Institute for Christian
Teaching
THE
BIBLE AND BIOLOGY
Leonard Brand
Professor of Biology and
Paleontology
Loma Linda University
406-00 Institute for
Christian Teaching
12501 Old Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904 USA
Symposium on the Bible and
Adventist Scholarship
Juan Dilio, Dominican
Republic
March 19-26, 2000
In an essay entitled The Bible and Science, an approach to the relation of science and faith was presented. That essay included a method for dealing with areas in which scientific conclusions and the Bible seem to be in conflict. When scientific interpretations do no agree with a list of "biblical anchor points" or statements of biblical conclusions about biological origins, this conflict can stimulate a more careful study of both the scientific data and the Bible. If we understand the method correctly, Scripture can be maintained as the authoritative standard for our religious beliefs, while science and the Bible shed light on each other. Since both nature and Scripture originated with God, they will ultimately be in harmony, but because of our limited understanding, we sometimes must live with unanswered questions as we search for truth.
Examples of using biblical premises to suggest useful research
The method for relating science and faith, suggested
above, can be put to practical use in research. The list of biblical anchor points cannot be directly tested by
science, but those biblical concepts can suggest hypotheses that are testable
by the methods of science. This method
applies equally to other science fields, and perhaps even more examples can be
given in subjects like paleontology and geology, but in this essay I will only
be discussing biology.
We will begin by dividing biology into two general areas - 1) the study of biological processes that can be observed today, and 2) the study of biological history. The first category, on-going processes, can be experimentally studied and most hypotheses can be rigorously tested. In this category our religious beliefs will contribute little to our scientific research. There could be exceptions in nutrition, since the original diet in Eden can suggest ideas about diet today, and the Bible also suggests that the peace resulting from trust in God can benefit our health (McMillen 1984). It is difficult to find much else in Scripture that directly interacts with fields like physiology, histology, much of biochemistry, or microbiology. One general implication resulting from acceptance of biblical creationism is that we will understand biology best if we interpret it based on study of modern processes, and not on unprovable speculations about deep evolutionary history.
The most prominent interaction between faith and science is likely to be in the second category, the history of life. I enjoy studying how my car works - what are the processes, which make the engine, transmission, brakes, etc. work. I can understand those processes without knowing anything about the origin of the car or knowing the processes used by engineers to design it so its parts work so well together. Only when I ask questions about the car's origin do I need to deal with the issue of design and designers, and in biology it is primarily when we ask questions about origins that we must decide what to do with the philosophy of naturalism, and with the relation between science and faith.
In genetics there are many implications that can be
derived from a biblical position.
Evolution theory has proposed mechanisms for evolution processes, but
Genesis indicates that there are limits to how much change these processes have
produced. Examination of the scientific
literature indicates that there is abundant evidence supporting microevolution
and speciation, but a lack of genetic evidence for a process that can result in
significant macroevolution - the origin of new body plans or new structures or
organs. Biological research contributes
to our understanding of microevolutionary processes and events, and applying a
biblical creationist philosophy can suggest testable questions about how much
evolution has occurred and about changes that have resulted since the entrance
of sin. A biblical viewpoint integrated
with biological knowledge can help us understand how mutation and natural
selection have replaced the harmonious original creation with the vicious,
competitive side of nature, a natural result of the reign of natural selection
(Brand 1997, ch. 12). There are many
lines of research that can be done to explore the implications of these concepts. An integration of Scripture and biology can
also help explain why truly altruistic behavior is rare in the animal world,
and perhaps even help a little in understanding why it is not more common in
human behavior, and why we are dependent on God's sanctifying power to change
our hearts.
There is currently an active movement among creationists called the design movement. We all recognize the evidence for design in nature, and for centuries these have been argued as evidence for the existence of a Creator. Since Darwin's day science has claimed that nature is not the result of design at all, but mutation and natural selection result in adaptations that only look like design. However, in spite of the persistent claims of convinced believers in naturalism (Dawkins 1986, 1997, 1998), most people do not believe that nature, unaided by intelligent intervention, could produce life from non-living material or produce the fantastic complexity of design revealed by study of molecular biology or of physiological or anatomical adaptations of animals and plants. When we see design we can usually recognize it, but the problem is how to make the design argument scientifically rigorous. This task has been tackled by Michael Dembski (1999) and his colleagues in the design movement.
Dembski has developed a scheme for objectively
determining if an event or some structure in nature cannot be explained by
natural law (even if the natural laws are God-created), but requires direct
involvement of intelligent design.
Dembski calls this the explanatory filter (Fig. 1).
