Two Sides of the Same Coin

It was a typical birthday party for a ten-year-old boy – balloons, cake, rambunctious kids. Oh, and party favors, too! 

But this was not your usual grab bag of gum and cheap toys. 

The loot bags also contained a British five-pound note, worth about $10.00 at the time. There was one small catch…

In order to get the party-prize, each little guest had to let the birthday boy’s dad draw a blood sample. 

Later, Dad laughingly recounted the hilariousness of the situation: “I lined them up and they stuck out their arms. Kids were fainting. One kid threw up all over his mother. It was just your standard 10-year-old’s birthday.”

And you thought bounce houses got out of control.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield used the blood samples he collected at his son’s birthday party in one of the most notorious medical studies in modern times. Wakefield’s study, published in the prestigious British medical journal Lancet, triggered a decades-long collapse of public confidence in one of the most significant medical advances in human history: vaccination. 

In his 1998 article, Wakefield claimed that in eight children, the onset of autism followed immunization with the MMR vaccine. Researchers all over the world tried to replicate his results, but no one could.

Still, vaccination rates plummeted in the UK and in the United States. 

The thing is . . . Wakefield made it all up.

The birthday party was just the beginning. In addition to an uncontrolled study with sketchy “volunteer” recruitment, he fabricated data. Before the Lancet article was published, Wakefield filed a patent for his own version of the MMR. Wakefield was also being paid for his “expert” testimony in a lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers.

Twelve years after publication, the Lancet retracted the article and Wakefield lost his medical license. Decades of world-wide research and tens of thousands of cases demonstrate no link between autism and vaccination.

Unrepentant, Wakefield continues to travel and speak to anti-vaccine groups. Despite the loss of a “measles-free” status in the UK and multiple measles outbreaks in the United States, groups continue to pay Wakefield thousands of dollars for his “expertise”. To celebrities and everyday moms and dads who do not want to “poison” their children, Wakefield is a martyr. 

Unfortunately, the science behind vaccine safety is lost on those with an anti-vaccination mindset. Research shows that exposure to science evidence reenforces anti-vaccination perceptions of parents. Emotions trump evidence.

Welcome to 2020, and welcome to the flip side of the anti-vaccination coin. 

As the world awaits the release of one of several Covid-19 vaccines now in phase-3 trials, opposition to the vaccine is rising, and from a very surprising precinct. Anti-Covid-19 vaccine voices are getting louder, and one in particular caught the attention of NIH director Francis Collins. 

Michael Zimmerman is a biologist and the founder of the Clergy Letter Project, an effort demonstrating that religion and science are not in conflict. Zimmerman begins his essay by citing his Ph.D. in biology, his opposition to the pseudo-science of vaccine denial, and his generalized rejection of conspiracy theories.

Yet, Zimmerman declares his opposition to a Covid-19 vaccine – at least for the next three months.

Zimmerman and other newly-minted antivaxxers do not trust the current administration. Zimmerman fears the anti-science dogma touted by the Trump administration. Zimmerman and others fear political pressure on the CDC and the FDA will result in the release of a risky vaccine. 

Collins, in his public response to Zimmerman, is direct and uncharacteristically blunt. 

Shouldn’t you reserve judgement until you see the data? Collins asks. 

The vaccine approval process is transparent and is overseen by respected life-long scientists like Collins and Anthony Fauci. And unlike “America’s Frontline Doctors’” claims in their fifteen minutes of summer fame, legitimate science studies are transparent and published for critical review.

In response to Collins’ hope for a Covid-19 vaccine by the end of 2020, Zimmerman writes this: 

“I hope your prediction is off by a month and that approval doesn’t occur until after 20 January 2021 with a new administration in place.”

To which Collins replied:

“Be careful that you don’t end up hoping and praying for the vaccine to arrive after January 20 — when an earlier scientifically rigorous result would have potentially saved many lives.”

To those who are usually on Team Science but find themselves rooting against a Covid-19 vaccine: trust the process. If you don’t trust Trump, fine. Trust Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci, two scientists with decades of stellar public health service and a history of withstanding political pressure from both parties. 

Recently, Fauci publicly took the CDC to task for an announcement made while he was under general anesthesia. Fauci lost no time in setting the record straight with his disapproval. And last week, Fauci scolded Senator Rand Paul in a congressional hearing for his repeated misrepresentations of Covid-19 evidence. 

Traditional anti-vaxxers and Covid-19 anti-vaxxers are two sides of the same coin. At their core, both groups mistrust science. Both groups are influenced by deeply held, emotional beliefs. 

Both traditional anti-vaxxers and Covid-19 anti-vaxxers threaten public health and the goal of herd immunity.

On September 25, 2020, Francis Collins was awarded the Templeton Prize for a lifetime of demonstrating harmony between modern science and faith. In his acceptance speech, Collins encourages us to return to our calling to love one another – both friends and enemies.

Loving our neighbor as ourselves means loving all our neighbors: our immunocompromised neighbors, our elderly neighbors, our newborn neighbors, our medically fragile neighbors, our neighbors undergoing chemotherapy. 

If you are medically able to be vaccinated, you are practicing love in a very real, very practical way. 

(Read the correspondence between Francis Collins and Michael Zimmerman here

And as You speak
A hundred billion creatures catch Your breath
Evolving in pursuit of what You said
If it all reveals Your nature so will I

(Hillsong United “So Will I“)

string theory

Proud Mary

Mary Mallon was proud of her craft. 

At the turn of the 20th century, Mary was in demand by wealthy Manhattan families for her skills as a cook. One day, a city official, George Soper, knocked on the door of the fancy brownstone where Mary was employed. 

He had a few simple requests to make of Mary. Could he please have a sample of her blood, her urine, and her feces? Oh, and, this little question: Did she regularly wash her hands after going to the bathroom?

That was one question too many for Mary. She grabbed a carving fork, swore, and lunged for the man, who wisely exited the home.

And you thought the Target and Walmart anti-maskers overreacted.

Four months prior to his abrupt ouster from Mary’s place of employment, Sober, a New York City sanitary engineer, was asked to investigate an epidemic that would eventually sicken thousands of New Yorkers. Soper began by interviewing a particularly hard-hit family in their Long Island summer home. 

Just weeks into their vacation, the family’s nine-year-old daughter fell seriously ill. All told, six out of eleven members of the household, both family and staff, fell sick. 

Soper interviewed the family and discovered that the cook – Mary Mallon – had returned to New York City soon after, apparently healthy as a horse. 

New York was in the midst of a typhoid fever epidemic. Typhoid fever is caused by Salmonella bacteria and in 1907, was fatal in ten percent of infections. Immunization against typhoid fever was four years away and an effective antibiotic was almost forty years away. Carried in feces and usually found in areas with poor sanitation, typhoid fever’s appearance in wealthy areas was a mystery.

