Several days ago, I posted Part 1 of ”Missed Opportunities?” (click here to read).  I had planned on following up with Part 2 fairly quickly, but instead I’ve been distracted with the holiday festivities, travel, sickness, and of course - football.  And even though the Redskins are playing the Cowboys this very moment for a playoff berth, I find myself in a unique situation where I’m actually less “in the doghouse” for blogging than I would be for watching another stinkin’ football game! So here I am…

Recap from Part 1

If you recall from Part 1, the question under consideration is the method God used to create all living things.  Was it “according to the nature of second causes” or was it “without, above, and against them”?  The traditional understanding of the Genesis creation account favors the use of creation miracles (special creation) as opposed to God using a natural process.  We also noted that evangelical Christians seem to have a good deal of non-negotiable theology invested in the special creation model.  So there is more at stake than simply getting the science right.  For anyone who understands and appreciates the doctrines of original sin, the fall, and the promise of a Redeemer who came undo the curse of sin, there are serious theological ramifications associated with the common descent model.

The Problem

The problem for Christians is that the created order looks just as should if the common descent model were true.  In Part 1, we looked at several independent lines of physical evidence: comparative anatomy, the fossil record, and biogeography.  While none of these lines of evidence are “slam-dunk” proof for common descent or against special creation, when taken together they raise some difficult problems that can’t easily be ignored.  Sooner or later, the question must be asked, “if the creation of all living things in their current form does not require any specific patterns of morphology, faunal succession, or biogeography - why then do the observed data for each of these lines of evidence fit the precise patterns required by common descent?”  In other words, if the most fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith require the special creation of all living things in their current form, why did God design and build all living things to look as if they were formed by an ordinary process over vast amounts of time? 

The science of molecular genetics, unlike the other lines of physical evidence, actually allows us to quantify these questions, and the picture painted is a theologically challenging one.  Given the numerous opportunities to create all living things in such a way that unequivocally destroys any possibility of common descent, it seems almost negligent on the part of the Creator not to take advantage of them.  The problems only get worse when one takes the position that God requires His people to acknowledge a truth as revealed in the Scriptures, while at the same time ordering the entire cosmos to conspire against this very truth.  Now don’t get me wrong, I fully accept that our most theologically rich traditions come to us by way of paradox and super-rational mystery, but a charade of this magnitude seems to fall outside the boundaries of God’s righteous character.  So what do the data tell us?

The Standard Genetic Code

Take the standard genetic code for instance.  It requires a DNA sequence of 3 out of the 4 chemical bases to specify 1 of the 20 amino acids used by all living things to build proteins.  If only 2 out the 4 bases were used to code for an amino acid, then only 4×4=16 different combinations would be possible.  Not quite enough for all 20 amino acids.  But 3 out of 4 bases yields 4×4x4=64 different combinations, more than enough.  Since only 20 amino acids are used to construct proteins, the code is redundant by roughly a factor of 3.

The inherent redundancy of the standard genetic code raises questions about why there is a “standard” genetic code in the first place.  If all you really need are 22 unique 3-base sequences, otherwise known as codons (1 for “start”, 1 for “stop”, and 20 for amino acids), then the remaining 42 codons can be repeats of any 1 of the other 22 codons.  This means there could be as many as 22!*22^42 informationally equivalent genetic codes.  That’s about 77 zeros - more than enough for every individual species to have its own unique code (including its own unique mitDNA code)!  Such a discovery as this would have destroyed the idea of common ancestry faster than stellar parallax destroyed geocentricism.  Even if each created “kind” had a unique genetic code (ie: dogs, cats, lizards, etc…) rather than each individual species, the common descent model would have been quickly tossed in the intellectual dustbin of history.  But instead, we find one genetic code shared by all living things.  Why is that?

Now for a die-hard special creationist, this curious fact of nature could just as easily be evidence of common design as it could be for common descent.  Perhaps the Creator saw it fit to design all living things to use the same genetic code.  This certainly makes the study of molecular genetics easier.  Can you imagine having to keep track of millions of different codes?  It also allows molecular biologists to make significant advances in medicine by applying knowledge gleaned from the study of other organisms to human physiology.  For instance, human insulin can be synthesized by bacteria in a laboratory that have the human insulin gene spliced into the bacteria genome.  This would not be possible if bacteria DNA used a different genetic code than human DNA.  So perhaps there were reasons other than common descent that explain the standard genetic code in terms of the special creation model.

