As a molecular biologist I am in awe and wonder of the complexity of God’s creation. That we are fearfully and wonderfully made is so very evident when one considers all that we have discovered in science, and when one considers that we haven’t even scratched the surface! For the Feast of Christ the King, it is worthy to contemplate the extent that we allow Jesus to reign in our lives, and to consider how his sign of victory is imprinted in our bodies.
Please watch this video to see what molecular biology reveals to us.
Coming Home 
I enjoyed this. My faith was very much strengthened when I studied biology and organic chemistry in undergrad. Although many things were presented from an evolutionary pov, it was obvious to me that the creator knew exactly what He was doing and that the complexity of our bodies were due to more than mere chance.
Many thanks.
This video is awesome. I’m a true believer that Science doesn’t disprove the existence of God. It certainly does, however, expand our view/intellect of who and what God truly Is and how limited our capacity is, in attempting to “define” the Infinite. Clearly, the more we learn of Him, we realize that we actually know so little. Thank you so much Gerald and please, much more of the scientific realm.
Thank you! I left my job as a chemist to be a homemaker shortly before deciding to become Catholic seven years ago. I just began a theology program and was taking a break from writing a paper about how St. Aquinas used Aristotle’s approach to natural science to explain Christology. I wish I could embed the video in the paper. 🙂
I am a strong believer and have been since my conversion to Catholicism in 1963. That being said, this thing about laminin which apparently originated with the Baptist minister in the video, while tugging at our emotions, has a few flaws in it for the serious student of science. Snopes brings up these points: 1. (and the most impressive to me) an electron micrograph of Laminin shows that it isn’t in the shape of a cross at all. A micrograph of laminin is found on the Snopes site (link given below). 2. the exact shape of the cross upon which our Savior was crucified is unknown. (and this I’ve read also) i.e. it is unknown whether it was a stake (as used for later crucifixions like those of Vlad the impaler) or a “T” or the familiar cross as we see in Christian iconagraphy. 3. the “cross shape” happens in nature. If it reminds us of Our Lord, that’s fine but that actually couldn’t that be said about just everything in nature? 4. the drawing of laminin is made that way to illustrate the components and again, isn’t necessarily the way the actual molecule looks. And it can be said to resemble many other things besides the traditional cross such as a sword etc etc. To me, there are many other things in nature and of course, the human body which are much much inspiring and remind me of the immensity of God’s creation … indeed, the very structure of laminin and how it came to be, could prove to be more impressive than it’s shape as could be said about many other things. For example, after studying the structure of genes in the “Human Genome” project at a cost of countless hours for 15 years and millions of bucks, both Dr Francis Collins, MD current head of the project and Watson – Collins is an Evangelical Christian but Watson who received the Nobel Prize for arrangement of the “Double Helix” is an atheist – admit that they could only map 5% of the human genome i.e. that which we share with all living creatures. The other part of the 5 billion genes found in humans has been written off as “garbage DNA” although both Watson and Collins admit that it “might do something but they don’t know what it does”. That, to me, is a much more poignant reminder of the Immensity and Cleverness of God’s Creation, much of which, despite the most earnest efforts on the part of humans, eludes our understanding! There are many other examples of this in science which force, even atheist scientists like Tyson and Kaku to admit the unknowns with only an optimistic “well in the future… (dot dot dot)… 🙂 As far as Laminin, well, it made a very emotional and attention getting sermon for Paster Gigilio but when thought about, isn’t really among the impressive proofs for the existence of God like those of Cosmologist and Jesuit priest, Fr Robert Spitzer (try http://net-abbey.org/big-bang-and-creation.htm ) for example also Spitzer has some youtubes… the Snopes reference about Laminin is: http://www.snopes.com/glurge/laminin.asp
I always enjoy your blog – it is thoughtworthy and interesting! thanks, Sue
Sue, are you familiar with Fr. Stanley Jaki’s writings? I’ve only just been introduced and am finishing “The Savior of Science.” His main thesis, briefly, is that it was the Christian theology of Creation out of nothing by a Creator that has resulted in the birth and establishment of modern science as we know it.
