Book Review: Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off

Introduction

How did life begin? This question has perplexed humanity for centuries. Some people believe that it came along by natural processes. Others believe that a divine Designer is behind it all. These two options go head-to-head, tested against the latest scientific research in the book "Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off" (hardcover, Kindle, Supplemental Site) by astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross and biochemist Dr. Fazale Rana. The book is divided into three sections, seventeen chapters, and 298 pages (including notes and appendices). This review provides a chapter-by-chapter summary of the contents of the book, but it must not be accepted as a replacement for reading the book, itself. The review will conclude with my thoughts and recommendation.

Drs. Ross and Rana take the position that the origin of life is by divine design. To scientifically test their hypothesis, they present their model, competing models, and the latest research; they then compare the predictions of the models to the research to build their case. Before examining the current state of origins research, it is a good idea to take a quick look at the events that led to the current state.

Not Knowing God's Purposes and Wondering If He Exists

In The Business World...
In my professional career, I have been in the position of management a few times. One of the responsibilities of such a position is to communicate decisions of upper management to my employees. Often when my directors communicate the decision to me, they also communicate some of the reasons for the decisions, some of which I am not to communicate any further down the chain. When I communicate the decisions, some are received with a positive attitude, and others are received with a negative one.

I have interacted with many different types of personalities in these situations. Primarily with the negative ones, people begin asking questions about the purposes for the decision in order to evaluate for themselves if the decision was the best possible to make given the circumstances. In many cases, the employee is satisfied with the purposes that I provide; however, there are times that is not the case. The employee believes that based on the purposes communicated to them, a better decision could have and should have been made. They often leave the meeting dissatisfied and with less trust in the members upper management.

Unless we are those who make all the final decisions, we all can identify with the employees provided with a decision and the chosen purposes. I feel comfortable with saying that no person has been fully in agreement with every decision made by every management team in their career. To fully make sense, we need the whole story, and that level of transparency is a rare, if not, non-existent luxury.

This scenario is not limited to the business world, though. Any hierarchical relationship where absolute transparency among the parties does not or cannot exist exhibits this issue. Every relationship from familial to clubs is affected. Today, I want to draw two analogs of this familiar scenario to address two challenges to the existence of God.

Must Groups Require Leaders That Stand Against Their Beliefs?

It was brought to my attention today that a Christian student group has been "de-recognized" from San Jose University because they require that its leaders adhere to the groups beliefs and practices. Here is the report directly from the Christian group: Ratio Christi Club Kicked Off of San Jose State University Campus

This is an action that has dire consequences for all groups, not just religious. All other groups (regardless of affiliation, liberal or not) should be concerned about logical implications of this decision. Logically it opens the door to any group being required to allow leaders that not only do not represent the beliefs and convictions of the group, but that stand in direct opposition to them. For example: an atheist group could be led by a Christian; a pro-choice group could be led by a pro-life proponent; a Democrat group could be led by a Republican; a LGBT group could be led by a supporter of the Westboro Baptists.

The whole purpose of groups is to have a collection of people to support each other. These people must hold common convictions to do so. The leaders especially must hold the common convictions if they are to lead the support of the group. Without the common convictions among members and leadership the group will lose its purpose and reason for existence from within. The group will eventually disintegrate because there is nothing holding them together.

This could be a veiled attack against the right of assembly by attacking the very foundations of what a "group" is. A subtle way to squash opposition (academic or otherwise) seems to be in play here. Every group that assembles is in danger by this decision. This action is not something that ANY group should be excited to see happen...except those who are irrational, illogical and driven by their emotions. (Un)fortunately, one misstep by those groups will compromise their own group and convictions by the "reasoning" they are now championing.