In 1943, C.S. Lewis published “The Abolition of Man.” In it, he warned against using science to debunk natural law and objective values to the detriment of the understanding of what constitutes humanity. It is doubtful that Lewis envisioned that “man” as an objectively definable entity could cease to exist within the next sixty-five years, but that is indeed what is about to happen.

British researchers at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne have announced the development of a technique to turn female bone marrow cells (mesenchymal cells) into sperm cells. A similar technique is also expected to allow male marrow cells to be turned into egg cells. Therefore, women will soon be able to produce sperm, and men will be able to produce eggs. The projected uses of the technique are to enable infertile couples to produce children, but its most startling effect will be to allow same-sex couples to produce children that are biologically their own. In the near future, there will be children that are not born of a woman and a man. There will be children of two fathers or of two mothers.

This is no small matter. Think about this carefully. What will the status be of these entities? Are they true human beings? They will certainly appear to be fully human in every way, but what is a human being? Historically and biologically, humans have always been the offspring of a father and a mother. These beings will be persons who will either have no mother or no father. Where will this go in the future? Cloning is possible now. Even more troubling, human genes have begun to be introduced into animal and plant reproductive germ lines, and animal and plant genes will likely soon be introduced into the human germ line. Consequently, “enlightened scientists unencumbered by religious prejudices” will endeavor to produce more completely hybridized humans, finally succeeding where the Nazi’s earlier efforts had failed by producing half ape, half human creatures.

Why This Is Important.

The physical consequences of this new technology probably will be small compared to the spiritual, psychological, social, and emotional consequences. What will it mean to be human? As this technology expands, the very concept of humanity will expand and be progressively eroded and diluted until it becomes as ill defined as the modern concepts of beauty and justice. What the fruit of this abolition of man will be is extremely difficult to predict; nonetheless, it seems probable that it will not be good. Knowing the proclivities of humanity, the extinction of “human beings,” in historical terms, is a virtual certainty.

Source:
1. “Death of the Father: British Scientists Discover How to Turn Bone Marrow into Sperm,” By Feona Macrae, Daily Mail, January 31, 2008.

By: Lawrence Vescera Ph.D., Isaac Newton Institute

Biblical Minimalists are critics who historically have taken the position that almost everything in the Bible is either myth or fantasy. Until recently, Minimalists claimed that the entire Old Testament was written in Babylon during the period of the captivity of the Jews in the late Sixth Century. The Old Testament allegedly was a propaganda tool concocted to buck up the spirits of the exiled Judeans with a wonderful fictional history, something like an ancient Michael Moore “documentary”.

Minimalists refuse to acknowledge the accuracy of anything recorded in the Bible until forced by extra-Biblical verification. Unfortunately for the Minimalists, archaeologists keep uncovering evidence for the accuracy of the Biblical narrative. These discoveries have forced the Minimalists to recant and have left them with fewer Biblical accounts to disparage. For example, the once doubted historicity and veracity of the accounts of King David and King Solomon have been authenticated. When the first archaeological evidence emerged showing that King David existed, it was attacked as wrongly interpreted; however, as more inscriptions were uncovered bearing David’s name, Minimalists were forced to admit the truth.

Sadly for the Minimalists, independent extra-Biblical evidence has been found for the existence of another Biblical character. On October 29, 2007, Dr. Marjo Korpel, an Old Testament scholar at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, announced that an ancient engraved seal from the collection of the Israel Antiquity Authority in Jerusalem bears the name of Queen Jezebel, the Phoenician wife of King Ahab. Jezebel, discussed in 1 Kings 21, famously ran afoul of the Prophet Elijah.

Why This is Important

The extra-Biblical proof of not only Queen Jezebel’s existence but also of the accuracy of the specifics of the Biblical account (i.e. when she lived, where she lived, her queenly role) leave the Minimalists with nothing but unsubstantiated and unsupported claims of Biblical inaccuracies. The more the archaeologists dig, the worse the Minimalists’ case is against the Bible.

Source: Utrecht University ( 2007, October 29). “Ancient Seal Belonged to Queen Jezebel”. Science Daily. Retrieved from www.sciencedaily.com.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph. D.