To apply the filter in our study of some biological
feature, the feature must pass three different criteria before it will qualify
as the result of design. The first
criterion is "contingency", which is to say that there must be the
possibility that the feature could exist in some condition other than the one
that it is in. For example, the amino
acids in a protein could be arranged in any one of many different sequences -
the laws of nature do not specify the order of amino acids in any protein, so
if left to chance the 20 amino acids can link together in almost any random
sequence. Thus a protein could have
different sets of amino acids, and so it passes the test of contingency. However, if there is some molecule that can
only exist in one state, then it would not pass the test of contingency, since
the normally operating laws of nature control the structure of that molecule
and the special action of a designer is not needed.
The next criterion
is "complexity", or in other words is the feature complex
enough to warrant invoking design. One
concern about the explanatory filter is whether it will produce false positive
decisions - deciding that design is required when it really isn't; the feature
could be explained by chance. The test
of complexity is designed to answer this concern, and make the method
quantitatively rigorous. Comparison of
two examples will illustrate how the explanatory filter deals with this
problem. A few years ago a meteor crash
landed into Jupiter. This happened 25
years to the day after Apollo 11 landed on the moon. Would their filter require this unique timing to be explained by
design? This can be easily
calculated. If we assume that the
meteor could have landed on any day within the year, and if it landed on the
correct day and even in the same second that Apollo 11 landed, the number of
seconds in a year can be determined, and the probability of the meteor landing
in the correct second is 1 x 10-8 . But to insure that the explanatory filter eliminates false
positive decisions, they require that the feature in question have a
probability of less than 1 x 10-150. As you can see, the meteor landing doesn't even come close to
requiring design (Dembski 1999). This
is one of the strong approaches of this method - it puts real numbers on the
design argument, and requires a high standard for accepting design as an
explanation.
The timing of the meteor was curious, but not
unreasonable to explain without design.
Now contrast that to exploring some desolate place and finding a 20 page
booklet on astronomy. The probability
of the letters and words in the book becoming arranged without intelligent
input can be calculated, and they would clearly fall into the category
requiring design, as long as the next criterion is met.
The final criterion is "specification",
which means that the characteristics of the feature in question fits some
previously known pattern, rather than being random. For example the set of letters "God loves you" spell
three words with known meaning and also fit together as a phrase with known
meaning, and thus pass the test of specification, whereas the set
"egigkaeac eieisxz ikmnh" fit no known pattern, and do not pass the
test of specification - there is no reason to invoke design, because there does
not seem to be any design or meaning involved - an untrained monkey could have
typed those letters. If the feature in
question meets all three of these criteria, then according to the explanatory
filter the feature contains sufficient evidence to indicate that it was the
result of design. (note that some
things in nature that do not pass the test of the explanatory filter may still
represent the action of natural laws which are so precisely tuned as to
convince us that the laws themselves were designed. The explanatory filter does not address the question at that
level, but asks if a feature requires the special action of a designer, beyond
what natural law can explain)
A couple of specific examples will provide additional
clarification of the "complexity" and "specification"
criteria. Figure 2 shows pages from
dictionaries in two languages. Below
these are several sets of letters, which can be compared with the dictionaries
to determine which ones fit a "specified" pattern and which do
not. The figure also shows several
sequences of amino acids from proteins.
We do not yet have a dictionary of proteins, but if a protein in an
organism works - does the biochemical task that it is supposed to do, then it
can be considered "specified".
Figure 3 shows rocks on a hillside. If you look carefully at the pattern in A it
is possible to recognize the word "rocks". In B the word "rocks" is unmistakable. The probabilities of each of these
arrangements could be calculated, and the probability that B occurred by chance
would be far smaller than it would be for A.
If you saw the sentence in C, "these are rocks" on a hillside,
would you have any question whether this occurred by chance or by design? The explanatory filter subjects this
intuitive recognition of design to an objective, quantitative evaluation.
However, there is another issue to consider when we
are evaluating biological systems. We
know how humans arrange rocks, and we don't know of any natural process that
will arrange rocks into letters, so even the most hard-headed skeptic will
accept the rock sentence as resulting from design. On the other hand, many scientists believe there is a mechanism
to produce biological order without a designer - mutation and natural
selection. The question is - do we
really have evidence that this mechanism can produce life, or can produce new
body plans, new organs, and new complexes of genes to specify the structure of
these new features?
