How Viruses Strengthen the Scientific Case for a Creator

People are thinking a lot about viruses these days.  I’ve been thinking about viruses myself, and have written blog posts on The Coronavirus and the Lord’s Prayer and on 7 Ways the Lord may use the Coronavirus Pandemic for Good.  Those two blog posts are relevant to all Christians.  This blog post, however, has a narrower audience.  It is written for Christians and non-Christians alike who are interested in the scientific evidence for God and focuses on how viruses actually strengthen the scientific case for God.

While this may seem like a rather esoteric topic, it is quite relevant to our age.  Sadly, many people who reject Christianity in general, and also those who reject evangelical Christianity in particular, claim that one of their reasons for doing so is that science conflicts with Christian faith (I wrote about a well-known recent example here).  By “science” they usually mean the "molecules-to-man" evolution story.  This notion that science and Christianity are antithetical is sad and backwards from the way things actually are.  Not only did modern science grow out of the soil of Christian faith, but over the last 60 years there has been an avalanche of new scientific discovery and knowledge that give strong evidence that life and the life-sustaining universe in which we live are both the work of a mighty, ancient, intelligent Creator.  Among the strongest lines of evidence for this is the ever increasing understanding of the complexity of both the information found in DNA and RNA, and the systems and metabolic pathways responsible for the functioning of all living things. The scientific theory that argues that the best explanation for what we see in nature is an intelligent designer is often called the theory of “intelligent design.”

The first step in understanding how viruses support the case for intelligent design is to review the difference between cells and viruses and look at the smallest, simplest living cells.

Cells and Viruses  

Scientists consider single celled organisms like bacteria to be examples of life, but they do not usually consider viruses to be a type of life.  Why is this the case?  In biology, a living organism is a system which, at a minimum, is capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole.  Even bacteria can do something on their own that viruses cannot:  They can reproduce themselves independently.  Viruses reproduce prolifically, but they cannot do that on their own.  Viruses can only reproduce by infecting a living cell.  The virus does not directly make copies of itself.  Rather, it hijacks the reproductive machinery of a living cell and the cell makes copies of the virus, often eventually destroying the cell in the process. (Note: some scientists do think of viruses as a type of life, or as being in a gray area between life and non-life, but this is an issue of definition that does not affect the argument of this blog post because even scientists who think of viruses as being in some sense alive agree that viruses cannot reproduce on their own like other life forms do.)

Why can’t viruses reproduce on their own?  In order to reproduce, living cells need a large amount of complex, functional information which is encoded and stored in their DNA and a whole set of complex molecular machines (also called organelles) working together to turn that information into the various constituent parts that make up a living cell.  Think of DNA/RNA as the blueprints and the organelles as the machinery responsible for the fabrication and assembly of every single part of an organism.  Each cell also needs a system of amazingly complex, interconnected metabolic pathways that process and store the energy necessary to produce the biochemical building blocks the cells need to make those DNA, RNA, proteins and other large, complex biomolecules.  The cell also needs a cell membrane which functions like a wall separating and protecting the interior of the cell from its external environment.  However, the cell membrane is not a just a simple barrier.  It is a very complex structure that provides the cell the selective ability to bring in necessary material, exclude harmful material, and allow for the expulsion of waste products; all while keeping essential fluids and constituent parts from leaking out.  Cell membranes can also grow and divide.  Imagine the engineering marvel of a house that had walls that could grow as a family did and then divide off into two houses when a child was ready to move into a house of their own.  By contrast, viruses have some of those things required for self-replication, but certainly not enough of them for independent function.  Most viruses have an outer coating called a capsule, which is similar to a cellular membrane, but lacks much of the function of a membrane.  The capsule's function is almost exclusively to protect the virus' genetic material, its DNA or RNA, until it can be passed into a cell for the purpose of replication.  Sophisticated viruses sometimes can even incorporate proteins into their capsules which mimic those of a host cell's membrane in order to evade detection and attack, not unlike a soldier in disguise.  Likewise, viruses have functional information stored in either DNA or RNA, but typically a lot less than that found in a cell, even though the information works in the same way.  This is because most viruses only have to carry enough information in their DNA/RNA (their "blueprints") to convey how to build more DNA/RNA "blueprints" and their protective shell, or capsule.  Viruses do not have the complex molecular machines, the organelles, needed to turn the information in their DNA/RNA into copies of themselves, nor do they have their own complex metabolic systems.  Consequentially, viruses are completely dependent upon an infected host for both the means of production and the energy essential to their continued existence. 