But Soper was onto to something. He questioned the family about the menus prepared by Mary, and discovered that shortly before illness broke out, Mary had served her Sunday specialty: homemade ice cream and fresh peaches. Compared to her hot cooked meals, Soper concluded that “no better way could be found for a cook to cleanse her hands of microbes and infect a family.”

Soper searched New York for four months, looking for Mary Mallon. In his search, he identified eight families for whom Mary had cooked, going back several years. Seven families had outbreaks, with twenty-two sick and several deaths. 

In a few years, newspapers would dub Mary Mallon “Typhoid Mary”.

It took police officers, an ambulance, a female doctor, and a foot-chase over the backyard fence to finally bring Mary in for testing. Mary tried her best to resist, holding her stool sample as long as possible. Ultimately, nature called, and Mary tested positive for high levels of Salmonella. Completely and absolutely healthy, Mary denied ever being sick with Typhoid.

She was quarantined on a hospital island for two years, producing typhoid-positive samples the entire time. 

She sued the health department, lost, but was finally freed from the hospital in 1910. Mary agreed to check in regularly with the health department, and importantly, Mary agreed never to work as a cook again. 

After a while, Mary stopped checking in and, feeling fit as a fiddle, returned to cooking: for a hotel, a Broadway restaurant, a spa, and a boarding house.

In 1915, typhoid fever broke out in a New York maternity hospital. At least twenty-five nurses, doctors, and staff were infected, and two died. The cook was a woman named “Mary Brown” who, surprise, surprise, turned out to be Mary Mallon. 

Mary was again transferred to the quarantine island, where she lived until her death in 1932, adamant that she had never been sick with typhoid. 

Mary was the first known case of a healthy carrier in the United States. She was traced to the infection of at least 122 people, including five deaths. In 1907 alone, 3,000 New Yorkers were infected with typhoid, most likely due to Mary. 

Mary’s legacy as an asymptomatic carrier of a deadly disease has informed every widespread disease outbreak since. 

Forty percent of Covid-19 infections have no symptoms. A Boston homeless shelter had 147 infected residents, but 88 percent of them had no symptoms. A Tyson poultry plant in Arkansas had 481 infections, and ninety-five percent were asymptomatic. Prisons across multiple states found 96 percent of infected people were asymptomatic. 

A large number of infected but asymptomatic people is a good thing, of course, but that’s not the whole story. Apparently, seemingly healthy people are just as capable of carrying large viral loads and infecting others as are people with symptoms. 

Compounding the situation are the “super-spreaders”. Super-spreader events, where a single person infects a large number of people, are widely documented. 

The World Health Organization initially did not recommend population-level face masking, but changed their recommendation in June 2020 when the extent of transmission by asymptomatic individuals was confirmed. 

It wasn’t a flip-flop. With new data, science changes its mind. 

A poor immigrant with little education, Mary can possibly be excused for not understanding the nuances of being an asymptomatic carrier. 

But we should know better. When you wear a mask in public spaces, you are probably protecting yourself a bit. But mostly, you’re protecting everyone else in case you are one of the asymptomatic carriers. 

Love your neighbor as yourself.

A popular illustration of the day, depicting Mary cracking skulls like eggs into a frying pan.


And as You speak
A hundred billion creatures catch Your breath
Evolving in pursuit of what You said
If it all reveals Your nature so will I

(Hillsong United “So Will I“)


What We Don’t Know (Or Don’t Remember) Can Hurt Us

The virus belongs to a class of pathogens called “teratogens” – literally: “monster makers”.

Yet, for decades, it flew under the radar. In children and adults, infection was mild: a bit of fever, an unimpressive rash. After a few days, the sick bounced back with no harm done.

Rubella was considered the mildest of childhood diseases. In a time of polio, rubella was ignored.

But an astute Australian ophthalmologist picked up on a disturbing pattern: nine months after a 1939 rubella epidemic, sixty-eight out of seventy-eight babies born blind were born to mothers infected with rubella in the first trimester of pregnancy. Over the next twenty years, research confirmed his findings.

Americans experienced the horrors of rubella in a massive outbreak between 1963 and 1964. Six thousand babies spontaneously aborted, two thousand babies died at birth.

Twenty thousand babies were born with damaged livers, pancreases, and brains. The babies suffered hepatitis, diabetes, mental retardation, blindness, deafness, epilepsy, and autism.

Eight or nine out of ten babies infected in the first trimester were damaged. That’s 85%.

An American vaccine scientist predicted another outbreak would occur sometime between 1970-1973. By 1965, he had developed a rubella vaccine, shown in testing to be safe and effective. By 1969, he had modified a version of the vaccine, and a hundred million doses were distributed throughout the United States.

Rubella epidemic averted.

Today, children are routinely vaccinated for rubella (it’s the “R” in the MMR vaccine). In 2005, the CDC declared rubella eliminated in the United States.

Everyone has heard of Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk, and Marie Curie, but Maurice Hilleman has saved more lives than any other scientist.

Maurice Hilleman is the father of modern vaccines. He is considered by many the greatest scientist of the 20th century, but few know his name.

Hilleman developed nine of the fifteen routine vaccines given to children today. Hilleman developed the first vaccine against human cancer, the hepatitis B vaccine. He developed and collaborated on many more vaccines, but never named any of them after himself, with one small exception…

The mumps vaccine in use today is manufactured using a strain of the virus Hilleman swabbed from the throat of his own little daughter when she awoke sick in the night. There’s a famous photo of Hilleman’s younger daughter, Kirsten, being vaccinated with the “Jeryl Lynn Mumps Vaccine”. Big sister Jeryl Lynn is close by, comforting her baby sister.

Jeryl Lynn and Kirsten photo

Jeryl Lynn Hilleman with her sister, Kirsten, in 1966


jeryl Lynn Mumps vaccine photo

The Jeryl Lynn Mumps Vaccine


Despite responsibility for saving countless lives, no vaccine carries the name Hilleman.


We have collective short-term memories. When public health measures prevent or reduce the impact of a crisis, we forget what we were afraid of. When we dodge a bullet, we forget what won the battle.

No one knows Hilleman because few us know rubella. We aren’t afraid our teenagers will die of diphtheria. We don’t fear disability or death from polio, and we aren’t afraid our babies will die of measles or whooping cough. A generation does not fear mumps or chicken pox and the deadly complications that might follow.

At the end of his life, Hilleman’s groundbreaking MMR vaccine was the target for a rising anti-vaccination movement. A British doctor, Andrew Wakefield, claimed the MMR was responsible for an “epidemic” of autism. Hilleman died before Wakefield was discredited and lost his medical license for his fraudulent claims.