Sue,
I read your links with great interest. A few thoughts:
1. Laminin is not a rigid molecule, which accounts for the appearances in the electron micrographs. The process of preparing Scanning Electron Micrograph (SEM) samples can often distort shape. The grainy appearance around the molecule is actually all of the holes in the filter on which the molecule sits.
2. As for the shape of the true cross, the one used in the Catholic and Protestant churches comes from the Gospel description of the event where Pilate had the inscription tacked above Jesus’ head, necessitating the extra piece that departs from the Eastern Tau shaped cross.
3. As for your observations about DNA and the rest, I heartily concur. What most fascinates me about creation is are the levels of complexity yet to be discovered.
As always, I love your commentary.
God Bless
Sue, while it might not be exact science, I consider the good pastors remarks to be the type that feed a beginning faith – kind of like Fr. Corapi’s talks (certainly not to take ANYTHING away from Fr. Corapi!!).
And I concur with Dr. N that our bodies are so complex and we think we know so much about them. But we are discovering new things all the time.
When you think of what happens when we have one extra chromosome or how everything is integrated in our bodies, it is truly amazing.
“But we are discovering new things all the time” – yes we are. And each and every time, they add more to the proof of evolution and move us further away from creationism. Every new answer is ‘science’, never ‘God’. Even when science is found wanting or even wrong, the correcting answer is still science, not God.
Cranium, FYI, not clear from your comment, but the Catholic Church does not favor teaching creationism or intelligent design. It teaches evolution – believe me, I made sure of this before I sent my kids to Catholic schools.
In 1996, Pope John Paul II even explicitly accepted evolution of the human body — though not the soul. He said, “…some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”
Science and religion aren’t always incompatible.
Ultimately L., I’m afraid it is. One claims a deity as creator, the other evolution. So while scientists with faith can dabble, participate, work to an extent, whatever; eventually they need to choose.
Take a look at the manifesto for a place like Biola University. When I read it, it made wonder how they were allowed to grant degrees in certain disciplines.
What I said was, science and religion aren’t always incompatible. I thought that implied that they often are incompatible — and the school whose site to which you linked is but one of the many examples of this. (I, too, wonder how places like that can stay accredited — and plenty of them don’t. )
But I fail to see how belief in evolution must always be incompatible with belief in a deity, since Catholic schools teach evolution.
Because the ultimate source of evolution is not a deity. They can only teach limited evolution in a catholic classroom.
Take a look at BioLogos, read a few of their blog pieces and you’ll see that they don’t know whether they are Arthur or Martha.
Okay, then what IS the “ultimate source of evolution?” Life must have begun for natural selection to occur, but there is no scientific consensus on how life began.
Is it “limited evolution” to believe that perhaps those chemical reactions 3-4 billion years ago might have been set in motion with some divine purpose? Or must one believe that it occurred spontaneously, for no reason at all, simply because nothing can be proven?
I’m not the best person to address this, since I’m not a religious person myself, and am somewhat deficient in the faith department. Nor am I trained as a scientist. I made sure, however, that my kids were educated at a school in which science and religion were two separate and distinct subjects — no watered-down “limited evolution” — which frankly sounds to me like a form of intelligent design.
My kids studied Darwin, not the Bible, in their science class.
I had never heard of Biologos — what an interesting site. It seems, though, to be trying to do too much, and I agree that their blog pieces (at least the ones I looked over) are all over the place.
I do not believe in a ‘divine purpose’. Science will unlock the key to origins. It may well blow our tiny little minds (control yourself Gerard 🙂 ) if we found it tomorrow but our minds will probably grow as we reach the point of ultimate discovery and be able to cope.
Sound like you have a lot of faith in that, Cranium! 🙂
Well there’s lots of evidence for it L. And none for any deity, so it’s not difficult.
