Second Response to Robert C. Newman
Wayne Frair
Introduction
Currently it is popular to think of science and theology as quite separate theaters of operations. Many suppose science to be the obtaining of knowledge through the senses, whereas theology relies on faith and revelation. A tendency to separate these fields had roots in the early 17th century as the skies and earth were surrendering their secrets to empirical researchers. As studies of nature progressed during three centuries, much of the mystery was removed; and Providence, which had been indispensable, became inessential, then incidental and ultimately, for some, an impediment or interference in their studies of nature. So that today some, for example William Provine at Cornell, have proclaimed boldly that "science and religion are incompatible" and that you "have to check your brains" at the church house door.1
However, belief in a supernatural power has been recognized as a distinctively human attribute because such belief is found in all cultures of mankind. In fact the intuitive argument for the existence of God finds evidence in the universality of such a belief. So my understanding of the ideal Christian position is that God is sovereign in all aspects of nature and the creation is an obedient creation.2
Page 440
Christians should have neither a fear nor a veneration of scientists and their methods, but we need to recognize that there are bounds to science. A modern example is genetic engineering.3 The therapeutic aspects of this (such as insulin production) are acceptable to virtually everybody. But tensions tend to arise more when genetic surgery is discussed because of the potential dangers. The answers would lie, as I see it, not in stifling scientific advance, but in appropriate controls.
Recently there has been considerable discussion about use of scientific data collected by Germans during the Hitler years when many people became unwilling "specimens" subjected to considerable pain.4 Even secular humanists who feel that Christians might shackle science by their extra-scientific Biblical revelation recognize for the German situation (and even in "ordinary" living) the necessity for some standards and even ethical judgments.5 But meaning and morality do not readily emerge from materialistic science. Therefore, because of the basic nature of humanity (selfishness), there is a desperate personal and societal need for what is provided by a person's faith in God and the following of guidelines for living as revealed in the Bible.
The Creation-Evolution Issue
During recent years, the fields of evolutionary studies have shown evidence of considerable turmoil or reevaluation accompanying the explosion of computer technology, use of biochemical procedures, and popularity of newer taxonomic and phylogenetic schemes such as cladism.6 A major goal of evolutionists is to determine homologies, but understandings of this concept have undergone painstaking revisions. For in many cases similar
Page 441
structures in a variety of organisms are produced by different developmental pathways.7 The concept of molecular clocks, which temporarily had seemed to open new vistas for understanding origins, has had severe challenges.8 Iconoclasts have become increasingly active within the evolutionary community,9 and even the whole evolutionary bulwark is being breached by newly aggressive creationists.
Among the many Christians in various fields of science,10 there is a broad spectrum of opinions regarding creation and evolution.11 The main Christian options are young-earth creation, old earth creation, and theistic evolution.12 It is somewhat difficult to determine actual percentages of Christian professionals in science who would fall into these three categories, but I estimate that well over half and possibly closer to three quarters would belong in the first two categories, namely young-earth creation and old earth creation.
When the issue of origins is being considered, I think it is very important to keep the following distinctions clearly in mind:
I. Primary Causation
A. Supernaturalism (theism) — God's choice
1. Personal God
2. Non-personal God
B. Naturalism (atheism) — universe is self-sustaining, "chance"
II. Secondary Causation
A. Abrupt Appearance
— many kinds, limited changes
(sometimes called
microevolution)
B. Macroevolution
— one (rarely few) starting
organism(s),
large
changes (adaptive
radiation).13
Page 442
Partitioning primary causes from secondary (or dependent) causes can aid our untangling the popular verbiage on these issues (for instance, creation scientist or scientific creationist). Belief that a supernatural God (primary cause) has done the creating unites creationists. But discussions on how it happened (secondary, tertiary, etc., causes) may be held without referring to primary causation. In the 1987 Supreme Court majority decision on the Louisiana creation case, it is clear that in the United States public schools it is acceptable to teach alternate views to macroevolution.14 This could include the abrupt appearance model15. It is my opinion that competent public school teachers should inform (but not indoctrinate) students regarding what Christian and non-Christian scientists believe.16 So among evangelicals there do exist differences of opinion regarding the how and when of creation. But the indispensable maxim of all creationists is their tenacious conviction that a supernatural God framed the universe.
