The Guardian features an interesting opinion column by the renowned British pharmacologist David Colquhoun. The article bears the intriguing headline, “Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science.” The author laments that “Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed.”

 Click here to continue reading>>>

In ID circles we often discuss the sheer rarity of biologically relevant polypeptides with respect to combinatorial sequence space (and the related conundrum of macromolecular interdependence). It has often been argued that this represents a potent challenge to chemical origin-of-life models of an order substantially greater than the challenge it presents to biological evolution. There is one related problem in this regard which is often overlooked, and I want to briefly explore it in this blog entry.

When it comes to polymerization of amino acids to form proteins, two things must be borne in mind with regards to the formation of peptide bonds.

1. Peptide bond formation is an endothermic reaction. This means that the reaction requires the absorption of energy: It does not take place spontaneously.
2. Peptide bond formation is a condensation reaction. It hence involves the net removal of a water molecule. So not only can this reaction not happen spontaneously in an aqueous medium, but, in fact, the presence of waterinhibits the reaction.

There is also the added problem of interfering cross-reactivity (the probability of interfering cross-reactions between the chemical groups on the various amino acid side chains is quite high).

But this is only the peak of the proverbial ice berg. The difficulties associated withsynthesizing peptides (altogether with appropriate homochirality and all) are only half the story. There is also the problem of breaking the peptide bonds in order to generate a range of amino acid sequences in view of finding some with meaningful activity. I mentioned previously that the formation of a peptide bond requires a loss of a water molecule and the input of energy. On the flip side of the coin, then, breaking these bonds requires the addition of a water molecule and involves an energetically favorable reaction. But here’s the thing: Although this entails a net release of energy, the reaction involves high activation energy. But the activation energy for hydrolysis of peptide bonds is such that spontaneous hydrolysis under ambient conditions is not something which occurs readily.

In view of the difficulties associated with the making and breaking of peptide bonds, a very bleak picture is painted for the exploration of amino acid sequences in the pre-biotic context. Given that the conditions required for the making and breaking of peptide bonds are really quite different from one another, if naturalistic origin-of-life scenarios are to have any traction, it would entail that a location be required in which the conditions can vary significantly, alternating between conditions suitable for peptide bond formation and breaking. And this of course is compounded by the fact that the reactions, when they do occur, are likely to be slow and inefficient. Even granting that volcanoes and ocean vents might have provided the necessary changing conditions, it still stands to reason that the production of different polypeptides cannot have exceeded the rate of change of environmental conditions. This would dramatically limit the potential number of polypeptides which could have been produced in the prebiotic world, thus placing considerable restraints on the probabilistic resources at one’s disposal for the formation of multiple biologically relevant (and functionally interdependent) polypeptides.

In view of the reasons articulated above (and many others), the proteins-first model of the origin of life may be taken as essentially dead in the water. Not only are there the substantive challenges of even forming biologically relevant polypeptides. But even supposing that such prebiotic polymers could be produced in this way and useful sequences were happened across, the polymyers have to be able to reproduce with reasonable integrity. But there does not appear to be any way in which a polypeptide can determine a peptide sequence in some fashion analogous to that of base pairing of nucleic acids. How would these proteins be replicated in order to facilitate the workings of natural selection?

In view of the obvious closed-loop “catch-22? paradox of DNA making proteins and proteins making DNA, there is, of course, the fashionable scenario of the RNA world: That is to say, the possible role of RNA as the earliest hereditary macromolecule. This is seen to follow from the realization that RNA not only has information-carrying capacity, but also possesses catalytic capability. Proposed evidence for this notion included the fact that RNA makes up a large proportion of ribosomes (the protein factory of the cell). Furthermore, in eukaryotes (organisms with nucleated cells), components of genes which don’t code for proteins (called “introns”) are spliced out of an RNA transcript before translation. RNA molecules are involved in many of the RNA-splicing processes, and it has been documented that some RNA introns have self-splicing capability: that is to say, they can excise themselves, though at a slower rate than proteins can do it. Further observations which were taken as evidence for the plausibility of the RNA world thesis included the existence of RNA viruses, which use RNA as their genetic material which is translated directly into proteins.

