Biology and Religion

Science and Religion

By Justin Merry

Religion and science have always been uncomfortable bedfellows. One reason for this is that both strive to explain the world around us, though they take decisively different approaches. Science explains the unknown through quantifiable data, models, and theories based on verified observations, while religion relies on the supernatural to explain its questions. As humans learn more and more about the universe, religion and science seem to be increasingly in conflict.

I was raised a scientist and also a Christian (not to be confused with the so called "Christian scientists" such as Michael Behe). I went to an ELCA Lutheran church weekly for the first 16 years of my life. I was baptized at a young age, had first communion at age 12, and was confirmed at age 14. My parents, pastors, and youth leaders always stressed critical thinking in all walks of life -- not only in academic pursuits, but also in religion. One who is strong in faith has to question that faith, otherwise one will be unprepared for the times when that faith is challenged. I firmly believe this truth, and as a result, I've had nothing but trouble in my "walk of faith."

I don't claim to be an expert in either field, but the cherished exposure I've had to each has given me the opportunity to formulate my own opinions about this conflict. In this essay, I will touch on a few issues that I feel are important when considering Christianity's role in biology. Admittedly, this does nothing to answer some of the questions presented by any other organised religion, but unfortunately, I'm am ignorant of the customs and teachings of anything outside of Christianity.

On Reading the Bible Literally

A major problem with the Bible is that it is the only solid, long-standing work of literature that defines Christianity. As a result, many treat it as a "Holy" book that tells the history of Christianity from the beginnings of time through Paul's roamings of the Mediterranean in the first century. I feel, that on the whole, the Bible has had a positive influence on society, and is not something to be abhorred by anyone. Unfortunately, though the authors may have been inspired by God to write the Good News, humans are imperfect, and therefore they make errors. Additionally, the copy that I read (as I am a typical ignorant American, I only know the English language), the New International Version, has been translated from from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The NIV is probably the best English translation available, as it uses original texts, rather than the Hebrew to Greek to Latin to Old English to English versions that are out there. Even so, some meaning is lost in the words no matter how faithful and unbiased the translators are.

Additionally, the Bible was also written several thousand years ago to a society with far lower educational and technological standards than those that are present today. A great majority of the Bible (especially the Old Testament and the Gospel) is told in the form of parables. In the Gospel, these parables are usually stories told by Jesus to his disciples -- a very effective method of explaining principles of Christianity. The Old Testament also appears to be told as a collection of parables, though it frequently makes no distinction between true stories and parables.

Individual verses and chapters cannot be taken as factual, literal truth. Some may be elaborations. Some may mislead or be misleading. Others may be downright frightening. In some of Paul's letters to various congregations around the Mediterranean, he goes so far as to encourage slavery (Ephesians 6:1-9) and condemn homosexuality (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). To point at these verses, however, and use them as truths in everyday, modern society is a foolish mistake. The Bible should be read for its overall message of love, acceptance, and worship, rather than for these short, insignificant, and often misinterpreted passages.

On Creationism... (and returning to the subject at hand...)

When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species back in 1859, he threw himself into a very touchy area. His book, considered by many of the time to be blasphemous, discredits the creation story given in Genesis in favor of a scientific explanation for the origin of the vast array of species on this planet, that of evolution and natural selection. The basic premise of Darwin's theory is this: Individuals within population of organisms on this planet vary. There's no disputing this fact. We can tell individual people from other people by looking at them. Some people can run faster than other people. Some people deal with the cold better than others. The same holds true for other animals. When placed in a hostile, unforgiving environment filled with predators and limited resources, some individuals of a particular population will fare better than others, and their successful traits will consequently be passed on to their offspring. Cumulative "selection" for advantageous traits results in a directional change in the mean expression of those traits, and thus the average morphology/physiology/biochemistry of the population changes. Therefore, all life on the planet has, over eons, evolved from small, microscopic, unicellular organisms that existed billions of years ago.