One answer that is given to this question is that the
fossil record shows a sequence of appearance of organisms that is predicted by
evolution theory - there are only invertebrates at the bottom of the Cambrian,
and then fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds appear in that order,
just as predicted and thus verifying the macroevolutionary origin of life
forms. But this answer is not adequate
to eliminate the alternate explanation - design. The fossil sequence correlates with other things besides the
prediction of evolution - it also correlates with increasing terrestriality of
animals, increasing intelligence, increasing adaptability, etc. These factors could determine the order in
which the vertebrates were affected and overcome by, for example, a geological
catastrophe. In addition, there is
always the possibility that the Creator interacted with nature in some other
way that produced this sequence. The
point is that there could be another explanation for the fossil sequence, so the
fossils in themselves cannot demonstrate whether mutation and natural selection
can result in evolution of genuine biological novelties. Some other evidence is needed to answer this
question - preferably genetic evidence.
Evaluation of two of the best evolution textbooks
provides one line of evidence (Fig.
4). In both of these
well-respected books, we see that there is abundant evidence supporting the
reality of microevolution and speciation.
However, when they get to questions of macroevolution - evolution of
higher categories of organisms, which would involve new structures and new
genes - they turn from genetics to analysis of the fossil record. The only real biological evidence that
either text gives in support of evolution of biological novelties are
variations in genes of the globin gene family and the chicken ovomucoid,
protease family. These are actually
just evidence for variation in existing types of proteins, and don't provide
any evidence that mutation and natural selection could ever produce a
completely new protein. It appears that
there is no convincing evidence for a genetic process that can evolve new
structures or gene complexes. This
topic can benefit by vigorous research efforts designed to test the prediction
that random mutations and natural selection in duplicate copies of genes will
produce variations on a random pattern, but will not produce new gene complexes
and new organ systems.
Michael Behe (1996) has developed a line of research
that addresses the question of whether evolution can produce novel structures, above
the level of individual proteins. His
reasoning is somewhat similar to the explanatory filter. Charles Darwin stated in his book Origin
of Species that if any biological structure was found that could not be
built up step by step, his theory would break down. Behe uses a mousetrap to illustrate the concept. A mouse trap is composed of five parts, and
if any one of these is missing or nonfunctional, the mousetrap will not
work. All five parts must be fully
formed and assembled properly or the local mice are very safe. If a part is missing it does not make the
trap less efficient, the trap will not work.
Behe refers to this phenomenon as irreducible complexity - a number of
parts must be present all at once before a structure will function at all. He looked for biochemical systems in
organisms that seem to exhibit irreducible complexity, and found several. This seems to indicate that mutation and
natural selection are not able to construct some biological systems step by
step, but a designer is required to put it all together at once. His critics have argued that Behe is just
not creative enough to figure out a way to evolve those structures step by
step. This criticism loses its force
when we realize that those who believe in the unlimited power of
evolution have also not devised any theories for the evolution of those
irreducibly complex biological systems.
In reality, Behe and his irreducibly complex systems
are just like other science research programs.
They illustrate how a theory (the theory that life is the result of
design) suggests a productive line of research (irreducible complexity), but
the initial results of that research do not once and for all disprove
evolution. Behe's results have
presented a challenge to those who disagree with him, and now we will wait to
see if they can answer his challenge with valid and convincing scientific
data. Meanwhile Behe and others can
pursue this productive line of biochemical research, rigorously testing the
concept of irreducible complexity. In
doing so, however, they will avoid a lot of frustration if they are aware that
there is often more than one way to interpret data (especially when dealing
with questions about history), and it will probably be difficult to find a
"silver bullet" that once and for all proves that creation did or
didn't happen. A more realistic goal is
to show that it is still possible for intelligent, reasonable people to believe
in creation, and thus open up the realistic possibility of faith in the Creator
to more people.
Answering our questions about origins and finding data
to support Scripture is not the only reason for pursuing research in subjects
such as those mentioned above, and in other areas of science. If we are active in doing quality research,
attending scientific meetings and presenting papers, publishing in scientific
journals, and become personally acquainted with the scientists in our field,
this is probably the best way for them to see that our religion is consistent
with good science. This breaks down
prejudice against creationism and opens minds that might not be opened without
this personal contact.
Conclusion
We understand the intelligent design implied by the
words of a book, or by the intricate structure of a computer, so why is there
such reluctance to see design in proteins or in larger biological systems like
those studied by Behe? The reluctance
results from the absolute dominance of the philosophy of naturalism in the
thinking of many scientists. If the
stranglehold of naturalism can be weakened enough for open discussion of the
philosophical issues, the resulting open-minded discussion of design vs. chance
will be very beneficial to science.