Leaving aside the problems of attaining an RNA-based replicase (for that discussion, see Signature in the Cell), the problem is that the difficulties outlined above with regards the formation of polypeptides are really quite trivial in comparison to the difficulty of obtaining polynucleotides, in part because of the different kinds of bonds which need to be made and broken and the very different reaction conditions which are necessary at each stage. Nucleotides are composed of three chemical subunits – a ribose sugar, a phosphate group, and a nitrogenous base. Not only do these components need to be present and react together in an appropriate fashion in order to produce one nucleotide, but these nucleotides then have to be polymerized, a process which requires a series of endothermic condensation reactions, thereby requiring a high-energy condensing agent in order to perform them. In order to obtain nucleosides (i.e. base and ribose), one would need to begin with a mixture of nitrogenous bases and ribose and an appropriate condensing agents. To obtain nucleotides requires the mixing of nucleosides with phosphate and a different condensing agent.

The scenario for self-replicative capability of polynucleotides is more optimistic than that for polypeptides. But this is by no means trivial. At the heart of Darwinian rationale lies the concept that evolution must strike a balance between reliable reproduction of a species on the one hand, and opportunistic variation on the other. A poor replicator is much more likely to degrade through inaccurate copying than to be enhanced by evolution. There thus exists a threshold before the cumulative improvement of a replicator can occur by selection. A replicatormust already have a reasonably good performance before it can even improve on that performance. At this point, however, we are running perilously close to yet another catch-22 conundrum: If (as I think is a legitimate assumption), this threshold performance level may be only attained with a sequence substantially longer than the minimum required for folding, one is faced with the even greater improbabilities of attaining such a replicator by a blind search.

This article was cross-posted from UncommonDescent.com.

I have always viewed the exquisitely detailed Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 53 as one of the most powerful and compelling reasons for thinking that Christianity is indeed true. Written some 700 years before Christ’s life on earth, this prophecy details the suffering and redemptive purposes of the Messiah. Moreover, the presence of the entire book of Isaiah in the Qumran scrolls gives us confidence that this prophecy pre-dates the first century by at least a couple hundred years. Its presence among the Jewish Scriptures precludes any possibility of Christian tampering anyway, and such a possibility is uniformly rejected among contemporary scholarship.

So what does this passage say? Can there be any doubt that this passage refers to Jesus? I have entered the full passage below, and followed it with a brief discussion of common attempts to evade this powerful argument. The relevant text begins in Isaiah 52:13, and continues to the end of chaptier 53:

“See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.

Just as there were many who were appalled at him— his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being and his form marred beyond human likeness— so he will sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand.

Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid on himthe iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished.

He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days,and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.

Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

Some might argue that contemporary Jews argue against this passage being messianic. However, having read the conventional views among them, I think such a view is untenable. Firstly, if the passage — as most contemporary Jews maintain — is really a personification of the nation of Israel, then the passage makes no sense when it says “…for the transgressions of my people [i.e. Israel] he was striken…though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.” The term “the servant” is also used of the messiah in other parts of the Bible, such as in Zechariah 3:8 (“I am going to bring my servant, the Branch”)

Moreover, most contemporary Jews are simply not familiar with the chapter – it is curiously avoided in the synagogue readings. We can, however, settle the issue of the passage’s historical Judaic interpretation by going to the ancient sources. Jonathan ben Uziel (early 1st century), for example, in his Targum (an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible), paraphrasing Isaiah 53, wrote: “My servant, the Messiah, will be great, who was bruised for our sins.” Furthermore, the Talmud (in the Midrash Tanchumi) states with reference to Isaiah 52:13 that “He was more exalted than Abraham, more extolled than Moses; higher than the angels.”

Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees in John 5, “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

The apostle Peter wrote in 1 Peter 1:10-12, ”Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.”

Could this passage really refer to anyone besides Jesus the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world? Is all this just one big happy coincidence? You decide!

We have had several conversations on this site over the years on the subject of macroevolution.  Many of the comments affirming macroevolution have come from a very loyal and courteous participant here, atheist “Tim D” (full name Tim Duck).  I offered Tim some posting space (rather than just in the comments section) to make a positive case for the theory that all new life forms arose from a single common ancestor by unguided natural processes.

Just to be clear, the post below is by atheist, Mr. Tim Duck.  He welcomes your comments.

