thousandth power (10^-3,000).[42] The time it would take for 200,000 amino acids to come together by chance to create one human cell would be 293.5 times the estimated age of earth of 4.6 billion years.[43] The Director of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Delaware, Dermott Mullan, calculates that the odds of RNA assembling into a primitive cell over the course of an optimistic 1 billion years is one in 10⁷⁹.[44] Material scientist Dr. Walter Bradley and Chemist Dr. Charles Thaxton calculated that the probability of amino acids forming just one protein is 4.9 x 10^-191.[45] The odds of amino acids coincidentally being in the precise order and folds required to make the all the enzymes required for life is 10^-650.[46] These are all horrible odds for a natural origin of life. Then consider that these statistics are independent of each other; the DNA would have to spontaneously generate, amino acids randomly together to form proteins in a cell, RNA assembling into a cell, etc. It is hard to accept with these odds, that anything that can happen did happen.

The Reproduction Puzzle

The late philosopher Anthony Flew, an ex-atheist, spoke of many of the philosophical troubles he had with the natural origins for life. One of which that was of great concern was reproduction. Life evolving from non-life is already such a statistical impossibility, but if it did happen, this first life would have to be able to reproduce and replicate itself. Information encoded DNA capable of driving life derived from non-living chemicals is already an absurd concept, but to contain information for replication and overall reproduction is astounding. This is from a philosophical standpoint, perplexing. It is too perfect and too coincidental that the very first life, already an impossibility, just so happened to also be able to duplicate itself. Such ability has “design” written all over it, not “chance.”

Error Protection

Even the most primitive cells today have multiple checkpoints in place to protect against errors. Cells have DNA checkpoints, where cell function momentarily pauses for special proteins to repair damaged DNA. There is an apoptosis checkpoint right before mitosis begins where specialized proteins called survivins run a “diagnostics” to determine whether the cell will proceed with mitosis or die through apoptosis. A spindle assembly checkpoint ensures chromosomes are properly bound together. Telomeres burn like fuses every time a cell divides. Once a telomere becomes too short, the cell stops dividing, usually maxing out at fifty divides.[47]  This feature controls cell division. Failure for these mentioned checkpoints to operate leads to a whole host of diseases, most notably cancers.[48]

So how did the first cell protect against errors when it reproduced? Such a capability could not have evolved, because such a capability would have been needed right from the very beginning. Without such a feature, all subsequent life would contain error-prone genetics and would not be able to function or reproduce. Mullan, points out, “A cell formed under these conditions [naturally] would truly be subject to serious uncertainties not only during day to day existence but especially during replication. The cell could hardly be considered robust.”[49] In order to maintain healthy function and reproduction, the first cell would have already needed these specialized checkpoints to guard against errors. The cells could not afford to wait thousands or millions of years for them to evolve. If they did, we wouldn’t be here.

Simultaneous Presence

In order to have fully functioning life at even the most basic kind, functioning RNA, DNA and proteins must be present. Remove any one of these from the picture and life can’t function. For example, transcription, translation and DNA replication all require systems already in place to occur. These functions could not simply have evolved because life requires them in place to begin with. As Ross states, “Thus, for life to originate mechanically, all three kinds of molecules [DNA, RNA, and proteins] would need to emerge spontaneously and simultaneously from organic compounds. Even the most optimistic of researchers agree that the chance appearance of these incredibly complex molecules at exactly the same time and place was beyond the realm of natural possibility.”[50]

Though biologists point out that some RNA has been found to act as enzymes or catalysts to perform functions that DNA or a protein would normally do, this has lead many scientists to propose that all one needs is the spontaneous generation of RNA, and it would take care of the rest. Problems with this theory is that the RNA studied to reveal these abilities was very limited, and could not account for the vast functioning seen in DNA and proteins overall. Furthermore, in order for RNA to function this way it would have to contain just as much information as the DNA and protein itself, so the issue of complexity in even the earliest life isn’t solved with RNA either. Molecular Biologist and professor at the Scripps Research Institute, Dr. Gerald F. Joyce writes, “The most reasonable interpretation is that life did not start with RNA … The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of relevant experimental data. Researchers into the origins of life have grown accustomed to the level of frustration in these problems …”[51]

Conclusion

Biologist Jonathan Wells just about sums it up, “So we remain profoundly ignorant of how life originated.”[52] Earth Scientist Casey Luskin writes, “It’s time for a little reality check here: origin-of-life theorists need to explain how a myriad of complex proteins and features arose and self-assembled into a self-replicating life-form by unguided processes, but they are still scraping for mechanisms to explain how an inert primordial soup of organic molecules could have arisen in the first place.”[53] Hoyle writes, “If there were some deep principle that drove organic systems towards living systems, the operation of the principle should easily be demonstratable in a test tube in half a morning. Needless to say, no such demonstration has ever been given. Nothing happens when organic materials are subjected to the usual prescription of showers of electrical sparks or drenched in ultraviolet light, except the eventual production of a tarry sludge,” and “As biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of live, it is apparent that its chances of originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life cannot have arisen by chance.”[54] Physicist and Information Theorist Dr. Hubet Yockey writes, “The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated… are not discouraging to true believers . . . [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance.”[55]

Yockey then goes further to add, “The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may… Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science… There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life.”[56] Biochemist and head of the Department of Nuclear Medicine and Director of Clinical Research at the Singapore General Hospital, Dr. Aw Swee-Eng, concludes, “The available evidence from the field and the laboratory is not amicable to the theory that life began with the accidental assembly of a self-replicating molecule.”[57]

As it has been clearly demonstrated, there are a wide variety of blockades standing in the way of a natural origins answer for the first life, and no definitive solution has been reached nor can be confidently expected to be reached in the future. Yet, the other option, supernatural origins, is not subject to such obstacles. In fact, every problem a natural origin faces can be satisfactorily answered via supernatural origins. Though many scientists will not appeal to super natural intervention on the grounds that it is not science, and merely a “cut and run” for those who are too impatient to wait for future researchers to provide an adequate natural origins argument.

In response to that notion, Denton answers, “The almost irresistible force of the analogy has completely undermined the complacent assumption, prevalent in biological circles over most of the past century, that the design hypothesis can be excluded on the grounds that the notion is fundamentally a metaphysical a priori concept and therefore scientifically unsound. On the contrary, the inference to design is a purely a posteriori induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy. The conclusion may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious presuppositions.”[58] Therefore, adhering to supernatural cause through rational deduction with proper observational science as support cannot be considered unscientific. Additionally, such a conclusion should not be considered a “cut and run” if the problems faced by natural origins can never be solved via natural means. What discovery (or discoveries) could solve the information, reproduction, environment, homochirality problems?

Physicist H. S. Lipson writes, “If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation [i.e., time, chance, and chemistry], how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.”[59] Parker writes, “In a novel, the ink and paper are merely the means the author uses to express his or her thoughts. In the genetic code, the DNA bases and proteins are merely the means God uses to express His thoughts. The real credit for the message in a novel goes to the author, not the ink and paper, and the real credit for the genetic message in DNA goes to the Author of Life, the Creator…”[60] Medical pathologist David Demick, M.D., concludes, “Thousands of experiments, and all of the recently gained knowledge of molecular biology and genetics, have only served to strengthen the most fundamental law of biology, laid down by Virchow over a century ago: ‘omni cellules e cellules’ (all cells come from other cells), also known as the Law of Biogenesis. Life only comes from life. This was the law established by the Author of Life, Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life—Jesus Christ.”[61] Griggs concludes, “Life is bristling with machinery, codes and programs, which are not an inherent property of the material substrate (the information for their construction having been passed on during reproduction). No observation has ever shown such information-bearing structures arising spontaneously. The obvious inference from science, as well as the obvious implications of Scripture, is that the original creation of living things involved the very opposite of chance, namely, the imposition of external intelligence on to matter by an original Designer or Creator.”[62]

So we’re left with a choice. Supernatural or natural? One answers all these problems, the other does not. You can hold out for a natural answer if you wish, but I would rather side with a sure thing. Logically, an Intelligent Designer, a God, is in my opinion, the only rational explanation behind the first life.