There is a great need of this openness in science. If life was created, isn't it better for science
to know this rather than to pretend it isn't so? Science should be an open-ended search for truth, rather than a
closed system that will not consider certain ideas. This more open approach must, of course, take seriously the
cautions and safeguards discussed in this essay and the earlier essay on the
Bible and science.
There is not a "creationist" research
method. Creationism does not propose a
new research methodology, but it does the following: 1) rejects the unproven
assumption of naturalism, and suggests a whole new set of research questions
that can be asked, 2) opens our eyes to see things that others are less likely
to notice, and 3) produces more effective scientific progress, because science
that builds on a more correct theory will be more successful.
I predict that in the long run science that follows
this approach will be more successful than naturalism. Examples of questions suggested by a
creationist paradigm are:
1.
How much biological
change has occurred? What have been the
limits of evolutionary change?
2.
What were the original
created groups? Is there molecular
evidence that can indicate which groups have never been genetically linked?
3.
What have been the
phylogenetic pathways of adaptational change occurring within created groups?
4.
To what extent does
natural selection only slow down the destructiveness of random mutations,
rather than create new adaptations?
5.
What molecular systems
meet the criteria for irreducible complexity?
If we knock out the genes for one part of those systems at a time, can
they still function?
6.
What is the true
explanation for features that have been interpreted as evolutionary
vestiges? For example, creationism may
predict that much of what has been interpreted as "junk DNA" actually
has a function.
7.
What are the correct
explanations for biogeographical patterns - the distribution of animals and
plants? What parts of these patterns
resulted from animal movements after the global flood, and which
biogeographical patterns resulted from animal adaptations to new environments,
within created groups after they repopulated the earth?
8.
Sociobiology theory
(evolution theory applied to study of animal and human behavior) has stimulated
much interesting research. However,
there is need of reinterpretations of the data in view of the biblical insight
that life began as a perfect creation and has declined, instead of the reverse
(see Brand 1997, ch 11).
In large areas of research (embryology, hox genes
etc., genetics of biological change, parts of animal behavior and ecology), the
research might not be much different, but a design explanation may suggest very
different explanations for the data, and can yield more meaningful insights
into biological patterns and functions, especially in study of the history of
life.
In other large areas of biological research on ongoing
processes that can be observed today (physiology, biochemistry, molecular
biology, anatomy, parts of animal behavior and ecology) the researcher's
philosophy will have little influence on their interpretations, unless they try
to explain the origin of biological structures and functions. A creationist will be spared much wasted
effort trying to explain how basic structures and functions evolved.
A creationist philosophy predicts that some areas of
research will not be productive, and are a waste of time. A prime example is abiogenesis (molecular
evolution of life from non-living material).
Another example would be study of the evolution of major groups (classes
and phyla, e.g.) of organisms.
When we study biology from a biblical world view, it
opens before us the wonders of the complex biological world that God has
created. The more I learn of the
awesome wonders of molecular biology, while recognizing that the Inventor of
all this has a personal interest in each one of us, I see Him in a new and more
reverent light. Non-theistic scientists
also experience awe and wonder as they contemplate the amazing facts of
biology, but they credit the origin of all this to mindless natural processes,
unaware of what they are missing by that interpretation. "The poet and the naturalist have many
things to say about nature, but it is the Christian who enjoys the beauty of
the earth with the highest appreciation, because he recognizes his Father's
handiwork and perceives His love in flower and shrub and tree. No one can fully appreciate the significance
of hill and vale, river and sea, who does not look upon them as an expression
of God's love to man". SC 87
Study of biology can also answer specific questions
about origins and support our faith in Scripture. Study of molecular biology in the last few decades has revealed
intricate mechanisms within each cell of living things that would seem like
science fiction if it weren't for the evidence showing the reality of these
intracellular mechanisms. The more we
learn of the complexity of life the more it points to a Designer - an Inventor
of life. Surprising as it may seem,
data from the field of evolution also helps in supporting our faith. The accumulating data indicate that
biological change does happen within groups of organisms, and in recent years
there is more evidence that helps us to understand how these changes could
happen within a biblical time frame (Brand 1997), but genetic evidence does not
support the concept of the evolution of new animal body plans.
We are entering a new era in molecular biology, with
the sequencing of the genomes of many types of organisms. This gives access to fantastic new lines of
evidence that offer possibilities for evaluating theories of evolutionary
history. Perhaps these data will help
clarify the nature and limits of biological change. They also may introduce new challenges for the creationist,
especially since most scientists will automatically interpret the data from within
naturalistic assumptions. These will be
opportunities to seek alternative interpretations for the data.