Scientists from around the world met in Edinburgh, Scotland this August at the annual meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation. The title of the conference was “New Frontiers in Science and Faith.” Many outstanding scientists from around the world attended including five Fellows of the prestigious Royal Academy of Science (FRS). The conference focused on examining the theological implications of recent discoveries and developments in Cosmology, Genetics, Evolutionary Biology, Neuroscience, Bioethics, and Ecology and on integrating these developments with Christian faith.

Among the exciting topics discussed were those presented in the Keynote address by Alister McGrath. Dr. McGrath is a Molecular Biophysicist and theologian who holds the post of Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Oxford University. He cited several areas that represent the “New Frontiers in Science and Faith.” Among these are the renewed interest in Anthropic Phenomenon and the return to Natural Theology. The Anthropic Phenomenon (or Principle) explores the growing set of scientific observations that point to the fact that the Universe has been fine tuned (designed) to accommodate intelligent life. Natural Theology is the historical Christian approach to understanding nature and is the foundation of modern science. The return to Natural Theology has reinvigorated Christian scientists’ interest in cognitive research (where does our consciousness come from?), the origins of life, quantum physics, biology, and other areas of scientific study.

Dr. McGrath also pointed out that this new interest in the theological implications of recent scientific discoveries has contributed to the appearance of a new militant atheism that is trying to use science to evangelize its belief system.

In his lecture “Space, Time and Eternity,” Sir John Polkinghorne, FRS and former professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge University, discussed recent attempts by atheists to explain away the nearly undisputed fact that the universe is fine tuned for human life. In this particular instance, the atheists’ denial of God’s creation of the Universe is founded upon the claim of a Multiverse. The Multiverse theory postulates that our Universe is only one of an infinite or nearly infinite number of other Universes. With enough Universes, all with different natural laws operating in them, you will eventually get one like ours, which is perfect for human life. No designer needed! Unfortunately for the Multiverse advocates, these Universes are now and may always be undetectable; however, we are asked to believe on faith alone in their existence as an alternative to believing that the one Universe we know of and live in was created by God as a habitation for life.

Polkinghorne pointed out that this is, ‘“an idea of quite incredible ontological prodigality’ that would make William of Ockham roll over in his grave.”

Another presenter, Dr. Jan Centrella, Chief of NASA’s Gravitational Astrophysics Laboratory at the Goddard Space Flight Center, discussed her groundbreaking work on gravity waves and their implications for testing the General Theory of Relativity. She also discussed her faith journey.

Dr. Conway Morris, FRS professor of Paleobiology at the Cambridge University, discussed the fact that recent work on “evolutionary convergence” brings into question the Primary Axiom of Darwinism. The Primary Axiom is the idea that organisms are the result of random natural processes. Convergence research is showing that the necessary building blocks for intelligence appeared billions of years before the emergence of intelligence, indicating very advanced and highly sophisticated planning and design at work rather then random chance.

Why This Is Important

The misuse and misinterpretation of scientific discoveries have been among the most important tools used to undermine Christian faith. These are still seen today in the intellectually shallow and ham fisted attempts by Richard Dawkins and other evangelists of atheism to destroy Christian faith through the abuse of science. Unfortunately, many are fooled by this approach, especially those who do not have the time or expertise to investigate the accuracy of their claims.

It is important that first-rate scientists in each field counter these claims. It is important that the public realize that they are not called to a blind faith that denies the facts of the real world but rather to a Faith grounded in reality.

Source: Newsletter of the American Scientific Affiliation , Sep/Oct 2007, Vol 49, No. 5, pp 1-7.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph. D.

A race is going on around the world to create artificial life. It started several years ago, and it is expected that the first artificial life form will be produced in the next 3-10 years. Some atheists are greeting this work with glee. Known as “Alife,” these organisms come in several forms: some are virtual, and some are expected to be actual “wet” single celled critters never seen before on the Earth. Craig Venter, one of the pioneers of the mapping of the Human Genome, has already applied for a patent on an artificial life form.

These plans currently center on taking existing biological materials and recombining them to produce a unique new organism. This has led some to point out that such life will not truly be artificial but only re-engineered life. However, this is usually shrugged off as nitpicking.

Be that as it may, the rationale for producing an Alife entity is the hope that such organisms can be designed to do wonderful and economically beneficial things such as producing cheap biofuels, disposing of CO2, cleaning up toxic waste, making new antibiotics, curing diseases, desalinating sea water, mining minerals, and just about anything else imaginable including figuring out how Darwinian Evolution supposedly works.