---

[1] Ward, P. & Brownlee, D., (2000) Rare Earth, Copernicus:New York,NY, pp. 245.

[2] Clemmey, H. & Badham, N., (1982) “Oxygen in the Atmosphere: An Evaluation of the Geological Evidence,” Geology, 10:141.

[3] Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L., & Olsen, R.L., (1984) The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library:New York,NY, pp. 69-98.

[4] Trail, D., Watson, B.E., & Tailby, N.D., (December 2011) “The Oxidation State of Hadean Magmas and Implications for Earth’s Early Atmosphere,” Nature, 480: pp. 79-82.

[5] Riddle, M., (2008) “Can Natural Processes Explain the Origin of Life?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 3, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 66.

[6] Denton, M., (1985) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Alder & Alder:Bethesda,MD, pp. 261.

[7] Riddle, M., (2008) “Can Natural Processes Explain the Origin of Life?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 3, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 66.

[8] As quoted in Casey Luskin’s “More News Sources Admit the ‘Mystery’ of Life’s Origin,” (February 2012) http://www.evolutionnews.org

[9] Morris, R., (2002) The Big Questions, Times Books/Henry Holt:New York,NY, pp. 167.

[10] Switek, B., (February 2012) “Debate Bubbles Over the Origin of Life,” http://www.nature.com

[11] Switek, B., (February 2012) “Debate Bubbles Over the Origin of Life,” http://www.nature.com

[12] Sarfati, J., “15 Loopholes in the Evolutionary Theory of the Origin of Life,” creation.com

[13] Sarfati, J., (2002) Refuting Evolution 2, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 157.

[14] As quoted in Brian Switek’s  “Debate Bubbles Over the Origin of Life,” (February 2012) http://www.nature.com

[15] Riddle, M., (2008) “Can Natural Processes Explain the Origin of Life?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 3, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 67.

[16] Ashton, J., (2000) In Six Days, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 82.

[17] Pauling, L., (1970) General Chemistry, 3^rd Ed., W.H. Freeman & Co.:San Francisco,CA, pp. 774.

[18] Shapiro, R., (1986) Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books:New York,NY, pp. 86.

[19] Swee-Eng, A., “The Origin of Life; a Critique of Current Scientific Models,” creation.com

[20] Gitt, W., “Dazzling Design in Miniture: DNA Information Storage,” creation.com

[21] Parker, G., (January 1994) “The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein,” http://www.answersingenesis.org

[22] Gitt, W., (2006) In The Beginning Was Information, Master Books:Green Forest,AR.

[23] Lester, L. & Bohlin, R., (1989) The Natural Limits To Biological Change, Probe Books:Dallas,TX, pp. 157.

[24] Meyer, S., (2009) Signature in the Cell, Harper Collins:New York,NY, pp. 347

[25] Parker, G., (January 1994) “The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein,” http://www.answersingenesis.org

[26] Wald, G., (1954) “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 no. 2:48.

[27] Ross, H., (1994) The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress:Colorado Springs,CO, pp. 137.

[28] Ross, H., (1994) The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress:Colorado Springs,CO, pp. 138.

[29] Mullan, D., “Probabilities of Randomly Assembling a Primitive Cell on Earth,” http://www.iscid.org

[30] Duve, C., (September-October 1995) “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” American Scientist, pp. 428.

[31] Truman, R., (December 2001) “The Fish in the Bathtub,” Creation

[32] Sarfati, J., “15 Loopholes in the Evolutionary Theory of the Origin of Life,” creation.com

[33] Morris, J.D., “How Did Life Originate?” http://www.icr.org

[34] Crick, F., (October 1981) “The Seeds of Life,” Discover Magazine

[35] Grigg, R., (September 2000) “Did Life Come to Earth From Outerspace?” Creation, 22:(4), pp. 42

[36] Ross, H., (1994) The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress:Colorado Springs,CO, pp. 138-139.

[37] Parker, G., (January 1994) “The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein,” http://www.answersingenesis.org

[38] As quoted in Paul E. Little’s Know Why You Believe, 4^th Ed., InterVarsity Press:Downers Grove,IL, pp. 26.

[39] Williams, A., (August 2007) “Life’s Irreducible Structure- Part 1: Autopoiesis,” Journal of Creation, 21:(2) pp. 115.

[40] Shapiro, R. (1986) Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books:New York,NY, pp. 128.

[41] Ross, H., (1994) The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress:Colorado Springs,CO, pp. 141.

[42] Hart, M. H. (1990) “Atmospheric Evolution, the Drake Equation, and DNA: Sparse Life in an Infinite Universe,” Physical Cosmology and Philosophy, MacMillan:New York,NY, pp. 264.

[43] Little, P.E., (2000) Know Why You Believe, 4^th Ed.,InterVarsity Press:Downers Grove,IL, pp. 26.

[44] Mullan, D., “Probabilities of Randomly Assembling a Primitive Cell on Earth,” http://www.iscid.org

[45] Thaxton, C., Bradley, W., & Olsen, R., (1984) The Mystery of Life’s Origins: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library:New York,NY, pp. 80.

[46] Sarfati, J., “15 Loopholes in the Evolutionary Theory of the Origin of Life,” creation.com

[47] Lewis, R., (2008) Human Genetics; Concepts and Applications, 8^th Ed., McGraw Hill:New York,NY, Pp. 30-31.

[48] Lewis, R., (2008) Human Genetics; Concepts and Applications, 8^th Ed., McGraw Hill:New York,NY, Pp. 355.

[49] Mullan, D., “Probabilities of Randomly Assembling a Primitive Cell on Earth,” http://www.iscid.org

[50] Ross, H., (1994) The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress:Colorado Springs,CO, pp. 142.

[51] Joyce, G.F.,  (1989) “RNA Evolution and the Origins of Life,” Nature 338: pp. 222-223

[52] Wells, J., (2000) Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing:WashingtonD.C., pp. 24.

[53] Luskin, C., (February 2012) “More News Sources Admit the ‘Mystery’ of Life’s Origin,” http://www.evolutionnews.org

[54] Hoyle, F., (1983) The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph:London, pp. 251.

[55] Yockey, H.P., (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, CambridgeUniversity Press:UK, pp. 257.

[56] Yockey, H.P., (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, CambridgeUniversity Press:UK, pp. 336.

[57] Swee-Eng, A., “The Origin of Life; a Critique of Current Scientific Models,” creation.com

[58] Denton, M., (1986) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,3^rd Ed., Alder & Alder, pp. 341.

[59] Lipson, H. S., (May 1980) “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, pp. 138.

[60] Parker, G., (January 1994) “The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein,” http://www.answersingenesis.org

[61] Demick, D., (December 2000) “Life From Non-Life… or Not?” Creation 23:1 pp. 41.

[62] Grigg, R., (December 1990) “Could Monkeys Type the 23^rd Psalm?” Creation 13:1 pp. 34

You Are Very Lucky!

Having a bad day? Feeling unlucky? After reading this you might feel differently because things could be a lot worse…

Our universe:

If…

…there were just two dimensions plus a time dimension, or four dimensions plus a time dimension life could not exist. Life can only exist in three dimensions plus a time dimension.

…the strong nuclear force was slightly altered the nuclei essential for life could not exist because hydrogen would not exist.

