Whence Plague?

Where did bubonic plague come from?  Science News reported that two mutations turned the bacterium from a docile, innocuous bacterium into a curse.
    The combination of two mutations disabled the gene for aspartase, an enzyme that breaks down aspartic acid.  When the crippled Yersinia pestis enters a host, more aspartic acid is generated than the host can manage.  This may lead to a domino effect that takes its toll on the biochemistry of the host.
    Researchers at the University of Toledo in Ohio were able to reproduce the problem in a related bacterium by putting the same mutations into its aspartase gene.  Then, they were able to restore function in the plague bacterium by substituting base pairs from its cousin at the two mutated sites.  Neither restoration alone restored function, they found.  They plan to test the restored bacteria on rodents to see whether the plague symptoms fail to develop.
    In his 2007 book The Edge of Evolution, biochemist Michael Behe described pathogens and their hosts as in a kind of “trench warfare” of survival.  He outlined the difficulty of achieving a double mutation that would produce a new function, and the near impossibility of getting a triple mutation for a new function (such as to disable an antibiotic).  This story, however, is a case of a double mutation for loss of function – a frequent occurrence – that has the effect of putting a non-sustainable burden on the resources of a host.

This story helps underscore the delicate balance in biochemistry and in ecology.  The mutations did not give Yersinia pestis a new function.  They took one away.  In an orderly ecology, this germ would have been harmless.  A motorcycle can usually drive around a park and interact with pedestrians safely.  Imagine what might happen when its brakes fail.
    One question this story does not answer is the problem of evil.  A religious person might be tempted to think this shows God did not create the bubonic plague—it was just a result of mutations to something that might have been originally beneficial.  Even if so, God could have stopped its horrific effects.  The proposal also doesn’t address many other devices in nature that appear designed to bring pain and suffering, like snake and spider venom.
    These are questions for theology, not science, unless you are content with the explanation that “stuff happens” and there is no hope or reason for anything.  If that is your choice, why even do science?  One could not have any assurance that human perception is in touch with reality.  Taking that path abandons all hope of understanding anything.
    If we were left to speculate about reasons for good and evil on our own, we would be no better off.  Speculations are a dime a dozen.  We would have no way of knowing whether Wise Man A has contact with ultimate reality any more than Wise Man B.  A revelation is needed from the only One who knows.  A revelation was provided.  It tells of an omnipotent and righteous Creator who provided a world for sentient beings that was perfect in harmony.  Sin changed it and brought judgment.  We live now in a cursed world in which we will all die, because the wages of sin is death.
    In a real sense, the question “whence plague?” is not far removed from “whence death?” by any means, including old age.  Death was foreign to the original creation.  God’s righteousness requires it.  Who is to stand up to the Judge of the universe and claim that one form of death is unjust over another?  From a human perspective, we walk in a booby-trapped world, not knowing when our time is up.  There is a blessing in this.  The Judge could have instituted capital punishment on mankind instantly.  Instead, He gives us time to experience the blessings of His goodness and the fear of His judgment, and time to make a choice.
    God, being omniscient, knows our frame and knows each person’s allotted time.  He has provided sufficient revelation for each individual to respond to Him (see natural revelation).  For those blessed with the full revelation of the Bible and Christ, the explanation is much richer – which is why the good news needs to be spread to all.  Could we have expected that God would show love to those deserving death?  And what amazing love He demonstrated!  The righteous Judge took our penalty of eternal death on Himself, in sending His Son to die in our place, so that we could be fully reconciled to Him.
    We can enjoy enough of the remnant beauty of the original creation to give Him thanks and worship Him.  Through our limited abilities in science, we can also seek to understand some of the hazards around us and disable them.  We can improve our health and increase our enjoyment in life.  This will only delay physical death, not eliminate it.  But the rest of the story is even better.  Those who take God’s offer on His terms have His promise of a future creation with no pain, suffering, death, and sin.
    A brief outline like this opens up many questions and may leave a skeptic unsatisfied.  Why not make this a project?  Lee Strobel was a hardened atheist legal reporter, till his wife “got religion” and became a Christian.  It almost destroyed his marriage.  He decided to look into the evidence for Christianity so as to refute it.  He applied his skills of legal investigation of evidence to the issues of the trustworthiness of the Bible.  The result changed his life.  The once crabby, selfish, prideful guy now has an infectious smile and enthusiasm that commands attention.  What made this guy so darn happy?
    Lee’s experience led to his three best-selling books, The Case for a Creator, The Case for Christ, and The Case for Faith, in which he interviewed leading theologians and scientists to get answers for skeptics’ questions that could stand up to legal standards of evidence.  Two of these are now available on high-quality documentaries from Illustra Media and Strobel Films.  The third is due for release September 2.  Read these books.  Watch these films.  Like Strobel encourages, “make it a front-burner project” and commit at the outset to follow the evidence wherever it leads.