The prospect of making artificial life, of course, has its critics. Some point out that once introduced into the environment, there is no way to know what the long-range effects of these organisms might be. It is widely recognized that the law of unintended consequences has quite an unpleasant history. For example, the original hope for the use of the nuclear chain reaction was energy production to provide free electricity not the creation of super bombs. Consequently it is not difficult to imagine many Frankensteinian scenarios of Alife experiments gone awry. Destruction of entire ecosystems, new plagues, and bio-terror are just a few of the possibilities. However, those are not the main issues for this Blog.

Why This Is Important

Atheists often claim that the creation of artificial life will somehow disprove the existence of God. The reasoning runs something like this – religious people believe that only God can create life. Therefore, if man creates life, it proves that there is no God because God is not needed to produce life.

Ignoring the logical problems with the above line of reasoning, it can be argued that the atheist claim is not supported in Scripture. While Scripture does say that God created life, it does not say that man cannot. It can be argued on the basis of Scripture that, in principle, there should be no barrier to the creation of artificial life, and it can be asserted that it is also reasonable to claim that the creation of artificial life is consistent with Biblical discourse.

Genesis 2:9 recounts that in the middle of the Garden of Eden “were the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” Adam and Eve are then told in 2:16-17 “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,…” They were not prohibited from eating of the Tree of Life. Now what exactly this means is in the realm of theological conjecture; however, Genesis 3:22 sheds further light on the subject. “He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat and live forever.” Later in Genesis 11:6 we are told “…then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.”

Whatever the Tree of Life was or represented cannot be known with certainty; however, a biological implication is there in the Scriptures. Additionally, Genesis 3:22 indicates that even after the expulsion from Eden there was still “nothing” “impossible” for humans if they set their minds to it.

Therefore, the creation of artificial life by mankind, if it is accomplished and even if it is not in God’s will, will be in no way a proof against the existence of God, but if anything, it will be evidence in support of Biblical accuracy.

Source:

“Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years,” by Seth Borenstein, Aug. 19, 2007, AP, Washington, DC.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph. D.

Mathematics Professors Wanted – Believers Need Not Apply.
The new Princeton University Press book: How Mathematicians Think by William Byers a mathematician at UC Berkeley supports the extraordinary claim that atheism is “killing mathematics.” In his insightful review of the book, Gregory Chaitin one of the worlds leading mathematicians asks, “Would Euler, Cantor, and Ramanujan be welcome in the Mathematics Department of a university today?” His conclusion is a resounding “No”. These giants of mathematics would not be welcome among academic mathematicians because atheistic materialism has become the dominant paradigm in today’s universities.

Euler, who created much of the math used today, was so strongly informed by his Christian beliefs that he is recognized as a Lutheran Saint, and is commemorated each May 24 on the Church Calendar. Cantor invented, or in his view “discovered,” transcendental numbers (multiples of infinities) as a way to “better understand God.” Ramanujan, recognized as one of the greatest geniuses of the Twentieth Century for his work in Analysis and Number Theory, argued that, “…an equation is only of value if it expresses one of God’s thoughts…”

Other famous theistic mathematicians, who would now be expelled from academia, include the Sumerian priests who started it all with accounting and calculating the astronomical calendar, the Pythagoreans, who invented geometry and number theory (the foundations of advanced math) as part of their mystical investigations into knowing God, and a vast number of Christian luminaries including Descartes and Pascal. Towering above all of these are the penultimate mathematicians of all time, Newton and Leibnitz, the cofounders of modern calculus, with deeply and explicitly Christian motivations behind their mathematical investigations; they most definitely would not be welcome.

Byers and Chaitin believe that math began to die in the twentieth century as freedom of thought and creativity became constrained by an over emphasis on formulae; “…words, ideas, diagrams, examples, explanations, and applications” were all rejected in favor of a “nit-picking avoidance of mistakes.” Creativity was abandoned in favor of rigor, and this rigor has resulted in “rigour mortis.” As someone who has taught math, I was struck by the truth of these claims. It is very difficult to think of a truly important discovery in math coming after the 1950s.