Anthropology
The Bible quite clearly places humans in a distinct and elevated position in nature17 and empirical data confirm this. We have, for example, the capability of exterminating the largest animals ever on earth (blue whales), and we, through cooperative worldwide efforts, have made this planet free from the smallpox viral disease since 1980.
It is true that though many diseases and other aspects of nature (including the weather) are not yet under complete control, we at least have had a very significant influence over most of them.
Page 443
In fact, an ecological imbalance in many cases is challenging us to restore ecosystems.
Physically, humans appear most like the chimpanzee or gorilla or possibly the orangutan,18 but there are dozens of structural differences between us and these animals.19 Any normal person readily can distinguish by appearance (phenotype) a human being from one of these apes. However, when chromosomes, genes, and even proteins are compared, the resemblances sometimes have been very close. Reasons for such apparent incongruities have become increasingly clear since the mid-1970's when measurable genetic differences were found not to correlate with gross anatomy. Apparently because of the complexity of developmental processes, when different types of organisms are being compared, genetic or single protein data may not be reliable indicators of phenotypes.20 It commonly is believed that on the basis of many features, the African chimpanzee and gorilla are more like each other than either is like humans.
There are good reasons for maintaining wholesome doubts about proposed evolutionary intermediates leading to humanity. Currently evolutionists as a rule hold that certain types of extinct Australopithecus are the closest hook-up to one line which evolved toward the apes and to another evolving toward humans. But, Oxnard and others are questioning whether a type of Australopithecus21 should be considered intermediate between apes and man.22 There are questions about the humanity of various fossil forms including Neanderthals.23 Even though some evangelicals disagree, it is my belief that Biblical Adam dates back no more than a few tens of thousands of years and more likely toward the late rather than early end of this span of years.24
Page 444
Interesting is the fact that in many ways the human body should not be thought of as an advancement beyond apelikeness. In more than twenty important characters people represent immature apes. For example, the growing foot of an ape has toes in line like our foot. But as the ape foot develops, the big toe rotates sidewise where it becomes more thumb-like and useful for grasping.25
It is my opinion that the recent mitochondrial Eve hypotheses,26 though interesting, have done little to unravel human phylogeny. But they have pointed back to a possible source of present humans, and certainly these studies have served to support the Biblical position that all people on earth share a common heritage.27
Science Reaching toward Theology
Within publications of many scientists in recent years have been expressions of cravings for something more than and beyond which mechanistic science is capable of delivering. Those expressing these views may be exemplified by a graduate school science colleague of mine who told me one Monday about his weekend dream in which he was standing at the very top of the ladder of his scientific laboratory research. While at this uppermost rung of empirical investigation he looked around and asked the questions, "Is this all there is?" and "Where can I go from here?" From somewhere, which seemed to him deep within the core of his very humanity, came the answer, "Yes, reality consists of more than microscopes and molecules."
It is as former literary atheist Dan Wakefield, who went back to church in 1980, very recently said, "Only a generation ago, we
Page 445
enlightened intellectuals believed science had not only disproved but replaced God; now science is one of the major factors making the idea of God a serious subject again."28
In the process of liberating themselves from the imprisonment of mechanistic science, it is the physical scientists who have been leading the way. The celebrated non-Christian astronomer Robert Jastrow represented well this new surge of feeling and faith when he said, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."29
I echo astrophysicist Robert Newman's feelings that science should not be a game to "explain everything without recourse to the supernatural" but rather "to find out how things really are."30
During recent years, as physical scientists have extended their understanding of the basic essence of matter, there has developed what has been termed a hidden traffic between theological and scientific ideas." Theologian / scientist T.F. Torrance uses the terms "theological science" and "natural science" in discussing the dynamic providential relationship of the supernatural God to his space-time universe.31
English astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and his well-known Ceylonese associate Chandra Wickramasinghe, have even turned back to William Paley's famous late 18th century design (teleology) watchmaker argument for a creator God, saying that Paley is "still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner."32
Page 446
Even while late 20th century physicists have been expressing sensitivity toward a supernatural dimension, some biologists have tended to look back toward the materialistic faith of the 19th century physicist.33 This has tended toward a degree of polarization within the biological community. On the one hand, during the past quarter of a century there has been an unprecedented welling up of interest in creation with the inauguration of more than 100 new creationist organizations. Many of these organizations have professional biologists among the leadership; and not a few of these biologists are recent converts to Christianity. Some mainline biologists, particularly those embracing obdurate evolutionary and/or atheistic (and even "agnostic") sentiments have felt threatened. Therefore they have over-reacted against Christianity and even against theism.
