Twist on life

This TED talk describes an interesting twist on studies into the origin of life.

Cronin and his team are looking at inorganic matter (i.e. chemicals that don't contain carbon) for answers. There are, of course, huge quantities of speculation involved, and Cronin's willingness to carelessly indulge should make us wary.

This is unlikely to go anywhere. It is widely acknowledged that it is the unique properties of carbon that make complex life possible. The only other possible contender is Silicon but it is nowhere near as flexible. Organic (carbon based) chemistry has an unparalleled diversity in the compounds it can generate and it has the critical ability to be to form polymers. As an added bonus it is the fourth most abundant element in the universe after hydrogen, helium and oxygen.

The only life we have evidence for is intrinsically tied to the unique nature of Carbon.

Book Review: Reasons

Reasons edited by Thomas Gaston

This is a book that needed to be written.

It is, in overview, a panoramic look at some of the key intellectual reasons for believing in God, Jesus and the Bible, stringing them together in a compact and readable volume. And what a timely work it is. In the developed world faith is popularly regarded as nothing but superstition - something for the ignorant and uneducated. The evidence of this book illustrates that this is far from the truth.

Yet it doesn't ignore criticism and is even honest enough to draw the readers attention to possible objections to its arguments. But the overwhelming message is that Biblical faith in the 21st Century is robust and, contrary to popular belief, reachable by reason.

There are two halves to the book. Initially it looks at reasons for seeking. Why in this world of ever increasing secularism should we be interested in a God? The book begins with the wide angle lens examining the general philosophical reasons for asking the question, before moving to the scientific grounds of the finely tuned universe and the origin of life on earth. In terms of biology's witness of God this is where the book stops. In some ways this is a little disappointing, but it is equally important to recognise what the authors haven't put in. More on this later.

The next chapter looks at Consciousness and explains how consideration of this subject should lead us away from mere materialism. It speculates that quantum theory could provide an insight in to how consciousness works (although having suggested this it could do with more explanation of what quantum theory is and how it might relate to the problem of mind). The chapter is an important one but it in my opinion it also needs to be clearer that it is not advocating a kind of floaty soul that is separate from the body.

The next reason to seek comes from examining the evidence of human morality, before the first section concludes with what is the weakest chapter of the book, on The Problem of Evil.

In some ways this chapter is a little out of place here. Suffering is more likely to be seen as a reason not to seek God. But having included it in the book I didn't find the conclusions satisfying. The tone was at times condescending and a lot of space is used arguing over how much pain is required for there to be a problem, which all felt a little irrelevant. Then, when considering natural disasters such as the 2004 Tsunami we are told that this is not a theological event. I don't find this satisfactory, neither do I think that it is useful to explain the existence of pain as because it is only 'temporary'. Unfortunately the chapter only begins to address the key issues at the end when it says 'Suffering is mandatory for spiritual development'. This is the area that needs to be explored in far more depth.

But the next section gets us back on track with Reasons for Believing. It is crammed full of useful information from the textual reliability and historical accuracy of the Biblical texts to the evidence of prophecy, the nation of Israel, and the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. There are many juicy morsels of information in these chapters that can't be conveyed properly in this short review, but certainly the gentle persuasion of the 'Resurrection' chapter is a particular triumph.

And here, after a short Epilogue, the book ends. But as alluded to above it is interesting to recognise what isn't included. There are no Intelligent Design type of arguments (that is if we don't include the very valuable chapter on abiogeneis). This is a great relief as they could have undermined the whole package. Though it does feel like there should be something more to say about life on earth. As yet this is still being worked through by Christian thinkers and a range of views exist. For example, there are Simon Conway Morris' ideas about convergent evolution making human beings an inevitability of the process of evolution, through to others who feel that the emergence of human beings required much more guidance. Either way it feels that the teleology of the earth's natural history should be an important topic.

The reader will leave this book amazed that such an enormous scope of argument has been covered in a little over 200 pages. This is the great value of the work. Such a wide range of issues surround belief in God, Jesus and the Bible, and in this one place a good number of them are dealt with expertly, each one building on the last.

The few criticisms discussed above certainly don't get in the way of me offering a hearty recommendation.

Dawkins finds Jesus

In perhaps his most famous book Richard Dawkins reaches an important conclusion.  He says:

...if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals co-operate generously and unselfishly towards a common good you can expect little help from biological nature.  Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.