If you really want to be gobsmacked by the most incomprehensible, minutiae seeking, desperately grasping example of allocating evolution to creation, check out Uncommon Descent. They make Biologos look like kindergarten.
“They can only teach limited evolution in a catholic classroom.”
True but like sex ed, it really all depends upon the teacher, the principal and the school system. It should be taught as a theory (which many teachers do).
Funny thing I’ve always found hard-core evolutionists to be very angry, domineering people. I’ve encountered this in dentists!!, doctors and professors.
The worst lecture I ever got was while in the dentist’s chair (I never brought the subject up – he did!!). He ranted on for about 25 minutes. Fortunately (for him) I wasn’t in a position to say much, although I suppose I could have bitten him!
“Hard-core evolutionists?” I hate to ask, but…what do you mean by that?
Since there is nothing in the theory of evolution that proves or disproves a supreme being, I wonder what your dentist said to make you want to bite him!
Evolutionary Theory only speaks to how life has changed over time. It does not speak to how life began, or the origins of the universe.
L, no God, and how all the people opposed to evolution were ignorant “bible thumpers” and so forth.
There are a now a large number of distinguished scientist who do not believe in evolution.
Mary Catherine, you wrote about a large number of distinguished scientists who are questioning evolution (we are speaking “macro evolution” as an explanation for the origin of the universe here – most agree in some form of “micro evolution” or variations in species much of which is caused by the intervention of humans in breeding). You are very correct in this. One interesting example was the scientist Anthony Flew who recently passed on to his eternal reward. For many years, he was an ardent atheist and believer in evolution to the point that he actually wrote books supporting atheism. But recent discoveries such as the “cosmological constants” which not only apparently “run” the universe but are at such close tolerance that the slightest variation in one of them, would cause a collapse into a black hole and much more, convinced him of that “Intelligent Design” was the answer and he thus, actually converted because of this, away from atheism to deism and wrote a book about that also! He is not the only one. Faith and Reason definitely go together and the Ven. John Paul II wrote a scholarly essay on that. Pope Benedict XVI has also written fluently about how faith and science go together and the church has financed and supported a goodly amount of the scientific discoveries throughout the ages. The Vatican has its own observatory! You might be interested in reading an excellent book called “DARWIN ON TRIAL” by Phillip Johnson. It should be noted that the proofs for Intelligent Design are complex and not many people understand them which explains the problems of teaching it in schools. But even the most ardent evolutionists admit big holes in the theory. Many of us feel that at the least, Intelligent Design should be taught as an alternate theory along with evolution and that evolution should be taught, not as a dogma (as it is taught today) but rather as a theory which leaves many questions unanswered. Here’s just one question: during the Cambrian era, many complex species appeared quickly. Even ardent naturist and atheist, Richard Dawkins admits “it was as if they were just placed there” There are many other points which could be brought up here which are very thoughtworthy.
Dr. Nadal, as a scientist, your opinion on whether Catholics can only believe in “limited evolution” would add a lot to this discussion.
Also, are there really “a large number of distinguished scientists who do not believe in evolution,” as Mary Catherine and Sue say? I do not know enough about the field of science to say whether or not this is true.
L,
There is a mountain of scientific data to support both macro and molecular evolution. It cannot be dismissed with the wave of one’s hand. It is there, and it is compelling. Further, as a scientist I have seen nothing in the way of alternative data or explanation that invalidates these data. That usually gets me into hot water in some Catholic quarters.
However, the Bible says that God created. It doesn’t proffer a mechanism for how God created. That’s where science lends a voice, a plausible explanation for how things came to be.
That said, there are gaping holes in our knowledge of science, and 98% of all species that ever lived have died off in several great extinctions. The Catholic Church holds for the possibility of evolution, so long as we understand that there was literally a set of primordial parents (Adam & Eve). But even here, it is possible that God set aside two individuals from those who were evolving and endowed them with reason and soul, calling them into relationship with Himself.
