Tuesday, April 28, 2020

My Review of “The Stairway to Life: An Origin of Life Reality Check” by Change Laura Tan and Rob Stadler



I thank God for The Stairway to Life by Change Laura Tan and Rob Stadler. At a time when some people tragically cite science (by which they usually mean molecules-to-man evolution) as a reason for rejecting Christianity, this book demonstrates that without the intervention of a supernatural Creator, natural forces could never have created the first life. Far from working against belief in God, recent scientific advances continue to pile up more and more evidence pointing in the direction of a great, super-intelligent Creator as the best explanation for the origin of life.

Tan and Stadler focus on the minimum requirements to produce the first living, replicating cell. When it comes to what is required to make a living cell, they don’t have to guess. They base their book on scientific research. Their book is well researched and includes references to many scientific publications. Tan and Stadler especially draw on the work of Craig Venter and his team in creating a synthetic cell in 2010 and then further modifying the cell to produce a cell with approximately the smallest possible genome in 2016 (calling it a “synthetic cell” is in some ways misleading and an exaggeration, you’ll have to read the book to see why). Venter’s work helps identify the minimum requirements for a cell to work at all.

The central portion of The Stairway to Life is an examination of twelve requirements that are needed to produce even the simplest living, reproducing cells. The twelve requirements are:

1. Formation and concentration of building blocks
2. Homochirality of building blocks
3. A solution for the water paradox
4. Consistent linkage of building blocks
5. Biopolymer reproduction
6. Nucleotide sequences forming useful code
7. Means of gene regulation
8. Means for repairing biopolymers
9. Selectively permeable membranes
10. Means of harnessing energy
11. Interdependency of DNA, RNA, and proteins,
12. Coordinated cellular purpose

The book is organized like a stairway with twelve steps where each step is one of the above requirements. The authors evaluate the various proposed natural methods that origin of life researchers have suggested to account for each step. For the sake of argument and explanation, the authors assume that completely natural processes have been able to accomplish all the preceding steps when examining each new step. For each step, they convincingly argue that no realistic natural solution has been found and for many of the steps there is very strong evidence that a natural solution without supernatural aide is for all practical purposes impossible. Tan and Stadler emphasize that treating the production of life like a stairway is only a useful way of organizing the book because in the case of producing a real living cell all the steps have to be available at once. In all actual living cells, many of the earlier “steps” (perhaps all of them) are dependent on the later steps already existing and working. Thus, in addition to the unique challenges of each step, the entire combination of steps works like a super-massive chicken and the egg problem.

Although their tone is respectful and academic, from an intellectual viewpoint by the end of the second step in the stairway the authors have shattered any hope that chemical evolution could have produced the first living cell without aid from an intelligent Creator. Although godless explanations for life lie on the floor like so much shattered pottery, Tan and Stadler keep up the evidential pounding for ten more steps, turning the shattered pieces into dust and then blowing the dust away. In other words, their arguments, are strong, effective, and overwhelming. When they reach the end of the final chapter their conclusion, while strong and clear, actually sounds like an understatement:

Living organisms and the Stairway to Life are powerful evidence of God – an inescapable conclusion when one is free to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

I’ve read extensively on this topic and even written a few blog posts on it myself. In 2016, I even wrote a blog post specifically explaining how Craig Venter’s research provides strong evidence for God (my blog post was far more limited in scope and detail compared to Tan and Stadler’s excellent book). So, this topic is not new to me. Nevertheless, I learned a lot from reading The Stairway to Life. Arguments I already knew were reinforced and there were new (at least to me) arguments as well. I’ll give one example.

Throughout the book, Tan and Stadler engage with the theories and research of origin of life scientists who have different views from their own (basically, these origin of life scientists believe an entirely natural explanation for the origin of life exists through some form of chemical evolution). One of the major theories of chemical evolution is that there were self-replicating RNA molecules before there were cells. Sometimes this is called “the RNA world.” Tan and Stadler point out numerous reasons that an RNA world is not realistic. But one big problem they point out was new to me (or else, if I’ve read it elsewhere, I had forgotten about it). In living cells RNA is best known as being an intermediate information carrier in between the long term storage of information in DNA and the expression of that information as proteins. But RNA also sometimes works more like a protein, carrying out some of the many complex functions in a cell. RNA’s ability to work like a protein is limited (in other words, proteins are generally much better at their jobs than RNA would be). However, in the hypothetical RNA world (it’s important to remember there is no evidence that an RNA world ever really existed), RNA carries out many of the functions needed for replication and biochemical evolution until eventually DNA and proteins coded for by DNA appear. Once DNA appears, since it is much better suited for long term information storage and passing information on to future generations, evolution selects DNA to take over the information storage role from RNA. The DNA then starts coding for proteins that can take over roles from RNA that proteins are better at. But there’s a huge problem with this abiogenesis story. In an RNA world, specific nucleotide sequences of RNA are arranged to directly perform specific functions. These sequences, however, are not a code for proteins. They are not a code at all. The sequence of RNA nucleotides that might catalyze a needed reaction for life are in no way related to the code for a string of amino acids that form a protein that could perform that same function. So, some of the functional information stored up in RNA in the RNA world (even if such a world existed) would be useless when DNA finally showed up. In terms of the really important issue of information (which is a really huge, central feature of all life that any origin of life theory must account for), there would be a massive disconnect between the RNA in the RNA world and the DNA. When I read Tay and Stadler’s explanation of this (which is better than my attempt at a summary in this paragraph), I thought, “wow, that really ruins the RNA world as being a helpful precursor to cells even if the RNA world existed, which it didn’t.”

