November 26, 2005
The
publication of Darwin's Origin of Species was followed by bitter
controversy between those who believed in the divine creation of species, and
those who were persuaded by the logic and power of Darwin's arguments. This
controversy seemed to die down in the twentieth century, and it was then common
to assert that science dealt with the material world and religion with the
spiritual. It was also implicit in this view that science and religion were in
some way complementary to each other. Although most of those who were religious
accepted the ancient origin of life on this planet and organic evolution, many
believed that this evolution was all part of God's plan, presumably for the
final appearance of Homo sapiens. At the same time genetics, and in
particular population genetics, were explaining how Darwinian evolution could
occur, and there were many contemporary examples of natural selection in action.
It became clear that mutation and natural selection could explain complex
adaptations. This has now been reinforced by DNA sequencing. which is a very
powerful tool for illuminating the origins and diversity of species. Now, at the
beginning of the twenty first century, there has been a resurgence of
creationism, either in the guise of "science creationism" or "intelligent
design". The old arguments about gaps in the fossil record, and the problem
natural selection has in explaining the appearance of complex structures, are
brought up over and over again. The simple fact is that there is an enormous
knowledge gap between between evolutionary biologists who are familiar with the
wealth of evidence in favour of Darwinian natural selection, and those who are
unfamiliar with this evidence, and indeed most often do not even feel there is a
need to examine it, because they have blind faith in a divine creator. This is
one of the divisions between religion and science, but by no means the only one.
There is an enormous knowledge gap between evolutionary biologists who are familiar with the wealth of evidence in favour of Darwinian natural selection, and those who are unfamiliar with this evidence. |
Most religions seem to
have the following characteristics. First, a belief in an omniscient God or
Gods. Second, a belief in miracles. Third, a belief that the material human body
is separable from a nonmaterial soul. Fourth, the belief that humans have free
will, a conscience, and the God-given ability to choose between good and evil.
Fifth, a belief in an immortal after-life, sometimes in the form of
reincarnation. Finally, a belief in the efficacy of prayer, which assumes that
direct contact between humans and a deity exists.
The belief in a non-material soul or spirit, implies that it arises at some
stage in human development, and this can be linked to the view that life itself
is a mystery, and by implication, outside the realm and understanding of
science. Commonly it is thought that the fertilization of an egg by a sperm
initiates life, and that the embryo is therefore already a human being. Modern
molecular biology has effectively solved the so-called "mystery of life." The
genetic material, DNA, is a polymeric chemical, with enormous coding capacity.
It directs the synthesis of RNA which in turn is translated into proteins,
consisting of one or more polypeptide chains (linear arrays of amino acids).
Many proteins are enzymes, and thousands of these have been characterised. The
major components of metabolism are well understood. In short, living cells
consist of complex chemicals, and their even more complex interactions. There is
absolutely no place for a "vital force" or any non-material entity either in the
egg, the sperm, the fertilised egg, the embryo, the child or the adult. Thus,
there is no non-material soul, nor an afterlife. Again, the vast amount of
biological information that has been gathered in the last fifty years cannot be
communicated to those who continue to believe in a soul and an afterlife.
The next fundamental difference between science and religion is the issue of
free will. In fact, most individuals believe in free will because it is a matter
of common experience that they feel free to make their own decisions. For the
religious, free will is God's gift to man. However, once it is accepted that we
are complex organisms composed only of molecules, the completely new light is
thrown on the supposed existence of free will. In making a simple choice, for
example, between moving one's right or left arm, we feel completely free, but
the fact remains that a signal is transmitted to the muscles that comes from the
brain. The brain is not capable of spontaneously creating energy, because if it
did it would contravene the law of conservation of energy, so the signal must
come from somewhere else. Because we are conscious of feeling free, the signal
must come from another part of the brain which is part of our unconscious brain
function. Thus, there are forces at work of which we are not aware. These forces
are determinants of our behaviour, and free will is no more than an illusion. Of
course, some decision making is complex and may depend on knowledge, experience
and external factors of which we are well aware, but this does not affect the
basic conclusion that we do not have free will.
|
Decades ago C.P. Snow
wrote about "The two cultures" drawn from his own experience as a scientist in
the 1930s and his later career as a novelist and writer. Discussion about the
two cultures has gone out of fashion, but there is no disputing the fact that
the divide between modern science, and particularly modern biology, and the
general public remains immense. Today's molecular and cellular biology is of
enormous sophistication and complexity, and well beyond the comprehension of an
intelligent layman. A glance at a modern scientific journal shows that even the
titles of research papers (which normally document a further advance in
knowledge) are for the most part completely incomprehensible to anyone not
actually working in the field. The concept of two cultures is very much alive,
in spite of the best efforts of contemporary science writers to explain new
advances to the public. This cannot be better illustrated than by the current
discussions of organic evolution. On the one hand there is a mass of information
documenting the reality of Darwinian natural selection acting on mutations, that
are most commonly single changes in DNA sequence. On the other hand there are
those who are totally ignorant of this evidence, and who can simply assert that
there are "gaps" in evolution (most commonly gaps in the fossil record), and
that biological structures are too complex to be explained by mutation and
natural selection. The argument can be turned on its head, and I have argued
elsewhere that a creator could easily include wheels or propellers in animal
design. Yet no wheels or propellers exist in the animal kingdom. The Darwinian
explanation for this is perfect: it is impossible to evolve a wheel by stages,
because only a whole wheel has function.
There is a huge difference between those who may believe in an omniscient deity
who was responsible for the initial creation of the universe, and those who also
believe that this deity is in direct contact with human beings, and may
influence their behaviour or respond to their prayers. Atheists believe that
there is no God who has any contact, influence or interaction with man, whatever
the true origin of the universe may be. For religion they substitute humanism,
and a belief that the problems of mankind can only be solved by the inhabitants
of this planet
It is said to be politically correct to be tolerant of all religions, but why
should we be tolerant of the sets of untruths on which all religions are based?
It is therefore not good enough for scientists to accept this political
correctness. They should believe in the reality of what science has demonstrated
over several centuries. To act or believe otherwise is not intellectually
rigorous, and is indeed a betrayal of the achievements of their own discipline .
Experimental science has established itself as rational and reproducible, and
there is no place for the contravention of natural laws, such as miracles,
superstition and the occult. Finally, it is often pointed out that religious
scientists exist. It seems that these are individuals who can in some way
compartmentalise contradictory viewpoints, but this is an ability that I for one
find extremely hard to understand.
*Robin Holliday obtained his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge, England. He joined the scientific staff of the John Innes Institute, Bayfordbury, Hertford, in 1958, and there developed molecular models of genetic recombination. In experimental work he studied recombination and repair in the fungus Ustilago maydis and was the first to isolate and characterise mutants defective in these processes in any eukaryotic organism. He later moved to the National Institute for Medical Research at Mill Hill, London, and became head of the new Division of Genetics in 1970. He was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of London in 1976. He and his colleagues also studied possible mechanisms of the senescence of diploid human cells in culture, and their immortalisation. In 1975 he suggested with his student John Pugh that DNA methylation could be an important mechanism for the control of gene expression in higher organisms, and this has now become documented as a basic epigenetic mechanism in normal and also cancer cells. In 1988 he moved to a CSIRO laboratory in Sydney, Australia, where he continued to study ageing, and his book Understanding Ageing was published in l995. The main focus of his experimental work was the epigenetic control of gene expression by DNA methylation in CHO cells. These experiments provide direct evidence that DNA methylation is a primary cause of gene silencing in mammalian cells.