Militant Atheism by Eric Lyons, M.Min. Kyle Butt, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=585

Militant Atheism

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min. Kyle Butt, M.A.

The stereotypical scientist in a white lab coat who follows the facts wherever they may lead, and reports those data without prejudice, often does not correspond to reality these days. In fact, a large majority of scientists now believe that God does not exist. These scientists feel that they should militantly spread their ideas of atheism and evolution as far and wide as possible. They abhor the idea of a supernatural Creator and believe it should be eradicated from human consciousness. Just how determined are some of the leading atheistic evolutionists to expunge theism from the world? A recent issue of the journal New Scientist, which just celebrated its 50th anniversary, sheds some light on the subject. In an article titled, “In Place of God: Can Secular Science Ever Oust Religious Belief—and Should It Even Try?,” Michael Brooks recounted a recent meeting of “some of the leading practitioners of modern science” in La Jolla, California (2006, 192[2578]:8). They had gathered to discuss, among other questions, “Should science do away with religion?” Their answers are alarming. [NOTE: The following quotations are extracted from Brooks’ report.]

Cosmologist Steven Weinberg was first to address the question, “Should science do away with religion?” He responded with an unequivocal “yes,” saying: “The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion.... Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization” (p. 9, emp. added). Since scientists at the symposium used the terms “religion” and “God” interchangeably, Weinberg in essence was saying that ridding God from the world would be one of science’s greatest achievements. He seemed so certain that scientists could achieve this goal that he actually admitted he would “miss it once it was gone” (p. 9). How were Weinberg’s comments received, you might ask? According to attendee Michael Brooks, he received “a rapturous response” (p. 9), before being heavily criticized by some, such as Richard Dawkins, surprisingly enough, “for not being tough enough on religion” (p. 9).

Dawkins, who is perhaps the most celebrated evolutionist alive today, was one of the most militant atheists at the conference. He stated: “I am utterly fed up with the respect we have been brainwashed into bestowing upon religion,” i.e., God (p. 9; cf. Ecclesiastes 12:12-13). Passive atheism apparently should not be tolerated. Dawkins is “ready to mobilize” his “big...enthusiastic choir” of evolutionary colleagues (p. 11). He said: “There’s a certain sort of negativity you get from people who say ‘I don’t like religion but you can’t do anything about it.’ That’s a real counsel of defeatism. We should roll our sleeves up and get on with it” (p. 11, emp. added). Dawkins even compared evolutionary scientists’ position in the 21st century to that of homosexuals in the late 1960s: everyone needs to be “willing to stand up and be counted,” so that “they could change things” (p. 11).

Dawkins likely called for such drastic action because he has seen atheism lose some of its battles. In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, he admitted that modern creationists have been “disturbingly successful” in their attempts to combat evolution in “American education and textbook publishing” (1996, p. 241). He also wrote: “There are still those who seek to deny the truth of evolution, and there are disturbing signs that their influence is even growing, at least in local areas of the United States” (p. x). The influence of anti-evolutionists disturbs Dawkins greatly—so much so that he and his colleagues feel compelled to advance evolution, while doing “away with religion” (Brooks, 192[2578]:9).

Evolutionist Neil deGrasse Tyson of the Hayden Planetarium in New York “spoke with an evangelist’s zeal” (p. 10, emp. added). He referred to a recent poll taken of members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences which revealed that 15 percent did not indicate they were atheists, and asked: “How come the number isn’t zero?... That should be the subject of everybody’s investigation. That’s something that we can’t just sweep under the rug” (p. 10). To Tyson, theistic members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences represent “a problem that needs to be addressed” (p. 10). One wonders what Tyson would suggest if Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, and other brilliant theistic scientists from the past were members of this group? Kick them out for not being atheists, even though their contributions to science likely far exceed any efforts put forth by most current members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences? Even the staunch evolutionist Niles Eldredge admitted that “all the great biologists and geologists prior to Darwin were, in some sense at least, creationists” (2001, p. 49).

Dr. Harry Kroto of Florida State University also stepped forward at the conference declaring himself “ready to fight the good fight” (Brooks, 192[2578]:11). He proposed the launching of “a coordinated global effort at education, media outreach and campaigning on behalf of science,” using especially the Internet to take evolutionary science into every home (p. 11). If you think students in private religious schools will be untouched and invulnerable to the efforts of modern-day evolutionists, consider that Kroto has these schools in his sights as well. He declared: “We must try to work against faith schooling” (p. 11).