A Strength and Weakness of the Book

One aspect of The Stairway to Life that is both a strength and a weakness is that the language and content will be a bit too technical for some readers. This is a strength, because it allows Tay and Stadler to really get into some of the important details of scientific issues related to the origin of life. It is a weakness because it somewhat limits the audience. A good test to see if the book is too technical for you is your response to the paragraph I wrote above this one discussing RNA. If you could follow that, then you should have no problem with their book. If my paragraph was a bit difficult to follow but you generally understand how DNA, RNA, and proteins are related in all living cells, then the only problem may be that my paragraph is not that well written compared to their book (which includes some helpful analogies to explain some of the technical stuff). Also, by no means is the entire book as technical as the paragraph above. However, if you’re struggling to remember the different roles of DNA, RNA, and proteins, then Tay and Stadler’s book might not be a good fit for you (unless you want to go slow and do a little review of high school level biology as you read, in which case you will learn a lot of really interesting stuff).

Related Material

Tay and Stadler do a good job interacting with the top proponents of abiogenesis. This is not a book full of strawmen. They reference the top scientific  research and arguments of those who disagree with them. A slight weakness of their book is that they do not, from what I saw, equally reference some of the top work of those who agree with them. They are far from the first authors to argue on scientific grounds that natural forces alone cannot account for the origin of life and that the evidence points to an Intelligent Designer. For example, Stephen Meyer wrote an excellent book on this same topic, Signature in the Cell. However, from what I can tell (and I searched) neither Meyer nor his book are mentioned or referenced at all. Likewise, while Michael Behe has focused mostly on biological evolution as opposed to chemical evolution, Behe’s brilliant explanation of the concept of irreducible complexity is very relevant to Tay and Stadler’s topic. Yet, Behe (who, like Meyer, has been hugely influential in this field of inquiry) is not mentioned at all. This is not a major flaw, but I do count it as a minor flaw in an overall excellent book.

Why this topic is important

I want to close this blog post with a few thoughts about why a topic that might seem to be a bit esoteric and is certainly technical has wide and deep relevance to people today. What is at stake is nothing less than the glory of God.

When we glorify God, we are not making God any more glorious (good, beautiful, wise, holy, powerful, loving, intelligent) than He already is. Rather, when we glorify God, we are helping ourselves and other people to see and understand a little more clearly how wonderful God is. Nature, including living things, should glorify God. In other words, looking at the created world we live in should help us to see more clearly how powerful and intelligent our Creator must be. Nature does tend to have this effect on people. However, the molecules-to-man evolution myth robs God of glory He would otherwise receive by deceiving some people into thinking that a great, powerful, super-intelligent Creator really isn’t needed to account for humming birds, dolphins, and flowers after all. Evolution claims to explain all that without any need for God. But evolution, even if it works (which it doesn’t, except at the microevolution level, which is totally different from the molecules-to-man level), cannot get started at all until the first living cell existed and was reproducing. Where did that first cell come from? Many scientists believe and convince others that it came from chemical evolution (also called abiogenesis). Tay and Stadler show convincingly that chemical evolution cannot account for even the simplest life forms. Only God can. Tay and Stadler are continuing the good work of an ancient psalmist who wrote:

For you have made me rejoice, LORD, by what you have done;
I will shout for joy because of the works of your hands.
How magnificent are your works,
LORD, how profound your thoughts!
(Ps. 92:4-5 CSB17)




For further reading:

I love thinking about God’s glory as seen in creation and also about the scientific evidence for God. I’ve read extensively on this topic. It reinforces for my mind and intellect what my heart feels when I’m walking early in the morning and listening the birds sing, looking at flowers in bloom, and watching the sun rise. It leads to worship of my God and Savior. I’ve written on this topic a fair bit. Here are some of my blog posts on this topic:









Hebrews 13:16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others . . .

Thursday, April 23, 2020

Why I Thank God for Homeschooling (a response to Professor Elizabeth Bartholet)



I thank God for homeschooling!

