Opinion- 26 September 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.
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 non-material 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.