Although a contingent of the scientific community still is resisting any intrusion of theological thinking, others of their colleagues are beginning to open the door to experience this added dimension.34
Natural science must not be divorced from a proper Christian theological perspective which in its appropriate sense would possess essential aspects of a medieval (476-1450) and early Renaissance (1500+) attitude. During those years there was more of a holistic view of nature in which humans, nature, and God were part of a grand scenario. There was far more security then for many "tunnel vision" scientists of the 20th century who have perceived people as being little more than peculiar puppets dangling from their chromosomes.35
Fortunately, there is evidence now of a thaw in the icy grip of positivism and reductionism which for decades had held
Page 447
captive many human minds. We hear quite frequently today of scientists "finding God." Sometimes such statements evidence the intuitive grasp of some reality beyond the physical nature of a star-studded sky or biochemical reactions.36 This is natural theology.
Just as organisms long have been recognized as more than the sum of their parts, global ecosystems can be thought of in the same way. Thus there would be supra-earth processes. The fact that ideas like this are being discussed today could presage a movement among scientists away from evolutionary naturalism.
Christian theologians have termed the witnesses to God in nature the General Revelation of God, which in addition to nature would include history and conscience. I perceive that an important role of the late 20th century evangelical Christian is to encourage and to capitalize on these manners of thinking. They represent moves in the right direction for they are antecedent stepping stones to the Special Revelation of God which includes miracles, the Bible (written Word), and Jesus Christ (incarnate Word). The Christian affirms on the basis of Biblical revelation that Jesus Christ was the preexistent supernatural Creator of nature, was on earth completely God and completely human (God incarnate), and that he died on the cross to make possible salvation for all people.
Questions for Discussion || Chapter 11 || Table of Contents
1. W. Provine, "Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible," The Scientist 2(16)(1988)10. For some counter-opinions, see The Scientist 2(19)(1988)12; 2(21)(1988) 11,12; 2(24)(1988)9, 12. Many scientists today are Christians and Bible believers.
Page 448
See for example, E.C. Barrett and D. Fisher, Scientists Who Believe (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984). Literature of the American Scientific Affiliation (55 Market St., Ipswich, MA 01938) has testimonies and papers written by Christians in science. For some scientists of earlier centuries see: H. Morris, Men of Science — Men of God, (Revised ed.; El Cajon, California: Creation Life Publishers, 1988). This book contains brief sections about many scientists, most of whom were active during the 15th-19th centuries.
2. D.L. Wilcox, Creation in Time, Manuscript in preparation.
3. B. Davis and D.L. Ritter, "How Genetic Engineering Got a Bad Name," Imprimis 18(2)(1989)1-5.
4. A.C. Nixon, "If The Data's Good, Use It — Regardless of The Source," The Scientist 2921)(1988)9,11. F.H. Kasten, "Dissecting The Nazis' Perverse Scientific Practices," The Scientist 2(23)(1988)20.
5. For example, "The Humanist Manifesto II" (in The Humanist Sept/Oct 1973) calls for an end to terror and hatred and encourages shared humane values. Unfortunately such writings do not deal realistically with the "sinful" (basically selfish) nature of people.
