My wife is considering acting as a surrogate mother for a friend who is having difficult with in vitro fertilization. Her embryos won’t implant. Both of us couples are Christians. My wife and I have 3 kids and although she doesn’t want another child for us she is willing to carry one for her friend. What are your thoughts about entering into this relationship?

First, I consider surrogate parenting a very risky venture. Just because your wife is able to intellectually say she will give up the baby to your friends when the time comes, does not mean she will be able to do so emotionally. Carrying a baby for nine months creates a powerful bond that is not easily broken. This is easily seen in teenage mothers who often change their minds about giving their baby up for adoption after birth. The surrogate mom can rationally say and believe “this baby is not mine,” but her emotions find it difficult to believe this after carrying the child for nine months.

Since there is also a relationship among friends here the risk is even greater, because even just a hint of wavering as the time of birth approaches could be interpreted as betrayal. The mother acting as the surrogate would also be faced with seeing this child regularly and having the pain of separation renewed frequently.

Second, there is the sacrifice of the family of the surrogate mother. Her husband and children will need to endure the difficulties of a pregnant mom and wife for a child that is not theirs. How is this explained to her children particularly? Pregnancy always involves risk and this is asking a lot of the family. All parties would need to seek God’s peace before proceeding. If anyone is hesitant, I would not proceed.

Third, I am troubled by the implications of surrogacy to the concept of a couple becoming one flesh through marriage and child-bearing. I would want to be sure of the Lord’s leading in this regard because I just have a suspicion that surrogacy may violate this principle by having someone outside the marriage carry a baby from another union.

While I do not see a clear and unambiguous reason to say no, that is my advice due to the number of potential problems and pitfalls. We sometimes have to face difficult decisions with couples dealing with infertility because we seem to say we are unsympathetic to their dilemma. But we must also be realistic to realize that God does not promise that all potential solutions to all our problems are Biblical. Having a child of our own is not promised or demanded. Often a family’s unwillingness to adopt is not just rooted in the natural desire to have children but in a selfishness that only wants “our” child.

If it were me, I would not do it.

Respectfully,

Ray Bohlin
Probe Ministries

Help! I read Arthur Caplan’s article “Darwin Vindicated!” about the results of the Human Genome Project and it is seriously shaking my faith!

Caplan has never been a friend of Christians or creationists. In this inflammatory article, designed to stimulate public opinion, he has outdone himself. If Darwin were alive today, he would be astounded and humbled by what we now understand about the human genome and the genomes of other organisms. In some respects, it is difficult to know where to begin. So let’s just pick a few of the more glaring statements to help us understand that little else should be trusted.

First, he says, “Eric Lander of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., said that if you look at our genome it is clear that evolution must make new genes from old parts.”

While it may be true that we can see some examples of shared sequences between genes, it is by no means true that we see wholesale evidence of gene duplication throughout the genome. According to Li, et. al., (Nature 409, 15 Feb 2001:847-848) less than 4,000 genes belong to superfamilies that show sequences sharing at least 30% of their sequence. Over 25,000 genes demonstrated less than 30% sequence identity, indicating that as much as 62% of the human genes mapped by the Human Genome Project were unique, i.e., not likely the result of gene duplication. Determining that similar genes are the result of gene duplication is tricky business, not the least of which is trying to find out just how duplicated genes (which does occur) ever arrive at a new function. There are lots of guesses out there, but no observable mechanism exists at this time.

Second, he says, “The core recipe of humanity carries clumps of genes that show we are descended from bacteria. There is no other way to explain the jerry-rigged nature of the genes that control key aspects of our development.”

Not everyone agrees. The complexity of the genome does not mean necessarily that it has been jerry-rigged by evolution. There is still so much we do not know. Caplan is speaking more out of ignorance and assumption than data. “Junk DNA” used to be a common term in genetics circles. Since only about 1.5% of the total human genome sequence codes for actual genes and proteins, the rest was thought to be junk, useless DNA. The term “Junk DNA” is rarely used in academic papers anymore because much of this “junk” is now known to have a purpose, usually a regulatory function. Even the highly repetitive elements are demonstrating patterns that indicate some kind of function. Listen to this comment from Gene Meyers, one of the principal geneticists from Celera Genomics:

“What really astounds me is the architecture of life,” he said. “The system is extremely complex. It’s like it was designed.” My ears perked up. Designed? Doesn’t that imply a designer, an intelligence, something more than the fortuitous bumping together of chemicals in the primordial slime? Myers thought before he replied. “There’s a huge intelligence there. I don’t see that as being unscientific. Others may, but not me.” (“Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine – Surprisingly low number of genes raises big questions,” Tom Abate, Monday, February 19, 2001, San Francisco Chronicle)

Jerry-rigged? Hardly! Confusing at the moment? Certainly! But more likely to reveal hidden levels of complexity than messy jerry-rigging.

Finally, Caplan says, “No one can look at how the book of life is written and not come away fully understanding that our genetic instructions have evolved from the same programs that guided the development of earlier animals. Our genetic instructions have been slowly assembled from the genetic instructions that made jellyfish, dinosaurs, wooly mammoths and our primate ancestors.”

This comes partly from the documenting of fewer genes (30,000-45,000 genes instead of the expected 100,000 or more) and the fact that some of these genes are indeed very similar in nearly all species looked at. Are there similarities? Certainly! Are the similarities only explainable by evolution? Not at all!

First, the fewer genes are not a given number yet since the computer programs used to look for new genes relied on already known gene sequences to spot potential genes. Only crude estimates were used for the possibility of completely novel genes. Even if the number is correct, this means that the organization of the genome is as important as the actual genes. We already know that many genes can be used to make several different proteins through complex patterns of regulation. This only raises the stakes for evolution. More organization, more complexity are the hallmarks of design, not messy natural selection.

Also even though we only have two or three times as many genes as a fruit fly, Svante Paabo, writing in Science (Feb. 16, 2001, vol 291, p. 1219) said, “A glimpse of what this will show us comes from considering the fact that about 26,000 to 38,000 genes are found in the draft version of our own genome, a number that is only two to three times larger than the 13,600 genes in the fruit fly genome. Furthermore, some 10% of human genes are clearly related to particular genes in the fly and the worm.”