Michael Brooks summarized the overall attitude at the La Jolla, California symposium in the following words: “science can take on religion and win” (p. 11, emp. added). So, in the words of Richard Dawkins, “We [evolutionists—EL/KB] should roll our sleeves up and get on with it” (p. 11).

The irony of this militant attitude toward religion is that evolutionists sometimes downplay such aggressive tactics in an attempt to lull the religious populace into thinking that no battle is taking place. Niles Eldredge, the Curator in the Department of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, wrote a book titled The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. In that book, he said: “Creationists have spuriously convinced many citizens that huge hunks of science are antithetical to their religious beliefs” (2001, p. 174). One would not have to read past the first page of Brook’s New Scientistarticle to understand that the evolutionists themselves openly admit that their atheistic, evolutionary beliefs are antithetical to religion. To add further irony to Eldredge’s statement, the back of his book quotesBooklist as saying that Eldredge’s book is “a clarion call rallying evolutionist [sic] to battle.”

IT STARTS EARLY AND STAYS LATE

In the mid-1990s, philosopher Daniel Dennett wrote a book titled Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. Leading evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Philip Kitcher, and Edward O. Wilson highly recommended the book, calling it “surpassingly brilliant” and “essential,” as it persuades readers that “evolution by natural selection is vital to the future of philosophy.” One of the most disturbing comments in Dennett’s book concerned parents who teach their children (among other things) “that ‘Man’ is not a product of evolution” (1995, p. 519, emp. added). Dennett wrote: “[T]hose of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity” (p. 519). Notice the jab at religious parents—accusing them of lying and not “freely” telling the truth about man’s origins. More important, observe how he then proceeded to testify that evolutionists like himself will endeavor to convince the children of theists that evolution is not fiction, but a fact that will be communicated “at our earliest opportunity.” How early? Consider one example.

The toddler pop-up “history” book titled Life on Earth was published in 2002 by Barron’s Educational Series. It is 21 pages of colorful illustrations, captivating pop-ups, and evolutionary dogma. It tells the story of evolution with less than 10 words per page. Beginning with “the first living things” in the seas, it proceeds with fish crawling out onto land and becoming amphibians. It then tells of the reptiles’ appearance, followed by the mammals, and eventually the first “hairy” humans. In case a child misses the point of the book, placed strategically just above a baby in diapers sliding down the tail of a large dinosaur, the text on the back cover reinforces the main point: “Millions of years ago life on Earth started in the oceans. Then it moved onto the land and eventually led to YOU!”

Those who teach evolution target children. Niles Eldredge wrote: “I maintain my conviction that the realbattleground is in the classroom” (2001, p. 157, emp. added). In the same book, he asserted: “The realbattle is still being fought at school board meetings and in public school classrooms” (p. 149, emp. added). Notice the military terminology used. Mark it down. Many within the evolutionary community recognize that the ideas of a supernatural God and organic evolution are at war. Eldredge and others offer a glimpse into their battle strategy: start early in the school system.

Near the end of his book, Eldredge included a list from Eugenie Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education, of 25 things “parents, teachers, and even scientists” can do to help evolution win its battle over creation. The number one item listed: “Donate books and videos about evolution to school and public libraries” (p. 178, emp. added). Number eight: “Share your views with school board members, legislators, textbook commissioners, and other educational policy makers” (p. 179, emp. added). Number 16: “PARENTS: Make sure your child’s teacher knows s/he has your support for teaching about evolution” (p. 179). Number 22: “K-12 TEACHERS: Work with your colleagues to create a supportive atmosphere in your school and community” (p. 180). Number 23: “K-12 TEACHERS: Work with colleagues to develop or publicize workshops and in-service units about evolution; take advantage of them yourself” (p. 180). A cursory reading of the list shows exactly the primary target of evolutionists: children and educational systems.

