Faith, science, and BioLogos

One of the regulars over at worldmagblog emailed me today about a website he thought I would find interesting, after I had mentioned my difficulty finding good materials to evaluate the conflicting claims of creationism and evolution. I had heard of Francis Collins before – mostly from posts at worldmagblog – but I knew little about him except that he is a highly respected scientist who is also a Christian, and who sees his faith and his science as compatible rather than contradictory.

He set up The BioLogos Foundation “to address the escalating culture war between science and faith in the United States.” Through a variety of resources, it “addresses the central themes of science and religion and emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with scientific discoveries about the origins of the universe and life.”

I’ve just started exploring the BioLogos website, but I certainly like what I see so far. There are answers to Frequently Asked Questions about faith and science, such as:

• What is the proper relationship between science and religion?
• Can scientific and scriptural truth be reconciled?
• Does thermodynamics disprove evolution?
• How are the ages of the Earth and universe calculated? How accurate are those figures?
• How does the Fall fit into evolutionary history? Were Adam and Eve historical figures?
• How should we interpret the Genesis flood account?

Some of the “Coming soon” questions are:

• Can evolution explain morality?
• How does the harshness of evolution align with the idea of a loving God?
• How can evolution account for the complexity of life on earth today?

There are also articles, discussion groups, resources for teachers, and more. If you have an interest in this area, it’s well worth checking out.

Would you want a glowing puppy?

When I posted yesterday about hobbyists who make glow-in-the-dark bacteria, it hadn’t occurred to me that serious researchers work at making larger animals glow. But today (actually tomorrow, but it’s posted already, perhaps in a time zone where it is tomorrow already) National Geographic has a series of photos of various animals that glow. Some glow naturally, but most have had fluorescent protein added. Of these, most glow green, but a couple glow red.

Aside from the novelty of it (can you imagine taking a glowing red dog for a walk? – though you’d have to find an ultraviolet lit place to walk in to get the effect), there are serious scientific reasons for it. Glowing organs, glowing neurons in the brain, glowing intestines – these help researchers to observe more clearly what is happening in the body. In healthy animals, they can observe normal patterns to better understand how the body works. In other cases, a disease is introduced and the glow helps track the progress of the disease.

In the case of the scorpions (which glow under ultraviolet light without any genetic modifications), fluorescence enables scientists to study them without disturbing them. It’s always good to study animals in their natural state – but I imagine in the case of scorpions it’s especially good, as no one wants to upset a scorpion unless the goal is to discover their sting-giving potential.

Fluorescent pet fish aren’t particularly useful (though apparently popular), but they did have the side benefit of forcing countries to develop laws to deal with the issues surrounding genetically modified pets. I wonder – what would it be like to have a glowing green puppy? The dog’s eyes glow green in the dark quite well without modification, and it is sometimes unnerving to wake up and see them glowing in the dark. It would make it easier to find her in the dark, I suppose, so I don’t trip over her (though I don’t think I really want to keep ultraviolet lights on in the bedroom). But waking up to see a glowing green body? – no, I think I’ll stick with the old-fashioned jet-black version.

Frankenstein in the basement?

I suppose it should have come as no great surprise to learn that biotechnology is no longer confined to well-funded, well-equipped research laboratories (also, one hopes, well regulated). In previous generations, people working in makeshift workshops acquired the know-how and materials to assemble working automobiles, radios, and computers. Any new technology is going to attract people who want to try it out, but for whatever reasons cannot or do not want to work in an established research center.

Still, I was surprised. When my husband worked as a research scientist in a molecular biology lab, he told me how extremely expensive the equipment was. For a pharmaceutical company, it was a worthwhile investment, but hardly the sort of thing a hobbyist could buy for a basement workroom. Of course, technology has been advancing at an incredible rate, and many of us have home computer networks that would have been the envy of corporate offices a couple decades ago.

These days, it seems, you can pick up used lab equipment on ebay, and synthetic DNA is also readily available. An article in today’s Wall Street Journal discusses the question of whether this widespread availability constitutes a national security concern. As is common with radically new technology, existing laws and regulations don’t even address the kinds of issues raised by these developments, let alone provide a means of monitoring or enforcement.

My mind immediately went to various thrillers I have read in the last few years in which biotechnology – and bioterrorism – feature prominently. Robert Ludlum’s The Hades Factor and its sequel, Robert Ludlum’s The Cassandra Compact, both deal with murder on a large scale using biological agents. It’s been longer since I read Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six, but I vaguely remember the twisted environmentalism of a group intent on saving the natural world from humanity’s predations by wiping out most of the world’s population (naturally they have a plan to exempt themselves from death by pandemic).

Books: Why Evolution Is True

Since I have not had any success in finding a book that presents the best arguments of both evolution and creationism side by side, without trying to convince the reader one way or the other, I finally decided I’d just have to work at assembling the information I wanted myself. Back in January, I read in the Wall Street Journalabout Jerry Coyne’s new book, Why Evolution is True. I checked for its availability through inter-library loan, and somewhat to my surprise a copy had already been purchased, and it was soon in my hands.

It has taken me over a monthto finish, reading usually just part of a chapter a night, but it’s been very interesting reading. The writing is clear and easy to understand, as it is written for the average person with no special training in biology. I’ve made notes for myself to refer back to later, so I can take a closer look at the creationist objections to Jerry Coyne’s arguments for evolution.

Simply reading the book, without any resources on hand to check what he says, I would say Coyne makes a convincing case. I assume that creationist objections would have to include asserting that Coyne misstates facts, leaves out evidence that would weaken his arguments, or otherwise misleads the reader to think that his cases is stronger than it is. The only obvious flaws in the book, in my mind, are in his dismissive attitude towards those who do not accept his views.

From the beginning, in the Preface and Introduction, Coyne makes it clear that he is out to show that evolution is, beyond any doubt, most definitely true. Since the title of the book indicates that right on the cover, I found his repetitions of this point annoying, especially as he had not yet gotten to the point of showing how or why it is true.

Since he is writing for those open to what he has to say (he states plainly that he knows he won’t convince someone who, for religious reasons, is certain that evolution is false), I’m not sure why Coyne thinks he needs to hammer that point so often. Show the evidence, give the explanations, and let people be convinced, or not. Repeating over and over that your thesis is true is not a very good way of convincing anyone, and only seems to highlight the opposition that he knows there will be to everything he says.

Once past the introduction, Coyne launches into a basic primer on evolution, summarizing it thus:

Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species – perhaps a self-replicating molecule – that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.

He then discusses six concepts contained in that definition: evolution (genetic change over time), gradualism (change requiring many generations), speciation, common ancestry, natural selection, and non-selective mechanisms for evolutionary change.