…the weak nuclear force was slightly altered there would be no heavy elements (or too many heavy elements) emitted by stars. Life would not exist.

…the gravitational force was slightly higher stars would burn too hot, if slightly lower, stars would never ignite, and thus no life would be possible.

…the electromagnetic force constant was slightly different no chemicals could bond and thus no life could exist.

…the ratio of electromagnetic force to gravitational force was slightly altered stars would be either too massive or too large and life could not exist.

… the ratio of proton mass to electron mass was slightly different chemicals would not bond and life would be impossible.

…the ratio of protons to electrons was slightly different galaxy, star and planet formation could not occur and life could not exist.

…the expansion rate of the universe was slightly slower it would collapse in on itself immediately, if slightly faster galaxies would never form, and thus no life.

…the entropy level was slightly different galaxy formation could not occur, and neither would life.

… the mass density of the universe was slightly different stars would burn too rapidly and life could not exist.

… the velocity of light was slightly different stars would be either too bright, or not bright at all, preventing life from existing.

…if the uniformity of radiation was smoother stars and galaxies could not form. If coarser, the universe would be empty space. Either way, no life.

…the decay rate of protons was slightly different radiation levels would be so high it would eradicate all life, but if too low, allow for no matter in the universe.

…the energy level ration between carbon and oxygen atoms was slightly different there would not be enough oxygen and carbon in the universe to support life.

…the ground state energy level for Helium was slightly different there wouldn’t be any carbon or oxygen, and therefore no life.

…the decay rate of Beryllium was slower stars would catastrophically explode. If faster, no chemistry for life would be possible.

… the mass excess of the neutron over the proton was slightly different heavy elements would not be possible and stars would collapse in on themselves. Again, no life possible…

…the polarity of water was greater heat generated by evaporation would kill all life, but if lower all water would be frozen and kill all life.

…the amount of supernova eruptions were occurring too frequently life would be exterminated, but if not at all heavy elements would not be present.

…the amount of white dwarf binaries in the universe were any less we wouldn’t have enough fluorine for life chemistry. If any more, planetary orbits would be disrupted and life would be exterminated.

…the ratio of exotic to ordinary matter was just slightly off the universe would collapse in on itself.

…if the amount of dark matter in the universe was slightly different, galaxies, stars, and planets could not have formed, and thus no life.

Max Tegmark, associate professor of physics at MIT states, “Our universe appears surprisingly fine-tuned for life in the sense that if you tweaked many of our constants of nature by just a tiny amount, life as we know it would be impossible.”[1] Another physics professor at MIT, Alan Lightman, writes, “…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen… The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be ‘fine-tuned’ to allow the existence of life.”[2]

The Planet Earth:

If…

…earth was in an elliptical galaxy or an irregular galaxy the lack of heavy elements and radiation exposure would prevent any life from existing. Life can only exist on a planet in a spiral galaxy, which is the kind we’re in (obviously).

…the earth was in one of the spiral arms of our galaxy the amount of radiation and supernova explosions would kill all life. Yet Earth lies in the peaceful openness between our galaxies’ spiral arms.

…the earth was too far away from the center of the galaxy there would be no heavy elements to form life. If too close to the center radiation and disruption in planetary orbit would kill all life.

…there were more than one star in our solar system our orbit would be disrupted enough to prevent life from existing.

… the sun we orbit were any larger it burn too rapidly and burn up all life. But if any smaller the rotational and tidal periods of earth would be drastically altered and there would not be enough UV radiation to allow plants to create sugars and oxygen.

… the sun burned a different color (more red, blue, ect.) plants could not photosynthesize.

… the surface gravity of earth was just minutely altered the atmosphere would contain either too many gases poisoning life, or too little gases and we’d lose our protection from deadly radiation.

…the earth was closer to the sun we’d be too hot. Farther and we’d be too cold. A change as much as 2% would kill all life.

…the orbital eccentricity was greater, seasonal changes would be too extreme for life to withstand.

…the axial tilt was slightly changed, surfaces temperatures would be too high for life.

… the earth rotated faster atmospheric wind velocities would be catastrophically violent, if slower, temperature differences would be too great.

… the earth’s magnetic field were stronger, electromagnetic storms would be catastrophic, but if too weak, solar radiation would eradicate all life.

…the earth’s crust were too thick too much oxygen would enter the crust killing life, if too thin, volcanic activity would kill all life.

… the albedo of earth was slightly different we’d either start a runaway heat up or runaway cool down which would kill most life forms.

…there were more asteroids and comets in the solar system, constant collisions would kill most life.

…the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were too high there would be a catastrophic greenhouse effect, if too low, plants could not photosynthesize.

…there were too much water vapor in the atmosphere a runaway greenhouse effect would kill all life, if too little there would not be enough rainfall to support life on land.

…the atmospheric discharge of electricity (lightning) were too high fires would reach catastrophic levels, but if too low, there would not be enough nitrogen in the atmosphere to support life.

…the ozone level in our atmosphere were too high surface temperatures would be freezing, and if too low, radiation would kill all life.

…the moon were too close, tidal forces would catastrophically sweep over the earth surface, and if too far, create instabilities in earth’s climate.

Cosmologist Dr. Hugh Ross claims that all the factors required for life to exist in the universe and on earth happening by chance is one in ten to the forty-second power (1 x 10⁴²).[3] Physicist Roger Penrose calculates it out to be one in ten to the one-hundred and twenty-third power (1 x 10¹²³)![4]

Biological Life:

But we’re not even done yet… you can have all the ingredients for life, but still not have life. What caused life to first appear? How did it first come about on its own? We have still never observed life come from non-life (Law of Biogenesis). Yet, life exists!

Oxygen is poisonous gas that oxidizes organic and inorganic material on earth. The first life form would have to have a protective membrane immediately from the very beginning.[5] Biochemist Dr. Michael Denton notes, “What we have is sort of a ‘Catch 22’ situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don’t have oxygen we have none either.”[6] Water would likewise kill any exposed polypeptides required for life through hydrolysis, if it wasn’t already protected. What are the odds that first life forms would automatically have protective membranes to guard against oxidization and hydrolysis?

Now take into consideration reproduction. The first life would have to be capable of reproduction or else we wouldn’t be here. The odds of life generating from non-life is already difficult to postulate, but to then propose it coincidentally was capable of reproducing is philosophically astounding. What are the odds of that?

Molecular Biophysicist Harold Morowitz calculates that the odds of a single living cell developing on its own is one in ten to the one-hundredth billion power (1 x 10^{100,000,000,000})![7] Astronomer Michael Hart calculates the odds at one in ten to the three thousandth power (1 x 10^3,000).[8] Materials scientist Dr. Walter Bradley and chemist Dr. Charles Thaxton calculate the odds of life forming from non-life as five in ten to the one hundred and ninety-first power (4.9 x 10¹⁹¹).[9] Astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle and professor of applied math and astronomy Chandra Wickramasinghe calculate the odds as one in ten to the forty thousandth power (1 x 10^40,000).[10] No matter which one you pick… these are all really bad odds!

Ok, so now you have life, but out of the millions of life forms on this planet, only one (humans), are capable of intellectual thought, art, reason, science, ect.

Ok, so now you’re a human, life can still suck depending on where you live. And if you’re reading this, you’re probably living inAmerica, a relatively wealthy country with immense civil rights. A country that by shear citizenship, puts you in the top percentile of wealthiest people on earth. Your odds of being born inAmerica, one in twenty two.

So let us rewind. What are the odds that you live in a great country, are a human, are alive, on a planet that supports life, in a galaxy that supports a planet that supports life, in a universe that supports life? The odds are not good at all. In fact, the odds are so bad you are technically defying all odds by simply reading this. So it is kind of hard to have a bad day when technically you shouldn’t exist!

