Separation of Genetics and Religion
Hello,
As many of you know, I have endured a tumultuous relationship between my scientific and religious halves. I think that this Island might be found as a proper medium to discuss this relationship, and possibly draw some conclusions and potential issues to be discussed within our group.
Before I enrolled at Christ’s College at Cambridge to attain my BA, I remember reading a book by John Pearson, D.D. It had quite a simple title; I believe it was An Exposition of the Creed. After reading this book, I could not doubt the Bible. Strictly and literally, I knew I had to accept the creed of God. It wasn’t as if the book changed my life, but was rather the last piece in reaffirming my faith. For a number of years after that, I was fairly orthodox. Why, I even remember on the Beagle when I quoted the Bible as some omnipotent authority to answer a question a shipmate had about morality. I believed in God, I lived the way God wanted me to live.
Unfortunately, that all changed on the 23rd of April, 1851. My daughter Annie succumbed to a horrible illness and died among sweat stained blankets and cold tea. When Emma would go to church on Sunday, I would merely stroll around the neighborhood, amusing myself with other things. Of course, my Unitarian Emma never missed a day of church; she was a dedicated woman.
When asked to discuss the role of religion in science, or more specifically the role of religion in genetics, I tend to cringe. I find myself very confused even thinking about such a topic. I know that this wonderful universe and all it encompasses could not have come from mere chance. There is no way! I remember being asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury to speak on the union of science and religion. I declined the request, what benefit could it serve?
Now, before I get too hasty I want to make one thing clear. I am not an atheist. It is quite possible for a person to be a zealous evolutionist as well as a theist. These two diverse academic fields do not clash, but rather are easily conjoined. I believe in the existence of God, but I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation. Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, such a thing could never exist. However, there was a first creation. As I stated before, this is a very confusing concept for me. It seems that there is a limited role of religion and science, but it is still very important. Without the creation of the world, I could have never completed the studies that occupied so much of my life, and until I can answer whether the world has been designed intelligently or by chance, I must concede to my theist feelings, however ambiguous they may be.
Now, the big question. Should religion play a role in genetics? My answer: No. To me, it seems that religion might be heavily related to science, but it is not interwoven. In other words, we do not find religion dotted around different sectors of a certain theory. To cancel out different variables, the actions of one of Christ’s disciples are unimportant. It seems that religion occupies a block in science. Imagine the following metaphor. You just bought tickets to a hound race a couple of towns over. Sitting in the grandstand, you watch as the slender dogs mill around in their tie-stalls. The gun goes off, the doors to the tie-stall fly open and the dogs are off. Consider religion as the starter’s gun. Religion provides the gunpowder and bullets to get the race going, but it is scientific theory that finishes the race. It is up to the athleticism of the dogs, the wetness of the track, the temperature outside that determines the winner. The scientific theory, in this metaphor, is the race itself. It is up to the individual dog once the race begins to determine the final result. Of course, you came to watch the race, but without the gun the race might have never started.
It is quite a confusing theory, and there may be no correct answer to the aforementioned question. It is only in the various personal experiences of scientists insofar as religion that might determine specific theories. If a sense of divinity is strong in an individual, his findings might be considerably different. I am very curious as to your responses to my question…
Regards,
-Charles
revmendel said,
April 18, 2008 at 2:21 am
Charles,
What is dog racing? I’m looking it up on Wikipedia as I write…Wait a second, what?! How dare you liken gambling to genetics! The more you mix sin with this wondrous field, the less my critics and colleagues will accept it. Please stop this nonsense at once.
GM
As a side note, I did not like the Archbishop of Canterbury either. I remember a letter I received from him asking me to stop focusing on my scientific studies and focus on the Book. Pshh…shows what he knows.
therealdarwin said,
April 18, 2008 at 7:37 pm
It was merely an metaphor Gregor, take it easy.
C. Darwin
callmestephanides said,
April 21, 2008 at 2:03 am
Mr. Darwin,
First, let me tell you how proud I am to be in the intellectual arena with such a legendary mind. I truly am awed in your electronic presence. I think you wrote an interesting article on the role of religion and genetics, but I find a couple of quips with it. You say that religion essentially jumpstarts the scientific process. If this is so, how would you explain the withdrawn role it occupies throughout the process? What causes it to suddenly fall off the radar? Sure, it makes sense in an evolutionary sense, but you cannot apply that theory to other scientific processes. You seem to think this is some sort of intensely regulated world! This little place we call earth is not all straight lines and perfect curves. There are inaccuracies that it seems you are unprepared to deal with.
Cal