I thank God for the wonderful privilege of helping my wife, Hope, homeschool our daughter, Joy. I thank Him for helping us overcome obstacles and challenges. I thank Him for the beautiful fruit those homeschool years have been bearing in Joy’s life since she graduated from high school. And I thank God for the other homeschoolers we know who consistently show a depth of Christian character, an inner strength, and a level of academic excellence that is a powerful testimony to homeschooling and which give glory to the God we serve.

What Prompted Me to Write at this Time

I was prompted to write this blog post by a terrible article in Harvard Magazine which describes alleged risks of homeschooling and calls for homeschooling to be banned. That article is written by Erin O’Donnell, but is based largely on a longer article by Professor Elizabeth Bartholet. Bartholet apparently  had the help and support of quite a few of her colleagues in writing her article. Bartholet and others plan to hold a conference on homeschooling that will continue her line of attack on our freedom to educate our own children (how the coronavirus has affected this plan I do not know). The Harvard anti-homeschool articles have already generated a lot of attention and some good responses, including a helpful response by Al Mohler. This is my own response.

My purpose in sharing this is to provide a positive testimony about homeschooling to balance out the distorted view of it presented by Bartholet. Bartholet seemed to especially be taking aim at Christian homeschooling, and that is precisely the type of homeschooling that my testimony concerns. I certainly support the right of non-Christian families to also homeschool their children according to their own beliefs. I suspect that this blog post will do little to change the minds of hard core liberals who hate evangelical Christianity and want to hinder us from passing on our faith and worldview to our children. I hope that this post will, however, encourage those who are already homeschooling and perhaps inform some people who haven’t thought much about it one way or the other. Perhaps I am preaching to the choir here. But when the choir is under attack and opponents want to use government power to stop the choir’s beautiful singing, perhaps the choir needs an encouraging message or two confirming what they already know to be true. So here is our testimony, followed by a few relevant thoughts.

A Challenging Situation with Good Results

We lived in Indonesia starting from two years before our daughter Joy was born until she was 12 years old. Our home was in the city of Makassar on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi. Those were difficult years in Indonesia (1996-2010) and there were no other Western expat children Joy’s age in our city. It could take months for us to receive homeschool materials via international mail. The main problem was not how long it took for a package to cross the Pacific Ocean. The greater delay occurred when a box ended up languishing in a part of the post office we called “the box dungeon” (it actually had bars) while trees grew taller and continents drifted apart. With minimal support, my wife took on the task of homeschooling our young daughter in that challenging setting.

By the time Joy was in 1st grade we realized she was having difficulty learning to read. We initially thought some of the difficulty might have been due to Joy having learned two languages at once growing up. Hope worked patiently with her. It was not until we were back visiting in the US while Joy was in 3rd grade that we had the opportunity to have her tested and discovered that she had dyslexia (during this same visit to the US Hope required some fairly significant surgery due to some health issues). We were so thankful for a wonderful friend and prayer supporter who helped us get Joy tested and then helped us understand the results, worked with Joy herself while we were in the US, and trained us to continue helping her after we returned to Indonesia.

What Hope lacked in professional experience working with dyslexia was more than made up for by a mother’s fierce love and determination. She spent countless hours reading to Joy and reading with Joy. I helped with some exercises tailored for Joy’s specific type of dyslexia. Reading for Joy did not really kick in until the summer between 4th and 5th grade. But when it did kick in, it kicked in in an amazing way. Not only had Hope patiently and gently taught Joy to read, by her example she had taught Joy to love reading. Soon we had a new challenge: keeping Joy supplied with the stacks of books she was burning through just because she loved reading.

Like many with dyslexia, initial difficulty in one area was combined with unusual aptitude in others. Joy loved math. Soon I had to take over math (Hope is a college graduate, but math was not her strongest area) as Joy quickly advanced to word problems that would be a real challenge for most adults. By God’s providence, I had studied Mechanical Engineering in college and so was able to keep up with her. By the time she graduated high school she had studied two years of calculus! In addition to the basics and advanced math, Joy chose to study chemistry, physics, two years of New Testament Greek, and two years of Spanish in high school. Extracurricular? She loved photography and learned to play guitar and she helped lead worship at our church. She seriously considered majoring in math in college, but there was another area she loved that won out: languages.

By God’s grace and through a mother’s devotion to homeschooling, Joy did very well on standard academic tests. She ended up getting a full academic scholarship. We were so thankful for that. We had gladly sacrificed a second income so that Hope could focus on homeschool, but that left us in a difficult situation when it came to paying for college. By God’s grace we have not had to pay for tuition, room, board or books as scholarships and grants have covered it all.

Joy is a couple of weeks away from finishing, Lord willing, a dual degree in Biblical Studies and Applied Linguistics. Through hard work, a good foundation, and God’s grace, she has continued to excel academically.