The general public has been harder to convince, however, and long-vanquished diseases are popping up in anti-vax hotspots.

We’ve forgotten what it was like.

When we flattened the Covid-curve, many declared “See! It’s all overblown! Back to business as usual! We aren’t afraid!”

Sometimes, what we don’t know (or don’t remember) can hurt us.

Maurice Hilleman would have been 101 this month.

time capsule contribution Hilleman 1999

Replica of the six vaccines put into the National Millennium Time Capsule by Dr. Hilleman. (Washington, D.C., 1999).



And as You speak
A hundred billion creatures catch Your breath
Evolving in pursuit of what You said
If it all reveals Your nature so will I

(Hillsong United “So Will I“)




science cat explores gravity


Meet Denny: A Front-Row Seat in the Story of Human Evolution

I love a good “best of” list at the end of each out-going year. A study by scientists who ate Legos and studied their “passing” made one such list for 2018 (Everything is Awesome: Don’t Forget the Lego). To the Google for more info on that one. My favorite top science story for the year was the story of Denny, a child from a very surprising blended family.

A very tangled family tree

Have you seen this poster?


The March of Progress, or The Road to Homo Sapiens was originally published by Time-Life in 1965.

It has been reprinted and repeated, held up as science fact and disparaged as the march to Godless evolution.

Both interpretations are wrong.

In reality, the Road to Homo Sapiens is no more scientifically correct than this version:


The evolution of modern humans was not an all-in-line march to the finish as the famous  March to Progress illustration implies.

Modern humans sit on one tip of a branch of an ancient human family tree – a tangled tree with many branches.

All of the other branches in this tangled tree have died out. We alone survive.

But in the not-so-far past (relatively speaking), this was not the case. In the past, modern humans shared our planet with some of the now extinct branches of our tangled family tree.

Last to leave, last to arrive

Modern humans have lived longer in Africa than any other place on earth – about 200,000 years.

Many modern humans stayed in Africa. Other groups of modern humans left Africa about 70,000 years ago and spread across Europe, Asia, the Pacific, and the Americas (see map).

But modern humans were late to the out-of-Africa party.

An ancestor of modern humans had already ventured out of Africa 500,000 – 600,000 years before. Once out of Africa, this ancestor group further split into at least two important groups: the Neanderthals and the Denisovans. The members of the ancestral group that remained in Africa gave rise to modern humans.

The Neanderthals spread out across Europe and western Asia and the Denisovans ranged from eastern Europe to eastern Asia. When modern humans finally moved out of Africa and trekked across the globe, they met some very ancient cousins. But by 30,000 years ago, modern humans stood alone – the last remaining branch on the tangled human family tree.

All three human groups (Neanderthals, Denisovans, modern humans) are distinct – some scientists consider them different species. However, modern humans were closely related enough to mate and have children with the other two groups.

How do we know this?  People with European and Asian ancestry have trace amounts (one to two percent) Neanderthal DNA in their genomes. Denisovan DNA is highest in the modern populations of southeast Asia and Oceania (4 – 6%). Trace amounts of Denisovan DNA are also found in east Asian populations. Interestingly, people in sub-Saharan Africa have zero-to-almost zero Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA.


An extraordinary new discovery tells us that early human groups also mated with each other.

For the last twelve years, a single cave in Siberia has produced important discoveries of Denisovan remains. The Denisova cave (for which this group was named) yielded an astonishing new find, first announced in August 2018.

A bone from a thirteen-year-old girl was found with equal amounts of Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA.

Humans have 23 unique chromosomes. But – we have two copies of each chromosome, one from biological mom and one from biological dad.

The chromosomes of the 13 -year old girl found in the Denisovan cave (nicknamed “Denny”) stunned scientists. In each chromosome pair, one chromosome came from a parent that was exclusively Neanderthal and one came from a parent that was exclusively Denisovan.

Additionally, humans have a tiny bit of DNA in the mitochondria of their cells. All mitochondrial DNA comes from mom (I wrote about mitochondrial DNA in this post). Denny’s mitochondrial DNA was Neanderthal.

It was as if we had a front-row seat. Denny was a first-generation offspring of a Neanderthal mom and a Denisovan dad.

The first reaction of the researcher studying Denny’s DNA was “what did I do wrong?”. The tests were repeated six times, and each time the results were the same.

Denny is an exciting, but not surprising find. We have indirect evidence of interbreeding: trace amounts of DNA from “cousin” human groups have been found in Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans. With the discovery of Denny, we have direct evidence of interbreeding between human groups. How often did that happen? That’s a question to be answered, but Denny provides a hint. We’ve only known about Denisovans since 2008, and already we have a first-generation hybrid with another human group. We have yet to find a first-generation offspring of modern humans and Neanderthals or Denisovans, but they surely existed.

Screen Shot 2018-12-28 at 4.32.01 PM

Do you have more questions about the tangled human family tree? Here’s a link to an excellent six-minute animated graphic Last Hominin Standing: Charting Our Rise and the Fall of Our Closest Relatives.


And as You speak
A hundred billion creatures catch Your breath
Evolving in pursuit of what You said
If it all reveals Your nature so will I

(Hillsong United “So Will I“)



The College Professor: A Cautionary Tale

I teach biology at a large public university in Texas. The first day of each semester begins the same way – a short discussion about the philosophy of science:

What is science? What makes something science? How is a science theory different from a theory in the every-day sense?

Using multiple examples, I explain that there are lots of things I believe, but I don’t believe science.

It’s shocking, I know . . . the biology professor does not believe science! There are many things I believe in, but science is not one of them. Instead, I accept scientific evidences.

That’s the good thing about science. It’s true, whether or not you believe in it. That’s why it works. (Neil deGrasse Tyson)

I include evolution concepts across my syllabus, but during the last part of the semester, I take a several weeks-long dive into to the details. We talk about what evolution is and is not:

  • Evolution is not “just” a theory
  • Evolution is not a theory about how life began
  • Evolution says nothing about God or religion or any world view, for that matter

Because I teach in a public university, I cannot overtly say “and this is why I am a Christian who accepts evolution”. I’d love to have that discussion.

I tell my students about the very loud voices on both ends of the spectrum (think Richard Dawkins and Ken Ham) who say that religious faith and evolution acceptance can never coexist. Then, as definitively and clearly as I can, I make the point: this just isn’t so.

At least I thought I was making it clear.

Each class period ends with a quick “minute paper” – students write a brief response to a concept from the lecture on an index card.

