Biblical Perspectives as a Guide to Research on Life’s Origin and History
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I am grateful for your thorough, meticulous review of my paper and your attention to the paper’s tone. In response to your encouragement and that of the other reviewers, I have augmented references to supporting research data.
In composing the paper, I had considered adding a brief review of the latest observational tests of quantum gravity speculations, but I refrained until you nudged me to include. If you consider a more thorough review essential, I am willing to include it.
Thank you for pointing out readers’ potential confusion over what the biblical text identifies as supernatural acts. I trust my revisions adequately describe and differentiate the three different types of such acts.
Your efforts went above and beyond what a reviewer typically invests. Your comments and suggestions, all of which proved helpful, are responsible for enhancing the quality and integrity of my paper. I have included a revised version of my paper in Word with track changes that indicate all the revisions and additions made to the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall this paper is very well done, and I strongly recommend it for publication. I have a few corrections to make from my background in geology, and then will offer some suggestions for clarity.
line 177: (in virtually all cases), missed the all.
line 224: Research now shows... (grammar)
line 617: The references of Tatzel et al. and Ye et al. are missing in the References list.
lines 620-621: "That epoch?" (this seems superfluous) Cambrian Period (rather than era)
With these fixes, it could go to submission. But some topics were hard to follow, so I offer a number of suggestions to help with clarity:
line 9. "Three prevailing naturalistic models" is mentioned in the abstract, but they are not in the text until page 3. They could be included here in the abstract: ( (1) abiogenesis, (2) panspermia, and (3) directed panspermia.) Then include the number on the headers throughout the text. line 138: (1) Abiogenesis Model – line 332: (2) Panspermia Models – line 475: (3) Directed Panspermia Model. (This should help the reader, since other headers are there like "Hand of God dilemma")
line 78-79: as I read "astrophysical researchers have echoed that biblical explanation...", I was expecting a quote from an astrophysicist. Here is one from Robert Jastrow you could insert : "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. All the details differ, but the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same, the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy. This is the crux of the new story of Genesis." (Jastrow, Robert, 1992, God and the Astronomers, Second Edition, Norton and Company, New York. Page 14.)
I think there are ways that Figures 1 and 2 can better reflect the text. I will think more about this and send a message to the Guest Editor of this issue, Dr. John Bloom, whom I know.
lines 608 - 617: The Cambrian Period is well known and its beginning is 538.79 to 541, depending which time scale is noted. But the Avalon explosion is not a geologic period or well-known, but a quick inquiry indicated an age of 575 million years, or ~35 million years back into the Precambrian The Cambrian explosion is often stated by geologists as 542 to 520 million years ago, or a window of 22 million years. This period is a time when oxygen in the atmosphere was increasing. On line 613, you mentioned "sudden appearance some 538.79 million years"? Are the paleontologists able to comment about evolutionary changes over this ~35 million-year window? Some additional discussion about the impact of oxygen in the atmosphere and the diversification of animal species might be appropriate.
Author Response
Thank you for spotting deficiencies that the other reviewers missed. I included the two additions and one subtraction that you requested. I have included my revised paper in Word with track changes indicating all the revisions and additions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a tour-de-force by someone obviously in control of the material, and I heartily recommend publication.
If I were to suggest any improvement, it would be to ask the author to give some idea of the level of confidence to which we are entitled to believe the conclusions. I accept that the current science points this way; might things change, and if they do, will that change author’s case?
In line 34, I suggest adding the words “well-established” before “laws of thermodynamics”
Line 177 seems to have a word missing, perhaps “all”? (in virtually all cases?)
Line 224, subject-verb agreement “shows”—> “show”
Line 657, “human era.”—>“human era,”?
Thank you for the opportunity to read this paper. Do publish!
Author Response
Thank you for noting where corrections were needed, including in the wording of my references to the human era. I have included my revised paper in Word with track changes indicating all the revisions and additions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This is a well-written paper that collects much evidence for the special creation of humanity. It encompasses ideas from the anthropic principle and the rare-earth hypothesis, showing the unlikelihood of naturalistic evolution of planet earth and of its capstone creature, humanity. The author(s) might take exception, but I did not consider this a primary research paper. The reason is that it is more of a meta-analysis of the data which others [and perhaps the author(s)] have collected previously. But I think it does so thoroughly.
One problem that one might have with this kind of work is that it reads somewhat like a defense of God-of-the-gaps, allowing God to create via special creation those things whose origins we do not understand well yet, such as abiogenesis or the creation of humanity. In the future, we may well find strongly supported natural law explanations for many of the things the authors assert are not understood. I do not wish such findings to scupper anyone’s faith since many think that natural law precludes science. (But note that when God creates through natural laws, God is nonetheless sovereign over it--there is no such thing as a natural law that "gets God out of the picture".)
The Bible makes clear that God created (bara) certain categories of things, e.g., the universe, life, and humanity, in ways that are not solely naturalistic. The authors are clear that the Hebrew demands at least a partially supernaturalistic explanation of these things. B.B. Warfield, American systematic theologian, insisted that science must never rule our special creation, no matter what the secularists want. No Christian has any business excluding supernatural explanations for events, if exegetically warranted.
Thus, utilizing advances in anthropology, biochemistry, molecular biology, astronomy, and geology, they do as good a job as possible marshalling the evidence for God’s special acts in creation. Indeed, they show that even if God created completely through naturalistic means, the odds of this lovely planet and its complex life existing appear to be absurdly low.