The Cytochrome C Phylogeny

The common design explanation could potentially be used to explain just about any measured genetic similarity between species, raising legitamate doubts about the common descent model.  So the trick is to find a gene that all species have in common, and preferably one that has nothing to do with other similarities and differences between them.  Like a gene from the mitochondrial DNA (mitDNA), which is completely separate from cellular DNA.  Cytochrome c is one such protein used in the electron transport chain - a critical metabolic process that enables a cell’s mitochondria to produce energy to be used by the cell.  The enzyme performs the exact same function in all species that require it, from yeast to fish to reptiles to mammals. 

The protein chain for cytochrome c consists of about 100 amino acids, so the expressed part of the gene must contain at least 100 codons (300 DNA base pairs).  But remember, the genetic code is redundant by roughly a factor of 3.  There are an average of 3 different sequences for each amino acid.  That means there are 3^100 different ways that a gene could build an identical cytochrome c enzyme.  That’s 47 zeros - enough possibilities for every living species to have a unique cytochrome c gene.  In fact, had God designed each creature’s cytochrome c gene to be unique, this too would have destroyed the idea of common ancestry.  It would then be blatantly obvious that the gene was independently designed for each creature, and that there was no original version inherited by all living things from a single common ancestor.  Moreover, it would have settled the issue without affecting any cellular functions whatsoever.  Each species could still use an identical cytochrome c enzyme.  But instead, we find that while some species have nearly identical cytochrome c genes, like chimps and humans (different by only 1 base pair), other species are less similar, like humans and yeast.  Yet another curious fact of nature that needn’t be there if all species were designed and created independently.

At this point, some may still be comfortable with the “common design” explanation.  But a closer look at the data shows how quickly this assumption starts to fall apart.  If the genetic similarities and differences between species are the result of common design, then identical proteins that perform identical functions should have identical gene sequences.  There would be no apparent reason for a designer to use different codes for the same amino acid sequence, unless he was trying to tell us something.  That would make about as much sense as Microsoft writing a different a computer code for each identically-functioning copy of Windows.  It’s physically possible, but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  On the other hand, the common descent model of creation requires that there be specific similarities and differences between each species’ cytochrome c gene.  Why?  Because selectively-neutral mutuations in a gene should accumulate over time.  And if life has indeed been evolving for 3.8 billion years, there should be plenty of harmless mutations in every creatures’ cytochrome c gene.  In other words, any changes in the DNA sequence that don’t negatively effect the final amino sequence will be passed on from ancestors to descendants.  And so the hereditary pattern of accumulated mutations in our cytochrome c genes should match the standard phylogenetic tree derived from the other lines of evidence. 

But the plot thickens.  Most genes contain large sections on unexpressed DNA called introns. These “junk” sections are clipped out of the mRNA before a protein is synthesized, and are therefore not translated.  So these sections within the gene can accumulate mutations more rapidly than the rest.  Moreover, the ultimate function of a protein depends primarily on its shape, and its shape is determined by which amino acids occupy certain key positions in the protein chain.  In other words, some amino acids are interchangeable.  That is, they can be swapped and sometimes even deleted without effecting the overall function of an enzyme.  These introduce even more opportunities for selectively-neutral mutations to accumulate in a gene such as cytochrome c.  To say this is a result of common design is ludicrous.  There is absolutely no reason for identically functioning enzymes to have different amino acid sequences or contain different introns.  Laboratory studies confirm that human cytochrome c genes can function perfectly in other organisms, such as yeast  - consistent with the idea that the electron transfer chain works same in every mitochondria across the species.

So what can we infer from the pattern of similarities and differences in cytochrome c genes from around the biosphere?  If we assume that special creation is true, there really shouldn’t be any differences at all, unless they are intentionally put there to tell us something.  So what do the data tell us?  Consider the 30 basic biological groups.  There are 10^38 different ways to construct a phylogenetic tree from these 30 representative groups.  If the Creator is free to use any one of these he wishes, why not use any one of the multitude of possibilities that unequivocally contradicts the standard phylogeny from which the model of common descent is based?  This surely would have sent evolutionists back to the drawing board, and it would have overwhelmingly confirmed our theological presuppositions about original sin, the fall, and the promise of Christ (the second Adam) to reverse the effects of sin on creation. 

Given the amount of theology we have invested in the special creation model, I don’t consider it presumptuous to ask such questions.  It seems as though the entire creation/evolution controversy could have easily been avoided.  But instead, we find that the phylogenetic tree constructed from sequencing cytochrome c genes matches the standard phylogeny to a precision of 38 decimal places.  If this is just a coincidence, then so is everything else in nature.  Mathematically speaking, we can be more certain of common descent than we can be about the mass or charge of the electron, absolute zero, the universal gravitational constant, or of Plank’s constant - which are all measured with far less precision.  It appears that if special creation is true, then God is going to great lengths to try and convince us that common descent is true.  Does this make any sense?  Or is it possible that things are as they appear because God ”ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently”?  And that these “second causes” are entirely natural - consistent with the ordinary patterns of divine providence that we observe each and every day?