On the last day of the fall semester, the very last minute paper of the course, this was the writing prompt:

notecard evo is a tinkerer

In the stack of almost 150 cards, two cards immediately stood out. Both students had filled the front side of their card entirely, and one student also filled the back.

I’ve listened to all your lectures, but I can disprove it all.

Evolution as you describe it goes against what God says and what I know to be true.

student notecard 1       student notecard 2

And there was scripture. LOTS and lots of scripture, quotes and references too – it was impressive.

There was more –

Evolution doesn’t tinker. God does, and only him.

And this declaration:

I will not deny.

One student tried to soften the blow a bit –

I’m not trying to be rude, I thoroughly enjoyed your class, but I won’t answer ‘correctly’.

I am not sure what the emotion was that I felt as I read these two cards. I definitely had a lump in my throat. In the opinion of these two students, I, their professor, was asking them to deny God. And they weren’t going to do it. They intended to stand up for Jesus, even if it meant a bad grade on the quiz.

And this is probably not fair, but I felt “put in my place”. These students think I don’t know anything about the Bible! Me – with all my Bible Bowls and Bible for Credit and a lifetime of church!

Two were brave enough to write it down and turn it in; how many more thought the same but did not want to risk a bad grade? I felt embarrassed, but why?

Then it hit me: it was me. I am that professor their parents and pastor warned them about. I’m the scary atheist professor in all the cautionary tales.

And my next thought?

So . . . who’s going to play me in the next “God’s Not Dead” sequel?

GND me

College Advice from Apologetics Resources

off to college

This comprehensive study of youth ministry in America found that the most common questions about science asked of youth ministers and others in youth ministry was about origins and evolution. The vast majority of ministers who attempt to discuss evolution with their kids must prepare their own materials. If published materials are used, the most common resource cited was Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis material (that’s 6,000 year-old earth, dinosaurs-on-the-ark Ken Ham).

That is not encouraging, but what about after graduation? What kinds of advice are Christian parents getting before sending their offspring off to sit in my biology lecture hall? I decided to investigate.

The “how to send your kids off to college” materials published by popular apologetics sources make it clear: college professors intend to destroy your child’s faith. As deliberate as I am about stating as strongly as possible on a public campus that evolution and faith are not enemies, I am at a disadvantage before I begin. Even Christian colleges are not to be trusted.

Answers in Genesis (AiG) has published a book, and the title says it all:

Already Compromised: Christian colleges took a test on the state of their faith and the final exam is in.

(cue the ominous tones: dum-dum-dummmmmm)

Colleges, both Christian and secular, are infiltrated (Ham’s term) with people whose actual goal is to discredit God’s word.

AiG’s college prep book reports that even if students are at a Christian college, they may be getting hit with “friendly fire” from professors they consider to be allies who will undermine biblical authority, create doubt, and lead their young adult child into unbelief.

According to AiG, parents are footing the bill for educators to destroy the faith of their children and teach them to believe in evolution.

This AiG video specifically warns biology, geology, and astronomy majors that their professors are not to be trusted. Science majors are told to “be careful who you tell” that you don’t believe in evolution because some students have been stopped from getting their degree when it was discovered that they were creationists. Helpful hints are given for writing papers and answering exams without showing your (creationist) hand.

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is another popular source for apologetics materials. Their materials are quite professional and pretty.

ICR has, by the way, recently broken ground on a really impressive museum/headquarters in my hometown of Dallas, and headlining the ceremony was Dr. Robert Jeffress, who is not only the pastor of the enormous First Baptist Church in Dallas, but also a regular contributor on Fox News and a multitude of other national broadcasts.


When Dr. Jeffress speaks about politics and culture, many evangelicals listen, and Jeffress speaks for ICR.

The ICR website features an article regarding the uptick of alcohol abuse among college students in the last decade – the article is a legitimate study about a real concern.

ICR adds this analysis following the article:

Universities are populated overwhelmingly with humanists, which leads to

Teaching evolutionary world views, which leads to

Hedonism, which leads to

Increased college drinking.


AND we got trouble, right here in River City.


The Discovery Institute, the primary center for the more science-y version of creationism known as intelligent design, is headquartered in Seattle. The Discovery Institute’s college prep materials generally give lip-service to learning about evolution, but always in the context of “teaching the weaknesses of the theory” and “teaching the controversies about the theory”.

(Note: it’s only a science controversy if scientists are debating it).

The Discovery Institute’s College Student’s Guide quotes Pink Floyd to make their point: not including intelligent design in a college course is equivalent to saying “we don’t need no education”. The theme is repeated throughout the guide: learn evolution, but educate yourself about intelligent design because your professors don’t want you to know about it.


These are just an iceberg’s tip of college advice from popular apologetics sources.

Popular Christian entertainment continues the theme. The God’s Not Dead movies are popular and were surprisingly successful at the box office. In the first movie, the atheist professor belittles the faith of the brave young freshman and makes it clear there is a grade-cost to be paid for not falling in line with the professor’s way of thinking.

But what if it’s true?

What if college students are confronted with professors who are antagonistic to faith – or a peer or classmate for that matter?

It could definitely happen. Sending kids off to college is scary (I’ve done it twice).

Which approach best prepares young adults?

Approach #1:

  • Dire warnings about atheistic, evolution-believing professors who overtly want to crash their faith
  • Counsel to keep your head down, hide your beliefs, and watch out for retribution
  • Advice to just “learn it for the test”

Or, Approach #2:

  • Equip young adults with biographies and testimonies of world class scientists who are serious, practicing people of faith, like Francis Collins (who will go down in the history books along with Watson and Crick for his work in genetics) and Kenneth Miller (who literally wrote the book, the most widely used biology text in publication), and so many others: Dennis Venema, Deborah Haarsma, Darrell Faulk, just to scratch the surface.
  • Immerse young adults in lots of serious conversations about how science explains the “when” and the “how” of the natural world, and how their faith explains the “who” and the “why”.
  • Allow young adults to engage both their brain and their spirit – give them permission to accept science without the feeling they are letting Jesus down

Young adults wrestle with a lot of things in college, their faith included. Young adults may change because of their wrestlings.

In the middle of all of the faith questionings and grapplings and wrestlings in college, approach #2 allows us to take one issue off the table: faith does not demand rejection of science. How can we ask young adults to take seriously matters of faith – the existence of God, the incarnation, the resurrection – if we ask them to deny observable, demonstrable, empirical science evidence?


In the 17thcentury, Galileo found himself in trouble with the Church for the heresy of teaching that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around. The Church was adamant in its position because scripture clearly taught: thou hast set the earth on its foundations, it shall not be moved. And it wasn’t just their science feelings that were hurt – it was a theological problem. For if the earth, and therefore man, is not the center of the universe and the center of God’s attention, Christianity falls apart.