Basic cellular processes require many of the same proteins and therefore the same genes. Even if flies and humans are not related, why would these genes be expected to be dissimilar? Human engineers frequently reuse common elements because they work. Besides, Paabo states that only 10% of the genes show any relationship. That means 90% do not. Far too much attention has been focused on the similarities and not enough on the differences. I welcome a sequence of the chimpanzee genome because I expect that among the many striking similarities, there will be uniquenesses unexplainable by Darwinian natural selection.

Arthur Caplan simply shows himself to be a part of the evolutionary establishment that appears to be worried by the inroads of intelligent design theory and is fighting back using only authority and bluster. “If I, Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist and Ph.D., say something loud enough and forcefully enough, some will believe it simply because of the position I hold.” This strategy is slowing falling apart as the clear and ever increasing weight of the evidence causes more and more people to say, “Wait a minute, these guys (Phil Johnson, William Dembski, Mike Behe, Jonathan Wells, etc.) aren’t dummies. Surely they can’t be dismissed as easily as that.” The bluster and appeals to authority are wearing thin and some are asking hard questions. Some will stop and begin to reevaluate; others, like Caplan, will only shout a little louder and ultimately lose credibility.

Stay tuned.

Respectfully,

Ray Bohlin
Probe Ministries

Cracking of human genome confirms theory of evolution
By Arthur Caplan, Ph.D.

SPECIAL TO MSNBC

Feb. 21, 2001 — The media flubbed the headline for the biggest news event in the past 50 years of science. The reporters and TV talking heads who crammed the Washington, D.C., press conference on Feb. 12 did understand that the details they were hearing about the human genome offered the story of a lifetime. But, they missed the real headline. Their stories should have simply said, “Darwin vindicated!”

Most reporters ballyhooed the fierce competition between scientists working for the publicly funded Human Genome Project and those employed by the privately funded Celera Genomics Corporation of Rockville, Md., to gain credit for the discovery. Others wondered about the financial implications of allowing human genes to be patented.

Still other headlines were meant to give us pause about whether it would be good or bad to know more about the role genes play in determining our health. Knowing more about our genes, after all, might not be so great in an era in which there is not much guarantee of medical privacy but a pretty good chance of discrimination by insurers and employers against those with “bad” genes.

There were even a couple of headlines that suggested that humanity should not be quite so arrogant since we do not have as many genes as we thought relative to other plants and animals. In fact, as it turns out, we have only twice as many genes as a fruit fly, or roughly the same number as an ear of corn, about 30,000. Reductionism may not be all that it has been cracked up to be by molecular biologists.

But none of these headlines capture the most basic, the most important consequence of mapping out all of our genes. The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right–mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors.

Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true. The response to all those who thump their bible and say there is no proof, no test and no evidence in support of evolution is, “The proof is right here, in our genes.”

Eric Lander of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., said that if you look at our genome it is clear that evolution must make new genes from old parts.

The core recipe of humanity carries clumps of genes that show we are descended from bacteria. There is no other way to explain the jerry-rigged nature of the genes that control key aspects of our development.

No one can look at how the book of life is written and not come away fully understanding that our genetic instructions have evolved from the same programs that guided the development of earlier animals. Our genetic instructions have been slowly assembled from the genetic instructions that made jellyfish, dinosaurs, wooly mammoths and our primate ancestors.

There is, as the scientists who cracked the genome all agreed, no other possible explanation.

Sure the business side of cracking our genetic code is fascinating. And we all need to be sure that our government does not leave us in the genetic lurch without laws to ensure our privacy and protect us against genetic discrimination.

All that, however, is concern for the future. Right now the big news from mapping our genome is that mankind evolved. The theory of evolution is the only way to explain the arrangement of the 30,000 genes and three billion letters that constitute our genetic code.

The history of humanity is written in our DNA. Those who dismiss evolution as myth, who insist that evolution has no place in biology textbooks and our children’s classrooms, are wrong.

The message our genes send is that Charles Darwin was right.

Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Dear Raymond Bohlin,

I am also a graduate of the University of Illinois and found your article on the Probe Ministries website interesting reading. I was surprised at the low-quality answers you had received from evolutionary biologists about morality and meaning. To me it is absolutely wonderful, amazing, and awe-inspiring that you and I, or any human beings can have actual conversations and exchange ideas. It is amazing to me because I believe that we are a result of evolution unguided by any supernatural god. To me there can be deep conviction that we are biological organisms and that there is no god while also maintaining a deep sense of meaning and purpose. It seems to me that if you believe God created everything around us, then He did an embarrassingly poor job. Why have around 50% of our DNA be wasted garbage from a violent evolutionary past? If people are created in God’s image, why give them an appendix? Surely if you were truly an all-powerful being capable of anything, you should have done much better. But, if we are a result of random chance and evolutionary process unguided by a supernatural power, then the world is amazing. It is awe-inspiring to have such amazing diversity of life and to have a species with the power to be aware of itself.That 50% of our DNA actually works becomes amazing and wonderful testimony to the glory of the evolutionary process. If we are merely a creation of an all-powerful god, then we are clearly his rejects, because he should have been able to do much better. But if we are a result of an evolutionary process then we are amazing and valuable.

Similarly, I see the same problem with meaning. You claim that if we are “merely” biological then there is no real meaning. I would argue just the opposite. If we are merely the result of a supernatural god, then the best we can do is discover God’s predetermined meaning. We are unimportant and can never create any meaning in our lives. But if we are biological organisms in the absence of a supernatural god, then we are the creators of meaning. We are the meaning pioneers who must establish meaning, value, and morality as we go. To me, my life seems so much more meaningful if I feel that I can create meaning and values, and be one of the first species to truly experience love, beauty, and understanding. If I am just some all powerful-god’s creation, then my personal life seems meaningless because all meaning has been pre-established by some supernatural force beyond my meager comprehension. To say we are “merely” or “just” biological to me is insulting. Being biological does not prevent me from having as much meaning and purpose as I want in my life. But now, the responsibility lies on me. If I have a meaningless life, then it is my own fault for not creating any meaning. I personally find deep meaning and purpose in the love, compassion, and discovery of ideas that I share with my fellow humans who are also creating meaning and purpose in their own lives.