Facing the 800 Pound Gorilla

It’s time for theologians to start sorting these things out.  Up to this point, the only people who seem willing to offer a friendly synthesis between the Garden of Eden and the science of human origins are evangelical scientists and Biblical scholars, or laymen like myself who have nothing professionally vested in any particular idea.  And I think we have all made some very constructive and insightful points.  But as my friend David Opderbeck says, “the only thing worse than a scientist doing theology is a theologian trying to do science.”  Unfortunately, few theologians are willing to even look at the evidence for common descent, particularly for the reasons stated in Part 1 of this post.  So what we usually get from the theologians are exegetical studies concluding that “day” means really does mean 24 hous and that the phrase “descends after its own kind” really does mean that monkeys can’t give birth to humans (which is not even possible from an evolutionary perspective).  Or we are treated to bits and pieces of repackaged systematic theology that requires everything, even scientific evidence that did not exist until 20 years ago, to be understood in terms of a “system” that was formulated during a time when geocentricism was still the cosmological consensus.  This usually results in a declaration that the person and work of Jesus Christ is contingent on the special creation of Adam in a perfect state and his subsequent fall into sin, which was imputed to all of his human descendants - case closed.  If the evidence for shared ancestry is acknowledged, it is simply attributed to fallen man “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” - despite the increasing number of evangelicals contributing to evolutionary science. 

But this all misses the point.  The point is the evidence, and how this information informs our exegesis and our systematic theology.  Because to ignore it doesn’t make the problem disappear, it only turns God into a omnipotent charlatan who intentionally puts his Word at odds with His Works.  Are there other ways to explain the data that preserves historic Christian orthodoxy without making God a great deceiver?  Or can we just detach the spiritual realities of our faith from the physical realities of the created order, as was done by the Medieval Church upon accepting heliocentric cosmology and subsequently removing “heaven” and “hell” from their physical locations in the solar system?  I personally favor the idea of decoupling theological realities from the “queerness” of the physical universe since our understanding of the cosmos is always in flux and the Word of the Lord stands forever.  But then again, I would be first in line to vigorously oppose any such compartmentalization between the physical-literal incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the spiritual reality that all believers are raised to new life in Christ. 

Perhaps the relationship between the scientific way of knowing and the theological way of knowing is similar to the relationship between Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?  Special Relativity seems to work really well when doing physics on the atomic scale, and Quantum Mechanics gives accurrate results when doing physics on cosmic scales.  Yet, every physicist knows that these two ways of describing reality are contradictory.  They can’t both be right.  One either needs to be reformulated in terms of the other, or a Grand Unified Theory needs to replace both of them.  But as long as we “see through a glass darkly” physicist are content to use the tools that work in the domain where each has proven itself effective.  Is it possible that orthodox Christians who accept the scientific case for common descent must also live a double life?  Should we turn to the Garden of Eden when asking questions about the nature of God, God’s relationship to man, man’s relationship to the rest of creation - ensuring that we get consistent theological results?  But then should we only consider God’s ordinary providence when asking questions about natural history - ensuring that we get consistent scientific results?  Can we straddle this fence of pragmatism until more clarity is revealed?

During the time when the Scriptures were written, ultimate cosmological truths about the Gods, mankind, the earth, and the other creatures were packaged in similar myths and legends and passed from generation to generation.  A quick survey of the creation myths of Isreal’s neighbors shows that ancient man did not concern himself with the same sort of details that modern man seems to care so much about.  Little attention was paid to the material details of the stories used to convey a point.  The cast, characters, and props used to tell the story were not really the message - but the medium.  The actual message transcended the medium.  What if the theological message of the Hebrew creation story was also intended to transcend the cast, characters, and props used by God to tell it - ensuring it remains relevant to all generation of believers, regardless of their contemporary cosmology?  Certainly that is how the ancient Hebrews, having never set foot inside a science classroom must have understood it.  What are the theological implications of this?

I don’t expect a whole lot of theologians to take on these challenges, but make not mistake - we are headed for a theological trainwreck!  I’ll exhaust some of my connections and see if there are any takers.  But at least the Redskins are going to the playoffs!

Happy New Year, GJG

This entry was posted on Monday, December 31st, 2007 at 4:20 pm and is filed under Random Things. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.