The following two diagrams illustrate these facts:

Even the smallest, simplest cells aren’t simple

Therefore, it becomes readily apparent that even the simplest cell is not that simple.  Scientists have performed both theoretical analysis and experimentation to determine the approximate size of the smallest possible living cell.  (See this related blog post:  How the Smallest Cells Give Big Evidence for God).  This creates a big problem for scientists who try to explain the origin of life while ruling out the possibility of an intelligent creator (i.e. God).  Even the simplest cells could not possibly have spontaneously sprung into being from the types of molecules that we know can be produced by prebiotic chemistry.  No serious origin of life scientist thinks that is how it happened.  They think there must have been much simpler chemical systems that evolved into the simplest cells.  This theoretical process (which has never been observed in nature) is referred to as abiogenesis or chemical evolution.

Chemical evolution:  Similarity to biological evolution and what it requires to work

The theory of biological evolution requires many intermediate organisms between, for example, an ancient frog-like creature and a human.  If we are to give credit to the possibility that this theory would work at all, by its own account it does not allow for large changes to occur in any given step of the process.  Only very small, incremental steps are permissible.  Each change must occur in an organism that is capable of reproducing itself and passing any change onto future generations which can then themselves express and pass on those new changes.  In the same way, chemical evolution would require many intermediate chemical systems of increasing complexity and increasing similarity to a living cell.  In order to grow in complexity and become more cell-like over time, each subsequent intermediate system has to likewise be capable of autogenous replication.  No one knows precisely how many steps might be required in between the simplest pre-cell reproducing molecular system and the first cell, but given the incredible complexity and presently unfathomable amount of functional information stored in the even the simplest cell, it is reasonable to conclude that many thousands of intermediates would be needed.

How many such intermediates have been discovered in nature?  Absolutely none.  Zero.

Living cells are the only known complex system capable of self-replication, and thus the only known system even theoretically capable of evolution.  Origin of life researchers know this, but because they categorically rule out supernatural causes, they are self-constrained to a theory that these intermediates must have existed in the past, despite having no actual or even analogous examples of them today.  A lot of imaginative energy has been expended trying to describe what these intermediates might have been like, but none of the solutions ("RNA world", proteins first, etc.) are even remotely plausible when the actual chemistry is studied.  Though that chemistry goes beyond the scope of this blog post, a world renown Professor of both Materials Science and NanoEngineering and of Computer Science at Rice University in Houston, Dr. James Tour, gave an excellent lecture in which he pressed the point home that origin of life researchers really have no idea how life started:

James Tour: The Mystery of the Origin of Life

How viruses make the problem worse for chemical evolution

If there was merely a huge, empty gap between chemicals that don’t proceed from living things and the biomolecules, biochemical systems, and information needed for living things, that would be bad enough.   But, the gap is not entirely empty.  In terms of complexity, between living cells and organic chemistry lies viruses.  Viruses are ubiquitous, common and don’t just affect humans.  There are different types of viruses that attack and invade all types of living organisms including animals, plants, and even bacteria.    Some viruses contain DNA, others RNA, and often times the genetic material in a particular virus is subject to frequent mutation.  This phenomenon is commonly evidenced by the influenza virus which characteristically mutates year over year, conferring an advantage which allows the flu to infect people and animals over and over again.  One could reasonably suppose that the genetic diversity and variability in the overall viral population would make viruses the prima facie candidates for the biomolecular intermediates postulated by the theory of chemical evolution.  No other chemical or molecule even comes close to this ideal bridge.  However, the one adaptation that would confer the greatest survival advantage to this class of organic molecules would be that of self-replication and that is totally absent the viral population throughout the entirety of world.  No virus can self-replicate.  Not one.  Scientists believe viruses have existed for most of the history of life, but during all that time apparently no virus has evolved the ability to duplicate itself outside of living cells.  And yet, if chemical evolution is true, there would have to have been many thousands of virus-like complex, biochemical systems that could reproduce themselves without the help of the living cell.  The following two images demonstrate this problem:

Even these diagrams fail to capture the enormity of the gap between not only simple molecules (i.e. the types of molecules that are not produced by living things) and viruses, but also the gap between viruses and living cells.  Far from bridging the divide, the inability of viruses to reproduce on their own merely highlights the fact that there are no known examples of self-replicating complex biochemical systems short of complete living cells.  Certainly, the lack of any such known systems is tacit evidence that such systems have not yet been discovered for the simple reason that they never existed.  And if there are no complex biochemical systems that can reproduce without living cells, there cannot be, even in theory, any chemical evolution.

We know of one type of cause that can create complex systems with large amounts of functional information:   intelligent beings.  Only intelligent beings are capable of formulating ideas, planning, building and creating new things.  This is the essence of the concept of Intelligent Design.  While humans have not yet created anything as complex as a living cell, we have created, to name just a few examples, computers, space stations, and nuclear submarines (Reference:  An Article Comparing Nuclear Submarines to Living Cells).  Every complex, functional machine we know of was created by an intelligent designer.  Every example of complex  functional information, from the ordinary cookbook to advanced computer programs and smart phone apps were all created via the capacity of intellect.  Critical examination of the evidence strongly indicates that chemical evolution could not have created the self-replicating living cell.  Furthermore, we know through empirical observation that intelligent beings are prerequisite for the creation of complex systems.  Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the origin of life is unlikely to have been random, and being purposeful and complex, necessarily involved an ancient, phenomenally intelligent, and very powerful Creator.  Scientific reasoning gets us that far. 