Darwin himself first presented his theory in chapter IV of his book (p.89 in my copy) and then spent the remaining 370 pages justifying his theory, pointing out any holes that could be be damaging and explaining away these discrepancies. Since his time, thousands of books and articles have been written that further justify the theory. Evolution has become a widely accepted theory, and is the fundamental theory to all disciplines of modern biology. The theory is as solid, if not more so, in factual backing as the theory that the earth revolves about the Sun. The purpose of this paper is not, however, to prove evolution as a theory (that's another paper altogether!). Therefore, I will not go in depth with the multitudes of available examples and evidences (for more information on the theory of evolution, I'd recommend visiting Chris Colby's excellent "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology").

Creationists believe, contrary to all the evidence, the story in the book of Genesis -- that God created the earth and all living things over the course of seven days. This is, of course, a ridiculous assertion. Paleontological and geological research (to name only one piece of evidence) shows a long progression in the development of the wide variety of life on this planet over the course of hundreds of millions of years. Fossils tell a tale of periods when the earth was much different from today in geography and weather, of dominant predators that could feast on even the largest terrestrial vertebrates of today, and of the first types of multicellular organisms that looked nothing like anything living on the planet today.

When one reads the creation story in the Bible, it's important to read it as a parable. The Bible was written to people that had very little, compared to today's society, scientific knowledge. Humans have always had a need to know their origins, and Genesis tells a very brief story that can satisfy this need. It's not outlandish to believe that God really does exist, and on some level, is responsible for the universe. What is outlandish is to say that the mechanism for such creation, despite all evidence to the contrary, was that described in Genesis 1:1-31.

There is a small group of individuals who term themselves "Christian Scientists" who attempt to use scientific principles and research to disprove evolution by natural selection. I have yet to hear of a case where a Christian scientist has successfully disproved a significant theory regarding the geologic or biological history of the Earth. Typically, their conclusions are based on their own misinterpretations of scientific literature, or are simply bogus assertions that have already been disproved. If anyone reading this comes across something interesting backing creationism, I would, of course, be very interested to see/read it. Examples of some Christian "scientist" claims and reasons they are invalid can be found at this link.

On the Other Extreme...

There is another side to the conflict between religion and science. Some scientists use scientific data and principles, such as laws of probability, to disprove the existence of God. I had the pleasure of hearing Richard Dawkins speak at Ohio University in March of '98. During an informal question and answer session, the question of God's existence came up. Dawkins provided a very compelling and convincing argument to discredit the existence of God. It goes something like this:

If there is a supremely-intelligent entity who set into action the beginnings of life on this planet, an entity that is capable of predicting all the possible variables to create, through gradual evolution, all the life on this planet, including Homo sapiens, then She would have to come from somewhere. Now, it's possible that She may have evolved over the eons to Her current status on a world that was, perhaps, created by some other diety. It should be possible, then, to trace back the evolution of brilliant, benevolent individual after brilliant, benevolent individual who each decide create life on other planets. Eventually, however, you'll have to start somewhere. And that somewhere can be described through evolution by natural selection. However, the probability of an entity of god-like status evolving, much less coming into existence out of nowhere, is almost infinitely slim. What sort of selective pressures would be necessary to generate a supreme being of that sort?

This is a very compelling argument (and believe me, he presents it far more eloquently than I am capable of doing), except for one point that I think is very important. God, by definition, would not be of this universe. God is an entity that, though She may live with us in day to day life, would not exist in a way that is conceivable to us. Using scientific principles to prove or disprove God is a useless exercise. These principles are based on observations made within this universe, and therefore are invalid outside of this universe.

Wrapping Things Up...

Science and religion have always seemed to be at each others' throats. Both attempt to explain the unknown, and when their explanations clash, individuals frequently feel required to take sides. As a scientist who was raised a Christian, this is an issue that concerns me. While my personal opinions (which are immaterial here) on the Truth may be different from others', I hope the reasoning I have presented in this essay makes sense. Science and religion do not have to clash. Christians who can read the Bible for what it is, a book of parables and morality lessons, rather than a book of absolute, historical facts, should have no trouble accepting scientific truths. Evolution by natural selection, one of the biggest areas of debate, could be very simply the mechanism that God chose for creation. As the saying goes, God works in mysterious ways. Science attempts to uncover those mysteries.

Back to Thoughts on Biology