And this is the reason why we need to teach Jesus Christ.  Of course Dawkins doesn't accept that but he has, through biology, recognised this deep human need to be led out of our natural state of selfishness and competition, to a position of co-operation and consideration of the benefit of others, even above ourselves.

This is precisely the power of Jesus, and it's not just a matter of the wise words that we have recorded, like “love your enemies”.  Its about action too.  Jesus is the master who chose to become a servant, he is the King who chose to humble himself to a robber's execution, he is the one who washed his disciples feet, he is the one of would give, give and keep giving to the point of exhaustion.

The apostle Paul also recognised this. He said 'I know that nothing good lives in me'. But he also saw that in Christ he had found the way out of this mess, the pathway to a bright future for society.

Scientific Thinking

The idea that the methods of physical science are quite simply the only intellectual methods and should therefore be extended to cover every subject matter, including our understanding of ourselves, was put forward early in the nineteenth century by Auguste Comte and others. It is still a powerful faith, devoutly preached by many people today. Only radical confusion about the meaning of the word 'scientific' makes it seem plausible.

Mary Midgley in Science and Poetry

What is so offensive about metaphysics?

Perhaps the most famous reading of Genesis chapter 1 was on Christmas Eve 1968 when the first ten verses were read from space via the Apollo 8 spacecraft.

Offence was taken by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, an American atheist, who filed a lawsuit contesting that this was a violation of the separation between church and state.

This makes me ask the question, why do differing metaphysical views cause us such consternation? Why could she not accept it as an expression of someone else's faith, albeit one different to her own?

Undoubtedly whatever our worldview it is important to us, and for many of us it is important to try and share it with others. For the Christian the gospel is good news and therefore there is an imperative to share it. An atheist may look at religious wars and decide that for this reason they need to evangelise their own philosophy.

These can be seen as positive exertions of faith, but to actually go to the extent of complaining, or even suing someone, over the free expression of the poetry of Genesis 1 is baffling. Or is it?

We invest a great deal of ourselves in whatever our worldview is, so inevitably we will defend it. There is too the common need of 'I am right-ism' that makes us want to see other people finding our views persuasive.

This self-defence is a weakness. Those who are intellectually honest will accept the challenge to think and explore all possible alternatives without having to roll down the shutters. And those people will often be the less vocal and militant - because they don't need to be.

Oh no! Its happened again!

Having a bad case of deja vu. Hope this one turns out to have a happy ending...

The limitations of reductionism

I've written on this before, but this quote from Martin Rees reinforces what I was trying to say:

Everything may be the outcome of processes at the subatomic level, but even if we know the relevant equations governing the micro-world, we can't, in practice, solve them for anything more complex than a single molecule. Moreover, even if we could, the resultant 'reductionist' explanation would not be enlightening. to bring meaning to complex phenomena, we introduce new 'emergent' concepts. (For example, the turbulence and wetness of liquids, and the textures of solids, arise from the collective behaviour of atoms, and can be 'reduced' to atomic physics, but these are important concepts in their own right; so, even more, are 'symbiosis', 'natural selection', and other biological processes.)

From Just Six Numbers

Augustine and the Fall

The Augustinian view of the fall involved the belief that a change occurred in humans' physical characteristics, for example the development of being able to suffer physical pain. From that moment the condition was passed down genetically to all Adam and Eve's offspring.

The following extract from The Cambridge Companion to Augustine illustrates his views:

Adam and Eve’s fall ushered into the world original sin, which is not an event
but rather a condition (De pecc. merit. et remis. 1.9.9–1.12.15). It is the condition
imposed by God as punishment on Adam and Eve for disobedience.
According to Augustine the condition includes dispossession from a naturally
perfect environment, the loss of natural immortality and the acquisition of susceptibility
to physical pain, fatigue, disease, aging, and rebellious bodily disorders,
especially sexual lust (De Gen. ad litt. 11.32.42; De civ. Dei 14.16–19). The
condition is not only pathological, it is inherited, infecting every descendant of
Adam and Eve. The condition is innate, not acquired; as Augustine puts it, it is
transmitted by propagation, not imitation (De pecc. merit. et remis.
1.9.9–1.12.15). Augustine’s view, then, is that our first ancestors squandered their
patrimony and our inheritance and – as if that were not bad enough – thereby
contracted a suite of infirmities that is passed on to all their progeny.