Thus, broadly speaking, this article is a compendium of science that supports the rare-earth hypothesis. In doing so, the authors appeal to much mainstream science. Indeed, many supporters of the Rare Earth Hypothesis and of various interpretations of the Anthropic Principle are by no means all Christian, or even religious. They are evidence-based. (And I say this as one who is NOT entirely convinced of the rare-earth hypothesis.
Thus, I strongly believe this paper should be published.
Below, some detailed comments:
Page 1, lines 31,32. I believe the authors give away too much. I think that “naturalistic science” largely developed in a theistic (even Christian) worldview whose success depended on theology and a view of the attributes of God. “Naturalistic scientists” in my opinion are using Christian presuppositions.
Page 2, lines 35,36. But entropy can decrease depending on how we define our systems. Else we wouldn’t exist. Of course, DS > 0 as a whole.
Page 4, lines 149-159. How about amino acid formation in the cold of space, in interstellar dust grains?
Page 4 line 175. I don’t like the words “appear ruled out.” I would rather the author(s) to use “appear unlikely.”
Page 4 line 177. Should read “virtually all cases.”
Page 5 line 202-205. How the Franck-Condon rule applies to CPUR is cryptic to me, since the original paper wasn’t applied to CPUR. This needs to be expanded.
Page 5 lines 242-243. Perhaps I am asking too much detail, but we have chemical traces of life in rock around 3.8 BYA, but no real fossils in the sense people think of them. How a multiplicity of species, much less life in general, can be proven from isotopic chemical signatures is interesting and a line or two might be added here.
Page 6, top paragraph. It is thought by many that the first life was formed in hydrothermal vents. I do not think the author(s)’s arguments address this. How would a high level of UV radiation effect abiogenesis at these vents? It is not clear that it should.
Page 7, 2nd para. The possibility of abiogenesis occurring at hydrothermal vents might be relevant here too.
Page 8, discussion on spores in rock. Microbial life has been found by the Ocean Drilling Project that is imbedded in rock a few kilometers thick. Would radiation pressure destroy life imbedded this deep in rock that is ejected into space by asteroid impact?
Page 12, Figure 2. Where are the primary data that allowed the author(s) to generate the plot of flaring activity level as a function of time? Figure 1 gave many such citations—I see none here. Please give citations.
Page 13, lines 580,581. The authors think that the origins of life should be sought here on Earth. They say this circumspectly and I agree with them.
Page 15, 685-687. As a Protestant, I nonetheless am wary of excluding Roman Catholic contributions to science, as this statement appears to imply. There was intellectual ferment in the middle universities that helped develop the scientific method in the West, and Copernicus’s ecclesiastic authorities seemed to have felt very positive of his work on heliocentrism, at least as a calculational aid. So I think natural philosophy and theology were also allies before the Reformation.
Author Response
All your suggested additions to the paper proved beneficial. I am especially grateful for your recommendation to include the following content: a response to the God-of-the-gaps argument; reference to the debt naturalistic science owes to biblical presuppositions; expanded explanations of entropy in living and non-living systems; of amino acid formation in interstellar clouds; and of why hydrothermal vents are not viable sites for the origin of life. Thanks to your input, the paper more completely addresses biblical perspectives on the origin and history of life.
All your suggested additions to the paper proved beneficial. I am especially grateful for your recommendation to include the following content: a response to the God-of-the-gaps argument; reference to the debt naturalistic science owes to biblical presuppositions; expanded explanations of entropy in living and non-living systems; of amino acid formation in interstellar clouds; and of why hydrothermal vents are not viable sites for the origin of life. Thanks to your input, the paper more completely addresses biblical perspectives on the origin and history of life. have included my revised paper in Word with track changes indicating all the revisions and additions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I want to thank the author(s) for their thoughtful responses to my many previous comments. The paper is much better and most of my concerns have been addressed. I will not repeat my comments from before that included the Summary, General Comments, etc.
I have a few minor comments on the updated article.
Line 33ff: A reference would be nice to back up the claim that a biblical worldview provided the foundation for the scientific revolution.
Line 150ff: I still think that these definitions for the words bara, asa, haya, and sharas, are not universally held by all Hebrew scholars so it might be nice if the author made clear these are his understandings of the nuances of the words.
Line 152 and 747 : I still don’t know what a “supernatural acts performed within the laws of physics” means. If it is within the laws of physics, then, by definition, it is not supernatural, though it is still divine and providential. A more clear understanding of what the author(s) mean would be nice.
Line 160: I prefer the word “suggests” rather than “predicts.”
Line 747: Same comment as line 152: In general, something within the laws of physics is natural and not supernatural in the usual usage of the words. It would be nice to know what the author means by “supernatural acts within the laws of physics.” I think (s)he means improbable actions that don’t violate laws of physics (like the improbable collision of a planetoid to create our moon or things liket that). To me, those are not supernatural though they are providential. A more clear definition of what the author means would go a long way to improving the paper.
Line 752: I think the word “literal” should be deleted. The term literal tends to mean wooden literal in the common vernacular. Like the literal meaning of "day" is 24 hours.
Line 752: Change “four literal definitions” to “at least four definitions”. I have Hebrew dictionaries with more than four [literal] definitions.
Author Response
I thank you again for your thorough, meticulous review of my paper. I appreciate your additional suggestions for clarifying definitions and adding references. I am pleased with what you have done to enhance the content and quality of the paper.