Our existence alone is testimony to a God that created us, and loves us. Psalms 8:3-4 says, “When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?” (NIV).

So have a blessed day, because you are definitely blessed!

---

[1] Tegmark, M., (July 2011) “The Multiverse Strikes Back,” http://www.scientificamerican.com

[2] Lightman, A.P., (December 2011) “The Accidental Universe; Science’s Crisis of Faith,” http://www.harpers.org

[3] Ross, H., (1994) The Creator and the Cosmos,  Navpress Publishing Group:Colorado Springs,CO, pp.134.

[4] Luskin, C., (April 2010) “Penrose on Cosmic Fine Tuning,” http://www.evolutionnews.org

[5] Ward, P. & Brownlee, D., (2000) Rare Earth, Copernicus,New York: NY, pp. 245.

[6] Denton, M., (1985) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Alder & Alder:Bethesda,MD, pp. 261.

[7] Shapiro , R., (1986) Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books, New York, NY, pp. 128.

[8] Hart, M.H., (1990) “Atmospheric Evolution, the Drake Equation, and DNA: Sparse Life in an Infinite Universe,” Physical Cosmology and Philosophy, Macmillan,New York, NY, pp. 263-264.

[9] Thaxton, C., Bradley, W., & Olsen, R., (1984) The Mystery of Life’s Origins: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library:New York,NY, pp. 66.

[10] Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinghe, C., (1984) Evolution from Space, Simon & Schuster:New York,NY, pp. 176.

The ET who wasn’t there…

I love Astronomy. I love looking through my telescope at the moon, Saturn, Jupiter, and star clusters. I love reading books on cosmology and astrophysics, and watching KCET documentaries. And if you’re like me and love these things as well then you have surely wondered the same question I have. Even more likely, if you’ve ever looked at the night sky you’ve surely asked yourself this question: Is there life out there? Are there Aliens? Are we alone?

Surely the universe is big enough for more than just us. Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to our solar system, is 4.3 light years away. A light year is 10 trillion kilometers. So Proxima Centauri is 43 trillion kilometers away![1] Now keeping that in mind, there are over 200 billion stars in our Milky Way Galaxy, which is about 100,000 light years across.[2] Now keeping that in mind, there are 2 million other “visible” galaxies, with upwards of 100,000 million others proposed, across a distance (visible) of 15,000 million light years.[3] With a grand total of anywhere from 10 to the twenty-second power to 10 to the twenty-fourth power of stars within the visible universe.[4] You have to use scientific notations for numbers that big, but in layman’s terms that’s about 10 sextillion stars! It’s almost unfathomable to think of just how big our universe is!

 

When looking at photos such as these which show case just a few hundred of galaxies each containing an average of 100 billion stars, it’s hard not to think about all the possibilities. We’re talking billions upon billions of other planets in just one galaxy right? Surely there has got to be life on some of these other planets! Surely we’re not the only ones in such a massive universe that contains so much! How could anyone for sure say there is no life out there?

My adolescent thoughts weren’t so uncommon, even Stephen Hawking, arguably the world’s foremost cosmologist, shares this same perspective. When understanding that our galaxy is just one of millions Hawking argues, “the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational.”[5]

The Fermi Paradox

Every civilization known on earth at one point or another exhibits three objectives; exploration, colonization and survival. These sociological factors are then assigned to proposed extraterrestrial civilizations, in that they will, just as we do, explore and colonize to survive. Mathematicians in 1961 took known statistics of star numbers, hypothesized life sustaining planets, hypothesized numbers of planets per star, etc and combined these statistics into the equation N=R x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L known as Drake’s equation.[6] In completing this equation it was estimated that there are 10 other civilizations in our galaxy alone. As time went on, statistics of course changed, and today the product of this equation is now 0.0000008 civilizations in our galaxy.[7] This may seem like a very low probability for life out in space, but that is actually a very high probability, considering there are at least 2 million other galaxies out there.

Nobel-prize winning physicist Enrico Fermi noted the apparent paradox of these results. The Fermi Paradox is the contradiction of this high probability of ET civilizations and the fact that we haven’t made contact with any. In other words, if there are aliens out there, we should have made contact with them by now. Since we haven’t, there must not be any aliens. Now, some may run with this alone to conclude that there is no life out there. But as convincing as the Fermi Paradox is as a rational argument, it has some flaws.

The first flaw is assuming alien civilizations would actually evolve into highly advanced space-bound civilizations. From an evolutionary perspective, out of all the millions of animals on earth, only one (humans) evolved to achieve space travel. So there could be many alien life forms out there that are just as simple as horses, worms or bacteria. Another flaw is space travel itself; spacecraft may be able to travel fast, but colonization processes are slow. Alien exploration would only be as fast as its colonization process. There are also many other potential flaws as well, like aliens having an ethical code to avoid other life forms, or an alien colony’s exploration hindered by funding limitations or wars, etc. The problem is, when it comes to proposed imaginary aliens we know nothing about there are millions of reasons as to why we may not have made contact with any. Therefore, as interesting as the Fermi Paradox is, it is inconclusive since it is built upon assumptions and just as easily refuted by assumptions.

The Distance Problem

Ok, let’s hypothetically say there are aliens out there that are incredibly advanced and have achieved space travel. And let’s go further and say they are relentlessly exploring the universe around them. There is a significant problem with just how big our universe is. Remember that whole 15,000 million light years wide universe from earlier? Well that’s pretty big. The distance between stars is so incredibly vast that travel times would be ridiculous. This is not even taking into consideration the distance between galaxies which is even larger!

The Apollo astronauts took three days to get to the moon which is 238,897 miles away.[8] At that same rate it would take 870,000 years for a space ship to reach our nearest star.[9] Now let’s say we sent an unmanned probe out to space at a speed one-tenth the speed of light. It would still take 43 years to reach the nearest star. So yes, higher speeds are possible, but then we run into another problem. For every cubic kilometer of space there are on average 100,000 particles of silicate and ice.[10] Hitting one of these small particles at incredibly high speeds would cause a massive explosion on the ship. Now granted, hitting one of the 100,000 particles per cubic kilometer is a very small chance, it’s still a chance. And if you’re traveling a vast distance of 4.3 light years, that very small chance turns into a guaranteed fact.

As you can see, traveling to the nearest star alone has enough problems. But traveling to multiple stars or other galaxies. Well, that is just completely out of the question. So even if aliens were advanced enough, there’d be no reason to believe they’d travel to earth. It can be ruled out that aliens would visit us but that doesn’t mean they do not exist…

The Failed Search

Astrobiology, AKA exobiology, is the study or process of finding and examining life from outer space. But when you really think about it you have to ask yourself what astrobiologists are actually studying? There has been no life discovered outside of earth and everything else has been purely imagination and speculations. As JPL Systems Admin David F. Coppedge writes about astrobiologists, “We know about astrophysics and astrochemistry, but where is the biology in astronomy? So far, it’s only in the imaginations of evolutionists, who think the recipe for life is as simple as ‘just add water.’”[11] Or as renowned paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson called it, “a science without a subject.”[12]

But let’s give astrobiologists the benefit of the doubt. As said before, our universe is incredibly large. So when it comes to our search for ET life, even our most advanced technology doesn’t do us much good. The popular astronomer analogy is the glass of water analogy. With our current technology and capabilities, our search for ET life is as effective as dipping a glass cup into the ocean, pulling it out, and examining the contents of the water in the cup to determine whether or not there are fish in the ocean. Just as the ocean is too large for one glass cup to discover fish, so is the universe too large for our ability to discover alien life.