Whether you consider the answers I received from evolutionary biologists to be disappointing or not, they are the standard answers. Your willingness to reach for something more and create meaning is what I would categorize as the third response, that of an existential leap for hope and meaning.

But first to your criticisms of the Creator’s workmanship. Please be aware that the previous estimates of useless DNA were closer to 90%. I would not be so quick to assume that the remaining 50% unaccounted for will remain so. We have only begun to unravel the mystery of DNA and its organization. My prediction is that there will be little left without some function after the next 100 years. One of the principal geneticists with Celera Genomics, the private company that arrived at its own independent human DNA sequence, was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle saying,

“‘What really astounds me is the architecture of life,’ he said. ‘The system is extremely complex. It’s like it was designed.’. . . There’s a huge intelligence there. I don’t see that as being unscientific. Others may, but not me.” (February 19, SFC, Tom Abate, “Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine”).

So what we already know reveals not some clumsily ordered mess thrown together by natural selection, but a highly ordered and specified arrangement.

Over 100 years ago, there were dozens of reputed vestigial human structures such as the appendix, tonsils, and tailbone, but all of these have since yielded a function. The tonsils and appendix are members of the integrated immune system. Can we live without them? Yes, but we are better off with them. Surgeons rarely take out the appendix anymore as part of routine abdominal surgery unless absolutely necessary. The more we learn about our bodies the more complex and truly amazing they are. The power of adult stem cells is proving to be truly amazing and they have resided inside us all the time. I think it is rather presumptuous of anyone to suggest that they could have done a better job of designing our bodies. Our knowledge of how everything works is still progressing. What may seem sloppy today may soon be revealed as the right combination of characteristics to achieve an amazing design. That at least seems to be the pattern. We used to think cells were simple accumulations of membrane, protoplasm, and protein. The last sixty years have revealed ever increasing levels of complexity and organization never even dreamed of. I just don’t see how you can view our bodies as rejects. What would you change? What could have been done better in your mind?

If we are the product of an evolutionary process than we truly are amazing. I will grant you that. So amazing that I would suggest that we are alone in the universe. The odds are so stacked against any kind of unguided evolution producing sentient beings such as ourselves, that there just isn’t anybody else out there.

I don’t understand your revelry in the ability to create meaning. What are we to create it out of? Nothing? Something doesn’t come from nothing. Meaning grabbed out of thin air is still air no matter what you call it. In an evolutionary world view all that matters is survival and reproduction and as I said in the article, this ultimately fades away at death which is nothing more than extinction. So what good is the meaning you create? It is ultimately an illusion. A survival device and nothing more. How is that exciting? I am sorry if you are insulted by the characterization of being merely biological, but again, in an evolutionary worldview, that is reality. Your brain has evolved only as an aid to survival and reproduction, not as a truth- and meaning-creating machine.

If we share this meaning and purpose creating capacity with our fellow humans, certainly we arrive at different conclusions. If our conclusions are different, how do we judge who is right? Or does it really even matter? I would suggest that it doesn’t matter at all. You are left with the post-modern dictum of “it may be true for you but it’s not true for me.” The statement is self-contradictory because it assumes that at least that statement is universally true, but how can it be?

Theism can provide true meaning and purpose through the One who is self-existent. Why you think God’s assignment of true meaning and purpose somehow cheapens it baffles me. If I were to create a robot, I the creator determine its function and usefulness, not the machine itself. Remember also, that something must be eternal. As I said earlier, something does not come from nothing. So the fact that something is here means something has to have always been here. That something can be either material or immaterial. The material universe, according to current Big Bang cosmology, had a beginning. Therefore it certainly seems reasonable to assume that God is eternal. I don’t suggest that the Big Bang proves God, but it does make the assumption eminently reasonable.

You may choose to create your own meaning if you like, but I cannot see how it can be anything but an illusion in an evolutionary, purely materialistic worldview.

Respectfully,

Ray Bohlin, Ph.D.
Probe Ministries

I am looking to inform my class on the steps to cloning a human and also the most recent experiments done in this field of work. I have read your articles, but is there any additional information you could provide me?

Below is the recent announcement by the first group to publicly say they are actively going to seek to clone a human. There is no published results from any laboratory anywhere in the world. The potato is just a little too hot yet. The story from the BBC may also provide some additional links for you.

The article confirms some of the scientific and ethical problems I have mentioned elsewhere.

Respectfully,

Ray Bohlin
Probe Ministries

Tuesday, 30 January, 2001, 17:08 GMT
Cloned human planned ‘by 2003’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1144000/1144694.stm

By BBC News Online’s Alex Kirby

A private consortium of scientists plans to clone a human being within the next two years.

The group says it will use the technique only for helping infertile couples with no other opportunity to become parents.

It says the technology will resemble that used to clone animals, and will be made widely available.

One member said the group hoped to produce the world’s first baby clone within 12 to 24 months.

It was founded by an Italian physician, Dr Severino Antinori, whose work includes trying to help post-menopausal women to become pregnant.

A spokesman for the group is Panos Zavos, professor of reproductive physiology at the University of Kentucky, US.

No alternative

He said it would “develop guidelines with which the technology cannot be indiscriminately applied for anybody who wants to clone themselves.”

As with animal cloning, he said, the technology would involve injecting genetic material from the father into the mother’s egg, which would then be implanted in her womb.

“The effort will be to assist couples that have no other alternatives to reproduce and want to have their own biological child, not somebody else’s eggs or sperm,” Professor Zavos said.

He said he believed human cloning was achievable. It could at first cost $50,000 or more, but he hoped that could come down to around the cost of in vitro fertilisation, about $10,000 to $20,000.

Professor Zavos said he was well aware of the ethical dimensions of the project.

“The world has to come to grips [with the fact] that the cloning technology is almost here,” he said. “The irony about it is that there are so many people that are attempting to do it, and they could be doing it even as we
speak in their garages.