Why I Think MacroEvolution is True

By Tim Duck

Short foreword: a while back I was challenged to write a short article in defense of the theory of evolution by natural selection (sometimes called “Darwinian evolution”) for this site. I felt confident that I could do so, but once I sat down, I found a lot of difficulty stringing all the concepts in my head together into a coherent series of paragraphs, and when I tried, I ended up with 10+ pages. I realized, my mistake was that I was trying to give a comprehensive rundown of all the arguments for and against the theory, from scientific and religious circles, that I have encountered. That’s simply not practical, so instead what I’m going to focus on here is a description of the most fundamental, underlying principles of the theory — the simplest, most basic aspects that come together to form evolutionary theory. This is a straightforward approach that should cover most questions that people would have; and I have been told that if there are any questions not answered herein, that I will have the opportunity to respond to them in the comments section, which I will try to the best of my ability to do faithfully.

Before I can say anything about evolutionary theory, I must ask: What is it, exactly? There’s certainly a lot of confusion on this point — what does evolution say about the origin of the universe? What implications does it have for the existence of god, or of objectively-grounded morality? What does it say about us as humans? These are all interesting questions that we hear a lot, but before we can answer any of them, we must define evolution in a fundamental, principled way. First and foremost, though, we use the tentative definition that evolution is the shift in the genetic “norm” of a population of organisms.

Evolution ultimately starts at the molecular level — DNA. Most people are familiar with the basic features of DNA — you find it in stringy things called “chromosomes” (each one of which is composed of a long series of smaller units called “nucleotides,” which can number 100 thousand to 10 billion) that reside within cell “nuclei,” or cores. DNA contains segments of nucleotides called “genes,” which are responsible for all the traits of a single organism, so any living thing has genes and thus DNA. Without genes and DNA, a discussion of evolution would be moot.

“Nucleotides” are small molecules built up of a sugar (ribose or deoxyribose), a nitrogenous base, and a phosphate group. There are four basic types of nucelotides: adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine (abbreviated “A, G, T, and C”). The sugar (ribose in the case of DNA) forms the “backbone” (and gives the chromosome its Jacob’s-Ladder structure), and the phosphate group accounts for the reaction that binds the nucleotides together.via something called a “phosphodiester bond.” Furthermore, T only bonds with A and G only bonds with C; when we have long strands of these polymers, we have genes, the fundamental unit of DNA.

But what kind of traits do genes determine? Well….everything. Every single physical characteristic of both you and I is ultimately determined at the genetic level — it can be a small trait that is almost universal within a population of humans, such as protein production at the cellular level, or it can be a much “larger” trait (such as eye color or bone structure) that is made up of many smaller traits at the cellular and molecular level. To simplify, you might say that the “gene” is the “unit” of genetic variation — even traits such as hair or skin color can be broken down into smaller individual traits which exist at the genetic level. What this means is, there is not a “hair color gene” or a “bone structure gene,” or a “body type gene.” These larger traits can be thought of as “trait groups,” and ultimately rely on a convergence of smaller gene groups within DNA. So ultimately, if a trait changes somehow from generation to generation, it happens at the genetic level.

The way in which genes do this is not direct, though — a gene does not contain information which says, “this person will have red hair, so work with these other genes to make red hair.” Rather, a gene in itself contains only very simple (I use the word simple here liberally) chemicals which are used to do things like encode proteins. This makes it difficult to see what a gene will do if you only look at it at the genetic level. We are able to identify certain genes (such as those responsible for Alzheimer’s and Tay-Sachs disease) because of a careful, experimental process of elimination and isolation which is far too complicated to go into detail here….but basically, a single gene by itself can only do so much. If it’s defective or mutated, it can cause some serious changes (or even problems), but it won’t cause a human to be born as a gorilla or something silly like that. Most such changes, you might not even notice.

So, skipping ahead for a moment…humans reproduce sexually, of course. At the cellular level, what happens when a sperm and egg cell join together during the process of fertilization and conception is known as “sexual recombination” or “genetic recombination.” This is when trait genes from each of the parents’ DNA are “shuffled” in a way that is basically random, and then combined to form a new sequence that will be the offspring — it is by this process that we inherit certain traits or trait groups from both parents (such as eye color or facial similarity), and yet we don’t usually look exactly like either of our parents; we have traits from both, but not ALL traits from either individual.