We do however have the ability to search our own solar system! Believe it or not, our solar system’s variety of planets and moons is incredibly rare compared to other systems we observe around us in our galaxy. The planets in our solar system have different sizes, density, atmospheres, moons, etc. They provide a plethora of different environments for life to exist on. If you believe in evolution which proposes that life can develop via simple means and adapt to any environment then we should surely find life on these other celestial bodies!

The search first began with our moon. Between 1969 to 1972 six lunar landings revealed that the moon was sterile of life. In 1976 the Viking probe went to Mars only to find it too was sterile of life. Both Voyager missions which traveled to Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and many of their moons revealed incredibly harsh and unlivable conditions everywhere. Radio-telescopes to this day scan the skies searching for ET signals and beaming our own signals out. Yet to this day, no conclusive proof of life outside of earth has been found.

But wait! Haven’t there been discoveries of micro-organisms found on meteors and rocks from Mars. And what about earth like planets in other solar systems? Let me again state that there has been no CONCLUSIVE proof of life outside of earth found. There have been many claims of microorganisms found on meteors since 1996. Problem is these results are always inconclusive because there is no way to know whether or not these samples were contaminated with life from earth after they landed. Especially when these microorganisms are identical to the ones found on earth. But even if we did find life on other planets, moons or meteorites, contamination from earth can still come into play.

As physicist Paul Davies suggests, if Mars is capable of projecting rocks to Earth, than Earth is just as capable of projecting rocks to Mars.[13] Microbial life from Earth has been found at altitudes ranging from 30,000 to 130,000 feet. Solar wind is capable of blowing organisms from 0.2 to 1 micron in size throughout our universe. Some microbial life forms can survive temperatures of -200 degrees centigrade for six months and still be able to germinate. Some microbial life forms can survive 600 kilorads of x-ray radiation.[14] The smallest amounts of graphite can protect microbes from UV rays. A meteorite impact of massive scale might be enough to project some earth rocks to another planet. Inside these rocks would be plenty of microbial life that could germinate on the surface of another planet if the conditions were right, though conditions are never “right” on any planet in our solar system other than earth.

All this means is that life from earth could potentially survive space travel for short periods of time. Now the possibility of life surviving space travel, and then spreading onto another planet, is extremely unlikely. Even microbial life has a shelf life in such extreme environments. It becomes even more unlikely to propose that alien life could survive coming from another solar system to ours. Let’s take for example our nearest star, Proxima Centauri, 4.3 light years away. Let’s say a rock was somehow ejected from a planet from that system containing microorganisms and made a direct trip to earth. At the speed needed to escape it’s own planets gravity, it would take about 115,000 years to get here.[15]  And much longer for any other rock coming from any other system. Way too long for life to survive on that rock. By then, radiation, extreme temperatures and lack of nutrition would surely destroy any life/DNA it contained.[16] All in all, at the end of the day, we still find ourselves empty handed when it comes to the search for life outside our planet.

Our Perfect Planet

However, the “absence of evidence” is not “evidence of absence.” In a debate that seems so hotly debated using mostly assumptions, speculations and imagination it is important to not overlook the hard facts that we have laid out right before us. As said before, life requires the “right” conditions for it to exist. These conditions are obviously found on earth. But a common misconception is that these right conditions are anywhere and everywhere in the universe because the conditions are pretty simple. I remember in middle school learning about space in my science class with my teacher (and text book for that matter) claiming that earth contains life because earth is just the right distance from the sun and contains water. That’s it. Just those two simple factors; temperature and water. Well in that case life is pretty easy and should be able to easily form on planets all over the universe!

Wrong! Life isn’t that simple. In fact, the “right” conditions needed for life are a lot more complicated and precise. According to Guillermo Gonzalez PhD, Asst. Professor of Astronomy at Iowa State University and Jay W. Richards PhD, Vice President of the Discovery Institute, the factors required for life to exist, which earth contains, are as follows:

A: Circumstellar Habitable Zone

Water is a very important factor for supporting life on our planet. But a planet must be a certain distance from the sun for water to be present in its three forms; solid, liquid and gas. This zone at which water can take these three forms is called the Circumstellar Habitable Zone. If earth were 5% closer to the sun, we’d be out of the zone and all water would boil and evaporate. (Ex: Earth would turn into a Venus like planet). If earth were 20% further from the sun, we’d once again be out of the zone and all water would freeze. (Ex: Earth would be more Mars-like).

But when taking the Climatic Runaway Principle into consideration, the earth could not be 2% closer nor further from the sun.

Climatic Runaway Principle: The earth is perfectly balanced between a run away heat up and a runaway freeze up. If the earth get’s just a little too hot, more water vapor and CO2 will collect in the atmosphere which will increase the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect, which will only perpetuate the temperature increase, and further the greenhouse effect until the heat becomes intolerable to life.

If the earth get’s just a little too cold, more ice and snow will form. The white color of the ice and snow reflects sunlight out of our atmosphere cooling the planet, which would in turn leads to more ice and snow, and cooler temps, and so on and so forth.

B: Orbiting a main sequence G2 dwarf star

This is the type of star we orbit. If the sun were less massive, like 90% of the stars in our galaxy, the habitable zone would be smaller and we’d be much closer to the sun. The dramatic increase in gravitational pull from the star would knock earth out of rotation and we’d be perfectly synchronized orbiting the sun. In other words, no more night and day. One side of the earth would experience constant day light, constantly facing the sun, all water would boil and the surface would reach extreme temperatures. The other side of the planet would be in constant night (darkness), all water would freeze and the surface would be extremely cold.

Most other suns in the universe emit much more radiation than ours, too much radiation for a magnetic field on earth to protect its inhabitants. Our sun emits much more visible light than most other stars as well. Two-thirds of all stars are part of star systems, or groups of stars. If earth were orbiting a star in a star system we’d be plagued by extreme heat, extreme gravity fluctuations, and intensely bright light. Life could never exist under such circumstances. But our sun exists independently. Most stars are also unreliable, their energy output fluctuating from 10% to 150,000%. But our sun burns consistently continuously. 

C: Protected by giant gas planets.

In our solar system we have 4 gas giants; Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus. These planets are much larger than earth and therefore have a stronger gravitational pull. The gravitational pull attracts many large asteroids and other hazardous material traveling through space that could easily threaten the existence of life here on earth.

D: Galactic Habitable Zone:

Our solar system is orbiting within a spiral galaxy (Milky Way), about halfway from the center to the outside. The center of our galaxy is super crowded with stars and supernovas, with the exact center being a black hole. All these things would pose immediate destruction to any planets caught in the middle. The outer edge of our galaxy is far less crowded, but this poses another major issue. Our earth is made up of many elements; Iron, Magnesium, Oxygen, etc. The outside of our galaxy contains very little to none of these heavy elements, which would make planet formation virtually impossible.

But even though we are half way from the center and the outer edge, there are still dangers. The spiral arms of our Milky Way galaxy contain supernovas and newly forming stars emerging from extremely large clouds of dust; all of which would pose many dangers to any planets containing life. However, our solar system is directly in between two of our galaxy’s arms; the Sagittarius and Persius Arms. In between these arms is a clear void of which we safely reside. See

Figure 1:1.

 

 

From the picture above it is easy to tell that our solar system (or “sun”) lies within an empty gap between the denser spiral arms of our galaxy.

Even our galaxy is rare. Life could only exist in a spiral galaxy, like ours. But only 5% of all the galaxies in the universe are spiral armed galaxies. The other 95% are elliptical or irregular.[17] Elliptical and irregular galaxies have active-nucli that spew out massive amounts of radiation, which would prevent life from forming within them. They also lack enough heavy elements for life as well.

E: Nearly circular orbit

Our orbit around the sun is almost a perfect circle. This allows consistent temperatures throughout the year making our earth tolerable for complex life. If our orbit was oval or irregular, our planet would experience long spells of extreme cold followed by short spells extreme heat.