“It is time for us to develop the package in a responsible manner, and make the package available to the world. I think I have faith in the world that they will handle it properly.”

‘Irresponsible’ plan

But the plans of Professor Zavos and his colleagues received an unenthusiastic response in the UK.

Dr Harry Griffin is assistant director of the Roslin Institute, Scotland, which successfully cloned Dolly the sheep.

He told BBC News Online: “It would be wholly irresponsible to try to clone a human being, given the present state of the technology.

“The success rate with animal cloning is about one to two per cent in the published results, and I think lower than that on average. I don’t know anyone working in this area who thinks the rate will easily be improved.

“There are many cases where the cloned animal dies late in pregnancy or soon after birth.

“The chances of success are so low it would be irresponsible to encourage people to think there’s a real prospect. The risks are too great for the woman, and of course for the child.

“I remain opposed to the idea of cloning human beings. Even if it were possible and safe—which it’s not—it wouldn’t be in the interest of the child to be a copy of its parent.”

Tom Horwood, of the Catholic Media Office in London, told BBC News Online: “A lot of our objections come down to questions of technique.

‘Morally abhorrent’

“But beyond that, cloning human beings is inconsistent with their dignity, and involves seeing them as a means, not an end.

“The scientists involved in the project are planning a conference in Rome to explain their plans.

“I don’t think you’ll start getting lots of papal pronouncements just because they’re meeting in Rome.

“The reaction in the Vatican will be the same as everywhere else—that the project is morally abhorrent and ethically very dubious.”

Hi Dr. Bohlin, my name is ________ and I wrote to you a while back. Your answer was greatly appreciated and helped me a great deal. You see my problem was with continuing to believe in my Christian faith and dealing with scientific evidence. Most of it I can deal with, without any problem at all. In fact sometimes it helps to increase my faith. But one area in science that I cannot come to grips with is the new research being done in cosmology. From all of my research, I found that the majority of astronomers and cosmologists favor the “inflationary” theory of our universe. It may not seem like a problem at first, but after further examination it has created a huge problem for me. According to the inflationary universe model, there may be and probably are an infinite amount of universes. Each one spawning like a new bubble and having different laws than the other universes. It attempts to easily explain our design seen throughout the universe. If there are an infinite amount of universes, surely through probability, you will end up having one which fits the requirements for life. I thought that this was just one person’s theory, but soon found out that a lot of evidence points in the direction of inflation. Could you tell me what you know of this and how this can or if it can fit with my faith. My faith has always been the most important thing to me, but I cannot just believe that easily if a major part of my belief is incorrect. How do Christians deal with an issue like this, and if this theory turns out to be true, in what way does this affect the Christian faith? I have read a book by Robert J. Russell, William Stoeger, and George Coyne, but it seems to go around the question. Any input that you have would be greatly appreciated.

The many universes hypothesis is not so much a part of the inflationary universe theory as an addendum to it. It has been added as an attempt at an explanation for the fine-tuned nature of our universe from an explosion. While inflation is somewhat testable scientifically, the many universes hypotheses is pure conjecture. How can we ever discover other universes with properties different from ours? Its only value is to suggest multiple universes to overcome the odds of this one occurring by chance just this once, which in many cosmologists’ and astronomers’ eyes indicates the necessity for an intelligence to order it. The many universes hypothesis is therefore a thinly disguised rationalization to avoid the necessity of intelligence in the universe.

The many universes model also relies on quantum mechanics to suggest that the universe emerged from a quantum fluctuation from nothing to something. While quantum fluctuations are mysterious, we only know them to operate within a space-time universe. Without a space-time universe, there is no such thing as quantum mechanics. So this would negate the use of quantum mechanics to explain the origin of the universe from nothing since quantum mechanics didn’t exist until the universe existed.

By the way, while my faith in Jesus does depend on evidence (the resurrection, historicity of the Bible, etc.) it does not rest on the accuracy of the latest scientific theories. Men will always find ways to order their universe without God. Just because they think they can, doesn’t mean God is any less real. Be careful of being willing to jettison your faith based on scientific theories. There is still much we don’t know about the universe and even the Bible to be that tenuous about our faith because of science. When scientists proclaim that the facts argue against God, they are usually simply showing their own bias and refusal to consider the mountain of evidence in favor of His existence. Scientists are human too.

Respectfully,

Ray Bohlin
Probe Ministries

Ray,

I’ve got a genetics question for you. A pastor friend posed the following for me, which he says is the argument of some creationists he knows. He sums up their argument this way:

1. Adam and Eve were the first parents of all the races.

2. Adam and Eve contained all the genetic information from which eventually all the races came.

3. From Adam to Noah, all descendants of Adam and Eve were probably all a mid-brown color since Adam and Eve were also mid-brown.

4. After the global flood and the tower of Babel incident, descendants of Noah separated into people groups according to their own languages and traveled to different parts of the world.

5. As different “people groups” were exposed to different environments, natural selection occurred resulting in certain genetic traits to be enhanced for adaptability (for example: darker skin pigmentation for environments with more intense sunlight due to the genetic “potential” to increase more melanin).

6. As the “people groups” were isolated and intermarried with each other with a certain group, they eventually lost certain genes that were not needed for adaptability. (That would explain, from this point of view, why African Negroes who move to different northern environments or European Whites who move down to Africa, do not change back to another color because over time they previously lost the genetic potential to do so.)

Ray, from your knowledge of genetics, does this hold water? Or is it speculation? Thanks.

Your pastor friend is essentially correct. This scenario as regards to skin color is emminently workable genetically. There are at least three and perhaps four genes involved in skin color and several alleles at each gene producing differing amounts of melanin. It would not take long for these to segregate out into different inbred populations creating true-breeding lines for particular skin color shades. I even discussed this back in the late 70s with my genetics professor and he saw no genetic problem with this scenario.