So what happens, then, to the genes that we don’t acquire from our parents? If my father has red hair and my mother has blonde hair, and I’m born with red hair, what does that say about my mother’s blonde hair? A number of things can happen. Some genes are called “recessive,” which means, they do not manifest if they are coupled with other “dominant” genes. They must be paired with other similar “recessive” genes before they are manifest — diseases such as Tay-sachs can occur in this way; if both parents have the same recessive gene, then the child has a much higher chance of contracting the disease. In this way, an offspring can spread a gene for several generations without ever directly seeing or feeling its effects. So even if a gene is not active or dominant, it can still be passed on.

Okay, the story so far: (1) all life has DNA, (2) DNA is shuffled randomly during sexual reproduction, (3) this causes a rotation of traits within the offspring. This is the natural process that establishes what we call “genetic norms” in a population — popular traits or trait groups that are almost universal, or at least prevalent, in a population. In humans, for instance, having two arms, two legs, a head, and a torso is considered a “norm.” There are some variations from this norm, such as people with extra or missing parts, but this is the most prevalent template for human development (On a side note, please do not confuse the term “genetic norm” with the term “social norm;” they are two very different concepts!).

This is a microcosm of what happens during evolution, but in this case it doesn’t give us a wide enough pool of genetic diversity to account for rapid or drastic evolution within a population — a single population in a single area, such as humans in a city, probably won’t see much of a drastic change even over long periods of time. So, how do we get from here to “the big picture” of evolution in action? To answer that question, we’ll analyze another objection that’s often raised by critics of evolutionary theory: That’s just microevolution. What evidence do we have that macroevolution takes place?

Going back to the original definition for a moment, you may recall that I said, “evolution is the shift in the genetic norm of a population.” What this means is, at the most fundamental level, there is no difference between ‘macroevolution’ and ‘microevolution.’ Macroevolution just means, “a large shift in the genetic norm,” whereas microevolution means, “a small shift in the genetic norm.” Even if I do offer you a concrete example of each (macro and micro), if we break them both down, we will see that they are identical at the genetic level. The only difference between the two is time — small changes happen all the time and are mostly benign (i.e. they don’t have any visible effect on our bodies), but that is because they are made up of small amounts of genes. Large changes happen less frequently because they must accumulate over time. If small changes can happen, and small changes can accumulate, then it follows naturally that they can accumulate over large periods of time. That is why you only see truly vast differences in traits between species which exist hundreds-of-thousands, or millions, of years apart.

But how does “macroevolution” occur? How do large changes to an organism happen? There is a famous example called the Lenski Bacteria Experiment; I don’t have time to detail it too much here, but basically, 12 “tribes” of the exact same strain of e. coli bacteria were isolated in 12 containers and provided with nutrients, glucose and citrate. Each day, each “tribe” was moved to a new container and provided with new nutrients. Now normally, e. coli can’t digest citrate, and so they only “ate” the glucose, and once the glucose in the container ran out, their numbers would start to dwindle. However, one day, after a significant amount of generations (over 20,000), suddenly, one of the 12 tribe cultures suddenly began to reproduce at an exponential rate, even as the other tribes had run out of glucose and began to dwindle! After subsequent research it was determined that this mutant strain of e. coli had mutated a particular structure within its body which allowed it to process citrate as well as glucose, so it was able to get almost twice as much out of its environment as the other tribes. Through further study they managed to isolate the gene which was actually responsible for the mutation (call it “mutation B”)….and yet, the mutant tribe was not the only tribe with this gene. So what gives? As it turns out, after examining samples saved from each prior generation before the mutation occurred, it was determined that a mutation had occurred around generation 20,000 (call it “mutation A”) which had no significant effect on its own, but that when paired with mutation B, caused the citrate mutation to occur. So the bacteria needed not only to have both A and B, but to have them in a certain order (A, then B). Only then would the new trait manifest.

I use this experiment to demonstrate one important thing: Large mutations are made up of smaller mutations. They also take much more time; most of the cultures in that experiment mutated either A or B on their own, but only the one that mutated first A and then B was able to experience the citrate mutation. In this case the effect seemed small because the organism was single-celled, but this principle applies equally to all organisms; it’s just a combination of a few basic points:

(1) if I have a trait, then like the bacteria culture, there is a chance that I may pass it on to my children. This can be true for more than one trait, of course; I could pass on thousands of traits to my children.
(2) if my child receives a trait from me, he/she could pass it on to his/her children; this is also true for more than one trait, my child could pass on thousands of other traits, some from his/her mother and some from me
(3) if at any point, any traits mutate, those traits will be preserved if they are passed on (i.e. the mutated trait will pass on, not the original unmutated one).