F: Oxygen-rich air

Our atmosphere contains; 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 1% Carbon Dioxide. Our atmosphere helps protect us from the suns radiation, trap warm air to make nights temperate, and regulate the overall temperature of earth. These features allow for liquid water on our planet as well.

G: Correct Mass

The earth is the perfect size for life to exist as well. If earth was any smaller an atmosphere would not be large enough to protect us from the sun’s radiation. If the earth were any larger, the stronger gravity would collect hydrogen in our atmosphere, too much hydrogen in fact, making life intolerable.

H: Orbited by a large moon

Our moon is one-forth the size of earth. The gravity of our moon keeps our planet’s rotation at a constant tilt of 23 degrees. This tilted rotation allows for moderate seasons, and combined with earth’s rotation, allows for our ocean’s currents (Coriolis Effect) which help displace and spread the heat absorbed by the sun, keeping the temperature on earth regulated.

Even the distance of the moon from earth is important. If the moon was too close, the gravitational pull could cause tides to sweep over entire continents, or worse, the friction from the gravity would cause the oceans to boil. If the moon were farther away, its gravitational pull would be so weak that there would be no tides but instead large pockets of stagnant ocean. Most marine animals could not survive in stagnant waters, which is important considering most of earth’s oxygen is replenished by marine life.

I: Magnetic Field

The iron core of earth creates a magnetic field around our planet. This magnetic field shields us from solar wind emitted by the sun. If our earth were slightly smaller, the magnetic field would be weaker and the sun’s solar winds would be able to break through stripping the surface of earth from ever containing life. If the field were too strong, severe electromagnetic storms would be ever present.

J: Plate Tectonics

There are more than a dozen plates on the earth’s surface (crust, which is about 30-40 miles deep). Our crust is considered “paper-thin.” Plate tectonics allow the inner temperature of earth to be regulated by releasing pressure at various points. The shifting of our plates also recycles carbon, pushing up rock layers to the surface replacing the land that is being eroded by the elements. This process is essential for life.

K: Ratio of liquid water to the continents

Over 70% of the earth’s surface is water. All bodies of water on our planet work as a buffer, absorbing all the suns heat and regulating the winter’s freeze. Without large bodies of water, life on earth would be impossible.

Water itself is also one of the key fundamentals for life. Water has a high specific heat, making chemical reactions within our body tolerable. If water had a lower specific heat, we would boil in our bodies when our organs conducted everyday normal functions.

Water also dissolves acids, bases, and salts. It serves as a medium for chemical reactions to take place without actually being involved in the chemical reactions. Water is the only solution that allows blood to flow properly through our bodies. Every other liquid found on earth would be to thin or thick, and those with the right density would corrode and dissolve our blood cells.

M: Moderate rate of rotation

The rate of rotation is almost perfect for life to exist on our planet, balancing out how long we’re exposed to the sun’s warmth, and the night’s cold. If we rotated slower we could spend days or even weeks with daylight and then go the same amount of time in the night. If we rotated faster, the surface of earth would be ravaged by incredibly powerful wind storms. This would make complex life extremely difficult to survive.

N: Sun’s Color

The sun’s color believe it or not, is an important factor. Many different stars emit more blue or red when they burn. If our star were like one of those, emitting much more red or blue, photosynthesis would be to insufficient for plant life. Ergo, no plant or tree life…

O: Albedo

The amount of sunlight the earth reflects and absorbs is perfect. If it did one or the other more, we’d experience a runaway freeze or a runaway heat up.[18]

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross goes on to bring even more factors into play; like proximity to supernovas and white dwarfs, number of stars in a planetary system (more than one would prevent life),  parent star birth date, orbital eccentricity, collision rate with asteroids and comets, water vapor levels in the atmosphere, atmospheric electric discharge, ozone layer, seismic activity, soil mineralization, etc. In total, Ross lists thirty-two essential factors required for life to exist on a planet.[19]

As you can see, all these factors are a lot more precise than just add water and watch grow. What are the odds you ask of such a random planet containing all these factors you ask? Try 10 to the negative forty-second power.[20] Or 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001. Those are pretty bad odds…

Ross concludes, “…we can draw the conclusion that much fewer than  trillionth of a trillionth of a percent of all stars could possibly possess, without divine intervention, a planet capable of sustaining advanced life. Considering that the observable universe contains less than a trillion galaxies , each averaging a hundred billion stars, we can see that not even one planet would be expected, by natural processes alone, to possess the necessary conditions to sustain life.”[21]

As astronomer Thomas Clakre from the University of Central Florida declared, “It’s a bit depressing to think that Earth-like planets are too special.”[22] Depressing for secular evolutionists that is, who are looking for life on other planets. Astronomers have been for quite some time been claiming to find “earth”-like planets known as extrasolar or exoplanets. But these astronomers aren’t talking about planets with oceans or jungles filled with animals. They’re merely identifying other planets outside our solar system, while completely neglecting all the factors required for life as mentioned above. In fact when observing exoplanets astronomers are finding the same problems, namely:

-Most are too close to the stars they orbit, meaning the planet is extremely hot.

-Many have huge elliptical orbits, which cause massively violent temperature and gravitational swings.

-Most planets are massive in size possessing crushing surface gravity.

-These factors combined cause gaseous planets like Jupiter which are unlivable.[23]

In fact, as of 2007, only one planet of the 220 exoplanets discovered[24], named Gilese 581 C, is roughly earth sized at 1.5 times Earth’s diameter.[25] Media blew up over the discovery saying it may contain life like earth. Problem is, being 1.5 times the diameter of earth would make its surface gravity twice that of earth’s. The planet is also 7 million miles away from its star, which is 13 times closer than earth is from our sun. Though the star is fifty times cooler than ours, so it is proposed the planet may have tolerable temperatures. Having roughly the same size and roughly the same temperature is not alone ideal for life, especially when we don’t know if the planet has water, or any of the other essential factors mentioned earlier.

I should mention in 2010 another exoplanet named Gilese 581 G was discovered with a mass 3 to 4 times that of earth with gravity 1.1 to 1.7 times that of earth that is within Gilese’s proposed habitable zone. Again the media jumped all over the discovery, but again we have no proof of life on the planet, only evidence of two factors out of the dozens of factors needed for life to exist. We don’t know the chemical composition, the albedo, surface temperature, or atmosphere on the planet. Furthermore, all six of the exoplanets discovered around Gilese all have the same problem: Gilese itself. Gilese is a late spectral type star subject to consistent solar flares with a consistent 2% brightness change[26] both of which would cause massive temperature and magnetic swings for all the planets around it, which would be lethal to life.

In October of 2010, NASA posted an article on their website testifying that one in four stars like our sun may have earth-sized planets.[27] As exciting as that is, when you really think about it, it’s not really saying much. Only 10% of the stars in our galaxy are G2 dwarf stars like our sun[28], and of that 10%, one-fourth may have earth sized planets.* In other words, 2.5% of the stars in our galaxy may have earth-sized planets. As you can see from just pinpointing star type and planet size we’ve already thrown out 97.5% of the stars in our galaxy. So when you consider there are more than thirty other factors to consider you can begin to see how small that chances are of these planets containing life. But the real kicker is that the article admits that in the survey they only observed planets with orbit ranged 0.25 AU or closer to their star.[29] In other words, three-quarters closer to their stars than earth is. No life could exist on a planet orbiting that close to a G2 dwarf star!

