christopher de la Torre

Over the weekend, a friend passed through a TIMESONLINE UK article by Steven Swinford entitled, “I’ve found God, says man who cracked the genome.” He told me he thought I might like the article because it paralleled thoughts I had expressed to him before. We’ve had numerous discussions regarding evolution, religion, Intelligent Design (ID), creation and the like, and this latest piece expands that dialogue, oh, about a few million base pairs. Keep reading.

The article, dating back to 2006, still finds a heated debate at its epicenter — how did all of these “miraculous” natural designs around us get here? By chance? Or intelligence?

Sure, ID might seem like creationists are selling out. But as master scientist Francis Collins might suggest, the evolution of our species has been too calculated — too precise, if you will — to be the product of mere chance. (“Primordial ooze” and all that.)

I remember my fascination with science as a child. That’s probably why my parents were led to believe I would eventually make a career out of it. And for a while I had. Working in genetic (more specifically genomic) science led me to the realization that nature’s mechanisms are, indeed, far too intricate to be the backlash of millions of molecules meeting at town hall; there’s more to it than that. Even with the cracking of the genome, a 3 billion-letter “instruction book” as Collins calls it, we can’t hope to come close to breaking the surface of understanding the intricacies of the natural universe. We may have evolved from the cave man, but look around; famine and war still plague our planet. The glass ceiling of evolution is far off, to say the least.

That’s why I disagree with Collins when he “argues that man will not evolve further,” as Swinford writes. Collins believes in theistic evolution, a belief that marries classical creationism (God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th), with biological evolution (Darwin). I argue that it is not likely the two are compatible. Collins:

“One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war….I don’t see that as necessary at all and I think it is deeply disappointing that the shrill voices that occupy the extremes of this spectrum have dominated the stage for the past 20 years.”

I tend to agree with Collins that these “shrill” voices have dominated critical debate for some time. But 20 years? The clash between religion and science goes back to the Enlightenment and before. I would argue that the problem stems not from the difference between connotations of “religion” and “science.” Rather, it lies between the discord between science and spirituality.

We’ve lost a connection with nature, and in so doing we’ve lost a connection with ourselves. I remember the first time I extracted DNA. Accessioned blood samples had to be processed within 24 hours or they would lose stability — “go bad.” Pipettes, lab coats, glass hoods and beakers. It was all a grand practice, yet very routine at the time. The real magic — my “spiritual experience” — came from actually seeing (with my own eyes) the product of my labor: strands of DNA swimming around in a clear cocktail. It was then that I realized we know nothing of our lives. That was my experience with “God.”

In the article, Swinford quotes Isaac Newton, the man who discovered the laws of gravity, as saying, “This most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”

What disturbs me about Collins’ approach is that he seems to sag in a mire of God-centric views, which in my opinion, lowers the glass ceiling of his own personal evolution a great deal. That’s the problem — the flipside of the coin, if you will. We humans are so desperate to find meaning in life, we often look for a quick fix, often at the expense of good old-fashioned pragmatism.

The scientist who led the Human Genome Project’s discoveries back at the turn of the century has no problem subscribing to a set of beliefs that were narrated thousands of years ago when men slave traded freely, subjugated women, and destroyed clay pots that had been “tainted” with the juices of pig meat and such (enter Jewish dietary laws). We’ve evolved considerably since then. Or have we?

The fact that we still rely so heavily on biblical teaching today proves that we haven’t evolved so much after all. Well, most of us haven’t. But isn’t that the beauty of natural selection? The seamless separation of the wheat from the chaff? A select group finds a way to adapt more efficiently, and thus survives the firestorm of elements that threaten the rest of the population? One thing is certain: evolution and natural selection are not for dummies.

My point is this: God, God, God, God, God (no disrespect intended). Make no mistake. What we view as “God” is not necessarily the creator. We have no way of knowing who or what our creator is, at least not yet. As a scientist, Collins should be fully aware of his responsibility to avoid making claims based on non-reproducible theory. But I also believe that, in this case, the ends justifies the means. If it took a shocking moment of clarity on a mountaintop for Collins to think about God and act accordingly to bring about the translation and discovery of the human genome, then so be it.

It seems we may have more say in our own evolution than we realize.

: : : : : : : : : : :