Of Science and Theology

J.B. Stump recently published an article in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation: Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. The article is entitled “Did God Guide Our Evolution?”[1] Since many readers will not have ready access to this journal, allow me to give a summary. As he says, at one point in the paper, it might have been a very short paper if he simply answered ‘yes.’ Of course, the answer is much more nuanced than that because if one says yes, that person would open themselves to the criticism that neo-Darwinism is not the kind of process that could be guided. The person who says no, sounds like a deist who believes that God simply got the ball rolling at the Big Bang and left everything to chance and survival of the fittest.

 

Stump speaks of those of us who believe in both God and science and speaks of the tension many of us feel regarding the question of God’s guidance of the natural process.

 

“There is an often-unresolved tension for many of us who have these twin intuitions:

·       As science-minded people, the more we examine the development of life, the more we are persuaded of the efficacy and integrity of natural mechanisms.

·       As Christians, the more we learn of God and his ways, the more we are persuaded that God loves us and has partnered with us to achieve God’s purposes for the world.

The first of these intuitions leads us to think that science, while not infallible, has shown itself to be a reliable, truth-discovering enterprise, and that, therefore, the science describing our evolution is at least largely correct. The second leads us to believe that God had (and has) a plan for us as image bearers, and therefore God did all that was necessary to provide for our appearance on Earth.”[2]

He says that these two intuitions can be formalised into the following two claims:

“C1. Evolution is the best scientific explanation for the origin of Homo sapiens.

C2. God intentionally created human beings in God’s image.”[3]

 

For the rest of the paper Stump goes on to speak of the various ways in which scholars have created strategies to hold these two claims together in such a way that they can both be true. He summarises three views and the criticisms of those views before giving us his own conclusion on how this can be done. He speaks of the Semantic Strategy, the Nomological Strategy, and the Causal Joint Strategy, before giving us his Epistemological Strategy. I won’t go into all the details, those who wish to can find and read the full article. Let me skip to the final strategy and conclusion.

 

The basic idea of the Epistemological Strategy is that science and theology are different ways of knowing. Both are true and both make truth claims about the world around us. The two truth claims, C1 and C2 tell the same story in different ways and “neither tells the whole story.”[4] Stump then makes an important point when he says that,

“It has been the tendency to treat the scientific discourse as the real description of things and to treat whatever does not fit within that discourse (e.g., free will, morality, meaning) as folk psychology and fictions. But that is to succumb to scientism.”

Although Stump does not say it specifically, we might also say that treating whatever does not fit the theological discourse as ‘not real’ is to succumb to ‘theologicism.’ We cannot think that the Bible has the answer to every question (e.g., how long it took to make the universe, or does a hare chew a cud?[5]) for God has also communicated to us through his creation and encourages us to use our minds.

 

Stump distinguishes his Epistemological Strategy from Stephen Jay Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria approach (NOMA) and its inherent flaws. He notes that in the NOMA explanation, science deals with fact and theory while religion deals with feelings and values; in his own epistemological explanation, both science and theology are “making factual truth claims.”[6]

 

Stump reminds the reader that we need a both/and approach to understanding our universe (as in previous blogs, I again refer my reader to the Two-book Theory of God’s revelation[7]) and that without both ways of knowing “we are going to get an incomplete answer.”[8] Furthermore, he points to two examples of how we must get used to both/and thinking when observing our universe. One of these comes from scientific discourse and one from theological discourse. In science, when we describe light, we must keep in mind that it is both a wave and a particle (not easy to conceptualise but we must think in both/and) and in theology, when we describe God, we must keep in mind that he is both three and one (again, not easy to conceptualise). So, both the scientific and theological means of knowing have their place. J.B. Stump has done a great service in helping to explain why both are necessary.

 

 

---

[1] “Did God Guide Our Evolution?”, J.B. Stump, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation: Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Vol. 72, No. 1; March 2020. 

[2] Stump, p. 16.

[3] Stump, p. 16.

[4] Stump, p. 20.

[5] There is a whole theological conversation around the words of Lev. 11:3-6 and Deut. 14:7 about whether or not it is accurate to describe a hare as chewing a cud. The conversation can get rather pointed and borders on irrational when people expect the whole answer to be found in the Bible.

[6] Stump, p. 22.

[7] “Two Books Theology means understanding how Christian theologians from the very beginnings of the Church have understood God’s self-revelation, as well as the relationship between Scripture and Creation.” “The Church Fathers and Two Books Theology” Biologos, Mark H. Mann, 2012.

[8] Stump, p. 22.

More Good News from the NIH

I am now in the habit of regularly reading Dr. Francis Collins’ blog at https://directorsblog.nih.gov/. Most of the latest information about potential vaccines, clinical trials, and COVID-19 therapies can be found here before they reach mainstream media. Dr. Collins (author of The Language of God) is a brilliant scientific mind, the director of the National Institute of Health, and a humble follower of Jesus Christ. His latest blog gives us more great news about potential therapies for COVID-19. You can read the blog yourself (as it is not overly technical) and I will also provide a summary here.