The resultant question becomes not one of whether or not there is a Creator, but what is the nature and purpose of that Creator?  At this point I turn from the theory of intelligent design, to the historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, to examples of Bible prophecies being fulfilled today, to personal experiences I have had with God, and other lines of evidence. These types of evidence strengthen my faith that the God who created us is the God of the Christian faith. God has graciously used all these types of evidence, together with the theory of intelligent design, to give me a deep confidence that “he exists and that he rewards those who seek him” (Hebrews 11:6 CSB17).

This discourse would not be complete without anticipating and addressing possible objections:

Objection #1: Aren’t we seeing evolution in action when a virus mutates?

It is likely that the COVID 19 virus responsible for the coronavirus pandemic existed for a long time as a very slightly different virus in an animal like bats. Then the virus mutated in such a way that it was able to infect humans. Isn’t this mutation of a virus an example of evolution occurring before our very eyes? Yes, but no.

If evolution is defined to mean merely random changes to an organism’s genetic material that produce some effect, then, yes, mutations in viruses that allow them to infect a new host are examples of evolution. But this is not the type of evolution needed for molecules-to-man evolution, or even “simple molecules-to-living cells” chemical evolution. That type of evolution, the only type relevant to the issue of scientific evidence for God, requires changes to an organism’s genetic material that can produce new functional molecular structures, not merely tweak existing ones. An analogy might help.

Imagine if one day mankind is able to build a completely automated self-replicating factory that uses material and energy available in the environment to build new factories identical to itself which in turn can build more new factories. For now, this is the stuff of science fiction. So far, with all our scientific knowledge, we have been unable to build any machine or system of machines that can do what every blade of grass and bacterial cell can do: self-replicate. But let’s imagine that someday we do build such a factory (which obviously would involve a lot of intelligent design!). Further, imagine that this factory makes use of a number of robots which work in the factory and which can be built in the factory, but which cannot build themselves outside of the factory. So far, so good.

Continuing our story, imagine that an evil engineer (or mad scientist, if you prefer), builds a sinister robot designed to take over and destroy the self-replicating factories. The robot cannot make copies of itself (a whole factory is needed for that), but its diabolical inventor equips the robot with code that allows it to trick the factory into building copies of the evil robot (this is how a virus works). However, the evil robot has to get inside the factory to carry out this scheme. The factory doors are all locked in order to keep evil robots (and other harmful stuff) out. Blasting through the factory wall is not a good option as that would damage the machinery inside that is needed to make copies of the evil robot. So, the evil robot is equipped with a key. The little bumps on the key must match the lock to open it. In order to overcome this problem, the little bumps on the key are designed so that they can randomly change until they fit the lock. Given enough time (or enough evil robots, or after trying enough doors), the evil robot will find one it can open. The new copies of the evil robot can likewise vary the little bumps on the key in order to break into different doors in different self-replicating factories.

In this story, the ability to randomly change the bumps on the key does help the robot. But it is far different from the robot being able to gain new machinery with new abilities like, for example, machinery that would allow it to scale a factory wall, cut through a skylight, and rappel down into the factory. Likewise, when viruses mutate to be able to enter a new host, the change is equivalent to changing the little bumps on the key. Very minor changes in the makeup of some of the virus’s proteins on its surface may allow it grab onto and later penetrate and enter cells in a new organism. The process is like a lock fitting into a key. However, these changes are not producing new molecular machinery. These changes are not increasing the functional information in the robot’s code (the virus’s DNA or RNA). These changes are not moving the virus any closer to being able to self-replicate on its own. While the details are quite complex, and can include things like different viruses swapping genes if they inhabit a common host, none of the increasing-in-functional-complexity molecules-to-man type of evolution is occurring. If you want to read more about the details, I highly recommend Michael Behe’s book The Edge of Evolution.

Objection #2: Haven’t researchers found sound self-replicating molecules?

There have been great efforts made to find complex molecules that can self-replicate and then potentially mutate and become better and more complex self-replicators leading to life. None of these experiments have produced realistic candidates for unguided chemical evolution. One of the most mentioned examples was an experiment carried out by Nicholas Wade and Gerald Joyce. They succeeded in getting a specially designed sequence of RNA to catalyze a reaction that caused two halves of the same sequence to join together. Among origin of life researchers, this was hailed as a victory in self-replication. Stephen Meyers critiqued their work:

The “self-replicating” RNA molecules that Joyce constructs are not capable of copying a template of information from free standing chemical subunits as the polymerase machinery does in actual cells. Instead, in Joyce’s experiment, a pre-synthesized specifically-sequenced RNA molecule merely catalyzes a single chemical bond, thus fusing two other pre-synthesized partial RNA chains. More significantly, Joyce intelligently arranged the matching base sequences in these RNA chains. (Meyer’s short article may be read here.)