It is quite an understandable position for the time, and it does follow on from a naively literal reading of Genesis 2 & 3, but it loads onto the text a great deal more than what the words actually say. This tends to come out in the interpretations of Young Earth Creationists today (e.g. vegetarian lions).

Take the example of the curse on Eve's pain in childbearing. The pain involved in this is a direct result of the anatomy of the female pelvis and the size of a baby's head. For there to be no pain in childbirth one of the two would have to have been dramatically different previously. So an Augustinian view of the fall involves a whole re-design of human biology for a start. This seems to be a great deal more than the passages are actually saying, and recent science (particularly the findings of anatomically modern humans that pre-date Adam and Eve) confirms that it isn't actually true.

So in other words, the fall needs to be seen in a much more figurative way than Augustine thought all those years ago.

Augustine time

These words seem to be ahead of their time - though I don't have the original context to hand to check:

Then assuredly the world was made, not in time, but simultaneous with time. For that which is made in time is made both after and before some time - after that which is past, before that which is future. But none could then be past, for there was no creature by whose movements its duration could be measured. But simultaneously with time the world was made.

St Augustine quoted in Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees

Augustine had some interesting things to say about faith and science, though his views on 'The Fall' have led theology down a wrong turn.

Theodicy and evolution

The notion of theodicy has been one of the most debated and discussed topics in Christianity for centuries. Here's the Wiki-definition:

Theodicy ( /θiːˈɒdɪsi/ from Greek theos - "god" + dike - "justice") is a theological or philosophical study which attempts to justify God’s intrinsic nature of omni-benevolence (all loving), omniscience (all knowing) and omnipotence (all powerful), despite the existence of evil which would otherwise stand to refute God's existence.

One of the simplest ways of reconciling this problem is to recognise that God has given us freedom. We have a choice in how we act and the choices we make have consequences. We can bring joy or sorrow, so you could say that suffering is the cost of freedom.

This is quite a straightforward concept when we are thinking about human action, but what about nature?

Nature has its own freedom. The laws are set and from then on the consequences are what they are. Tectonic plates move according to the laws of physics. In doing so they release minerals into the biosphere and help produce fertile ground. They are also the source of earthquakes, volcanoes and subsequent devastation.

Evolution helps us understand this natural freedom as applied to biology. Life parades a spectrum that befits its freedom of expression, from the beautiful forms on the wings of a butterfly, to the venomous poisons of the bite of a snake.

The philosophical question is why is this freedom so important?

Theistic Embryology?

This quote picks up on a theme I've written on before, but its better!

Why is there no controversy surrounding theistic embryology? Dissecting critical responses to theistic evolution.

Those who simultaneously express Christian belief and affirm evolutionary theory are said to espouse a position called "theistic evolution." The view holds the peculiar distinction of being reviled by both hard-line creationists (who call it "appeasement") and prominent atheist commentators (who deride it as fallacious). I argue that these critics typically fail to articulate objections that are specific to the view. Most creationist critics of theistic evolution object to one or both of these characteristics of the view: 1) its reliance on naturalistic explanation, a feature common to all scientific theorizing; or 2) its embrace of "random" causal events, a feature common to myriad scientific explanations. Most atheist critics of theistic evolution object to its openness to supernatural explanation, a feature of religious belief in general. Such criticisms, valid or not, fail to address anything specific to theistic evolution. In other words, attacks on theistic evolution are usually attacks on theism or attacks on evolution, but rarely represent specific criticisms of the theistic evolution position. To better understand the controversy surrounding theistic evolution, I propose that critiques of the position be considered in light of a lesser-known position we may (with tongue in cheek) call "theistic embryology." Theistic embryology describes the thinking of those who simultaneously express Christian belief and affirm basic theories in human developmental biology. Although the logic is indistinguishable from that of theistic evolution, the view is uncontroversial and the term "theistic embryology" is practically non-existent. I suggest that critiques of theistic evolution be subjected to the "theistic embryology test." Most critiques that claim to identify weaknesses in theistic evolution make arguments that are equally damaging to "theistic embryology" and so fail the test. Critiques that fail this whimsical test are likely to be arguments against belief, or against naturalistic explanation, and should be considered as such.

(http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2009/05/theistic-embryology-gathering-storm.html).


Thanks to Ken Gilmore for the find.