The only change I would make in the scenario would be to emphasize the critical role of the wives of Noah’s three sons. They are actually more important than Adam and Eve. Noah’s sons would most likely be very similar genetically so the major variation would need to originate with their wives since the world is repopulated from these three pairs. The full genetic range could easily be incorporated into these individuals. Adam and Eve would not necessarily need to possess the entire range of skin gene possibilities since there is some time for accumulation of mutations between them and Noah’s sons. With that said, since Adam and Eve would both possess two copies of each gene, that means a possible total of at least 4 different alleles at each gene and if there are 3 different genes, that means 12 different alleles which could be combined 144 different ways. This would seem more than adequate to accomodate the full range of human skin color.

Respectfully,

Ray Bohlin

Probe Ministries

Dear Dr. Bohlin,

I read your article regarding sexual purity, and I am forever grateful to God that He has given me strength to resist the temptation for 27 years of my life. Boyfriends come and go, yet I still manage to keep that area pure. I am now in a very serious relationship with a guy that I have known for a long time. He is a great person, very smart, and an active member of church. As we discussed the subject of sex, I recently learned that he’s not a virgin, as I had suspected from the tears in his eyes. He told me that he had to come clean before we go further in our relationship. It was his biggest mistake that he gave in to temptation, and he withdrew from all church activities and didn’t take the holy communion until he felt that God has forgiven him.

The thing is, the fact really tore my heart. I told him that I needed time to get used to this, to re-think about the whole relationship, and to pray to God for strength. I love him very much, and he loves me.

Even though now the sting doesn’t hurt me like in the beginning, sometimes my own imagination still tortures me. I never asked him if he slept with anybody else beside that one person. Part of me wants to know more details about his sexual past (all these times, I assume he only slept with one woman), but the other part of me is afraid of the consequences from knowing more details. What should I do? How much details should I know? He has assured me that we will put God first in this relationship, and we will help strengthen and guard each other as we grow closer in the relationship to resist sexual temptations. So far, we’ve been doing very well.

He’s not a player type, everybody knows that. But why did he fall into temptation. . . somehow I don’t understand the contradiction. He’s not the type that would do such a thing, he even told me that, but somehow, it was like being hypnotized, he gave in to sin. *sigh* Tonight, my imagination is running wild again, the thought of him sharing his body and soul with someone really hurt me. So I decided to write you for advice. Please help me.

Hello ______,

Thank you for writing and I hope I can be of some help to you. I will comment on your situation from a man’s perspective, since you are wondering how such a godly man could fall into such a sin. I have asked my wife Sue (below) to comment on your particular predicament dealing with lingering questions and suspicion.

Unfortunately, especially for young men, sexual temptation is very strong. You made no comment about the nature of the relationship that led him onto sin but I would imagine that the woman was not exactly coerced and probably was the instigator of the sexual relationship. Men in general, and introverted men in particular, can be very susceptible to sin if the woman is the one pursuing or pushing it. The physical attraction for sex is much stronger for men than for women. Women are usually searching for greater personal intimacy while men can be very focused on the physical. If the woman is bypassing the personal intimacy for the sexual, the male finds it very difficult to resist. I have thanked the Lord many times that I have never been pursued sexually. In my younger days this would have been an extreme temptation.

Your boyfriend sounds like a wonderful young man who has sinned, repented and seeks to go on with his life. You can help him greatly by truly forgiving him and deciding to trust him. Everything else you told me makes him sound like a very trustworthy man who fell as we all do. Sue has more to say about your turmoil below.

Dr. Ray Bohlin

Dear ______,

Ray asked for my input as well to give you the fullest answer possible.

I think the enemy is using your boyfriend’s fall to torture you, and he’s winning. I also think that knowing more details will only make it worse for you because it will fuel your imagination, not bring healing. You are being tempted to obsess over his sin as if you have never sinned . . . and the only person who has a right to do that is Jesus, and He doesn’t even think about it! He paid for your boyfriend’s sin, and it cost him not only His life but tremendous torture and suffering first. Since your boyfriend has repented and received forgiveness, for you to hold him and yourself in bondage over this incident is elevating yourself above God. I’m sure you don’t mean to do that!

There is a difference between goals and desires, and great trouble happens when we confuse them. We can set goals that we have control over, like graduating from college or learning to rollerblade, but we can’t set goals for other people’s behavior . . . like a future mate keeping their virginity. It sounds to me like you might have made your future husband’s virginity a goal instead of a desire. And when we can’t have what we desire, the appropriate response is sadness and then forgiveness, not obsession and anger.

That being said, you have a decision to make. Is marrying a virgin a non-negotiable for you? Is it the most important asset in a potential spouse? Is it so important that you would let go of a long list of positive qualities because they don’t count as much as virginity? If so, then stop your relationship right now and acknowledge what it is you want, and tell your boyfriend he can never be good enough for you because he sinned.

On the other hand, if you recognize that you are a sinner as well and you have no right to demand perfection from a husband because you cannot be a perfect wife, then choose to let go of his sin and bury it. And promise both him and yourself to never bring it up again. If you need help forgiving him (and believe me, you haven’t forgiven him or you wouldn’t be tortured by this), then get Chuck Lynch’s excellent book I Should Forgive, But… His chapter “I’m Living With the Memories” will help you, but I can tell you right now that the main point is that you can’t change what happened, but you can choose how you will live with what happened:
• Bitterness and bondage (being out of control)
-or-
• Forgiveness and freedom (being under control)
In order to truly forgive, we need to choose to accept what happened instead of fighting it.

It sounds like this is a wonderful, godly man who fell into temptation and has resolved not to ever do it again. The fact that he was deeply wounded by his sin and has learned from it makes him an even better man. If you are a woman who deserves him, you will take the hurt over his sin to Jesus and turn it over to Him and promise never to take it back so that you can move forward.

As I read back over what I wrote, I realize it sounds waaaaay stronger than I would ordinarily be with someone I don’t know and whose trust I haven’t earned, but I did sense the Lord leading me as I wrote this answer. I sure wouldn’t want you trashing a great relationship because of some perceived notion that you are better than him. Virginity is a wonderful gift to give, but it’s only one of many blessings that people can give each other in marriage. A wise woman concentrates on what she has instead of what she doesn’t have. . . and I do hope you are a wise woman! <gentle smile>

I hope this helps.