But books were written

and telescopes were passed around,

and the next generation of Christians had no problem, scientifically or theologically, with a sun-centered solar system.

ccat reading


And as You speak
A hundred billion creatures catch Your breath
Evolving in pursuit of what You said
If it all reveals Your nature so will I

(Hillsong United “So Will I“)







Evolution in the Hymnal

After a lifetime of church-going, I’ve heard countless songs praising God in terms of the created world – the stars, the rolling thunder, “thy power throughout the universe displayed”.HowGreatThouArt

A few weeks ago, our worship leader introduced a new song by Hillsong United. It was beautiful and ethereal as you would expect from Hillsong.

But the lyrics stopped me in my tracks.

Here is the first verse:

With no point of reference
You spoke to the dark
And fleshed out the wonder of light

And as You speak
A hundred billion galaxies are born
In the vapor of Your breath the planets form

Ok, Hillsong. You have my attention. The universe is old and immense and the planets formed in the wake of stars. That is real science.

And with the next verse, I am undone.

God of Your promise
You don’t speak in vain
No syllable empty or void
For once You have spoken
All nature and science
Follow the sound of Your voice

And as You speak
A hundred billion creatures catch Your breath
Evolving in pursuit of what You said

No mental gymnastics needed to make observed science fit into a literalist theology.

Evolution is fact.

Evolution is the process responsible for the brilliant diversity of life on our planet.

And this is huge: we praise God for it. In a song. In church.

Party Favors

Unfortunately, too many people of faith aren’t buying it. Thirty-four percent of Americans reject biological evolution outright. Evangelicals (my tradition) really aren’t buying it – 57% of American evangelicals believe that life has always and only existed in its present form.

A friend was recently given a box of science-y trading cards, a children’s dinosaur book, and a glossy NatGeo-style magazine by her neighbor at a neighborhood gathering she had organized. The neighbor suggested handing the trading cards out to the kids at the event. The trading cards, the book, and the magazine were attractive and kid-friendly, with lots of photos of giant insects and exotic animals and dinosaur facts. When I found out who published these materials, I gladly took the collection off her hands.

The cards, book, and magazine are all publications by the Dallas-based Institute for Creation Research. The embedded theology is what you would expected from an organization dedicated to promoting a young earth, literal seven-day version of creation. However, some disturbing themes are also woven throughout the collection:

Scientists are suspect. Scientists are atheists.

Scientists “guess”. Scientists ignore facts.

And not just scientists –

Teachers are suspect, too.

Even old-earth creationists and intelligent design advocates are suspect.

Destination Vacation


ICR is currently fundraising and planning for a destination “science” center in Dallas – the ICR Discovery Center for Science and Earth History. It’s big and modern and looks like it will give Ken Ham’s Ark Adventure a run for its money. A video on ICR’s website proudly announces that at the Center you will learn “what they don’t tell you in biology class”.

(Those science teachers… always trying to hide the facts.)

At the groundbreaking ceremony, Robert Jeffress, the popular pastor of First Baptist Dallas and frequent national political commentator, said this:

What you believe about creation determines what you ultimately believe about salvation.

Dr. Jeffress: Is the fabric of the gospel so fragile that it comes unpinned if God moves and creates within natural laws?


We are OK with letting the Bible speak in an ancient voice when it comes to the sciences of meteorology, medicine, and astronomy. But we draw the line at biology.

It doesn’t have to be this way. There are a hundred billion reasons why.


So will I (100 Billion X) by Hillsong United


ccat reading


And as You speak
A hundred billion creatures catch Your breath
Evolving in pursuit of what You said
If it all reveals Your nature so will I

(Hillsong United “So Will I“)


who invited the herbivore

A New Kid on the Block and Deep, Deep Time

Here I am a few weeks ago at the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller, Alberta, Canada!

Janet Royal Tyrell

From this beginning point, I worked my way through the “intro” halls, all the while getting pumped for the really good stuff the Royal Tyrrell holds – enormous tyrannosaurs, elaborate (are-these-real??) Disney-like horned and frilled dinosaurs, and herds of T.Rex-sized duck-billed hadrosaurs.
But first, we were routed through a room dedicated to mining because coal and oil are important to this part of Canada. In this room were nods here and there to some good chunks of petrified wood and other unintentional finds discovered during the search for fuels.

And there he was.

Not often do I literally stop in my tracks, but I did. And whoa.


new nodosaur


Right in the middle of the room was a dinosaur fossil like you’ve never seen before. Not skeletal remains. Not a two-dimensional imprint. Not even dried up and mummified.

But a 110 million-year-old dinosaur almost exactly as he would have appeared in life.

A NatGeo photographer  called it the most impressive fossil he’s seen in his life:

It was like a Game of Thrones dragon. It was so dimensional, like a prop from a movie.

In life, this plant eater was eighteen feet long and weighed 3,000 pounds. He was plated in spikes and also sported two impressive twenty-inch spikes on each shoulder. He was found by an excavator operator six years ago, but did not make his public debut until May 2017.

He is a nodosaur, an armored cousin to the club-wielding ankylosaurs. (Here’s a link to a stunning 3-D virtual tour of the dino by NatGeo).

And – breaking news – it was just announced a few days ago that this nodosaur is a new species, the first of its kind to be discovered. He is the 110 million-year-old new kid on the block.

The Mona Lisa of Dinosaurs

newnodosaur natgeo3D

Researchers believe he was swept down river by a flood, then out to sea where he quickly sank, belly-up. He settled into the impact crater with his back supported and was covered in sediment. Minerals infiltrated his skin and armor. Here’s Mark Mitchell (the museum technician who spent more than 7,000 hours chipping rock from the specimen):

It will go down in science history as one of the most beautiful and best preserved dinosaur specimens–the Mona Lisa of dinosaurs.

Standing just inches from this dinosaur, face to face, I was overwhelmed by these two thoughts:

This animal is REALLY OLD and living things have changed A LOT.

Just call me Captain Obvious.

Armadillos for Supper and Deep Time

About 180 years ago, a young Charles Darwin had those same two thoughts on his famous round-the-world trip aboard the Beagle. In Argentina, Darwin had been eating a local delicacy – armadillo roasted in its shell. In this part of Argentina were also found fossils of a huge animal, now called a glyptodon.

Glyptodons were extinct. And glyptodons looked just like enormous armadillos.


Glyptodon (American Museum of Natural History)


To Darwin, it was no coincidence that the little armadillos he was eating looked very like the giant glyptodon fossils found in the same geographical area.

In Darwin’s day, almost everybody thought that living things were static – what you see is what has always been. In other words, all living things were specially created by God in their present form, about six thousand years ago.