Dr. Dennett and his band of evolutionary guerrillas are serious about teaching evolution at the “earliest opportunity.” It can start with what parents perceive as “innocent” pop-up books, and continue into elementary school, middle school, and high school. Then, generally with more fervor than ever before, many evolutionary college professors make it their mission to verbally beat God out of their students. Sometime ago a gentleman visited one of our creation/evolution seminars. He had attended a well-known university in the southeastern United States. He recounted how he entered one of his science classes at the beginning of the semester, and heard his professor ask the class to stand up if they believed in God. Seven individuals stood up. The professor then went on to say that by the end of the semester not one of them would stand up when he asked that question. Sure enough, toward the end of the semester the professor posed the question again, “How many of you believe in God?” Only one student stood up.

WHERE WILL IT LEAD?

If militant evolutionists have their way, what ultimately will become of nonconformists and disbelievers of evolutionary theory? Let us allow the evolutionists themselves to tell us. Richard Dickerson, a molecular biologist, wrote an article titled “The Game of Science.” In that article, he insisted that science cannot tolerate a supernatural Creator Who would perform miracles or create the Universe in six, 24-hour days. He also proposed that real science never can resort to invoking miracles as a legitimate explanation for anything that happens in the real world. Dickerson said: “[I]nvoking miracles and special creation violates the rules of the game of science and inhibits progress” (as quoted in Scott, 2004, p. 254). According to Dickerson, then, what should be done with any person who does believe in a supernatural Creator and a straightforward reading of Genesis 1? He is quick to offer his opinion. He says: “People who do not understand that concept (evolution—EL/KB) can never be real scientists, and should not be allowed to misrepresent science to young people from whom the ranks of the next generation of scientists will be drawn” (as quoted in Scott, p. 254, emp. added). Richard Dawkins quipped: “No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another” (1996, p. 287, emp.).

Consider one example of intolerance toward creationism in 2002 at Texas Tech University. When undergraduate student Micah Spradling requested a letter of recommendation from a biology instructor in order to enroll in a pre-medical program, Professor Michael Dini informed him that he needed to “‘truthfully and forthrightly’ believe in human evolution to receive a letter of recommendation” (see Kitchen, 2002). At the time, Dr. Dini’s Web site contained the following defense of why he asked students if they believed in the factuality of evolution:

Why do I ask this question? Let’s consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school. Whereas medicine is historically rooted first in the practice of magic and later in religion, modern medicine is an endeavor that springs from the sciences, biology first among these. The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to all species. How can someone who does not accept the most important theory in biology expect to properly practice in a field that is so heavily based on biology? It is hard to imagine how this can be so, but it is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make bad clinical decisions....

Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the “fact” of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known. One can deny this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one’s understanding of science and of the method of science. Such an individual has committed malpractice regarding the method of science, for good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs. This is the situation of those who deny the evolution of humans; such a one is throwing out information because it seems to contradict his/her cherished beliefs (as quoted in Thompson and Harrub, 2002).

In the eyes of some, such as Dr. Dini, it is no longer acceptable simply to know about the theory of evolution and be able to discuss it intelligently. Now, if you do not profess it, even though, admittedly, it is still simply a “theory” and “all of the details are not yet known,” you may risk the opportunity to further your education—a risk that Christians must be willing to take.

In 2003, following an investigation by the U.S. Justice Department, Dr. Dini supposedly “eliminated the evolution belief requirement from his recommendation policy and replaced it with a requirement that students be able to explain the theory of evolution” (Taylor, 2003, 27[4]:6). The wording in Dr. Dini’s policy changed to the following: “How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species? If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation” (as quoted in Taylor, 27[4]:6, emp. added).

Notice that Dr. Dini simply changed his criteria to demand a “scientific” answer. Yet, when one explores the writings of these militant evolutionists, it becomes apparent that the word “scientific” is simply a synonym for “evolutionary.” For instance, Eugenie Scott wrote: “To scientists, using God to explain natural phenomena of any kind violates the practice of methodological naturalism, in which scientific explanations are limited only to natural causes” (2004, p. 119, emp. added). In other words, any idea that contains a hint of a supernatural, non-material Creator is, according to their definition, “unscientific.” In the National Academy of Science’s book Science and Creationism, the “steering committee” members, such as Stephen J. Gould, Eugenie Scott, Francisco Ayala, and others, put it like this: “[T]he teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruction, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes” (1999, p. 2). How convenient. Simply demand that all answers must be “scientific,” then define scientific as excluding any reference to a supernatural Creator. Needless to say, the great scientists of the past like Newton, Farraday, and Carver never would have accepted such a biased definition of science. Nor should thinking people today allow these sneaky, semantic tactics to go unchallenged and unanswered.