Sue Bohlin

Dear Ray Bohlin,

I read your article Christian Views of Science and Earth History, and at the end it said about how you have been researching about this for twenty years, but still haven’t come to a conclusion about it. If (macro)evolution isn’t proved true, then why would people involved in science treat it as a fact? Two people who come to my mind are Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson. I guess Behe believes in macroevolution and Johnson doesn’t, but they still both support Intelligent Design theory. Does Johnson just not know enough about science, or is Behe perhaps wrong? Maybe I’ve just become way too skeptical. I don’t like being like this, but it’s hard not to be! How can I not let this controversy about evolution keep me from believing? How do you do it? Maybe you just have more faith than I do. I don’t know.

Basically, my only question is concerning the age of the earth and universe. I do not consider this the critical issue so I am willing to live with a certain amount of tension here. There are many good Christians, both theologians and scientists who disagree on the time frame of Genesis, so you are not alone.

Macroevolution is treated as fact primarily because it is necessary for a naturalistic world view. If there is no God then some form of evolution must be true. This is why so many evolutionists are not troubled by evolution’s problems. They are firmly convinced that some form of evolution has occurred and the problems will be solved some day. Here their faith is in their world view and not necessarily science. Phil Johnson does a good job of talking about this in his first two books, Darwin on Trial and Reason in the Balance.

Being skeptical is OK. If Christianity is really true, then it can stand up to the scrutiny. I encourage you to continue to ask your questions and seek for answers. I have never been disappointed when I have felt the need to dig a little deper. The Lord won’t disappoint you either.

An excellent book you may want to pick up is by Lee Strobel called The Case for Faith (Harper Collins/Zondervan). It’s a series of interviews with top Christian scholars looking for answers to the toughest challenges to faith. One of the interviews is with Dr. Walter Bradley from Texas A & M about evolution and the origin of life. Because each chapter is a retelling of an interview it’s not overly technical but extremely helpful and honest.

I certainly don’t feel I have all the answers about the evolution question either. I am convinced however, that evolution certainly doesn’t have all the answers and some of the missing answers are to the most crucial questions such as a workable and observable mechanism of change.

In the past when I was feeling threatened as you are I would frequently need to return to the basics which I knew were true. The facts of Jesus historical existence, the reliability of the New Testament, the historical reliability of his resurrection, and God’s clear direction and presence in my life. Then I would combine this with Jesus own confirmation of the historicity of Genesis (see Matt. 19:3-6, Matt. 23: 29-37, and Matt. 24:37-39 and “Why We Believe in Creation”) and Paul’s clear statement of the creation exhibiting his character in Romans 1:18-20 and it was obvious that something was very wrong with evolution and somehow God’s creative fingerprints are evident in the natural world. That would keep me going. Now the more I have studied and probed, the more bankrupt evolution has become and the reasonableness and scientific integrity of design becomes more and more self-evident.

Hope this helps.

Respectfully,

Ray Bohlin

Probe Ministries

Dr. Bohlin,

I just read over your article on the Age of the Earth to get Probe’s stand on the issue. Apparently, the official stand is officially no stand.

I was wondering after I read this statement of yours: “Biblically, we find the young earth approach of six consecutive 24-hour days and a catastrophic universal flood to make the most sense. However, we find the evidence from science for a great age for the universe and the earth to be nearly overwhelming. We just do not know how to resolve the conflict yet.”

How do you (we) know for sure that the earth is millions if not billions of years old? I have been looking into this issue for a while, and I have found that ALL dating methods suffer from one major problem. They are ALL based on Fallible (un-testable) Assumptions. Now that is a major problem to probe into because it seems that the main reason why Probe is not willing to hold to and defend the clear written revelation in Genesis is because you believe those dating methods are more trustworthy than Genesis 1.

I believe Rich Milne and I qualified our statement sufficiently. To say that we think the young earth position makes the most sense Biblically does not intend to suggest we believe it is the “clear” written revelation of Genesis 1. There are many conservative evangelical Old Testament scholars who do not hold to it. Men who certainly understand the OT and Hebrew much more than this molecular biologist. If I believed it was the clear revelation of Genesis, I would accept it regardless of the scientific evidence.

What you refer to in the assumptions of dating methods is true especially of the radioactive dating methods. But we explain one of our hesitations in the problem of starlight in the body of the paper. I also find it significant that most young earth geologists and physicists (Russ Humphreys is my source from personal conversations during our ICR Grand Canyon trips together) recognize that radioactive dating methods consistently portray an older-to-younger sequence when going from the bottom to the top. So much so that they are searching for a way incorporate this into their flood model. They don’t accept the actual dates but the sequence seems real. Therefore the dating methods are not totally without merit. This is more than just suggestive.

I do understand that an international group, meeting through ICR, is working on a paper concerning dating methods which I anticipate with eagerness.

Respectfully,

Ray Bohlin, Ph.D.

RAYMOND G. BOHLIN, PH.D. Vice President of Vision Outreach Suite 2000 2001 W. Plano Parkway Plano, TX 75075 Phone: (972) 941-4562 E-mail:[email protected] Probe Web Site: www.probe.org

Raymond G. Bohlin is Vice President of Vision Outreach with Probe Ministries. Dr. Bohlin was born and raised in Chicago, IL and is a graduate of the University of Illinois (B.S., zoology, 1971-1975), the University of North Texas (M.S., population genetics, 1977-1980), and the University of Texas at Dallas (M.S., Ph.D., molecular and cell biology, 1984-1991). He has been with Probe Ministries since 1975 and has lectured and debated on dozens of college and university campuses. He has addressed issues in the creation/evolution debate as well as other science-related issues such as the environment, genetic engineering, medical ethics, and sexually transmitted diseases. Dr. Bohlin was named a Research Fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture in 1997, 2000 and 2012. He and his wife Sue, an associate speaker and Webmistress for Probe Ministries as well as a professional calligrapher and Christian speaker, live in Plano, Texas, a suburb of Dallas, and they have two grown sons. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

PUBLICATIONS

Bohlin, Raymond G. and Beitinger, Thomas L., 1979. Heat exchange in the aquatic salamander, Amphiuma means. J. Thermal Biology 4:63-67.

