Some people think the advance of science continues to remove any reason for believing in God, but in reality scientific discovery over the last century has opened up vistas of knowledge that are best explained by the worldview of theism over atheistic naturalism. In the three previous parts of this series (see here, here, and here), I explained that what secular scientists thought they would discover concerning the universe, the solar system, and Earth were very different from what they actually uncovered. The universe’s extraordinary beginning, the solar system’s fine-tuning for life, and Earth’s distinctiveness as a hospitable home for intelligent life have all been surprising finds for a secular view.
In this final segment, I want to explain how human beings’ distinctiveness has also surprised scientists who embrace a purely naturalistic worldview.
The Human Exceptionalism Hypothesis
A consensus of today’s scientific community holds that modern human beings evolved naturalistically from apelike ancestors (known as common descent). But modern humans appear to possess qualities and characteristics that make them different not merely in degree from other primates (which seems to be what evolution would predict) but different in kind. This apparent difference in kind may be called the human exceptionalism hypothesis.
RTB scientists Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross summarize human exceptionalism in this way:
A wealth of scientific evidence shows that humans alone, as distinct from Neanderthals, Homo erectus, and other species, possess the capacity for symbolic recognition, for complex language, art, and music, and for spiritual and philosophical engagement. Humans alone manifest awareness of God, sin, moral judgment, and life beyond death. Humans alone demonstrate technological advancement, including the development of agriculture and civilization. New evidence shows that even during episodes of extreme environmental instability, humans were able to maintain small mixed farms (with multiple species of crops and livestock) and to manufacture flour and clothing.1
Imago Dei (Image of God)
From a Christian philosophical and theological perspective, humans show this difference in kind by possessing six qualities or endowments that the Bible grounds in their being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27). Animals share some of these qualities in a limited degree, but humans differ profoundly from animals by being:2
- spiritual and religious;
- personal, self-conscious, and rational;
- deliberative and volitional;
- relational;
- immortal; and
- powerful (having dominion over nature).
The human exceptionalism hypothesis seems to comport well with a theistic, even biblical, perspective of the imago Dei, but seems unexpected and out of place from an atheistic, naturalistic perspective. So what would human beings look like if biblical theism were true? Apparently very much like they appear right now.
Thus, I would contend that for people who look to science to offer evidence that helps negate or affirm worldview claims, the verdict is in. Many atheists insist otherwise, but scientific discovery over the last century seems compatible with belief in a theistic God.
Reflections: Your Turn
In your opinion, what feature about human beings makes them the most different from animals?
Resources
- For more about human exceptionalism, see Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross, Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity, 2nd ed. (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2015), 313–25.
- For more about humans being made in the image of God and thus distinct in kind from animals, see Kenneth Richard Samples, 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), chapters 11 and 12.
Endnotes
- Hugh Ross, “Five Best Scientific Evidences for the God of the Bible,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, June 4, 2018, http://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/todays-new-reason-to-believe/2018/06/04/five-best-scientific-evidences-for-the-god-of-the-bible.
- Kenneth Richard Samples, 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), 168–69.
Reflections 
Your article is well written. The problem is that this kind of thinking is at a higher strata which some people will not put forth the effort to comprehend, I comprehend you loud and clear. Do not let the skeptics trip you on your journey to write more articles like this. I’m looking forward to reading more of your writing,
Thanks, Xenova1.
Ken Samples
Thanks, Ken. Great article! I have forwarded it on to others. I would love to do more with this kind of info. I am an RTB mbr in Charlotte, NC.
I have a question. In your list of differences “in kind” of man, I wonder why man’s gift of spoken language is not in there? “If it speaks, it is man.” (Francis Schaeffer)
Thanks, George.
In the Ross-Rana quote, spoken language is covered in “capacity for symbolic recognition.”
Ken Samples
Well-written article, Ken. Putting myself into the shoes of a fair-minded skeptic willing to concede human exceptionalism, I think I’d struggle with the inference that (exceptional) human beings should look like anything at all. Biblical theism would seem to me a non-sequitur.
To help skeptic me understand why I should expect humans to be exceptional, I’d first need to understand why human beings are exceptional. By that, I don’t mean the attributes that make humans exceptional. I mean: for what purpose(s) are they exceptional? What’s going on “behind the scenes”? What’s the metanarrative? How does exceptionalism tie into that?
The upshot is that the Christian’s burden of proof is greater than the skeptic’s.
Take, for example, the skeptic seeking to explain the habitability of Earth. He can only appeal to extreme chance and nature-of-the-gaps. He need not–and by definition cannot–explain *why* Earth is habitable. It’s habitable because it’s habitable.