Ultimately, evolutionists would like to marginalize completely those who believe in a supernatural Creator. They would like to relegate all non-evolutionists to a tiny a band of “know-nothings,” or as Dawkins puts it, “backwoodsmen” who do not deserve the name “scientist” (1996, p. x). If these militant evolutionists have their way, no creationist will be allowed to enroll in the prestigious institutes of higher learning to earn advanced accredited degrees, much less have the opportunity to teach on college campuses. In the introduction to his 1996 edition of The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins said as much: “I was reminded of the creationist student who, through some accident of the selection procedure, was admitted to the Zoology Department at Oxford University” (p. xi). To Dawkins, and others like him, a “properly” working selection procedure would have disallowed a creationist to enroll in an institute like Oxford, regardless of his or her intellectual accomplishments or abilities. Dawkins’ sentiments are clear from his statement in 1989: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)” (7:34, parenthetical item in orig.). In contradistinction, the Bible says: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1).

The fact that these militant evolutionists want to silence the idea of creation is ironic in light of beliefs held by Darwin himself. In his book, Origin of the Species, Darwin wrote:

I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. Afair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question... (1956, p. 18, emp. added).

Judging from the comments by Dawkins and others, Darwin’s suggestion that both sides should be heard was far too tolerant and soft on the “unscientific” idea of creation.

ACKNOWLEDGE THE WAR! JOIN THE FIGHT!

Highly acclaimed evolutionary scientists recognize that a war is going on—a war between atheistic evolutionary science and anti-evolutionary science. Evolutionists are ready to “get on with it” (Brooks, 192[2578]:11). They are speaking “with an evangelist’s zeal” and are “ready to fight the good fight” (pp. 10,11). Even now, they are attempting to position themselves to set evolution “in place of God” (p. 8).

Creationists must not shy away from this battle. We, too, must roll up our sleeves and heed the apostle Paul’s admonition to “fight the good fight of faith” (1 Timothy 6:12). We must strive to “speak the words of truth and reason” (Acts 26:25), and “be ready to give a defense to everyone” (1 Peter 3:15). Indeed, “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).

What can creationists do? How can we fight against atheistic evolutionary science? If evolutionists have benefited from Eugenie Scott’s to-do list for the advancement of evolution, perhaps it is fitting to close this article with a list of suggestions for creationists in their fight against atheistic evolution.

• Recognize that there is a battle over the most fundamental pillar of Christianity (the existence of God), and resolve to do something.
• Begin teaching your children, grandchildren, nephews, nieces, etc. the case for creation and the caseagainst evolution before they ever enter school. Then continue this instruction as they get older.
• Encourage your children to ask questions about God, creation, and evolution. If you don’t answer their questions, someone will—and that someone probably will be an evolutionist.
• Give your children (and yourself!) the tools needed to build a strong faith—one that is based on both reason and revelation.
• Familiarize yourself with Web sites such as ApologeticsPress.org and ChristianCourier.com, which provide immediate answers to many of your questions. They also aid students with term papers, reports, speeches, etc.

[The final five suggestions are adapted from Eugenie Scott’s list (see Eldredge, 2001, pp. 178-180).]

• Donate books and videos about creation to school and public libraries.
• Make it a point to share your views about creation with school board members, legislators, textbook commissioners, and other educational policy makers.
• Let your children’s teachers know that they have your support if they choose to teach about the errors and weaknesses of evolutionary theory.
• Attempt to create an open-minded atmosphere in your school and community, so that creation and evolution can both be discussed.
• Work with parents, teachers, churches, etc. to develop or publicize workshops or seminars about the errors of evolution and the evidence for God’s existence.

REFERENCES

Brooks, Michael (2006), “In Place of God,” New Scientist, 192[2578]:8-11.

Darwin, Charles (1956 edition), The Origin of Species (New York: J.M. Dent & Sons).

Dawkins, Richard (1989), “Book Review,” The New York Times, section 7, April 9.

Dawkins, Richard (1996), The Blind Watchmaker (New York, NY: W.W. Norton).

Dennett, Daniel (1995), Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster).