If we go back to the robot analogy used above in discussing objection #1, what Joyce and Wade did would be roughly the equivalent of making a robot with a top and bottom half that can, if given a fully preassembled top half and a fully preassembled bottom half, connect the two halves together. I suppose that this is a trivial level of self-assembly, but it is not anything remotely like what is needed for life. Further, there is no plausible way for an RNA molecule to be produced aside from using complex, highly designed and controlled processes in a lab ran by intelligent scientists or using the even more complex molecular machinery found inside living cells.

Other proposed examples of self-replication have similar problems.

Objection #3: God wouldn’t create something like a virus

I’ve heard some people try to argue that viruses (and other pathogens) are evidence against God (at least the good God of the Christian Bible) being responsible for creation. They ask, “Why would a good God create viruses that cause so much suffering and death?”

The Bible does not explicitly address this issue, but there are a number of possible answers:

* Viruses (especially those that harm people) may have been created as part of the curse that fell on the created world when Adam and Eve sinned.

* If the earth and viruses that harm animals have been around for many millions of years (which I personally think may be true), then it is possible that viruses are somehow related to or the result of the rebellion of Satan and those angels that followed him. This is speculation, but it is not unreasonable speculation.

* God often uses temporary evil and suffering of many kinds to bring about long term (even eternal!) good that far outweighs the temporary evil. God may be doing this with viruses.

* It is even possible that viruses could have initially had a good purpose like being an instrument God used to insert new information into the biosphere. Like many of God’s good creations, this instrument could have been corrupted as a result of sin, both the sins of fallen angels and later the sins of people.

Those who argue that viruses are inconsistent with God being the Creator of our world have not carefully considered the whole biblical account of God’s goodness on the one hand, and the tragic results of first angelic, and then human, sin and rebellion on the other hand.

Concluding Thoughts

I long for the day when Christ returns and establishes the new heavens and the new earth where there will be no more suffering. I don’t know if viruses will exist in that world, but if they do, they will not harm any of God’s creatures. I deeply trust God and believe His promises.

In order to trust God, we have to believe He exists. The created world gives evidence that our great Creator does exist. Even elements of the world that are now harmful, like viruses, can add to this evidence. While this blog post has focused on the scientific side of seeing this evidence in creation for our Creator, you don’t have to be a scientist to look at nature and conclude there must be a great God. Long before the advent of modern science, the Apostle Paul realized that all people should be able to see evidence for God through the things God has made. I will close with his words:

For his invisible attributes, that is, his eternal power and divine nature,

 have been clearly seen since the creation of the world,

 being understood through what he has made.

 As a result, people are without excuse.

(Rom. 1:20 CSB17)

A special note of thanks: Due to the technical nature of this blog post, in addition to the years I have spent reading about and studying the topic of intelligent design, and the hours I spent watching lectures on virology in conjunction with writing this post, I also requested help and input from two people with more detailed knowledge of the topic than I have. I thank God for the help and input I received from my good friend, Wes Eans, who graduated from the University of Maryland with a dual major in Biochemistry and Microbiology and then later earned his Doctor of Veterinary Medicine from VMRCM. I also am thankful for helpful feedback from my Nephew, Connor Pryseski, who is currently majoring in Immunology and Medical Microbiology at WVU.

For further reading and study:

The Discovery Institute has been leading the way in producing excellent material explaining and defending the theory of intelligent design. I’ve listed some of their articles that are most relevant to this blog post here:

Origin of Life Researcher Admits It’s “A long, long way to LUCA”

The Origin of Life: Not So Simple (Part 3)

Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code

In Search of Self-Replicating Clocks

Biological Information: The Puzzle of Life that Darwinism Hasn’t Solved

Self-replicating Droplets: Evidence or a Shot in the Dark?

Evolution’s Grand Challenge

Another Once-Favored Alternative to ID Reduced to an Epitaph

Swine Flu, Viruses, and The Edge of Evolution

Some of the Other Blog Posts I Have Written on Evidence for God Seen in Nature:

God Created the Earth to be Inhabited

How the Sun glorifies the Son

Seeing God in Creation Gives Me Courage to Keep Serving Him

Nuclear Submarines and Living Cells

Theistic Evolution Demagnifies God's Glory

Octopi from Outer Space

Behe’s Three Mighty Blows Against Darwinism

Some blog posts that use nature as a metaphor for spiritual truths:

Sunflowers and Sonpeople

Spiritual Lessons from Elephants and Water Buffalo

White Fields

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