But the Christian claims that Earth’s habitability is the product of divine activity. Unfortunately, she’s often content to include a few verses and leave it at that. But if there is a “Who” responsible for Earth’s habitability, then there must also be a “Why”. It’s not enough for the Christian to say God made the Earth habitable. She must also explain why he did it: his aim and objectives and how Earth’s habitability fits into those aims and objectives.
The same, of course, holds true for human exceptionalism. For it (or any apologetic argument) to resonate with skeptics, it has to be grounded in the proper context. That is, it has to be tied “up” to the larger story and its culmination. At least, skeptic me would find such a response helpful (though perhaps not convincing).
Ethos6:
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I agree that every anthropology (Christian, non-Christian) needs a worldview context as an explanatory model. But that is not the point of my article nor of this extended Scientific Discovery & God series.
The point of the article is that secular (naturalistic) scientists affirming common descent evolution expected to discover human beings that were merely different from animals in degree (a fair assumption of naturalistic evolution). But what scientists actually discovered (as a growing awareness in the scientific community) is that human beings appear to be different in kind (exceptional). It’s an anthropology that seriously challenges their assumption and points in a different anthropological-worldview direction–imago Dei.
The theme of this four-part series is that secular scientists expected to discover something consistent with their naturalist assumptions but instead encountered something in the physical world that challenged their secular expectations. Figuratively speaking, leaving a stone in their shoe.
Knowing what resonates with skeptics is tricky. They come from different places in life and find different kinds of arguments and evidence appealing. My cautious thinking is that secular STEM-oriented people are not looking for the worldview explanation upfront. Rather they may prefer seeing how aspects of scientific discovery conflict with their secular assumptions especially when they’re inundated with the mantra “Religion is Unscientific. But of course I can’t speak for all skeptics.
My point is that I don’t think there is only one way to skin an apologetics cat (worldview context upfront or to follow a factual conflict). I tend to be flexible when it comes to apologetic methodology.
Best regards in Christ.
Ken Samples
Thanks, Ken, for your gracious reply. You raise a fair point in maintaining a flexible approach based upon context. In light of that, I think perhaps I overstated my argument. It was based upon personal experience with skeptical friends.
What I find is that they are not necessarily unwilling to see the correlation between science and Scripture. (Though of course Romans 1:20 is no doubt in play to some degree.). The conversation, though difficult, would be considerably easier if that were the case. But instead, it seems they are simply unable to see the correlation. Whereas science and Scripture are to us like cake and ice cream, to my skeptical friends, they are more like cake and nuclear-powered battleships. What do you do with that?
On perhaps a related note, several years ago, I asked the college pastor at our church which science-faith questions the students most wrestled with, hoping to share some RTB material that has been so helpful to me. His response was as chilling as it was concise: “They don’t wrestle with those questions anymore.” This from a pastor who takes something of an interest in the topic and was highly in-tune with hundreds of students in the ministry.
Bewildered, I remember walking away from that conversation wondering what that implied about state of the controversy. Had the church so utterly lost the debate such that it is no longer a subject of concern or of interest or even of awareness for upcoming generations?
Again, a small sample size. But a real one.
As for this series of articles, I’ve enjoyed them. I noticed that the “researchers were surprised” refrain echoes throughout many articles and books written by the RTB staff. Individually, those anecdotes really are very powerful. Yet when encountering them, I often find myself wishing they were compiled into a kind of chronology. Such a work, I think, would demonstrate that these “surprises” are not isolated anomalies, but rather are normative and therefore strongly imply a unifying teleology undergirding those discoveries.
Ethos6:
Thanks for your comments.
In working at RTB my experience is that generally skeptics want to know first what science says and only after what the worldview implications may be. Often embracing a form of scientism.
But that is just one form of skepticism (STEM oriented).
Best regards.
Ken Samples
A thought for ethos 6: If there is a Who, and he made earth habitable, his own revelation is that the Why is that the Who wanted it habitable for this exceptional being (us) so that he could share himself and his creation with this creature right here on earth. Unfortunately, an adversary tricked up this creature, and this creature gave authority to this adversary who to this day fights tooth and nail to trick all the rest of us up, as well. Fortunately the Who has ultimate power and authority and pursues the creatures who have the ability to respond to the Who’s beckoning and hand authority back to him. This makes us exceptional and different from animals in that we have the ability to wonder and question Why. What animal does this?
The “Boss” is looking for a few Good men & Women, the rest of the happenings are just side effects.
I am happy with this thought, and had grown tired of the argument until i electronically met Hugh Ross and his band of merry Men, Go for it Hugh.
Regards 2bob.