Eldredge, Niles (2001), The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism (New York, NY: W.H. Freeman).

Kitchen, Sebastian (2002), “Professor Rigid on Evolution,” Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, A-1,9, October 6.

Life on Earth (2002), (Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s Education Series).

Science and Creationism (1999), (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press), second edition.

Scott, Eugenie (2004), Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction (Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press).

Taylor, Larry (2003), “Biology Professor Alters Evolution Statement for Recommendations,” Skeptical Inquirer, 27[4]:6, July/August.

Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2002), “Quick, Let’s Discriminate Against the Creationists!” [On-line],URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2504.

Intricate and Masterful Design of the Human Ear by Aaron R. Morrison, M.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=586

 Intricate and Masterful Design of the Human Ear

by	Aaron R. Morrison, M.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: One of the strengths of Apologetics Press for the past 28 years has been the way A.P. publications have reflected an accurate blending of science and Bible. Since the Creator produced both the Bible and the physical Universe, no contradiction between the two is possible. Yet much of the “science” being alleged today is pseudo-science rooted in evolutionary theory. And much of the “religion” being perpetrated today is pseudo-religion rooted in human theology. In reality, true science is in complete harmony with a correct interpretation of the teaching of the Bible.

Through all these years, A.P. has maintained its longstanding tradition of providing the public with cutting edge analysis of the central scientific and religious issues of the day. In that spirit, we are expanding our science department by building a team of scientists who are academically credentialed in their respective fields of scientific expertise. They are well-qualified to address matters of science as they relate to the overall creation/evolution controversy. Articles by these auxiliary staff scientists will be appearing both in Reason & Revelation as well as on the A.P.Web site.

With this issue of R&R, we provide our readers with the first of these articles written by one of our scientific writers. Dr. Morrison holds an M.D. from the University of Tennessee College of Medicine and is completing his residency in Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery.]

Have you ever escaped the haste of society and taken refuge on an ocean beach, lakeshore, or riverbank, and listened to the calming sound of the waves as they collapsed upon the shore? Have you been amazed at the powerful crash of thunder overhead during a thunderstorm? Do you enjoy listening to the peaceful and varied songs of nature’s winged vocalists? Do you ever take solace hearing the comforting words of a loving friend or family member?

The human hearing mechanism is tremendously complex and wonderfully designed. A brief look at the structure and function of the ear will, at a minimum, lead one to a greater appreciation for the complexity of the ear. More important, it should lead one to a greater appreciation for the One who is responsible for the intelligent design of the ear. For those who contend that organic evolution is responsible for the development of the human body (and nature in general), a closer look at this organ system ought to provoke reconsideration and an honest assessment of the impossibility of random events leading to such marvelous complexity.

The ear is divided into three parts: the external, middle, and inner divisions. The structures of the inner ear are responsible not only for sound processing, but also balance. First, let us identify the structures contained within each division of the ear; then we will examine how a sound wave travels through each portion of the ear and eventually is perceived as sound.

THE EXTERNAL EAR

Figure 1: The Pinna

The external ear is composed of the pinna (auricle), the external auditory canal (EAC), or simply ear canal, and the outer layer of the tympanic membrane (TM), also known as the eardrum. [NOTE: The TM itself is composed of three layers: the outer squamous epithelial layer, the middle layer of tough connective tissue, and the inner layer of cuboidal epithelium.]

The pinna confers an acoustical advantage of approximately 2-5 decibels (dB) in humans (see Figure 1). The EAC serves not only to protect the middle ear but also enhances hearing by 5-10 dB at frequencies near 2000 Hertz (Hz) which are important frequencies for understanding human speech. The outer third of the EAC is surrounded by cartilage while the inner two-thirds are surrounded by bone.

THE MIDDLE EAR

The middle ear is composed of the middle and inner layers of theTM, the ossicles, also known as the malleus (or hammer), incus (or anvil), and stapes (or stirrup), the smallest bones in the human body (see Figure 2), the two smallest muscles in the body, the stapedius and tensor tympani, and the opening to the Eustachian tube.