Through this process, a series of small, individual mutations can accumulate over a very long time. Even in a single population this can produce some genetic diversity….but again, not really enough to account for a drastic shift of the sort you might call “macroevolution.” No, what we need is a diversity of two things: (1) population, and (2) habitat. In a small town in Colorado, you’re not likely to find much genetic diversity just by looking at people. You’ll mostly see people of similar ethnicity with similar features. Likewise, in a small village in Egypt or Uganda, you’re not likely to find many different kinds of ethnicity or massive variation. However, if you compare the two — smalltown Colorado with village in Egypt or Uganda — you will see that the two communities are quite ethnically different. There is a definite variation in the norms between these two areas; darker vs. lighter skin being the most noticeable. That is a small difference, but it makes a good segue into the last example I have for now.

Probably one of the most important things to remember about evolution is this: it is about divergence, not progression. To “evolve” does not mean “to get stronger,” or “to get better,” or to “improve.” It simply means to “change.” Divergent species of the same ilk can have their own unique strengths and weaknesses, which better suits them to some situations but may even worsen their ability to deal with others. So there is no such thing as the “ultimate species” in that sense, despite what horror movies about biologists run amok would have you believe. A good example of this is the Pod Mrcaru/Pod Kopiste island lizards. In 1971, a group of scientists transported five couples of Podarcis sicula lizards (native to Pod Kopiste) over to Pod Mrcaru, a nearby island with a slightly different environmental culture, and released them. Another group of scientists came back in 2008 to check on the lizards, performing DNA tests of samples captured from the wild to ascertain that (A) yes, the lizards they were seeing were descendants of the Pod Kopiste Podarcis sicula, and (B) the lizards had spread out and populated the island. The lizards from Pod Kopiste, while bearing almost identical genetic profiles, exhibited a few differences from their “ancestors” on the neighbor island — chiefly, a larger head size. The payoff being increased bite force, the downside being that the head is bigger, and thus takes more power to maneuver, requiring stronger neck and jaw muscles. This resulted in the lizards having a more vegetarian diet, possibly due to their lack of a strong body — chasing mobile prey would be markedly more difficult with a larger head and small body.

There are really more examples I would like to go into, but for the sake of brevity I’m trying to focus only on those absolutely necessary to define evolution….and so in closing, I will come back to my introductory (rhetorical) questions, and address some common errors/falsehoods that are frequently spread about evolutionary theory (and the people who accept it):
-)  Evolution is not a theory of origins; it does not address (or attempt to address) where the universe came from, or where life came from. It is only the study of living things and how they change over time. Abiogenesis is a separate theory that deals will the origin of life, completely independent of evolutionary theory. Within the context of evolutionary theory itself, it is entirely technically possible that someone like a god created the first life. All evolution does is trace what happens after that.

-) If evolution is true, that does not mean that god does not exist. It may challenge some specific claims made by certain interpretations of religions or texts (such that “god created humans in their present state 6000 years ago”), but since evolution does not address any of the fundamental characteristics of god (who is said to be “timeless, spaceless and immaterial”), it can’t be said to challenge them in any real way.

-) If someone accepts evolution, that does not mean they support a “survival of the fittest” worldview. Evolution is a descriptive theory, not a prescriptive theory. It does not tell us what we “should” do in the future, and it does not advise us to “evolve ourselves” such as through eugenics. If someone uses evolution as a basis on which to declare racial superiority or inferiority, then he/she probably knows very little about evolution at all. To say that “evolution is not true because it promotes [x worldview]” is no stranger a statement than to say, “shotguns don’t actually work because shooting someone in the face promotes violence.” Evolution is merely a tool by which we hope to understand the workings of biology a little better.

I guess that’s about it….I know I haven’t addressed *all* of the criticisms that are out there, but I hope I have provided at least a basic groundwork on which to base any further discussion of evolutionary theory. If you have any questions or comments, then perhaps I can tweak things in the future so as to provide an adequate attempt at a follow-up. And of course a thanks to Mr. Turek for inviting me to write this as a guest on his site!

–Tim D.

It’s often easy to spot militant atheists who attend my presentation called I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. They usually sit with their arms folded and scowls on their faces.  During a recent presentation at Michigan State, I knew I’d get push back from one such scowling student sitting to my right.  He looked mad and was mad.  (He wouldn’t even smile at a hilarious Homer Simpson clip!)