100 up!

February has been a hectic month, hence the lack of activity on this blog, but as the calendar prepares to turn over once more I've noticed that I have made 99 postings since the blog started. It is very satisfying to look back at all the information and ideas that have been collected together since its inception concerning this important topic.

A big thanks go to those who read it and chip in with occasional comments. I'm acutely aware that a lot of what I write is simply someone else's ideas re-articulated, so, to everyone I talk to or whose books I read, as they say in Yorkshire, "Ta!"

Moral Development

An interesting idea to think about is that of moral development. The general thesis is that human society and civilisation has developed morally over time. Take as an example the slave trade. Historically the slave trade has been a normal part of society but now, in the western world at least, it has been abolished.

We are not talking about individual moral development here, in fact you could make a good argument that individual morality is in decline, but this is about society in general. The concept is relevant to thinking about anthropology from a spiritual point of view.

The differences between Old Testament and New Testament ethics have often been remarked upon, to the point where some have even suggested that the God of the Old Testament is different to the God of the New.

This is where the suggestion of moral development comes in. God remains the same, his principles never change, but their outworking depends on the level of development of the people. This is exactly the same phenomenon that we see in parents all over the world. A parent may want to instil in their child the principles of kindness. When dealing with a toddler they might utilise the 'naughty step' to help the child consider when their actions have fallen short of the mark. Yet for teenage children this technique is likely to be ineffective. A reasoned discussion is probably more appropriate for them (though you could try putting them on the step afterwards as a last resort!) Loud and vocal anger is another good way of telling infants of the seriousness of their wrongdoing, but it is rarely as effective with older children.

If we imagine human society as an individual going through childhood and towards maturity then we can begin to understand why God seems different over time. The Mosaic Law came at a time where the people had no formal justice system, but things are very different now. Most countries have very sophisticated systems in place to keep law and order – society has developed. This development is more acutely apparent when we consider early man as the product millions of years of competition and communities of humans thrust together under the principles of survival of the fittest. The baseline of moral man is pretty low. Yet slowly, and surely, God has led humanity to the point where 'at just the right time' Christ came into the world. Human civilisation was finally ready to meet Immanuel.

An interesting question to ask is why individual morality hasn't developed in the same way as society has?

Do Bluetits Remember?

We have seen four springs living in our current house and 2010 was the first without Bluetits nesting in the box hanging from the brickwork. There is a sense of anticipation each year as the winter thaws and we wait expectantly. The endeavors of these tiny birds, and they do get tinier as the endeavor takes its toll, never fail to amaze us. Yet this year we were left disappointed.

Could it be that our regular family have sworn never to return? 2009 was a harrowing year.

There was one little fledgling that didn't make it. Perhaps it was the runt of the litter, perhaps it was genetically predestined not to make it, but when this baby Bluetit emerged from the security of its wooden cradle its first flight ended up on the hard floor of our patio. The plight was softened by the frantic fluttering of its wings, but once down there was no way of getting back up. Its only hope was to hide. It hid behind our plant-pots and it hid behind overhanging shrubs but by far the best place it found was between the folds of our deflated paddling pool. It stayed there for two days and nights yet encouragingly its parents refused to abandon it. They still nursed it, collected grubs for it, sang for it and waited upon it. We watched on, hoping that all this care would give it the strength to fly off one day.

That time came on the third day and it boldly hopped out of its hiding place...

... only for our neighbour's cat to hop out from behind the bushes and swallow it down whole.

The shrieks that went up in our household were enough to send the moggy scampering but the damage was already done. All that was we could do was watch the heartbreaking sight of the fledgling's parents singing for their child, searching for it in all the usual hiding places, staring in bemusement.

Nature red in tooth and claw.

An Anthropic Biological Principle?

For a while now I've been wondering if there is a biological parallel to the Anthropic Principle in physics (i.e. that the universe has a number of physical properties that are fine tuned to a level that allows life to exist).

An example of this could be the properties of a chemical like DNA polymerase.

For evolution to occur organisms need to be able to replicate themselves exceptionally well, but not perfectly. If they are not good enough at this process then there is no hope of any useful genetic information being passed down from generation to generation. On the other hand if they are too good at it then there is no room for error – errors that have the potential to bring about innovation and thereby evolution.