Figure 2: The Ossicles

Together, the middle ear structures function as a transformer of sound energy from the air (in the EAC) to the fluids of the inner ear (cochlea). As sound waves contact the TM and create movement of the eardrum, the ossicles (malleus, incus, and stapes) are set in motion. The malleus is connected to the TM, while the incus is connected to the malleus, and also to the stapes. The stapes, in turn, is in contact with the oval window of the cochlea (see Figure 3). The stapes is the smallest ossicle and, interestingly, is of adult size and form at birth (Lee, 2003, p. 13). The stapes’ foot plate rests in the oval window of the cochlea and acts like a piston. Carefully note the beautiful design of this mechanism: as sound energy is collected over the relatively large surface area of the TM and concentrated on the small footplate of the stapes, the mechanical advantage results in an increased auditory sensitivity of approximately 24-25 decibels. An additional auditory advantage of 2-3 decibels is obtained by the lever action of the ossicles themselves, resulting in a total middle ear auditory advantage of approximately 27 decibels (Templer, et al., 1987, p. 21).

Figure 3: The Middle Ear

Fig. 1,2,3 LifeArt image copyright 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

It is interesting to note that the two smallest muscles in the human body are located in the middle ear space. The smaller of these two muscles, the stapedius, is just over one millimeter in length. As its name suggests, it is attached to the stapes. What is the function of the smallest muscle in the body? When loud sounds are encountered (sounds louder than approximately 80 decibels), the stapedius contracts and holds the ossicular chain in a more rigid position in order to prevent excessive movement of the stapes (Calhoun, et al., 2001, p. 1624). This serves to buffer the intensity of sound wave transmission to the cochlea. If an individual develops paralysis of the stapedius, this buffering mechanism is lost and loud noises become deafening.

The stapedius plays a very important role in preserving our hearing. The “hair cells” in the cochlea (discussed below) are highly sensitive and repeated exposure to loud noises over time destroys hair cell function and is irreversible. Hearing loss is the unfortunate consequence of hair cell destruction. This is why otolaryngologists encourage everyone to use hearing protection when they are working around loud machinery or taking part in recreational activities that result in significant noise exposure (e.g., gunfire).

The second smallest muscle in the human body is the tensor tympani. Despite years of technical research and study, the role of this muscle is not fully understood. Among other functions, it has been credited with decreasing the amplitude of sound energy transmitted to the cochlea. However, acoustic reflex data has suggested that the tensor tympani does not normally respond to intense sounds (Calhoun, et al., 2001, p. 1624). The tensor tympani is connected to the malleus, the ossicle which itself is connected to the tympanic membrane. When the tensor tympani muscle contracts, it pulls on the malleus and tenses, or tightens, the tympanic membrane (hence the name, tensor tympani). This appears to dampen the vibrations of the eardrum and may indeed reduce the amount of energy carried along the ossicles to the cochlea.

Figure 4

The eustachian tube connects the middle ear with the nasopharynx (the area behind the nasal passages and above the oral cavity) and serves to equalize the middle ear pressure (see Figure 4). When individuals suffer from eustachian tube dysfunction (where the eustachian tube fails to open and close normally), there is development of excess negative pressure in the middle ear space. This leads to retraction of the tympanic membrane and decreased efficiency of the conductive mechanism that transmits sound from the eardrum to the cochlea (via the ossicles). The negative pressure also can lead to fluid accumulation in the middle ear space, which further impedes the conduction of sound energy. Children suffer from eustachian tube dysfunction more frequently than adults. Consequently, many children must undergo myringotomy (incision in the tympanic membrane) and placement of pressure equalization tubes (i.e., ear tubes) to relieve the negative middle ear pressure and allow drainage of fluid that may have collected in the middle ear space.

THE INTERNAL (INNER) EAR

The internal ear is composed of the cochlea and the vestibular system. The vestibular system is composed of the semicircular canals, utricle, and saccule.

COCHLEAR ANATOMY

The cochlea is shaped like a snail, having approximately 2¾ turns, and is surrounded by the hardest bone in the human body. The cochlea is composed of three fluid-filled cavities that wind around the central portion of the cochlea, known as the modiolus (See Figure 5).