What caused the creativity, imagination, and leaps of insight characteristic of mathematicians to be replaced with a stultifying and slavish attachment to formulaic rigor? It is Byers and Chaitin’s conclusion that secular humanistic beliefs about the nature of man are at the heart of the problem. Secular humanists contend that man is nothing more than an accident of nature, that consciousness is simply biochemical reactions in the brain, and that life itself is totally without purpose and meaning. “If mathematicians see themselves as machines they will behave like machines; if mathematicians think they are trivial, then they will be trivial.”

Why This Is Important

It is important that Christians know their intellectual heritage. Many surveys have been done on the religious beliefs of scientists. Mathematicians are always at, or near, the top of these studies showing that 70% to 80% of them believe in God. The percentage of believers decreases, as the field of scientific study gets “softer,” with the social sciences having the lowest percentage of believers.

The media consistently try to portray Christians as stupid, ignorant, benighted dupes, or worse. However, in the sciences, the exact opposite is true; intellectual capability tends to be highly correlated with belief in God. Christians need to know that they have been the key players in the cutting edge of mathematics, the world’s most fundamental intellectual endeavor.

Beyond the troubling damage being done to the advancement of mathematics by secular humanism, there is also the practical cost. Technological innovation, economic progress, and health are all tied to the continued advancement of math. Kill math and you kill innovation. Kill innovation and you kill economic growth and people.

Sources:

1. New Scientist, “Review: How Mathematicians Think” by Gregory Chiatin, July 25, 2007.

2. “How Mathematicians Think”, by William P. Byers, 2007, Princeton Universty Press, Princeton, NJ.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

Mathematics Professors Wanted – Believers Need Not Apply.
The new Princeton University Press book: How Mathematicians Think by William Byers a mathematician at UC Berkeley supports the extraordinary claim that atheism is “killing mathematics.” In his insightful review of the book, Gregory Chaitin one of the worlds leading mathematicians asks, “Would Euler, Cantor, and Ramanujan be welcome in the Mathematics Department of a university today?” His conclusion is a resounding “No”. These giants of mathematics would not be welcome among academic mathematicians because atheistic materialism has become the dominant paradigm in today’s universities.

Euler, who created much of the math used today, was so strongly informed by his Christian beliefs that he is recognized as a Lutheran Saint, and is commemorated each May 24 on the Church Calendar. Cantor invented, or in his view “discovered,” transcendental numbers (multiples of infinities) as a way to “better understand God.” Ramanujan, recognized as one of the greatest geniuses of the Twentieth Century for his work in Analysis and Number Theory, argued that, “…an equation is only of value if it expresses one of God’s thoughts…”

Other famous theistic mathematicians, who would now be expelled from academia, include the Sumerian priests who started it all with accounting and calculating the astronomical calendar, the Pythagoreans, who invented geometry and number theory (the foundations of advanced math) as part of their mystical investigations into knowing God, and a vast number of Christian luminaries including Descartes and Pascal. Towering above all of these are the penultimate mathematicians of all time, Newton and Leibnitz, the cofounders of modern calculus, with deeply and explicitly Christian motivations behind their mathematical investigations; they most definitely would not be welcome.

Byers and Chaitin believe that math began to die in the twentieth century as freedom of thought and creativity became constrained by an over emphasis on formulae; “…words, ideas, diagrams, examples, explanations, and applications” were all rejected in favor of a “nit-picking avoidance of mistakes.” Creativity was abandoned in favor of rigor, and this rigor has resulted in “rigour mortis.” As someone who has taught math, I was struck by the truth of these claims. It is very difficult to think of a truly important discovery in math coming after the 1950s.

What caused the creativity, imagination, and leaps of insight characteristic of mathematicians to be replaced with a stultifying and slavish attachment to formulaic rigor? It is Byers and Chaitin’s conclusion that secular humanistic beliefs about the nature of man are at the heart of the problem. Secular humanists contend that man is nothing more than an accident of nature, that consciousness is simply biochemical reactions in the brain, and that life itself is totally without purpose and meaning. “If mathematicians see themselves as machines they will behave like machines; if mathematicians think they are trivial, then they will be trivial.”

Why This Is Important

It is important that Christians know their intellectual heritage. Many surveys have been done on the religious beliefs of scientists. Mathematicians are always at, or near, the top of these studies showing that 70% to 80% of them believe in God. The percentage of believers decreases, as the field of scientific study gets “softer,” with the social sciences having the lowest percentage of believers.