6. H. Gee, "Taxonomy Blooded by Cladistic Wars," Nature 335 (1988) 585.
7. V.L. Roth, "The Biological Basis of Homology," in C.J. Humphries, ed. Ontoqueny and Systematics (New York: Columbia, 1988)1-26. A good survey of the literature is given here. Within a few years Roth changed her viewpoint in recognizing that homologs do not share developmental pathways. Also see F. Aboitiz, "Homology: A Comparative or a Historical Concept," Acta Biotheoretica 37(1988)27-29; M.Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis (Scranton, PA: Harper and Row, 1986) Chapter 7.
8. See Journal of Molecular Evolution 26 (1-2)(1987) for a comprehensive review on molecular clocks. Also see R. Lewin, "DNA Clock Conflict Continues," Science 241(1988)1756-1759. W-H Li and M. Tanimura, "The Molecular Clock Runs More Slowly in Man than in Apes and Monkeys," Nature 326(1987)93-96; C.E. Oxnard, Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives in Human Evolution (Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Press, 1987); A.R. Templeton, "Phylogenetic Inference from Restriction Endonuclease Cleavage Site Maps with Particular Reference to the Evolution of Humans and the Ages," Evolution 37(1983)221-224. See pp.238, 242. For gorilla-chimp-human phylogeny the molecular clock hypothesis was rejected at the 1% level. I. Amato, "Tics in the Tocks of Molecular Clocks," Science News 131(1987)74-75.
9. S. Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (London: Croom Helm, 1987). This Swedish scientist favors saltation as an evolutionary mechanism. In M. Denton, Evolution: a Theory in Crisis (Scranton, Pennsylvania: Harper and Row, 1986) there is a husky attack on macroevolution from many fields. A polyphyletic view has been promoted by C. Schwabe and others. See C. Schwabe and G.W. Warr, "A Polyphyletic View of
Page 449
Evolution: The Genetic Potential Hypothesis," Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 27(3)(1984)465-485.
10. There are many organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research (10946 Woodside Ave., Santee, CA 92071) and Creation Moments (P.O Box 839, Foley, MN 56329) which send scientists out as speakers and debaters. The leading creationist research organization is the Creation Research Society (P.O. Box 8263, St. Joseph, MO 64508).
11. B. Durbin, Jr., "How It All Began: Why Can't Evangelical Scientists Agree?," Christianity Today 32(11)(12 Aug 1988)31-41. For a complete, though concise, survey of evangelical options on creation / evolution see W.H. Johns, "Strategies for Origins," Ministry 54(5)(1981)26-28.
12. R.A. Nisbet, "A Presuppositional Approach to the Four View Model of Biological Origins," Origins Research 11(2)(Fall/Winter 1988)1,14-16.
13. W. Frair and P. Davis, A Case for Creation (3rd ed.; Norcross, Georgia: CRS Books, 1983). See also W. Frair, "A Positive Creationist Approach Utilizing Biochemistry" in Science at the Crossroads: Observation or Speculation. Papers of the 1983 BSA National Creation Conference (Richfield, Minnesota: Onesimus Publishing, 1985)33-36. W. Frair, "Biochemical Evidence for the Origin and Dispersion of Turtles" in Proceedings of the 11th Bible-Science Association National Conference (Cleveland, Ohio, 1985)97-105.
14. J. Brennan, Supreme Court of the United States. Opinion No. 85-1513 (19 June 1987)8,9.
15. A lawyer who argued in the Louisiana case for the defense before the Supreme Court recently has written a book supporting "abrupt appearance." W. Bird, Origin of the Species Revisited (2 vols., New York: Philosophical Library, 1989). Also see L.D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (Revised ed.; Santee, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1988).
16. M. Eger, "A Tale of Two Controversies: Dissonance in the Theory and Practice of Rationality," Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 23(3)(1988)291-325. Eger is in physics and philosophy of science at City University of New York. He and Abner Shimony of Boston University agree that creationism could be taught in science classes.
17. Genesis 1:26-28, 2:7. Only humans triumph over death (1 Corinthians 15).
18. A leader in the drive to establish the orangutan (from Borneo and Sumatra) as mankind's closest non-human relative has been Jeffrey H. Schwartz. The Red Ape: Orangutans and Human Origins (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1987) and J.H.S., "The Evolutionary Relationships of Man and orangutans," Nature 308 (1984)501-505.
