Also in the series:
After the popularity of my interview with the professor of biology, I thought I would do a follow-up interview with another professional.
My friend Steve has 14 years of experience in academic research and 11 years experience in industry as a molecular and cell biologist. He is actively working on two projects involving cancer research. He is part of a team studying a peculiar enzyme that "deals with a very odd DNA and RNA structure and is made by the boatloads in cancer cells".
I am doing this interview through email rather than over the phone. Steve is extremely busy, so I will post Steve's responses as we go along. You will have the benefit of seeing his own words instead of my transcript of a conversation.
Me: "Do you think God relied solely on naturalistic mechanisms (i.e. no miracles) to create all life forms including man?"
Steve's response:
To start, it might help for me to clarify my position from the outset. Jeff, you and I are friends, who at one point attended the same church. Though we have respectfully disagreed with one another on certain questions, I think that we mostly agree on fundamental issues.
I am a believer in reformed Christianity, but I am not a Creationist (capital-C, this probably where we agree), which is a philosophy associated with a very specific, Biblically-literal, understanding of what happened at the beginning of the universe, the earth, life, and specifically humans. Rather, I am a creationist- who believes in a personal God/Creator who made the natural processes that we see as nature. This God is also One who is greatly concerned with this creation, particularly humans, and intervenes at Will in both natural and supernatural ways.
I will also say that I am not a strict adherent to Intelligent Design, inasmuch as that philosophy constrains one to believe that supernatural intervention is required to explain the origins of species and the advent of the human genome (after, that is, the initial creation was finished).
If one believes in a personal God, then logically, Humanity must have a supernatural component- the soul which communes with God. I believe in intelligent design of the processes which we observe in nature, and evolution as the result of what happened (the effect, not necessarily the cause-- more on that later). However, even from a naturalistic point of view, the beginning (creation) of matter/energy is a "miracle" because it violates current natural laws.
What I am trying to say is that, if one believes in God- as many scientists do, by the way- then one has to accept that there is some supernatural intersection between God and man. But honestly, beyond what I have just mentioned, I just cannot know exactly what/where that is and just how God built the species and how evolution occurred. Yes, Darwinian gradualism is wholly insufficient to explain what we observe in the genetic and archaeological "records", but that in itself does not prove that some (as yet not fully understood) natural processes are not responsible. Neither, however, has the atheistic naturalist proven his case for origins.
So to rephrase your question, did God use natural or non-naturalistic mechanisms to create man? My answer is “Yes.” Not because I am trying to waffle, but because I am comfortable in my faith and in my scientific career with not knowing everything- sometimes one just has to live with a certain amount of mystery. When creation was finished, it was fully potent to achieve the Will of its Creator… and that is both natural and supernatural. I trust God with the information that has been withheld from me and look forward to the endless exciting discoveries to be had in a career studying God’s nature.
My next question to Steve is "Do you think the advancement of knowledge in genetics and molecular biology over the past thirty years has strengthened the case for naturalistic evolution, or weakened it?"
Technorati Tags:
Evolution, Intelligent Design, Origins
Even though I disagree with him on some key points, I already like this guy a lot better than I liked the last guy. :) Can't wait to see the follow-ups.
Posted by: tgirsch | November 04, 2005 at 17:23
This is really interesting stuff. I've been following some similar comments on the American Scientific Affiliation e-mail list. It seems that most of the folks on the ASA list are theistic evolution folks, who are largely skeptical of ID, although some are sympathetic to it and other ASA members include top ID people. It's helpful to get their prespectives and to observe Christians who are professional scientists work through these issues.
Posted by: dopderbeck | November 06, 2005 at 21:05
I think I like your buddy Steve. I have heard way too many arguments between "Creation" and "Evolution" (with caps) where neither side seems to have the foggiest idea of what they are talking about. The one thing both sides seem to have in common is the need to eliminate any mystery in how things came to be.