The media consistently try to portray Christians as stupid, ignorant, benighted dupes, or worse. However, in the sciences, the exact opposite is true; intellectual capability tends to be highly correlated with belief in God. Christians need to know that they have been the key players in the cutting edge of mathematics, the world’s most fundamental intellectual endeavor.

Beyond the troubling damage being done to the advancement of mathematics by secular humanism, there is also the practical cost. Technological innovation, economic progress, and health are all tied to the continued advancement of math. Kill math and you kill innovation. Kill innovation and you kill economic growth and people.

Sources:

1. New Scientist, “Review: How Mathematicians Think” by Gregory Chiatin, July 25, 2007.

2. “How Mathematicians Think”, by William P. Byers, 2007, Princeton Universty Press, Princeton, NJ.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

Claims of Biblical unreliability are becoming more difficult to sustain as archaeological discoveries continue to pour in, which have verified hundreds of passages as factual. These include such findings as extra-Biblical references to King David, the location and destruction of the city of Hazor, the pool of Siloam and many others. These finds have generally provided verification of major figures or events. This has led critics to concede some ground, for example almost all critics are now willing to admit the fact that King David was a real person, but they have launched a new line of attack.

This new line of attack concedes such facts as the existence of David but then argues that the Bible still cannot be trusted to have accurately reported the details of his life. For example, they take the position that while it is true that King David was a real person there is no extra-Biblical confirmation that he ever fought Goliath and therefore the Bible alone cannot be trusted for this sort of information. The claim is that the stories in the Bible are like stories about the Old West, where it is true that Wyatt Earp really existed, but the numerous novels written about him are largely or completely fictional.

In July of this year that line of attack against the Bible became harder to maintain because of a small but important discovery made by Michael Jursa an Austrian Assyriologist translating cuneiform tablets at the British Museum in London. Jeremiah Chapter 39:3 reports that someone named Nebo-Sarsekim, Nebuchadnezzer II’s “Chief Officer”, was with him at the Babylonian siege and conquest of Jerusalem in 587 BC.

The tablet that Professor Jursa recently translated is a receipt from the Babylonian temple of Esanglia acknowledging a payment of 1.5 minas (1.65 pounds) of gold. The year of the payment is 595 BC and the payer is King Nebuchadnezzer II’s Chief Eunuch, Nabu-sharrussu-ukin (Nebo-Sarsekim in Hebrew). This confirms three separate Biblical facts Nebo-Sarsekim actually existed, he was Nebuchadnezzer’s Chief Officer and he lived at the time of the siege.

Why This is Important

It is the very minor nature of the details confirmed by this tablet and similar discoveries that make them so important. In the words of Dr. Irving Finkel, one of the British Museums specialists, “This is a fantastic discovery, a world class find. If Nebo-Sarsekim existed which other lesser figures in the Old Testament existed? A throwaway detail in the Old Testament turns out to be accurate and true. I think that this means that the whole of the narrative takes on a new kind of power.”

Dr. Finkel’s observation is well taken. If such obscure and minor facts as those verified on this tablet, “throwaway detail” as he calls them, are correct, it is likely that other facts reported by Jeremiah and other Biblical authors are also accurately reported.

Source: London Daily Telegraph, telegraph.co.uk, July 11, 2007.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

New evidence Indicates that the continents are Fine Tuned for Life

Genesis 1:9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let the dry ground appear.”…. the third day.