A few scientists in Darwin’s day thought that life on earth may have changed, but Darwin was the first to advance an idea of “how” the change happened.

Although Darwin is most famous for his “tree of life” – all living things are related to each other – he articulated another concept that made the tree make sense: deep time.

In the case of the modern armadillos and the extinct glyptodons, Darwin concluded that one species had replaced another, not geographically, but over an immense amount of time.

In Darwin’s day, this was a radical idea.

Today, even the most ardent young-earth creationist will concede that species have changed – just a bit – in order to meet environmental challenges. Creationists term these adaptive changes “microevolution” (not a term recognized by biologists). But creationists maintain that adaptive changes never result in a new species: finches remain birds, despite changes in beaks.

Creationists (whether young earth or old earth) do not accept “macroevolution” (another unscientific term) in which a species gives rise to other new and different species. Like most of Darwin’s nineteenth century contemporaries, modern literal creationists believe that life on earth is pretty much the same as it has always been.

Evolution Before Your Very Eyes

Here is Henry M. Morris, writing for the popular Institute for Creation Research:

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen.

This argument is a favorite of creationist organizations like ICR and Ken Ham’s Answers in GenesisHowever, the “no one has ever seen it happen” argument fails to account for deep time, and furthermore, it is simply not true:

  • The HIV virus evolves so rapidly (minutes to hours) that multiple species may exist in one individual. (Watch this PBS episode starting at 43:40).
  • In a weekend, soil bacteria repurposed an existing gene to grow flagella after their flagella-growing genes were destroyed. (HudsonAlpha has a user-friendly summary here on page 10).
  • In less than forty years, a mutation arose in pond bacteria which allowed the bacteria to utilize nylon as a food source. (Here is a good summary about nylonase in Miller’s Only a Theory).

This is where Charles Darwin’s game-changing concept of deep time enters the picture.

To tiny, incremental,  imperceptible changes, Darwin added time. Lots of time. LOTS of time. Millions and millions of years. Deep, deep time.

And it then it becomes clear. Species do not change suddenly in big flashy events. A modern bird never hatched from a dinosaur egg.

Species give rise to new species because small changes accumulate over deep time.

The Vast Abyss of Time

Awarding-winning podcaster Krista Tippet (On Being, NPR) interviewed Adam Gopnik (New Yorker magazine) about a common thread in his writing – a kind of ongoing dialog with Charles Darwin. Gopnik speaks beautifully, almost lyrically, about intersections of faith and science and culture.

Deep time is a recurrent theme:

One of the things that gives Darwin’s life and his work its enormous, almost tragic, pathos is that he became acutely aware of (time). Biological evolution only operates and only makes sense if you’re able to open your mind up to geological time. The vast abyss of time.

Over the deep-time history of our earth, more than ninety-nine percent of species that have ever lived have gone extinct. Yet, we are surrounded by a dizzying diversity of life.

Things were very different  in the past.

And that’s really cool.


drawing of nodosaur compared to human natgeo



ccat reading


And as You speak
A hundred billion creatures catch Your breath
Evolving in pursuit of what You said
If it all reveals Your nature so will I

(Hillsong United “So Will I“)





Was Adam Real? A Review of “Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science”

Was Adam “real”?

Well, it depends. What is your definition of “real”?

Must Adam be the actual, genetic, biological forefather of every human alive and who ever lived in order to qualify as “real”?

If so, we have a big problem with modern genetics.

If not, we have a big problem with the traditional creationist view of Adam.

A New Testament scholar (Scot McKnight) and an award-winning geneticist (Dennis R. Venema), writing in turn, each tackle the same question in Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science.

Was Adam real?


Venema Goes First

As a professor at a Christian University, Dr. Venema experienced the thin ice of accepting biological evolution and maintaining employment. But to his surprise, he caught more flak from university administrators for questioning a historical Adam than he did for teaching the common ancestry of humans and apes.

According to Venema, modern genetics is clear: the human population was never a set of two individuals.

Mapping the human genome was a turning point in history. For the first time, we could read the complete genetic blueprint for building a human.

Because we have the map, we know how many “versions” exist of a specific gene. For example, the genes that control hair texture come in many versions, including curly, straight, and the unfortunate “uncombable hair syndrome”. There are multitudes of gene versions throughout the human genome – our species is very diverse.


uncombable hair syndrome

“Uncombable hair syndrome”: genes for a specific trait like hair texture occur in different versions (called “alleles”)


Mutations in a gene are the source of variation in a trait. We know the rate at which genetic mutations occur. Mathematically, the diversity of present-day humans is so extensive it necessitates a large initial population. Math models have been created using other genetic components as well, and all models arrive at the same point: modern humans are descended from an ancestral population of about 10,000 individuals, not two.

Dr. Venema uses the analogy of language to illustrate the point. Languages with only a few speakers (for example, some of the indigenous languages of North America) – have almost no variations.

On the other hand, languages with many speakers – English, for example – can tolerate a large number of variations. Modern English is a global language and varies a great deal from country to country, even region to region.

The fewer the speakers of a language, the fewer the variations. Many speakers, a multitude of variations. The connection between the size of a population and the variation within that population applies to both languages and genes.

Actually, it is possible for a modern species to have descended from an extremely small ancestral group – this is called a “bottleneck”. Tasmanian devils are one such species.



At some point in their history, the Tasmanian devil population experienced a severe bottleneck. The population was reduced to a very small group. All Tasmanian devils living today are descended from that tiny bottleneck. As a result, all Tasmanian devils are virtually genetic identical twins. Tissue transferred between one Tasmanian devil to another causes no immune response – the recipient does not recognize the tissue as foreign.

But don’t try that with humans – tissues transplanted between humans invariably produce a strong immune response because humans are highly genetically diverse. If at any time the human population was a bottleneck of only two people it would leave a definitive mark on the genome.

McKnight’s Turn

Scot McKnight drives right to the point: what is a Bible-believer to do with Genesis 1-3 when our best science demonstrates unequivocally that modern humans arose from a population of 10,000 individuals?

McKnight opens with four principles that the best readers of the Bible always bring into play: respect, honesty, sensitivity, and the primacy of scripture.

Respect: Let Genesis be what it is. The creation stories in Genesis are consistent with other creations stories of the ancient near east.

Respect, then, means we learn to listen to Genesis 1-11 in its own world (and not our own).

Honesty: Face the facts; do not fear them. Genesis sounds like other ancient near eastern creation stories for a reason. Honesty requires we admit both similarities and differences.

Sensitivity: Understand the devastating impact on the faith of young adults who are educated in public schools when a literal six-day creation is given as a non-negotiable component of Christianity.