Did Joy’s social development suffer as a homeschooler? Not at all! She has many dear friends. She can relate well with young children while serving in VBS and with her classmates in college as well as her professors and is equally comfortable and friendly with the older members of our church. She is kind and loving and caring. More important than all that, Joy has a deeply rooted, strong Christian faith. She trusts her Lord and loves her God.

All of this is to say that Joy is a typical result of homeschooling. Of course, no two children are the same and one of the many advantages of homeschooling is the ability to tailor each child’s schooling to their unique needs, giftings, and interests. We have noticed that many other homeschoolers share the same academic excellence, the same quiet confidence, the same friendly and winsome demeanor, the same love for others, the same sparkle of joy in their eyes, and the same rock solid Christian faith that we are so thankful to see in our beautiful daughter.

So now I hope you can understand why I thank God for homeschooling. Likewise, I hope you can understand why I was dismayed by the article in Harvard Magazine that suggests that homeschooling should be banned. What a terrible and, quite frankly, evil idea.

A Few More Thoughts about Homeschooling

1. Bartholet cites cases of abuse by family members being more difficult to discover if children are homeschooled as one reason to ban homeschooling. Any good thing can be twisted and abused. Eating good food can turn into gluttony and obesity. Drugs that can heal and help can become traps for addiction and abuse. The police keep us safe but occasionally police power is abused. We need money to live and it can be used for good, but we must guard against greed and materialism. Should we ban eating, medicine, police, and money? More to the point, there have been cases of abuse in public schools by other students and even sometimes by teachers. Bullying has become widespread in public schools. In addition, there is a lot of negative peer pressure in public schools to engage in unhealthy and dangerous activities from sexting to vaping to underage drinking. Honestly, I believe the public school setting today is a much greater risk to children on average than homeschooling is. I taught as a substitute teacher in public schools for several months a few years back. If Bartholet thinks the typical public school system is a safer, healthier place for children than the typical homeschool setting, she must be living in an alternate universe that exists only in the liberal imagination. What about those rare cases where there is real physical or sexual abuse in homeschool settings? The answer is to put the abusers in jail, not to ban all homeschooling!

2. Bartholet specifically mentions that some homeschool families “question science.” I love science. Before being called into full time ministry I studied Mechanical Engineering and then worked as a nuclear engineer for five years. I later served as an assistant professor teaching thermodynamics and heat transfer at a university in Indonesia for three years. I enjoyed helping Joy learn chemistry and physics in homeschool. If by “question science,” the Harvard professor means that homeschool families question the value of science, or the scientific method, I haven’t seen that. But while we don’t “question science,” we do “ask questions in science.” I suspect her real concern is that many homeschool families do not buy into the godless molecules-to-man evolution, matter and energy is all there is, fairy tale. I certainly don’t! But my reasons for rejecting that kind of evolution are heavily rooted in science itself. Rejecting the evolutionary creation myth does not at all equate to rejecting real science.

3. The Harvard Magazine article seems to be worried that homeschooling is a danger to the liberal social agenda. They’re right about that one.

4. I fully realize that homeschool is not for everyone, but no one is arguing that all families should homeschool. Bartholet is suggesting that the government should use its power to prevent almost every family from homeschooling. What should the government do for the many families that are not well equipped or financially able to homeschool and also cannot afford to send their children to private schools? In my county and other nearby counties almost no one who can financially afford an alternative sends their children to the public schools. Despite some wonderful, heroic teachers, the public schools here are in very poor condition. In fact, they are in many ways unhealthy, dangerous places for children. Why not expand voucher programs? Instead of taking power away from parents and families, we should be empowering them with choices. Very few parents are going to send their kids to bad schools if they have a choice they can afford. Many parents would delightfully choose to send their children to excellent private Christian schools if they could use vouchers for that purpose. That’s why the left opposes voucher programs. Like homeschooling, it threatens their godless agenda.

Conclusion

We should not even think about banning homeschooling. Homeschoolers should be supported and encouraged. The government should expand voucher programs and allow those vouchers to be used for Christian schools. Homeshooling and private Christian schools are two good ways we can obey God’s command to teach our children to know Him and His Word and to walk in His ways while also teaching them reading, math, science, and more. Families who don’t want to teach their children Christian values and Bible truths don’t have to. That’s their responsibility before God. Of course, the government should step in when there is actual physical or sexual abuse and that applies whether the abuse occurs in a home, a public school, a church, a sports team, or anywhere else. Other than that, government should protect the God given rights and role of parents to raise their children and be responsible for their children’s education.

He established a testimony in Jacob and set up a law in Israel,
which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children
(Ps. 78:5 CSB17)




Hebrews 13:16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others . . .