He shot his hand up during the Q&A and yelled out, “You mentioned the problem of evil during your presentation but you didn’t answer it!  If there is a good God, then why does evil exist?  Why doesn’t God stop it?”

I said, “Sir, that is an excellent question.  Sometimes I bluntly answer this way.  ‘If God stopped all evil, he might start with you . . . and me because we both do evil every day.’  To end evil on earth God would have to take away our free will.  But if he takes away our free will, he takes away our ability to love as well.  Allow me to show you a video that beautifully illustrates this in less than two minutes.”  I then played this outstanding video which traces evil back to free will.

Most in the audience appreciated the clip and applauded.  But the atheist was unmoved.  “Why do babies die, why do tsunamis occur?  These aren’t the result of free will!” he protested.

“True, they are not the result of someone’s free will today,” I explained. “But Christianity traces all of our trouble back to a free will choice by Adam.  As a result, we live in a fallen world where bad things happen, but God takes the initiative to bring good from evil.  In fact, you can sum up the entire Bible in one word—redemption.  Paradise lost in Genesis is paradise regained in Revelation.  God initiated and achieved this redemption by sending Jesus Christ who suffered and died on our behalf.  So we can question God about suffering as the biblical writers did, but God didn’t exempt Himself from it.  Jesus was the only completely innocent person in the history of the world, yet he suffered horribly for our redemption.  He brought good from evil.”

The atheist didn’t like that either. He interrupted me several times, so I finally asked him, “Are you an atheist?”

He refused to answer but then blurted out,  “It doesn’t matter!”

I said, “It does matter because if you are an atheist (I later learned from his blog he is), then you have no grounds by which to judge anything evil.  Objective evil doesn’t exist unless objective good exists and objective good doesn’t exist unless God exists.  You can have good without evil, but you can’t have evil without good.  In other words, the shadows prove the sunshine.  You can have sunshine without shadows, but you can’t have shadows without sunshine. So evil doesn’t disprove God—it actually shows there must be a God because it presupposes Good.  Evil may prove there’s a devil out there, but it doesn’t disprove God.”

The atheist persisted, “But if God exists, why do some babies die such horrible deaths?”

Well, if the atheist is granting that God exists, then he has a valid question.  While he can’t explain evil and suffering from his atheistic worldview, I need to explain it from mine.

My explanation went this way.  Although I know why evil in general occurs (see the video), I don’t know why every specific evil occurs.  But I know why I don’t know why—because I’m finite and can’t see into the future.  Since God is infinite and can see all the way into eternity, he may allow evil events that ultimately work together for good.  In other words, he can still bring good from evil even if we can’t see how.

To illustrate, I referred back to the classic Christmas movie “It’s a Wonderful Life.”  That’s where George Bailey, played by Jimmy Stewart, falls on hard times, becomes despondent and tries to commit suicide.  He’s saved by an angel and is permitted to see how life in his town would have turned out if he had never existed.  George sees that everything would have turned out far worse without him, and thus realizes that even though evil infects life, good can prevail in the end.  George could only see this with God’s timeless perspective.  Only God can see how trillions of free choices and events can interact ultimately for good even if some of them seem hopelessly negative at the time.  (In fact, that’s one reason why God told Job to trust him.)

At that point, a man sitting ten feet from the atheist raised his hand.

“Go ahead, sir.”

He first looked over at the atheist, then back at me and said, “I know of a young woman who was raped and became pregnant.  The rape nearly destroyed her.” His voice began to crack . . . “But she decided that she would not punish the baby for the sin of the father.  She later gave birth to a baby boy.”  (By this point he was weeping openly.) “And that boy grew up to be a pastor whom God has used to help bring many people to Christ.  He ministers to people to this day. That boy grew up to be me.”

He then looked back at the atheist and said, “My mother turned evil into good, and God can too.”

The atheist left immediately after the event ended, but I did get to meet that brave pastor who spoke up.  His name is Gary Bingham, and he’s the pastor of Hillside Wesleyan Church in Marion, Indiana.  Gary told me that his mom had self-confidence issues for many years but is doing much better since becoming a Christian a few years ago.   I thanked him and asked him to let his mom know that she touched many for good that night.  I hope through this column she has touched many more today.