Primacy of scripture: Go to scripture first and respect the Bible for what it is saying. The Bible is not a “question and answer” book or a theology text; the Bible is a developing narrative of God’s revelation to his people.

adam and eve

McKnight then presents twelves theses – twelve pictures of what the Genesis narrative says about God. Adam and Eve are obviously literary characters in the theses. This does not mean they are fictional; likewise, it does not mean they are historical.

The remainder of the book is an in-depth look at how pre-modern Jews, including Paul and Jesus, looked at Adam and Eve. Do we assume that they believed Adam was the actual, physical, biological, and DNA father of us all?  This assumes that pre-modern Jews understood genetic principles that would not be known for another 2000 years.

McKnight’s examination of the variety of Adams and Eves in the Jewish world is fascinating. Using Old Testament writings, New Testament writings, intertestamental sources, and first-century sources, McKnight outlines how each author used the Adam story for his own purposes. No writer gave Adam a “historical” reading until long after Paul.

Some writers treat Adam as a literary character (but not historical). Others, as a genealogical character. Sometimes, allegorical.  But never as a genetic, DNA ancestor.

What are you going to do?

So what is an intellectually honest, Bible-honoring person to do with Genesis?

This book presents a challenge to the reader. Both authors tackle complex topics with the non-scientist and non-theologian in mind.

The genome map provides black-and-white evidence that the human population was never only one man and one woman.

The similarities between Genesis and other creation stories are inescapable.

Read the book; weigh the evidence.


ccat reading


The heavens declare the glory of God;

the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Day after day they pour forth speech;

night after night they reveal knowledge


who invited the herbivore


Movie Review: Is Genesis History?

In a twist of Dobzhansky’s famous quote “nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution”, host Del Tackett concludes his film Is Genesis History with this statement:

Nothing in the world makes sense except in light of Genesis.


Whose Team Are You On?

Is Genesis History? is not constructed as a conflict between science and faith, but as a conflict between two world views.

Immediately from the beginning and throughout it all, the film places those who accept evolution and an ancient earth firmly on the side opposite God and faith.

With the teams drawn up (Team God’s Side and Team Everyone Else), the film launches into interviews with geologists and biologists, an engineer, a couple of philosophers, and an astronomer – thirteen in all. The research frame for each man is the same: start with Genesis and make the science work.

Each man gave the same rationale for looking at Genesis first:

  • I have a biblical worldview
  • the biblical text is not compatible with the standard science view
  • we only have one eyewitness to creation (God)
  • therefore, we must go to the Bible to reconstruct the age of the earth and explain the diversity of life.

And… if evidence points to something other than a young earth and special creation, discount it because (see the bullets above). Circular logic and distressing.

Pretty Movie, Bad Science

The film is beautiful – a lot of time is spent in the Grand Canyon, with emphasis on its origin via a catastrophic world flood. Because their world view requires a literal Genesis, the speakers dismiss out-of-hand, without elaboration, any references to a canyon older than four thousand years. All agreed – the canyon was formed suddenly and catastrophically by raging and then receding flood waters.

One geologist cites his evidence regarding the formation of the canyon: “claims of scripture and my own observation”.

According to the astronomer, light from stars millions of light-years away must have been “fast-forwarded” to earth like a time-lapse movie. The paleontologist said that our ideas about dating dinosaurs are just plain wrong. Each speaker in turn speculated on the fossil record, astronomy, and geology – all starting with the assumption of a young earth. So that’s that.

I was honestly disappointed – I expected more “here’s what science says, and here’s why we think it’s wrong”. Instead, each speaker explained how things “could have happened” in a way fitting a literal Genesis narrative. Any evidence contrary to a young earth and a catastrophic creation of the Grand Canyon was simply dismissed without discussion. Have questions? You’re directed to the literature for the movie.

(However, I recommend this link: A Geological Response to the Movie “Is Genesis History?”)


One exception is a segment regarding the discovery of soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil. The conclusion? The presence of soft tissue means that the dinosaur couldn’t possibly be millions of years old … and if this dinosaur is young, then all dinosaurs are young … you see where they went with this. The film fails to mention the follow-up studies done with this sample, what was found, and the dismay of the discoverer (herself a committed Christian) that her research is being touted as evidence for young earth creationism.

My question: in what other areas of science do we start with the Bible and force modern science evidence to conform? Do we study modern meteorology only within the context of literal storehouses for snow and hail (Job 38:22)?

Evolution of the Squirrel-Monkey-Fish

You name the misconception about evolution theory, and it was front and center.

Would a God of love stand by and watch his creatures flopping around on the ground, trying to produce wings? Trying to produce lungs?

This is an actual quote from one of the scientists in the film.

From the usual arguments of design (“you can’t build complexity one step at a time”) to the absurd (“you aren’t going to get a shark to evolve into a bird”), it was painfully apparent that those interviewed had no idea what the theory of evolution actually says, much less the evidence for it.

The Cambrian explosion is cited as an “out of nowhere and all of a sudden” appearance of life in the fossil record.

(“Sudden” only by comparison – the Cambrian lasted 53 million years.)

There are no “missing links”, no transitional forms in the fossil record.

(Well, no, there’s not if you are looking for creatures flopping around trying to grow lungs. There is not “a” transitional … there are actually thousands.)

You can’t trust science because it is always changing.

(A simplistic misunderstanding of what scientists mean by theory. Science theories may be tweaked or fine-tuned, but science theories are so well-established by time and testing that the fundamentals remain the same. We will learn more about evolutionary processes, but the foundations of evolution theory are stable.)

I recently heard Neil deGrasse Tyson speak at the Winspear in Dallas. Dr. Tyson made this point: unlike artists who often are not famous until after their deaths, scientists can be famous in their lifetime. If empirical evidence debunking evolution and modern geology exists, the discoverers would be globally and immediately famous.

My observation: it’s easy to tear down a straw man.

A Fragile Faith

One of the more disturbing aspects of this film is its insistence that belief in young earth creationism is essential to Christian faith. Here’s the rationale: If Genesis is not actual history, then Christianity is not actual history. If Genesis is not history, then the entire Bible is useless.

Ironically, tying young earth creationism to Christianity is one of the primary reasons cited by those who abandon Christianity.

The film goes further. Without a historical Adam and Eve, we have no basis for morality. Even theistic evolutionists (belief in God and evolution as his way of creating) are not off the hook because they “take out the Creator”.

The day after I saw this film, I saw Bertolt Brecht’s Galileo on stage. The opposition of young earth creationists to evolution and an ancient earth is alarmingly identical to the early seventeenth century church’s opposition to Galileo’s sun-centered solar system:

If the earth is not at the center, then man is not at the center and apple of God’s eye. We can’t believe anything in the Bible. If the earth is just one rock among many, would God have sent his son to such a place?