That should be enough to set a small forest fire here.
Cranium,
Your comment added nothing to the discussion, but a trashing of people’s faith. Therefore, I trashed it.
Thanks, Dr. Nadal — and what do you think of the theory of Intelligent Design, from a scientific perspective?
I have never seen any of the body of scientific work — only some of the children’s textbooks. (The latter were nothing I wanted my children to be taught — outside of a religion class, that is.)
L,
ID is really creationism flying below the Constitutional radar. I have gone to conferences and asked point blank who or what has been doing the design? They refuse to answer.
As a true scientist (wearing my scientific hat) I can not rule out the existence of God. That having been said, the complexity of nature has not been fully and satisfactorally (to me) explained by probability theory alone.
If one holds that there may well be a God who is the dynamic source of first principles, then nothing is off the table.
If one maintains as a scientist that there is no God, then one is a fool. The First Law of Thermodynamics holds that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It therefore has existed from all eternity.
Therein lies the atheist’s paradox.
Thank you Sue for the book recommendation and the interesting comment.
I have never really considered evolution to be a huge problem simply because I believe God created the universe and that there were two human beings who like the angels, underwent a test (which they failed). The bible says nothing about science because it is not about science – it is about the relationship between man and his creator.
I do not believe creationism should be taught in the classroom but I also would prefer science class to teach evolution as a THEORY presenting the evidence for and against. In this way students can critically assess the issue for themselves.
The incredible complexity of both nature and the human person suggests the Divine Hand.
And the evidence against evolution would be……?
there are many holes in evolutionary theory which is why is should be taught as a theory and not as fact.
I don’t believe this blog is one for debating evolution but I”m sure you can find a few online.
I have never heard of any “holes” in evolutionary theory per se — though there are, of course, a great many things it doesn’t explain, or even address.
A theory is not just idle speculation — as far as know, it’s the set of principles for explaining tangible evidence (though I’m sure Dr. Nadal could provide a better definition).
This blog might not be the place for debating evolution, but it seems to be a useful place for explaining it, and explaining why people believe what they do.
L,
You raise a good point here.
In common parlance: opinion, hypothesis, idea, theory, all are interchangeable terms. Not so in science.
Hypotheses are fairly well-informed opinions based upon a solid body of scientific literature. There are millions of hypotheses floating around out there. Most never get substantiated by research data and yield to being amended.
Every so often a hypothesis is continuously substantiated by the research data over a long period of time. When this occurs, the hypothesis rises to the level of Theory, of which there are only a handful today: Relativity, Evolution, String, and a few others. Each is supported by a mountain of data, and is not easily dismissed.
Finally, when a theory is regarded as airtight, it rises to the level of Law. Again, there are only a few of these: Gravity, 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, etc.
So that’s the hierarchy of concepts in science.
Evolution is a Theory with a mountain of data the size of Mount Everest under it. However, it hasn’t risen to the level of Law, though Harvard Evoloutionary Professor Emeritus, Edwin O. Wilson has flirted with such language.
Evolution does in fact have properties of a Law, for example, in meting out penalties to those who break it. What? You think you can break the Law of Evolution and get away with it? That’s what Homo erectus thought, and hardly a day goes by here in the South without something, or someone, reminding me of their folly. Oh Homo erectus! Where was Evolution’s Viagra when you needed it? Seriously, anyone taking a flu vaccine is casting a vote for Evolution as Law. Relatively deserves to be a Law as well. After all, it’s indisputable that sitting on a hot stove for a second feels like a minute, whereas kissing a pretty girl for a minute feels like second. What? You think you can break the Law of Relativity and get away with it? Try kissing a pretty girl while sitting on a hot stove and see what happens! (Man, I think I need a larger braincase)
Paul,
This is the line of lines:
“Oh Homo erectus! Where was Evolution’s Viagra when you needed it?”
We should have gone to grad school together!! Still laughing my &%$$#& off!!!!!!