But let’s give these exoplanets the benefit of a doubt and say that all the necessary factors for life are present on these planets. That still doesn’t mean there is life. You can have all the ingredients and appliances to make a cake in the kitchen, that doesn’t mean that one day you’ll walk into the kitchen and a freshly baked cake will be on the counter. In the same way, all the factors required for life does not mean there will be life on these planets. As Environmental Scientist Shaun Doyle states, “There is no reason to assume that just because a planet is possibly in a habitable zone that it will necessarily be inhabited. There is nothing inherent in the laws of physics and chemistry that says life must come from non-life wherever there is liquid water.”[30] JPL Systems Administrator David F. Coppedge agrees, “It is no more logical than assuming that if iron is found on a planet, skyscrapers can’t be far behind. The key to life is the way its ingredients are organized, not just the materials used.”[31]  Which leads to the next topic of conversation, the Law of Biogenesis.

The Law of Biogenesis

The Law of Biogenesis states that life has only been observed to arise from existing life. In other words, life arising from non-life has NEVER been observed by man. This problem throws a wrench in the spokes evolutionary principals of life evolving on other planets as well as on our own. The belief that life exists throughout our universe and is dispersed through meteorites is known as Panspermia. Yet the most prominent proponents and pioneers of Panspermia like Arrhenius Panspermy and Francis Crick admitted to be frustrated by the failures of chemical evolution to produce life. If life can so easily emerge from non-living chemicals than it should be doing so constantly, yet it has never been observed and is in-fact considered mathematically illogical my many scientists if left to chance.

If one understands how complex life is and how absurd it is to believe in its development by chance alone, then you will realize that the prospect of life on other celestial bodies is improbable. As Dr. Werner Gitt, retired director and professor of the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology remarks, “Without intelligent, creative input, lifeless chemicals cannot form themselves into living things. Without this unfounded evolutionary speculation, UFOlogy [sic] would not have its present grip on the public imagination.”[32]

Now, you may be thinking I’m making a huge assumption here. That life can only exist as it does on earth. Isn’t that a huge assumption? Can’t alien life take on all kinds of abstract chemical forms?

No, they cannot. All life on earth is Carbon-based life. The only elements that can support life are carbon, silicon and boron. The problem is boron is extremely rare and silicon can only hold together no more than a hundred amino acids.[33] Therefore, only carbon can sustain alien life, thereby making all the prerequisites for life, which has been mentioned in this article, absolutely necessary. Any life, whether terrestrial or extra-terrestrial, will have to be Carbon-based life.

I can’t help but think back to what Stephen Hawking said about alien life being completely rational considering the millions of galaxies each containing billions of stars. But is that really rational now knowing what we know? His statement is based in vast possibilities as if stars equal life. Unfortunately for him, stars do not equal life. There are at most 10 to the twenty-forth power stars in the universe, yet the odds of a planet containing life is 10 to the negative forty-second power. Just comparing those two numbers alone should be enough to be convincing. We can continue to speculate and imagine other alien worlds all we want. But a truly scientific person, a truly rational person, will understand that extraterrestrial life is just not rational.

The Biblical Perspective

I consider myself a man of science. But I more so consider myself a man of faith, and trust the Bible to be the accurate word of God. So when it comes to issues such as these, I believe the Bible is the definitive, authoritative and final blow to the prospect of aliens existing in our universe.

The Bible paints a picture of God creating all life on earth and no place else. All of this life was affected by Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12, 6:6, and 6:20), which was of course redeemed by the salvation of Jesus (John 1:29). For those who believe in both aliens and the Bible I feel compelled to ask, how can aliens achieve salvation? The Bible says all of Creation was affected by Adam’s sin. This would include aliens as well. If Christ is the salvation for our sin, how can aliens beyond the reach of the gospel message be saved? Some suggest that the aliens were given their own “Christ” to save them, but this contradicts the Bible’s reference to Jesus being God’s “one and only son” (1 John 4:9). Other suggestions are that after Jesus left earth he went to alien planets as well to fulfill the same acts he did here on earth. This also contradicts scripture which states that Jesus would live and die once and for all (1 Peter 3:18, Hebrews 9:27-28).

There is nothing in the Bible that would suggest God created other alien life forms outside of earth. Based on everything I’ve covered from the science realm and the spiritual realm I personally draw the conclusion that there are no aliens out there. Sorry.

Why Stars?

So if God created everything, and only created life on earth, the next question is; why do we have stars? Why are there other galaxies and nebulas, and comets, etc. Why is the universe so big? Wouldn’t a creator God render all these things unnecessary? There are two answers to these questions.

As said before, the earth requires particular prerequisites in order to sustain life. But there are even more prerequisites required in our universe for planets themselves to exist. The Laws of Physics must be exactly what they are in order for life to be present. The force of gravity, strong nuclear force, velocity of light ect. Without these laws of physics in place, exactly how they are, planets couldn’t form and stars wouldn’t burn among many other issues. So our laws of physics are crucial.

But what is crucial for the laws of physics to be in place? The mass density of the universe. The universe is at the perfect mass density in order for the laws of physics to be what they are. If the universe had a smaller or larger mass density, a domino effect would ensue; the laws of physics would be thrown off preventing any stars and planets to exist. To cut out all the middle man factors and simplify this, think of it this way: The universe has to be so incredibly large with so many other galaxies in order for life to exist. If the universe did not hold the mass density it has, life as we know it would not exist! God made us a universe specifically designed to incubate life!

Furthermore, Genesis 1:14 states that God created the stars to convey messages and measure time, like seasons, days, months, and years. Which indeed humans have been using the celestial bodies to measure time for thousands of years. Humans have also been able use celestial bodies to navigate long distances on earth. In knowing these two things it becomes abundantly clear: We need those stars. God created them for us!

“The heavens declare the glory of God;
   the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”

-Psalm 19

…yet the search continues.

In secular circles where an incredibly small microscopic chance is still a “good” chance, there remains hope to contact aliens. Hence the millions of tax dollars spent each year beaming out signals and listening for return signals via the SETI program. A desperate attempt to discover the ET that isn’t there. A desperate attempt to find some intelligence in the stars. Why?

There are three main reasons why alien life is pursued; vindication, information and a cure to a cosmic loneliness.

Vindication in that finding alien life will solidify many beliefs regarding evolution theory, but will more so throw certain religions out the window. As said before, the Bible leaves no room for alien life. Therefore, discovering alien life renders the Bible inaccurate. Though the question of how did the alien life begin will remain ever present and will in no way disprove a belief in God, just disprove the Biblical God.

Information in that finding alien life will surely lead to information swap. Think of all the information and knowledge we could gain from each other! Mankind would surely benefit from what would be learned. We may learn the answers to questions like, where did we come from? Who are we? What is the meaning of life?

A cure to cosmic loneliness in that we would forever solve the question “are we alone?” Some would be more satisfied to learn we are not. There is some form of fear and isolation in the thought that we are the only living things in this incredibly large universe. There seems to be this longing to discover something greater than us and to learn from it.

Ladies and gentleman, I believe that longing and desire to learn and discover that alien life out there is a misdirected and misunderstood desire. We realize there is something more out there! There is something greater than us out there! There are answers to our questions out there! But it’s not aliens. That longing and desire is for God! Everything we want to find in aliens; answers and fellowship in this universe, is all achieved through the God of the Holy Bible! Of course there would be this desire to know God, it’s written in the heart of every man, woman and child. “…that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:19-20). The answer is right in front of you. The answer is God.

Carl Sagan once wrote, “At this very moment the messages from another civilization may be wafting across space, driven by unimaginably advanced devices, there for us to detect them—if only we knew how. … Or perhaps the messages are already here, present in some everyday experience that we have not made the right mental effort to recognize. The power of such an advanced civilization is very great. Their messages may lie in quite familiar circumstances. … The message from the stars may be here already. But where?”[34]

Sagan shows this desire for God misdirected. He’s right when he says that the message may already be here, and that we may have not made the right mental effort to recognize it. As the Bible says in Romans 1:21, “when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” The message is here and can be found in the Bible. Again I say, the answer is right in front of you and it always has been.