One of the biggest players in this process is DNA polymerase. This clever piece of kit is responsible for the putting together of new DNA strands and even has the ability to proof-read the code as it goes along. This, together with other factors, means that the copying process is over 99.9% accurate - just right.

It would be interesting to know how bad this copying process could get and still be viable for life, but certainly there can't be much margin for error.

The Design Argument

If the argument for design be thus demonstrated, do not the details urgently raise the question of whether the designer was all good? The ruthless setting of one species against another, armed with ingenious and seemingly cruel weapons of war; the disregard of one except as prey for the other; the offensive traits developed in the world of competitive life, would seem to implicate God in the cruel world of Nature, without showing any way out of the dilemma.

The phrase 'The Finger of God' as used by Jesus was with reference to the casting out of demons and would suggest that some forces in nature are not of God, however powerful and ingenious; and are indeed the subject of God's action against them. It has to be remembered that the ingeniousness of the resistance of the blood stream is matched by that of the invading bacteria.

Ron Storer

BioLogos

For those who want to look into the area of Faith and Science through the eyes of professionals (and not amateurs like myself!) then this site has some fascinating material.

My causes

I just watched an interesting programme in which Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs decided to put his faith to the test and invite four leading atheists to challenge him.

One of the four was a scientist who felt that because science could explain, or has the potential to explain, everything that he is, then there is no room and no need for God. The way he framed his position brought home to me some key issues in sharp clarity:

- The atheist has to have faith that God cannot be one of those causal forces and...
- The atheist has to believe that God cannot work through the medium of any of the other causal forces... to get to the point where they don't believe that there is a God
- Many believers fail to grasp the reality of some of the myriad causal forces that contribute to the making of each one of us

These forces are indeed wide ranging. They involve nature and nurture, culture and genetics, history and biology - a spicy cocktail if ever there was one, but included in that list, and indeed running through it, I include God.

Modus Operandi part 3

When I think about the way God brought Israel back into being and compare it to the way he made life flourish I find there are striking parallels.

Science is the exploration of the universe God created, which includes trying to understand how it works. That last phrase is important to register. The universe works to patterns and rules - each of which have their own logical outworkings. The universe is in effect one enormous process.

It is through this enormous process that God works to guide and shape his creation - with us as the eventual consequence. This is where the parallel comes in with the way that God shaped the political processes to lead Israel back to life, and also the way in which we can understand God's hand on our lives. We can see the effect of it but really are unable to say specifically where it has worked

Think of our own creation. Each of us was made by God...

For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
Psalm 139 V 13

We know how this happens: meiosis, fertilisation, mitosis, specialisation of cells etc; all processes through which God works. With this in mind we could expect that acts of 'special creation' i.e. that defy natural explanation are few and far between in the universe we live in. God is a potter.

Modus Operandi (part 2)

The Bible contains many varying prophecies about future events. One of the most striking is the prophecy that the people of Israel would be regathered to have their own nation once more (having initially been thrown out around 600BC). One of the prophets who foretold this was Ezekiel:

For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out. As a shepherd seeks out his flock when he is among his sheep that have been scattered, so will I seek out my sheep, and I will rescue them from all places where they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness. And I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries, and will bring them into their own land. And I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the ravines, and in all the inhabited places of the country. I will feed them with good pasture, and on the mountain heights of Israel shall be their grazing land. There they shall lie down in good grazing land, and on rich pasture they shall feed on the mountains of Israel. I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I myself will make them lie down, declares the Lord God.

Chapter 34

This prediction was fulfilled dramatically in 1948 only THREE years after the horrors of the holocaust and the attempts to wipe the Jews out as a people. Such a turnaround is depicted graphically in the famous words of Ezekiel 37 where a valley full of dry bones is the scene of an incredible resurrection. No wonder the witness of the Jewish people has long been seen as proof of God's hand in the world He created. There is a famous story in which the Kaiser asks Bismarck, “Can you prove the existence of God?” Bismarck replies, “The Jews, your majesty. The Jews.”

But the point of this post is to think about how this happened. Ezekiel describes God as a Shepherd but it is impossible to show exactly where God acted. There must have been millions of seemingly random decisions and actions by politicians and people throughout the centuries that brought us to 1948. Nowhere can we say, 'This is where God did it!' It is impossible, yet the fact is that it happened. God shepherded the Jews back to their own land. His hand was unseen, yet its effect is undeniable. God is a potter, shaping the lives of his people.