Maybe it's just me, but I have never seen a big problem between organic evolution by drift and natural selection and orthodox Christian belief. "Random chance" is just the name we give to how collections of matter and energy behave in space and time; "random" is not the same as "unintentional" or "purposeless." The movement of gases through a wide tube is largely a matter of the random motion of molecules in response to a pressure gradient. The purpose only becomes apparent when you see the lung.
Posted by: The Waffling Anglican | November 07, 2005 at 15:45
T,
Steve is a good guy. I suspect you would like the biology prof too. Knowing you both, I can confidently say ya'll would get along marvelously.
David,
I agree. It is helpful to see the folks on the front lines process things. I hope to do a series on theistic evo someday.
Waffler,
re: "Maybe it's just me, but I have never seen a big problem between organic evolution by drift and natural selection and orthodox Christian belief."
The biggest stumbling block to reconciling organic evo with Christianity has always been the exegetical one. You have to take an unorthodox reading of Hebrew scriptures to work evo into the Bible - especially as it relates to man.
It is also somewhat difficult to reconcile the Imago Dei doctrine of Gen 1:28 (image of God) if man is not really all that different from yeast.
Now, invoking drift in the case of random variations of genetic structures, like in the case of the avian flu virus, is not very troubling to classic Christian teaching. In that sense I agree.
Posted by: Dawn Treader | November 08, 2005 at 08:19
Jeff:
As I have commented elsewhere, there are many Biblical scholars who take the "image of God" not to mean physical appearance, but rather ability to control destiny. That is, man, like God, has free will.
(Also, to pick a nit, shouldn't it be Gen 1:27?)
Gen 1 is the source of much dispute in other areas as well. What is meant by "subdue," and "have dominion over?" In the latter case, "rule" is the most common contemporary translation, although I've seen it argued that "take care of" is a more accurate translation. But I digress. :)
Posted by: tgirsch | November 08, 2005 at 15:43
re: "Also, to pick a nit, shouldn't it be Gen 1:27?"
Yes, it should. Thx.
re: "there are many Biblical scholars who take the "image of God" not to mean physical appearance,"
Like me, for instance. I don't think I look like a spirit and you probably don't either ;). The point is that man is singled-out as image bearers ... not animals, not plants.
re: "Gen 1 is the source of much dispute in other areas as well. "
No doubt this is true. But disputes alone are not a compelling reason to think that the classic orthodox hermenuetic used for Genesis for 4 millenia is flawed.
Posted by: Dawn Treader | November 08, 2005 at 16:21
Well, that brings us back to why something resembling naturalistic evolution is ruled out by Gen 1:27. As far as I'm aware, nothing in Genesis says that man was created ex nihilo. So why couldn't God have created man on the sixth "yom" from some pre-existing form?But disputes alone are not a compelling reason to think that the classic orthodox hermenuetic used for Genesis for 4 millenia is flawed.Nope, that's what our eyes and ears are for. :)
It brings us back to the old hypothetical questions of whether or not Adam and Eve had navels, or how many rings the largest tree in Eden would have had if you cut it down on day six.
Posted by: tgirsch | November 09, 2005 at 16:54
"So why couldn't God have created man on the sixth "yom" from some pre-existing form?"
He did. The form was called dirt. :)
"Nope, that's what our eyes and ears are for. :)"
... and our presuppositions about our eyes and ears and knowledge ;)
"It brings us back to the old hypothetical questions of whether or not Adam and Eve had navels, or how many rings the largest tree in Eden would have had if you cut it down on day six."
Of course they did not have belly buttons. How could they? God made them. They never needed umbilical cords.
And trees ... on yom six, they would have had one ring for each year of their development ;)
Posted by: Dawn Treader | November 09, 2005 at 17:22
Hope this conversation goes well. I think we've all seen evolution-believers who are convinced Bible/creation-believers are idiots, mental midgets, swept away in hysteria to the detriment of being able to think. I've wondered how many e-b's have really thought through their position. If this gets people to think, it will be greatly worthwhile.
Posted by: Bob | November 09, 2005 at 22:29