Bohlin, Raymond G. 1981. “Sociobiology: Cloned from the Gene Cult.” Christianity Today, January 23, 25(2):16-19.

Bohlin, Raymond G. 1981. “Evolution Society Digs In Against the Creationists.” Christianity Today, September 18, 25(16):41.

Bohlin, Raymond G. and Zimmerman, Earl G. 1982. Genic differentiation of two chromosome races of the Geomys bursarius complex. Journal of Mammalogy 63:218-228.

Anderson, J. Kerby and Bohlin, Raymond G. 1983. Genetic Engineering: the Evolutionary Link. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 19: 217-219.

Bohlin, Raymond G. and Anderson, J. Kerby. 1983. The Straw God of Stephen Gould. Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 35(1): 42-44.

Lester, Lane P. and Bohlin, Raymond G. 1984. The Natural Limits to Biological Change. Probe Books, Richardson, TX 75081.

Bohlin, Raymond G. 1991. Complementation of a defect in complex I of the electron transport chain by DNA-mediated gene transfer. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Dallas.

Bohlin, Raymond G. 1996. Up a River Without a Paddle: A Review of “River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life” by Richard Dawkins. Creation Ex Nihilo: Technical Journal. 10(3): 322-327.

Bohlin, Raymond G. 1999. The Possibilities and Ethics of Human Cloning. Chapter 17 in Genetic Engineering: A Christian Response, Timothy Demy and Patrick Stewart, editors, Kregel Press, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 260-277.

Bohlin, Ray. 2000. Ed., Creation, Evolution, and Modern Science: Probing the Headlines that Impact Your Family, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Mich., 192 pp.

Bohlin, Ray, book review of The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities by William Dembski, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998 in Philosophia Christi Vol. 2 (2), 2000, p. 142-144.

Linda K. Bevington, Bohlin Ray G., Stewart, Gary P., Kilner, John F., and Hook, C. Christopher. 2004. Basic Questions on Genetics, Stem Cell Research, and Cloning: Are these Technologies Ready to Use? Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Mich., 125p.

Sebastian, Sharon and Bohlin, Raymond G. 2009. Darwin’s Racists: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Virtual Bookworm.

 

PROBE RADIO TRANSCRIPTS

 

Darwin on Trial

Christian Environmentalism

Sociobiology: Evolution, Genes, and Morality

How to Talk to Your Kids about Creation and Evolution (with Sue Bohlin)

The Grand Canyon and the Age of the Earth

The Epidemic of Sexually Transmitted Diseases

The Five Crises of Evolutionary Theory

Human Cloning

Human Fossils: Just So Stories of Apes and Humans

The Natural Limits to Biological Change  

Why We Believe in Creation

The Sanctity of Human Life

The Worldview of Jurassic Park

Sexual Purity

Defending the Faith Philosophically (with Don Closson, Rich Milne, and Jerry Solomon)

Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus (with Sue Bohlin)

Evolution’s Big Bang: The Cambrian Explosion

The Battle for Life: Physician-Assisted Suicide

Up A River without a Paddle: A Darwinian View of Life

Life on Mars: Are We Alone in the Universe?  

Can Humans Be Cloned Like Sheep?

Darwin’s Black Box

Campus Christianity

The Star of Bethlehem

Contact: A Eulogy to Carl Sagan

Christian Views of Science and Earth History (with Rich Milne)

Cloning and Genetics: The Brave New World Closes In

Why Does the University Fear Philip Johnson?

Darwinism Takes a Step Back in Kansas

Mere Creation: Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design  

Genetic Engineering

The Coming Revolution in Science

Human Genetic Engineering

Human Genome Project

Icons of Evolution

Global Warming

The Controversy Over Stem Cell Research

PBS Evolution Series

Stem Cells and the Controversy over Therapeutic Cloning

Where Was God on 9/11?

The Galapagos Islands: Sacred Ground of Evolution  

Are We Alone in the Universe?

The Controversy Over Stem Cell Research

Is the Tender Warrior Wild at Heart?

Genetic Engineering

Human Genetic Engineering

The Controversy of Evolution in Biology Textbooks

Redesigning Humans: Is It Inevitable?

The Continuing Controversy Over Stem Cells

Total Truth

Was Darwin Wrong?  

The Impotence of Darwinism

The Case for a Creator

The Privileged Planet

Is Intelligent Design Dead?

 

ORIGINS LECTURE TOPICS

Amoeba to Man: You Can’t Get There From Here

An analysis of the various examples of evolutionary change today and the evidence for the concept of the created kind. Video and Power Point on video projector.

 

Creation/Evolution: What Can We Know About the Origins of the Universe and Life?

A fast-paced presentation outlining the major tensions in the origins debate and what conclusions we can draw. Summarizes the evidence for the origins of the universe and life, the origin of complex adaptations and the evidence for design and intelligence. Requires 1 hour and 15 minutes. Video and Power Point on video projector.

 

Christian Views of Science and Earth History

A description of the three most prevalent Christian views of Genesis: Literal or Recent Creation, Progressive or Day Age Creation, and Theistic Evolution. Strengths and weaknesses of each one are analyzed and discussed. Power Point on video projector.

 

Early Man and Human Fossils

This presentation analyzes the fossil evidence for human evolution from a creationist perspective. The scarcity of fossils, the twists of interpretation, and the fossils that are out of place are discussed. Power Point on video projector.

 

Evidence of Intelligence

Evidence for an intelligent creator from molecules to the universe. Video and Power Point on video projector.

 

The Grand Canyon and the Great Flood

This presentation takes you on a hike into the Grand Canyon with the Institute for Creation Research. You’ll see some of the fabulous sites in the Grand Canyon as well as an explanation as to how ICR believes the Canyon may have been formed in conjunction with the flood of Noah. Slide illustrated.

 

In the Beginning: A Study of Genesis One

This is a verse by verse discussion of the first chapter of Genesis.

 

The Influence of the Evolutionary Worldview on Society

More and more evolutionists are calling for a new society based on the principles of evolution. What do they want? Power Point on video projector.

 

Life’s Origins

A critique of the general scheme of chemical evolution and evidence for the hand of God in living cells. Video and Power Point on video projector.