Bruce DuBose (left), who plays Galileo, and Landon Robinson, who plays Andrea, in “Galileo” at the Undermain Theatre in Dallas.


My question: is the gospel story so fragile that it crumbles in the presence of modern science?


Is Genesis History? Encore performance March 7th, in a theater near you.


ccat reading


The heavens declare the glory of God;

the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Day after day they pour forth speech;

night after night they reveal knowledge


string theory










The Tale of a Lost Whale and Human Evolution

He wasn’t just a little lost – he was really lost. And he was really big – twenty-three feet long.

In 1964, fossil hunters found the skull of a 17 million-year-old whale in Kenya.The fossil was not found on the ocean floor or even near the ocean, but far inland. It was the skull of a beaked whale – one of the deepest divers in the ocean.


Credit: Southern Methodist University


The fossil was not found in marine rock as most whale fossils are. Instead, the Kenyan whale was found embedded in river deposits.

Apparently, the whale made a fatal wrong turn out of his home in the Indian Ocean and headed inland, up an ancient river in east Africa. Unable to change his course, the wrong-way whale kept going.

It is not common, but whales occasionally become stranded in rivers. In 2006, a sixteen feet-long northern bottlenose whale was found about 43 miles inland, stranded in the Thames River in central London.


The Kenyan whale was found much further inland – 460 miles inland from the present African coast – a long trip for an ill-fated ending. But the length of the trip is not what makes this story so incredible. Although whales occasionally travel long distances up rivers, they won’t swim uphill – maybe three feet above sea level, at most.

The Kenyan whale was found at an elevation of 2, 100 feet!


How He Get There??

The whale was found in the Turkana region of Kenya and was a member of the deep-diving, ocean-dwelling beaked whale family called Ziphiidae. Here’s a photo of a modern beaked whale cousin:


NOAA Photo Library


This area of Kenya lies within the East African Great Rift system: a lake-filled grassland with high plateaus and deep rift valleys. But it wasn’t always so…

About 20 million years ago, Africa looked quite different. The eastern part of Africa was at sea level and was covered in thick, dense, well-watered forests. The (non-bird) dinosaurs had been gone for about 45 million years, and it would be another 14 million years before the earliest ancestors of modern humans made their east African debut.

East Africa sits on top of a hotspot of magma. The magma heats up the earth’s crust, causing it to split down the middle like an apple pie when it bakes. Sometime between twenty million years ago and now, the earth’s crust (like the pie crust) started splitting in northeastern Africa in a geologic process called rifting. The rifting produced a deep hanging valley a half-mile above sea level and mountain ranges on either side up to two miles high.

As the uplift occurred, moist air from the Indian Ocean was blocked from reaching east Africa, and gradually the wet, dense, tree-filled forests gave way to dry grasslands.

But when? When in the time frame of twenty million years until now did the uplift occur that changed east Africa from a sea-level forest to an elevated grassland? Clues were few – until the whale was found. The discovery of a whale so far inland and at such a high elevation means that east Africa was a forested land still near sea level when the whale was stranded. Using the current elevation of the plateau where the whale was found and case studies of the steepest river grades, the elevation of the area at the time of the whale can be calculated.

Amazingly – calculations indicate that our wrong-way whale was stranded at ground zero of east African environmental change. The discovery of the Kenyan whale fossil essentially time-stamps the initial transition from thick forest to grassland at 17 million years ago.

The Whale and Us

About five or six million years ago, our unique history began in east Africa. The east African Rift Valley is literally the cradle of our species. The lost Kenyan whale reveals a marvelous clue – a key piece of the puzzle – in our own story, the story of modern humans.

As the east African landscape was gradually changing from dense forest to flat open grasslands, our earliest ancestors were evolving to be bipedal: upright walkers on two feet.

One of our early ancestors, Ardipithicus ramidus, called “Ardi”, lived 4.4 million years ago in the Afar region of Ethiopia. Ardi’s upper pelvis was very like ours, the kind of pelvic shape you would expect in an upright walker. But – her lower pelvis was built for climbing. In addition, Ardi had a grasping foot. Ardi could walk on two legs (but not as good as we can) and she was a much better climber.


Smithsonian NMNH


The plant and animal fossils found with Ardi indicate that she lived in a wooded environment. Wherever fossils of Ardipithicus ramidus were found, fossils of woodland creatures were also found: monkeys, parrots, and peacocks. Apparently, our early ancestors began to walk upright while there were still some forested areas in east Africa.

The fossil record indicates that after the time of Ardi, our ancestors became increasingly bipedal, and modern humans are exclusively bipedal. Our bipedalism sets us apart from our closest living primate relatives. Bipedalism was a huge event for our species.

As the environment of east Africa was changing to flat grasslands, our ancestors had to walk longer distances across open land to gather food and bring it back to home base. Bipedalism gave an exceptional evolutionary advantage to our ancestors. Our bipedal ancestors could carry large amounts of food in their hands. Animals that run on all fours can run faster than bipedal humans, but humans have far more endurance. Endurance was also a tremendous evolutionary advantage in a wide open grassland – large animals could be tracked and hunted to provide an abundant source of food.

Bipedalism was a key evolutionary adaptation in an environment that was increasingly dry, flat, and grassy.

“It’s Amazing”

The Kenyan whale was stranded at a point in time when east Africa was at sea level and was deeply covered in forests and jungles. Louis Jacobs is a paleontologist at Southern Methodist University, one of the primary researchers in the study of the whale, and was actually responsible for locating the fossil after it had been lost in storage for more than three decades.

Here’s Dr. Jacobs:  

The whale is telling us all kinds of things. It tells us the starting point for all that uplift that changed the climate that led to humans. It’s amazing.

Scientists have known for years that there had been uplift and climate change in east Africa, but the date for the uplift eluded them. All that changed with the rediscovery of the Kenyan whale fossil. The uplift could  now be “time-stamped”.  Henry Wichura of the University of Potsdam in Germany, also a primary study researcher, called the whale’s story “more or less the story about bipedalism”.

In a recent presentation for the Dallas Paleontological Society, Dr. Jacobs made this powerful point: the story of the lost whale demonstrates that climate was a physical driver of the environment, resulting in the evolution of us – the modern humans.

Dr. Jacobs called the story “a whale of tale in human evolution”, and so it is!


New book alert! I have preordered my copy, and I’m looking forward to the read…I’ll let you know what I think!


ccat reading


The heavens declare the glory of God;

the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Day after day they pour forth speech;

night after night they reveal knowledge