Since science textbooks are almost all written from
within a naturalistic philosophy, Christian teachers and students have to learn
how to recognize the difference between data and interpretation, because in
science books they generally are intermixed together with no explanation of
where data end and interpretations begin.
For example, in a textbook that I teach from, the statement is made that
the mammalian cerebral hemispheres "were ultimately derived from a part of
the brain important in 'lower' vertebrates in receiving and relaying olfactory
stimuli." . . . and the neopallium "first appeared as a small area in
the front part of the cerebral hemispheres in reptiles, which in mammals has
expanded over the surface of the deeper, 'primitive' vertebrate
brain." This reads like
established fact, when in reality the data indicate only that 1) a reptile brain
has a very small cerebrum at the back of the brain, and 2) mammal cerebrum is a
large structure that covers the top of the rest of the brain. The claim that the mammal cerebrum evolved
from the reptile brain is strictly an assumption based on the belief that
mammals evolved from reptiles.
It is common to see statements that a certain group of
animals "developed" or "discovered" their unique structural
adaptations, or that a system like e.g., birds' unique type of lungs or whales
nostrils high on their foreheads
"evolved" to adapt them to a particular life style or
environment. In reality there is no
data showing that these features evolved, but it is an interpretation
unsupported by data. To a student who
is not familiar with the evidence, or with the philosophical basis behind this
type of statement it can sound like science has firmly established that these
evolutionary changes have occurred. To
a person who has accepted the assumption that all life arose by evolution it is
logical to describe animal adaptations as the result of evolution, but those
statements are typically statements of belief, not of scientific fact. It may be stated that when bats appear in
the fossil record in the Eocene they had already evolved their adaptations for
flight. What the data show is that the
oldest bat fossils, in Eocene rocks, are virtually identical to living bats,
with no indication of any process of evolution from some other kind of mammal.
Science has chosen to adopt a philosophy based on naturalism, and it
works within the rules of this philosophy (no hypotheses implying any
supernatural events in history are acceptable). It could be argued that whether we agree with that or not, it is
better to work within the accepted rules of science and not try to "fight
the system". Certainly that will
be the easy way, and will allow us to fit in with our scientific colleagues
without conflict. However, the problem
with that approach is that it forbids us, if we are going to be accepted as
scientists, to consider the possibility that life was created by an intelligent
Designer. Is our goal to take the easy
road to scientific acceptability, or to seek truth? Should the goal of science be to just apply an arbitrary set of
rules, even if they are false, or should it be an open-minded, open-ended
search for truth? Even though science
cannot directly test hypotheses about miracles, there are many testable
hypotheses, like irreducible complexity, that can result from an open-minded
attitude towards the existence of a Designer, and such research can improve our
understanding of nature and bring glory to God. Almost every major new insight in science has required someone to
challenge scientific orthodoxy, but think where science would be if Copernicus,
Harvey, Galileo, Einstein, and many others had taken the easy way out?
Literature Cited
Behe, M. J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: The Free Press.
Brand, L. R.
1997. Faiths, Reason, and Earth History. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.
Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker.
New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
____. 1997.
Climbing Mount Improbable. W. W.
Norton & Company.
____. 1998.
Unweaving the Rainbow. New York,
NY: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Dembski, W. A.
1999. Intelligent Design: The
Bridge Between Science and Theology.
Downer's Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press.
McMillen, S. I.
1984. None of These Diseases. Revised ed.
Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell.
General references useful for this topic
Books:
Behe, M. J.
1996. Darwin's Black Box: The
Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.
New York: The Free Press.
Brand, L. R.
1997. Faith, Reason, and
Earth History. Berrien Springs, MI:
Andrews University Press.
Dembski, W. A.
1999. Intelligent Design: The
Bridge Between Science and Theology.
Downer's Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press.
Denton, M.
1985. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler.
Giem, P. A. L. 1997.
Scientific Theology.
Riverside,CA: La Sierra University Press.
Johnson, P. E.
1991. Darwin on Trial. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
____.
1995. Reason in the Balance: the
Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education. Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
McMillen, S. I.
1984. None of These Diseases. Revised ed.
Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell.
Moreland, J. P.
1989. Christianity and the
Nature of Science. Grand Rapids,
MI.: Baker books.
____, ed.
1994. The Creation Hypothesis. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Roth, A. A.
1998. Origins, Linking
Science and Scripture. Silver
Spring, MD: Review & Herald Publishing Company.
Journals:
Origins. Published by
Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA
92350. Usually two issues per year,
1974 - present.
Origins and Design. Published by
Access Research Network, P. O. Box 38069, Colorado Springs, CO,
80937-8069. Published 2-4 times per
year.