Figure 5: The Cochlea

LifeArt image copyright 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

These three fluid-filled cavities are known as scalae (from the Latin meaning “a stairway”)—the scala vestibuli, the scala media, and the scala tympani. The scala vestibuli and scala tympani are connected via a duct at the apex of the cochlea (the helicotremma). The scala media is suspended between the scala vestibuli and scala tympani. There are two different fluids that fill the scalae of the cochlea: perilymph and endolymph. The perilymph is contained within the two continuous scalae (i.e., the scala vestibuli and scala tympani). Perilymph is very similar in composition to extracellular fluid in the human body (high sodium concentration and low potassium concentration). Endolymph is contained within the scala media and is similar in composition to intracellular fluid (high potassium content and low sodium content) (Pasha, 2006, p. 302).

If you could enter the scala vestibuli at the base of the cochlea (through a structure known as the oval window) and “swim” upward through the perilymph in a curving fashion to the apex of the cochlea, you would cross over to the scala tympani at the helicotremma and follow the curve of the cochlea downhill through perilymph, exiting through a structure known as the round window (which is covered by a thin membrane). With this understanding of cochlear anatomy, perhaps it will be easier to appreciate the path of the fluid wave that passes through the cochlea when a sound wave contacts the TM and is conducted to the oval window via the ossicles. The stapes footplate (the oval-shaped bony portion of the stapes) rests in the oval window. The movement of the ossicles and piston-like action of the stapes creates a fluid wave in the scala vestibuli. The fluid wave then travels through the scala media (which contains endolymph and is suspended between the scala vestibuli and scala tympani) and then to the scala tympani. Further discussion of cochlear anatomy is necessary to understand what happens next.

The scala media is bounded by Reissner’s membrane (upper border) and the basilar membrane (lower border). The organ of Corti (the sensory end organ for hearing) rests on the basilar membrane. The organ of Corti has special “hair cells” that rise to terminate in (or near) the tectorial membrane. There are approximately 30,000 hair cells in the cochlea (Whitehead, 2006). As the fluid wave causes vibration of the scala media, the motion of the hair cells leads to stimulation of nerve cells at the base of each hair cell. There are approximately 30,000 neurons (nerve cells) that connect these hair cells to the brain (Calhoun, 2001, p. 1631). This neural signal is communicated along the cochlear division of the vestibulocochlear nerve to the brain, where further processing takes place.

As the stapes moves inward and outward in the oval window (like a piston), a wave is created in the fluids of the inner ear (the perilymph and endolymph). This wave travels from the base of the cochlea to the apex. The wave ultimately leads to hair cell motion in the organ of Corti. The mechanical properties of the basilar membrane determine the distance that the wave travels toward the apex of the cochlea. The traveling wave activity for high-frequency sounds is more pronounced at the base of the cochlea, whereas wave activity at the apex of the cochlea is more pronounced with low-frequency sounds.

Thus, the cochlea is said to be tonontopically organized, i.e., because high frequency sounds correspond with the mechanical movement of the basilar membrane at the base of the cochlea and low frequency sounds are associated with movement of the basilar membrane at the apex of the cochlea (Templer, et al., 1987, p. 14). The cochlea also performs place analysis because of the spatial representation of frequency information (p. 14). Additionally, the traveling wave results in frequency information which is encoded by the rate of neuron (nerve cell) firing. Individual nerve cells may fire at rates up to (and beyond) 1000 times per second (p. 14). It is interesting to note that when single fibers of the cochlear nerve are studied, each neuron is specifically tuned to be activated with a low threshold at a characteristic frequency. Once again, the characteristic frequency of a nerve fiber is determined by the place of attachment to the cochlea, i.e, the low frequency fibers terminate in the apex of the cochlea while the high frequency fibers terminate in the base of the cochlea (p. 15). As one author has observed: “[T]he ear has the capability to encode acoustic signals on an array of neurons that carry frequency specific information. The resolving power of the cochlea enables extraordinary discrimination among complex signals” (p. 15, emp. added).

Note how the ear converts sound wave energy into mechanical energy as sound travels through theEAC, contacts the TM, and sets the ossicles in motion. Mechanical energy is then converted into hydraulic energy when the stapes creates a fluid wave in the cochlea. Finally, the hydraulic energy is converted intoelectrical (neural) energy with movement of the hair cells in the cochlea. Ultimately, this neural energy is transmitted along the vestibulocochlear nerve and interpreted by the brain as sound. Such sophistication and complexity simply could not have evolved.

