Book Review of "Why Us?" Part 3

Le Fanu devotes a chapter to the mystery of the Double Helix. Despite the extraordinary accomplishment of the Human Genome project, we are still unable to determine how genetic code causes one creature to be a fly while another becomes a human. Le Fanu detailed the ways in which uncovering the human gene sequence led to highly unexpected findings and more questions than answers. Not only were there fewer genes than expected, but 95% of the Double Helix was "junk." It was not clearly obvious how our sparse number of information bearing genes made us human. Additionally, studying mutations that lead to genetic disease resulted in the discovery that multiple mutations could cause a given disease. Even more puzzling was the finding that mutations could be present without always exerting their effect. Genes, we now know, are multi-tasked and work in concert with other genes. They are capable of displaying contradictory properties, depending on context and can be "essential for, and yet irrelevant to" their purpose. These findings make the concept of natural selection with random mutation appear simplistic and untenable. A discovery which has shed some light on the complex functioning of genes is the master genes, or Hox genes. They function as a switch, turning off and on various genes. However, scientists are learning that the same Hox genes which are responsible for a particular outcome in one organism produce a different outcome in another. So, the question remains, how does a fly know to be a fly and a mouse know to be a mouse? What is controlling the master genes, which are controlling everything else? The current assumption is that the Hox genes "turn the genes of the universal toolkit 'on and off' in a different sequence and at different times to produce these different structures."

However, Le Fanu has a problem settling with this explanation. He states that "the parts of the fly-its eyes, wings and limbs-are all 'of a piece', and it is difficult again to conceive how the relevant master gene for each could have chanced upon the correct sequence of switches to generate the appropriate part. It is as if the 'idea' of the fly (or any other organism) must somehow permeate the genome that gives rise to it, for it is only through the master genes of the embryonic fly's knowing it is a fly that they will activate that sequence of switches that will give rise to those appropriate structures."

He concludes that "there must be some non-material formative influence that, from the moment of conception, imposes the order of form on the developing embryo...and holds it constant while its cells and tissues are continually renewed...."

I appreciate the chapter for educating me on the incredible complexity of DNA. He does a terrific job of highlighting the questions and mystery that continue to pervade the study of the human body and our evolution. However, I'm not sure that I can accept his conclusion that there can be no material explanation for the workings of the Hox genes. It appears suspiciously like a God-of-the-Gaps argument that is subject to burial as science fills in the holes. I would agree if he ended the chapter by merely pointing to the appearance of a mastermind determining various forms, but I'm wary of his conclusion that sounds like a spirit inhabits fertilized eggs to ensure they grow up to be what the spirit intends.

Review of "Why Us? How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves"

At the book club I attend, we recently discussed the book "Why Us? How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves" by James Le Fanu. The author believes that as science has progressed, it has become clear that the boundaries of human knowledge are within sight, and science has fallen short on the promise to reveal all of nature's secrets. He supports his thesis by highlighting three areas of research: evolution, the double helix, and the brain. He believes that it is abundantly clear that the philosophical materialism that has dominated science since the enlightenment, has, through its own efforts, revealed its inability to fully explain the human experience. Le Fanu views this state of affairs as an indication of a non-material realm that exists along the material. Though he never speaks directly of God, he clearly believes that material explanations alone will not suffice in answering questions that continue to persist about who we are, how we came to be this way, and how exactly we work. I will take a look at some of these questions in my next post.

There certainly is much we still have to fathom. We and our world continue to be objects of mystery. This is why I would have difficulty ever confidently declaring myself to be an atheist. There is so much we don't know and so much that we experience as transcending material explanations. However, that doesn't mean material explanations can't someday suffice. Le Fanu, though, would beg to differ.

Review of "the Reason for God" Chapter 6 on Science

Keller takes the stance that the science/religion dichotomy is a false one. He spends a fair amount of time pointing out that significant numbers of scientists, in fact, believe in God. To counter claims that science has disproven the miraculous he makes the point that science, which is based on methodological naturalism, can only address the natural. Therefore, science cannot be used to disprove the supernatural, whether that be God or miracles. He asserts that God cannot be proven or disproven. While I agree with this last statement, the Intelligent Design (ID) movement would counter that science can be used to detect design in nature, providing some support for a creator (think fine-tuning arguments).

Keller addresses evolution, admitting that he believes in some type of God-directed process of natural selection. He does not view evolution as contradicting the Biblical account of creation, unless it is accepted as an "All-Encompassing Theory". I certainly agree with him here. It is important to understand the genre of the Biblical literature we are reading as well as the ancient near east (ANE) worldview in which it was written. Christendom has a history of interpreting scripture in ways which inevitably bump up against new scientific discoveries, leading to reinterpretation of the Biblical text in ways that do not conflict with them (think geocentric vs. heliocentric view of the universe).

In a bookclub meeting I attended tonight at church, we discussed this very issue of Christianity reinterpreting scripture and readjusting its view of the world as science has progressed. An important question was raised about how to prevent ourselves from taking stances based on scripture which turn out later to be wrong. I don't know for sure that we can avoid it. However, humbly being willing to hold our beliefs with some tentativeness and to revisit our positions based on new evidence would certainly go a long way. Hopefully, we are allowing our faith and science to inform each other, instead of compartmentalizing them.