The concept of the emergence of viruses on Earth, discussed in earlier articles, in my view also helps to explain the issue of bacterial pathogenicity. Bacteria clearly existed prior to the Flood and formed an integral part of the biosphere.
According to Isaiah 45:18, God created the Earth as a place fit for human habitation, which would have included mechanisms for environmental self-renewal. Bacteria are known to play a central role in this process by breaking down organic matter and converting it into forms suitable for further transformation.
The Flood and its consequences
The emergence of viruses, understood as free fragments of nucleic acids from both bacterial and nuclear cell origin present in the atmosphere and hydrosphere, led to a situation in which some of these fragments entered bacterial cells and remained there, interacting with the bacterial genome. Such nucleic acid fragments, particularly DNA, have been known to science for a long time and are referred to collectively as plasmids. Each plasmid carries residual genetic information, which it expresses within the bacterial cell.
Some of these plasmids, as has been known for quite some time, produce proteins that are responsible for bacterial pathogenicity. These proteins are referred to as virulence factors. A bacterium that carries such a plasmid can be pathogenic, while the same bacterium without it is not. Plasmids can, without much exaggeration, be regarded as viroids, the simplest form of a virus.
In this sense, nucleic poisons, essentially viruses, contaminated the biosphere after the Flood, including bacteria, making some of them harmful to humans. Bacteria in themselves are not naturally pathogenic. Viruses that infect bacteria are called bacteriophages. Some bacteria, while not causing disease directly, may carry plasmids that make them pathogenic to humans. Such bacteria may be described as virus-poisoned. Human diseases are therefore caused by bacteria that have themselves been affected or altered by viral elements.
Paradise on Earth
The widespread belief in a paradisiacal beginning to Earth’s history, found across nearly all civilizations and cultures, is not without foundation. According to the Bible, the Earth’s earliest conditions allowed all living beings to enjoy long and healthy lives. There was no room for the harmful things that now make some question whether God’s creation was truly perfect.
Illness, death, poisonous plants, venomous animals, troublesome insects, and carnivorous behaviour were not part of the world before humanity fell, first through Adam’s sin and later as a result of the Flood. Some Christians may feel discomfort, or even a sense of embarrassment before sceptics or unbelievers, when speaking about these realities, driven by a desire to present God as worthy of knowing. This is unnecessary.
The pre-Flood world was as perfect as a material world could be. The Bible does not describe it to create a favourable impression or to appeal to sentiment, but to present a historical account. It makes clear that the physical and chemical conditions needed for such harmful phenomena simply did not exist, and so they could not have occurred.
Diseases appeared as a result of the presence of viruses and pathogenic bacteria, along with the emergence of toxins and poisons from both plants and animals. These were linked to changes in oxygen levels and the resulting sharp and repeated drop in the redox potential of the atmosphere after the Flood.
Viruses may have developed during events that followed the Flood. Poisons and toxins from plants and animals could also have appeared at that time, as a result of a three- or fourfold decrease in the partial pressure of atmospheric oxygen. This topic deserves more attention, but it will be addressed elsewhere.
Stinging, biting, blood-feeding, and disease-carrying insects likely came about because plants with suitable juices were no longer available to them, if we take seriously the biblical statement that, before the Flood, all living creatures, including insects, were given plants for food (Genesis 1:29–30).
After the Flood, insects that could no longer find their usual food began seeking out any fluid that might serve as a substitute. A large group started stinging whatever they could. Some managed to reach blood and developed a taste for it. Insects that sting juice-producing plants and those that feed on blood belong to the same family and have the same type of piercing mouthparts. This allows them to feed on either plant sap or blood during their lifetime.¹
Such a change in diet could have happened very quickly. There is no need to assume long-term adaptation, as suggested by evolutionary theory. The shift could have occurred immediately, driven simply by the need to find food. A historical example of this kind of dietary change was recorded when sheep were brought to New Zealand between 1773 and 1778. The kea, a native parrot that had previously fed on plants, began eating sheep fat by cutting into the neck to reach it. Its beak was strong enough to get through the wool and skin, allowing it to expand its diet.²
This very need is at the root of omnivory. If what we have matches what we need or want, we use it. There is no need here for evolutionary processes in the Darwinian sense. What applies is population genetics, though it is often wrongly treated as a part of, or precursor to, Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution.
Evolutionists have referred to this as preadaptation, which in practice means nothing more than the ability to adjust and make use of existing traits. In other words, it points to intelligence, the ability to perceive, analyse, and respond to changes in the environment, or to understand, learn, and apply knowledge and skills in different situations.³
Leaving aside the case of the kea, it can reasonably be assumed that this same mechanism helped living beings survive the most difficult period after the Flood. Darwinism does not apply to processes that require immediate change, the only kind relevant in the aftermath of the Flood. For this reason, it depends on the idea of deep time, which is not supported by either the Bible or direct scientific observation.
About the Author
Dariusz Struski is a medical doctor and specialist in family medicine, with thirty-two years of professional experience in Poland, Sweden, and Norway. He is the former head of the Family Doctors Training Centre in Wrocław. He currently lectures in Evidence-Based Medicine and family medicine, with a particular focus on infectious diseases.
By the way, we recommend reading the articles:
- Lucy: Human Ancestor or Extinct Ape?
- The James Webb Space Telescope and Its Surprising Discoveries
- The Fate of the Universe – What Awaits Our Cosmos?
- Fish Intelligence: A Match for Apes?
- Does the Bible Justify Slavery?
Footnotes
- Mosquito Reviews, n.d. What Mosquitoes Eat. Mosquito Reviews. Available at: https://mosquitoreviews.com/learn/what-mosquitoes-eat/.
- Nature, 1895. What Mosquitoes Eat. Nature, 52, p.629. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/052629b0.
- Shettleworth, S.J., 2010. Cognition, Evolution and Behavior. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford Press.
© Source of main image: Leonardo.ai.
The portal EvolutionOfThinking.org, created by the Research and Education Institute, focuses on education and the dissemination of knowledge related to research on various aspects of human well-being.