 

Why We Believe in Creation

A biblical apologetic for a creationist position based primarily on the nature and character of God and the centrality of creation in the Bible.

NON-ORIGINS LECTURE TOPICS

A Christian Environmental Ethic

Christianity provides the only real basis for ecological concern. It should not take a crisis for Christians to be environmentally aware. Video and Power Point on video projector.

 

Abortion: The Destruction of the Innocents

Abortion is an unjustifiable intrusion on the safety of the womb. What is the logic behind the abortion movement and how should we respond. Power Point on video projector.

 

A Defense of Christianity: Can Christianity Be Trusted?

This presentation will defend Christian Theism as a worldview and examine historical evidence for the truth of Christianity. Power Point on video projector.

 

Campus Christianity: How Should We Live?

Four principles (Think Christianly, Cultivate a Teachable Spirit, Pursue Excellence, and Faithfulness) are presented for effective Christian witnessing in the classroom (or any sphere of life) are addressed. Also presented as Being Christian in a Post-Christian Societyfor adult audiences. Video and Power Point on video projector.

 

Human Nature: Who Are We?

Various views of the nature of man and their consequences are examined and contrasted with the Christian view. Video and Power Point on video projector.

 

Infanticide and Euthanasia: Gateway to the Death Camps of the 21st Century

The legacy of abortion is an ever decreasing value of human life in our society. The slippery slope is becoming steeper. Video and overhead projector.

 

Genes, Cloning, and Genetic Engineering: A Christian Perspective

How will these new technologies be used? Is it a Pandora’s Box or a miracle cure? Power Point on video projector.

 

The Worldview of Jurassic Park

Scenes from the movie Jurassic Park are viewed with the intent of discovering the some of the obvious and also some of the subtle messages contained within this incredible piece of entertainment. TV/VCR and Overhead Projector

 

Guys are from Mars, Girls are from Venus

This presentation looks at the astonishing agreement between the newfound discoveries in the secular world concerning the uniqueness of men and women and their agreement with millennia old statements from the Bible. Power Point on video projector.

 

A Christian Response to Homosexuality

This presentation investigates the problem of homosexuality in our culture today, bringing together relevant Biblical passages and scientific studies from the fields of psychology, neurology, and genetics. The goal is to understand what God says, what science knows, and how we are to respond. How can we “hate the sin, yet love the sinner”? Power Point on video projector.

 

Safe Sex and the Facts

This presentation documents the unprecedented epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases. Primary to the discussion is the clear medical evidence that abstinence followed by monogamy is the only way to stay reproductively healthy throughout one’s adult life. Slide Projector.

 

Science and Worldview

This presentation explores the roots of modern science from a Christian world view and why other worldviews failed to produce science as we know it. Power Point on video projector.

 

Worldviews: What Is True?

The major “isms” (theism, naturalism, and pantheism) in our culture and their influence are discussed. Power Point on video projector.

 

POSITION STATEMENT ON CREATION/EVOLUTION

1. That God is Creator is clearly taught in Scripture: Genesis 1 and 2, Job 38-41, Psalm 104, Romans 1:18-20, and Col. 1:16,17. The suggestion that life and man are the result of chance is incompatible with the biblical concept of intelligent creative activity. Theistic evolution is not a viable option in my opinion.

2. The data from astrophysics, astronomy, and mathematics do not support the concept of an eternal universe with no beginning. Something, indeed, has always existed, but it is not matter and energy. There is a definite requirement for a transcendent energizing existence which is outside the material universe.

3. The data from geology, chemistry, biochemistry, and molecular biology do not support the theory that life arose from non-life by some process of chemical evolution. There is a definite requirement for intelligence in organizing and ordering living systems.

4. The data from paleontology, genetics, ecology, and molecular biology do not support the theory of descent with modification from single-celled organisms to man. The elements of intelligent design in nature point to a Supreme Designer that possesses a sense of beauty, form, function, and even humor. Though organisms do change over time, there appears to be genetically built-in limits to the amount and type of biological change that is possible.

5. The plain language of Genesis 1 seems to teach a recent literal six-day creation. There is much data from science, however, that indicates the universe and earth are billions of years old. I do not believe that certainty regarding the age of the earth is either necessary or possible at this time. Tension in areas of conflict between science and biblical interpretation should not necessarily be viewed as either questioning the inerrancy of scripture or a lack of faith. This issue should not be the focus of the creation/evolution debate at this time.

6. The plain language of Genesis 6-8 teaches a violent universal flood which would be expected to leave discernible scars on the earth. However, it is difficult to assimilate all geological formations into a model of a single worldwide flood only 5,000 years ago. There is also a significant amount of geological data that is not easily explained by uniformitarian principles. Research of a water canopy/universal flood model should be vigorously pursued, but belief in such should not be made a litmus test of true Christian belief.

PHILOSOPHY OF MINISTRY

The creation/evolution debate is not only a divisive issue between the conservative Christian community and the scientific establishment, but it also divides Christians as well. The tension between both sets of groups often arises because people are talking with no one listening, and hearing without understanding. Strict adherence to a position is more important than understanding another’s point of view. This lack of communication only intensifies the confrontation due to internal biases.

I believe that a reasonable and calm presentation of the evidence can defuse the emotional bullets, especially if questions are answered straightforwardly and with integrity. As a result, the level of learning on both sides is drastically increased. While there are some points in which I believe strongly and will defend them rigorously, there are other issues which still require much study and discussion between all parties before a firm commitment can be taken. Part of my overall purpose is to increase the level and depth of communication between differing camps of the creation/evolution debate while reducing the level of suspicion, contempt, and confrontation. This approach is aimed first of all at bringing Christians together and secondly towards increasing the level of communication between creationists and evolutionists outside the church.

We must take up the Lord’s invitation to the nation of Israel through the prophet Isaiah when He said, “Come now, and let us reason together” (Is. 1:18).

---

What is Probe?

 

Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3-minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at www.probe.org.

Further information about Probe’s materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at:

Probe Ministries
2001 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 2000
Plano, TX 75075
(972) 941-4565
[email protected]
www.probe.org