First physicists discovered that there was a single Creation Event now called the Big Bang through which the universe emerged. Then biologists discovered their own big bang, labeled the “Cambrian Explosion”. This biological big bang gave rise to almost all the modern phyla of life. Now it appears that the continental crust of the Earth also had a “Big Bang” of its own. New research indicates that the Earth’s crust appeared rather suddenly in a single burst of creation. This is the conclusion of two prominent geological researchers, Samuel Browning of MIT and Ian Williams of the Australian National University in Canberra as reported in several sources, including the February 1998 special issue of “Earth”.
Browning and Williams have been studying the oldest rocks known on Earth. These rocks appear to be at least 4 billion years old and are found in West Greenland. It is not the age of the rocks that make them so important, for it is generally believed that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, it is the composition of these rocks that makes them so intriguing. Most geologists believe that the Earth’s continents formed gradually over a long period of time. This standard model also postulates that continent formation did not begin until 500 million years after the planet had formed. They believe that the continents then began to grow in a series of slow pulses as the result of plate tectonics. This process is still supposed to be in operation today.
Browning and Williams argue instead that continent formation actually began almost at the planet’s birth. The continents then proceeded to grow in one continuous process so that by 3.8 billion years ago there was actually about a third more continental crust on the planet then there is today.
This conclusion is based on a comparison of the ratio of two of the elements found in the ancient rocks studied by the team. Browning, Williams and others at the Australian National University examined the ratio of the element neodymium to the element samarium found in these rocks. Radioactive samarium decays to form neodymium. The Australian team found that the rocks had an unexpectedly small amount of neodymium compared to the amount of samarium. The big question was where had all of the neodymium in these early rocks gone? The answer appears to be that it has gone down into the mantle underneath the crust. This indicates that by 3.8 billion years ago the continental crust had already separated from the mantle and was floating on top of the mantle where it still is today.
It was initially argued that this rather surprising finding could be the result of sampling error because the material tested all came from Western Greenland. Two subsequent tests, however, conducted on rocks from Northern Canada and Labrador also show similar neodymium depletion. Therefore the best current evidence supports the idea that this process was global and not a local phenomenon.
These findings have set off a bitter and acrimonious debate among geologists, particularly between Steven Moorbath of Oxford University and the Australians.

Why This Is Important!

In the mid nineteenth century Charles Lyle, a British lawyer, put forth the idea of gradualism in geology. Lyle argued that the Earth had been formed slowly over a long period of time by a series of processes that could still be observed going on today. This theory known as uniformaterianism is still predominant today. (This idea was later picked up by Charles Darwin and applied to biology). Up until that time most Christian and Jewish theologians had maintained, based on their study of the Bible, that the Earth had been formed primarily by a series of unique creative steps, many of which occurred in a catastrophic or very rapid process. They argued that these formative processes were not observable in the normal, gradual changes taking place now on the Earth on a day- to-day basis. Many mainline Christian theologians of that time and earlier times had in general believed that the Earth had considerable antiquity, at least on the order of hundreds of thousands of years, so the main debate was not just over the Earth’s age, but also over its method of formation.
It is interesting to note that the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old only gained prominence in the nineteenth century. It had generally not been a major issue in the thinking of church leaders historically. The antiquity of the Earth had been assumed to be at least on the order of hundreds of thousands of years by the many theologians as early as the fifth century AD. Consequently, when evidence of great age for the Earth was found in the nineteenth century, it was generally accepted by the majority of theologians Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and Jewish.
It is still too early to see what the long-range outcome of the research by the team from the Australian National University will be. However, numerous geological findings in subsequent years points toward the occurrence of single catastrophic or sudden event that shaped the course of the Earth’s development. Such findings include the discovery that many geological eras ended with a major asteroidal impact. These discoveries tend to support the claims of earlier Christian theologians that catastrophes did indeed play a major part in the Earth’s history. It is also of great interest that the above discoveries about the early and rapid appearance of the Earth’s crust tend to support their claim that all of the processes that formed the Earth’s surface are not observable today.
There is also a second major mystery reported in this research, which has even more interesting implications. This comes from the argument made by some scientists who believe that the universe has been deliberately fine tuned to support life here on Earth. They believe that the universe was intelligently designed and is not the result of purposeless natural processes. Life on Earth requires that the Earth’s crust be continuously recycled. New crust comes out of volcanoes while old crust is pulled down into the mantle along subduction zones located on plate boundaries. The ejecta from volcanoes return minerals to the surface that are needed by biological organisms. Without this recycling life above the bacterial level would gradually die out.
Terry Plank of the University of Kansas studies ocean sediments. She has found that the rate of sediment subduction into the mantle is about the same as the rate at which new crust is built. She noted that, “It is pretty remarkable that the two processes are in balance,” The geological gradualists believe that the Earth’s crustal recycling balance simply “developed” as a natural out growth of a continuous slow formative process. If it turns out that the crust appeared all at once, how could such a fine homeostasis between crust and mantle have “developed”? One possible answer is that it was deliberately designed that way.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.