Are we alone? No. God is with us, for us, and always has been.

---

[1] “How Far? How Big? How Many?” Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory http://www.hartrao.ac.za

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] “How many stars are there in the Universe?” European Space Agency (ESA), http://www.esa.int

[5] Stephen Hawking, “Stephen Hawking’s Universe,” Documentary.

[6] Introduction to the Fermi Paradox, http://www.fermiparadox.com

[7] Ibid

[8] Lunarscience.arc.nasa.gov

[9] Dr. Werner Gitt, “God and the Extraterrestrials; Are we alone, or is life elsewhere in the universe?” http://www.answersingenesis.org

[10] Ibid

[11] David F. Coppedge, “Astrobiology: Follow the…” http://www.icr.org

[12] Ibid

[13] Paul Davies, “Planets Can Swap Rocks,” Creation, Jan 1996.

[14] Hugh Ross, Ph.D, The Creator and the Cosmos, (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1994) Pg. 145.

[15] Russell Grigg, “Did Life Come From Outer Space?” Creation.com.

[16] New Scientist 165(2221):19, January 15, 2000.

[17] Ron Cowen, “Were Spiral Galaxies Once More Common,” Science News 142 (1992) Pg. 390.

[18]  Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards “The Privileged Planet,” (Regnery Publishing, Inc. 2004).

[19] Hugh Ross, Ph.D, The Creator and the Cosmos, (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1994) Pg. 132.

[20] Ibid, Pg. 135.

[21] Ibid, Pg. 133.

[22] New Scientist 177(2388):24, 29 March 2003.

[23] Gary Bates, “Hosing Down the Hype; New planet find has ET hopefuls in a frenzy.” Creation, May 2007.

[24] There are currently 440 exoplanets known at the time this was written, surely more have been found as of today. The issues found in 2007 still apply though.

[25] Gary Bates, “Hosing Down the Hype; New planet find has ET hopefuls in a frenzy.” Creation, May 2007.

[26] Wayne Spencer, “The Search for Earth-like Planets,” creation.com

[27] “NASA Survey Suggests Earth-Sized Planets Are Common,” 10-28-10, http://www.nasa.gov

[28] Professor Scott Gaudi, “Life in the Universe; Our Neighborhood,” www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu

* On a side note, astronomers are beginning to find dozens of new lone planets that aren’t orbiting stars. Because they don’t orbit stars they are very difficult to see, basically floating in darkness. Though we may find hundreds, thousands or millions of these planets, it has already been settled that no life could exist on them with no star to orbit.

[29] “NASA Survey Suggests Earth-Sized Planets Are Common,” 10-28-10, http://www.nasa.gov

[30] Shaun Doyle, “Extrasolar Planet “100% likely” to have life?” Creation, October 2010.

[31] David F. Coppedge, “Astrobiology: Follow the…” http://www.icr.org

[32] Dr. Werner Gitt, “God and the Extraterrestrials; Are we alone, or is life elsewhere in the universe?” http://www.answersingenesis.org

[33] Hugh Ross, Ph.D, The Creator and the Cosmos, (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1994) Pg. 125.

[34] Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection, (Cambridge University Press, 2000) Pg. 224

Joshua’s Day

Also known as Joshua’s Missing Day. The book of Joshua records the historical account of the Israelite occupation of Canaan around 1400 B.C. One of the more notable portions being Joshua 10:11-13 which describes Jacob’s conquest of the Amorites[1], during which “the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and He said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.” Sounds pretty incredible, yet hard to imagine. From this passage many theories and hoaxes[2] have emerged to prove or explain this great miracle.

We must first address the fact that this is indeed a miracle. There is no other way to naturally explain the lengthening of a day without supernatural intervention. And for an all-powerful God that created everything in existence, this shouldn’t be out of His capabilities or out of our imaginations to envision God doing so.

Another thing to address is the usage of Joshua commanding the sun to stop moving in the sky. The earth rotates on an axis giving the appearance of the sun moving when it is not. Skeptics use this passage to show the Bible’s inaccurate knowledge of our planet’s position in the solar system. The belief that the sun rotates around the earth is known as geocentrism, a popular belief in the ancient world before Copernicus theorized that earth was not the center of the universe. However, one can hardly accuse Joshua of being geocentric for praying for the sun to stop moving in the sky. Have you ever discussed a “sunset” or “sunrise” with someone? Well then you must be geocentric. Describing the sun as rising and setting is describing the sun as moving in the sky. Scientists (mostly meteorologists) make declarations like this daily, yet no one accuses them of believing in geocentrism. So why would we hold the Bible at a different standard for using the same language we use every day?

How can we know for sure? Well, Joshua 10:11-13 says that sun and moon were stopped. Joshua just needed more daylight towards the end of the day. If the Joshua account was a fictitious story written by an ancient man that believed in geocentrism, they would only stop the sun since the moon would not provide any additional light if stopped during the afternoon. But the fact that both the sun and moon appeared to have slowed in the sky is evidence that it was earth’s rotation that was slowed.

Now since a lot of things are affected by the earth’s rotation, wouldn’t slowing it cause massive problems on earth? Yes it would in fact! There’d be massive tidal flooding and massive heat friction from the liquid hot core of earth still rotating.[3] The only way these disastrous factors could be avoided would be if restrained by God himself, which is not out of the question. Though skeptics bring up other issues that are not so realistic: Such as the everyone flying off earth’s surface without the rotation to keep them grounded, or the sudden change in momentum causing massive destruction on earth. First, earth’s gravity is incredibly strong, and the centrifugal force of earth’s rotation is only 1/300^th that of earth’s gravity.[4] The earth’s rotation slowing would only cause us to be further grounded to earth’s surface. Centrifugal forces only keep you grounded if you’re on the inside curve of a spinning object, since we reside on the outside of the curve of earth’s surface, centrifugal forces lessen the force of gravity we experience. As for the potential dangers of earth going from 1,000 mph[5] to a sudden stop, the Bible doesn’t suggest the stop was instant. Just as a car traveling at 60 mph can come to a gradual stop in under a minute without the sensation of breaking, earth could come to gradually slow down in a matter of minutes without any sensation of breaking.

There are also other theories as to how the day slowed other than earth’s rotation slowing. There is the Wobble Theory which states that earth continued its rotation but the axis wobbled in an “S” shape allowing for the sun to appear motionless in the sky for a short period of time. This would of course require supernatural explanation or natural explanations of massive meteorite impact, or planetary orbit interference from Mars. Both of which have no evidence what so ever to support them. And the other main theory is the Refraction Theory: That God didn’t need to alter the earth’s rotation or orbit at all, but instead refract or bend the sun and moonlight, because all Joshua really needed was light.

Whether you believe is earth’s rotation being slowed, the wobble theory, or the Refraction Theory, all three require supernatural intervention from God. And no matter how God did it, it is miraculous to say the least, and another sure testimony of God’s power over all of creation!

---

[1] The Amorites worshipped the sun and the moon. How ironic that God would stop the sun to facilitate their demise. An obvious demonstration of God’s power over the sun which the Amorites worshiped. The Amorites were surely demoralized at this sight.

[2] The most popular hoax being the claim that NASA has found a missing day while studying planetary positions. NASA however has made no such discovery, yet it remains a popular urban myth.

[3] Russell Grigg M.Sc., “Joshua’s Long Day: Did it really happen-and how?” http://creation.com

[4] Russell Grigg M.Sc., “Joshua’s Long Day: Did it really happen-and how?” http://creation.com

[5] Per www.astrosociety.org, the earth rotates at 1,000 mph (1,600 km/hr).