VESTIBULAR SYSTEM

As noted earlier, the vestibular system is also contained within the internal ear. The vestibular system includes the semicircular canals, which detect rotational acceleration and play a large role in maintaining balance (Pasha, 2006, p. 302). Also within the vestibular system are the utricle and saccule (see Figure 6), which detect linear acceleration and changes in gravity, and therefore also play a significant role in maintaining balance (p. 303). Disruptions in the function of the vestibular system can lead to debilitating symptoms of vertigo, imbalance, nausea, and vomiting.

Figure 6

CENTRAL AUDITORY SYSTEM

The information collected in the cochlea and vestibule is then transmitted to the brain in the form of electrical signals (via the eighth cranial nerve, also known as the vestibulocochlear nerve). This nerve passes through the internal auditory canal, and the cochlear division of the nerve proceeds to an area in the brain known as the cochlear nucleus. The vestibular portion of the nerve travels to the vestibular nuclei.

Review of the pathways that the electrical signals navigate in the brain is beyond the scope of this article. The continued complexity of the signal transduction and processing in the brain is a separate study that further illustrates the amazing design in the hearing mechanism. The brain processes and interprets the information from the cochlear nerve, enabling us to understand speech, enjoy the relaxing sound of the waves on the seashore, or recognize warning signals such as a siren or fire alarm. The brain interprets the information that is transmitted via the vestibular nerve, allowing the body to maintain balance. As long as the vestibular system is free of any pathological condition, our body’s inner ear recognizes rotational and linear acceleration as well as the effects of gravity and processes this information in a seamless manner, allowing us to move about without giving a thought to balance. Truly,

[t]he human ear is a rather wondrous instrument. It is composed of tens of thousands of component parts, can work quite flawlessly from well before we are born to more than a century of age, and is capable of performing extremely sophisticated auditory tasks. And, it works 24 hours a day! (Whitehead, 2006).

CONCLUSION

This brief examination of the marvelous mechanism of hearing should lead to a greater appreciation for our Creator as well as His creation, and serve as a reminder that our spiritual “ears” must be attuned to hearing the Lord’s teaching and instruction (Matthew 11:15; 13:9,43). Of course, those who are physically deaf can still “hear” the Lord by reading and understanding the inspired Scriptures. In Proverbs 18:15, the author writes: “The heart of the prudent acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” Jesus made it clear that if we suffer from spiritual hearing loss, we will be unable to enjoy the blessings that are found in Him: “For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed...lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them” (Matthew 13:15, emp. added). Jesus went on to say: “But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it” (Matthew 13:16-17).

The apostle Paul also discussed the topic of hearing. He warned Timothy of individuals who desire to hear false doctrine rather than the sound teaching of our Lord and Savior: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4). We must attune our ears to listen intently to God’s Word alone and not be turned aside to the teachings or creeds of man. In doing so, we have the reassurance that we can overcome and partake of the tree of life: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God” (Revelation 2:7).

Certainly, the wonderful structure, function, and complexity of the human ear is evidence of the Mighty Creator, the Designer not only of the ear, but the heavens and the Earth as well (“God, who made the world and everything in it...,” Acts 17:24). David certainly appreciated God’s design of the human body when he declared: “I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). Indeed, “[i]f we had no other piece of evidence in the Universe to study, the human ear would be sufficient proof of the existence of the Creator” (Miller, 2006, 12:91).

While it is interesting to learn of the intricate detail and divine design used in creating the human ear, infinitely more wonderful is the knowledge (through the Scriptures) that the Creator’s ear is open to the petitions of His children: “For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are open to their prayers; but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil” (1 Peter 3:12). May we stand in awe of the matchless Creator, the Redeemer of mankind, and listen to His inspired Word, knowing that His ears are open to our prayers if we walk according to His will.

REFERENCES

Bailey, Byron, et al. (2001), Head & Neck Surgery—Otolaryngology (Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins).

Lee, K.J. (2003), Essential Otolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery (New York: McGraw-Hill).

Miller, Dave (2006), “Listen For Design,” Discovery, 12:91, December.

Pasha, Raza (2006), Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Clinical Reference Guide (San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing).

Templer, Jerry, et al. (1987), Otolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery: Principles & Concepts (St. Louis, MO: Ishiyaku EuroAmerica).

Whitehead, Gordon (2006), “A Brief Journey Through the Ear,” [On-line], URL: http://www.digital-recordings.com/audiocd/journey.html#eighth.