19. J.W. Rlotz, Genes, Genesis and Evolution (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970)332-336.
20. J. Marks, "Evolutionary Epicycles," Contributions to Geology, Special Paper 3(1986)339-350.
Page 450
21. P. Andrews, "Aspects of Hominoid Phylogeny," in C. Patterson, ed., Molecules and Morphology in Evolution: Conflict or Compromise? (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987).
22. R. Holmquist, M.M. Miyamoto and M. Goodman, "Higher-Primate Phylogeny — Why Can't We Decide?," Mol. Biol. Evol. 5(3)(1988)201-216. C.E. Oxnard, Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution (Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Press, 1987). Also see S.J. Gould, "A Short Way to Big Ends," Natural History 95(1)(1986)18-28. An evaluation of the new "black skull" is found in P. Shipman, "Baffling Limb on the Family Tree," Discover 7:86-93. A recent Christian treatment is W. Frair, "Australopithecines: Relationship to Man?," Creation Research Society Quarterly 25(1988)151-153.
23. B. Bower, "Neanderthals Get an Evolutionary Face-Lift," Science News 135(15)(1989)229. Others previously have called for a wider than subspecific taxonomic separation of neanderthals and modern Homo sapiens. See C. Stringer, "The Dates of Eden," Nature 331(1988)565-566 and H. Valladas, J.L. Reyss, J.L. Joron, G. Valladas, O. Bar-Yosef, and B. Vandermeersch, "Thermoluminescence Dating of Mousterian 'Protocro-Magnon' Remains from Israel and the Origin of Modern Man," Nature 331(1988)614-616.
24. Genesis 4. See H. Ross, "Will the Real Adam Please Stand Up?," Facts and Faith 3(1)(1989)1-2.
25. S.J. Gould, "The Child as Man's Real Father," Natural History 84(5)(1975)18-22. See also S.J. Gould, "Human Babies as Embryos," Natural History 85(2)(1976)22-26.
26. R.L. Cann, M. Stoneking and A.C. Wilson, "Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution," Nature 325(1987)31-36. Many articles were written after this paper. For example, see J. Wainscoat, "Out of The Garden of Eden," Nature 325(1987)13; R.L. Cann, "The Mitochondrial Eve," The World and I (Sept 1987)256-263; D. Wallace, "The Search for Adam and Eve," Newsweek (11 Jan 1988) 46-52.
27. Acts 17:26
28. D. Wakefield, "And Now, a Word from Our Creator," New York Times 38(Sect. 7 — Book Review)(1989)1,28-29.
29. R. Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: W.W. Norton, 1978)116.
30. R.C. Newman, "A Critical Examination of Modern Cosmological Theories," Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute Res. RePt. #15(1982)14. Likewise, an ex-Cambridge professor of mathematical physics now turned anglican priest is "concerned with exploring and submitting to, the way things are." See J. Polkinghome, One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986)97.
Page 451
31. T.F. Torrance, Reality and Scientific Theology (Brookfield, Vermont: Scottish Academic Press, 1985), XXIV.
32. F. Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981)97.
33. R. Augros and G. Stanciu, The New Biology (Boston: Shambhala Publications, 1987)226.
34. The most eminent of French zoologists gives a cautious nod toward metaphysics. See P.P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977)105,246. In a discussion of life, Charles Birch and John B. Cobb, Jr. open doors to thoughts which involve more than just mechanistic aspects of living tissue. See The Liberation of Life from the Cell to the Community (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984). Also, Yale biophysicist Harold Morowitz in his book, Cosmic Joy and Local Pain: Musings of a Mystic Scientist (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1987) evidences a reaching out from science toward religion.
35. A Koestler, The Sleepwalkers (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1959)539. Also see T.M. Sennott, The Six Days of Creation (Cambridge: The Ravengate Press, 1984)192, 194.
36. See Ref. 31, pp.83-84.