The good news is there in the first paragraph: we now know that nearly everyone who recovers from COVID-19 produces antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. This is the virus that causes the respiratory disease COVID-19. This suggests that, at least for a period of time – perhaps six months to several years, people exposed to SARS-CoV-2 will be protected from getting COVID-19 again. It is also quite possible that this protection, or immunity, could be transferred to other individuals who have not yet been exposed to the virus. Canadian Blood Services may already be storing tubes of blood for testing to see who has these antibodies in their blood.[1] Such blood samples would be valuable in identifying plasma that could be transferred to others to effectively block the replication of the virus in the cells of those exposed to the virus. As Collins' blog also suggests, the antibodies in this plasma may also be an effective therapy for those in an active COVID-19 disease state.

The article goes into some technical details about the various forms which these antibodies take and gives credit to those involved in this important work. The researchers come from all over the world including Beijing, Europe, and the United States. It is a good example of a unified research and development process. I really appreciate good news about actual potential therapies rather than speculation on drugs that may or may not work against the virus. I also really appreciate that these scientists put aside political quarrelling for the sake of all humanity. I encourage us all to stay informed, continue to use our intellects, and stay positive in the search for a conclusion to this pandemic.

---

[1] Personal communication from an un-named source at my local blood donor clinic.

How Does One Say Welcome Through a Mask?

Most of us are getting used to smiling really hard to enhance the mirth or joy in our eyes. Without this, will anyone out in the public know that we are smiling behind our mask? You know the feeling: you have just stepped into the wrong aisle, from the wrong lane, heading in the wrong direction, down a supermarket throughway and you want to give that sheepish smile that says, “Oops, I will do better next time but right now I just need to reach that jar of bread yeast. Heh, heh, heh, smiley, smiley, smile.” We wish an emoji would pop up over our head to express our emotion. Alas, that only happens in cartoons and virtual reality. But here in the real world, we are not so fortunate. 

I thought about this as I read the news today and saw pictures of restaurants and retailers with signs that read, “Welcome Back – We Are Open” with owners standing at their doors smiling over masks. Yes, we know we are welcome, but we would be much more at ease if there was now no need for that black “bandit” mask that we have all been wearing for the last while (or should I wear the camo mask today?). Which brings me to a point about the re-opening of church buildings. Larry Osborne at North Coast Training Centre has some great insights into what will be necessary for the successful re-opening of our worship services. Most leaders, to this point, have focussed on the physical necessities of masks, hand sanitizers, touchless services, no consumables, and the challenge of children’s ministries. Osborne emphasises what it will take to have a quality worship service that meets or exceeds the quality of online services without totally exhausting pastors, tech-teams, and volunteers. In my mind, it created some questions worth considering. What does it mean to have a quality worship service? Is singing through a mask, while socially distanced necessarily a better worship experience than an online worship service? How many people will we be able to invite into our auditoriums? What about families with small children? Who will be comfortable returning to an enclosed space with central heating and many touch-points? Will my welcoming smile be noticed at the door or will I need to wear a t-shirt that says, “I am smiling under this mask”?

I think Larry Osborne is asking the right questions and perhaps foreseeing the appropriate responses. He suggests churches consider returning to large indoor spaces at a time similar to when people start to return to large outdoor sports arenas. The science of infection relies upon the concept of “Exposure to virus” X “Time” = “Infection”[1] So, indoor facilities pose greater risk than outdoor (because in the outdoors, wind will disperse viral particles in biological droplets faster and make them more dilute than in indoor spaces - even this may not hold up to some of the most recent research). But, time together in a church service may be shorter and less active than time spent cheering for your favourite sports team with a much larger crowd. These are the considerations which must go into decisions about when to open zoos, sports facilities, gyms, and places of worship. Do we really want to get ourselves into a situation where we book a time when we are allowed to go to a worship service in a building, after donning mask and gloves, and carrying around a bottle of spray disinfectant? It may be suitable to limit attendance and booking times at the Zoo, but what would such limitations say to the general public wishing to attend a church service? Would we create member only services? Visitor only services? Services with singing and services without singing? Services where seniors can attend and non-seniors services? Children-welcome and children-not-welcome services? Larry Osborne has reminded us that there are some big questions yet to ask. Most of them have no credible answer in the present context. 

Francis Collins (Head of the NIH in the USA) has said that we might possibly have a vaccine by the end of the year. He and Timothy Keller have also commented on the disparities that are present in our medical systems that create have and have-not cultures.[2] Any re-openings and access to vital medications and vaccines must take into consideration Jesus’ words about “the least of these.” All will need equal access.

So, “to [open] or not to [open]. That is the question. Whether it is nobler in the mind to” remain closed or to re-open. That is one of the questions of the Kingdom of God in which we live and to which we look forward. Until we answer this question, keep smiling. The smile lines increasing with age will only serve to emphasise your smiling eyes.

---

[1] Erin Bromage, “The Risks – Know Them – Avoid Them,” Dr. Bromage joined the Faculty of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth in 2007 where he teaches courses in Immunology and Infectious disease, including a course this semester on the Ecology of Infectious Disease which focused on the emerging SARS-CoV2 outbreak in China, https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them.
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2h3VEoL0d8

Collins and Keller: Where is God in a Pandemic?

I am happy to have this blog where I can direct our attention to some of the valuable resources available to us at this time. One such resource is a recent conversation between Dr. Timothy Keller and Dr. Francis Collins moderated by Jim Stump from the BioLogos organization. I can give you a couple of hints regarding the way to watch this video. First, the main content begins at approximately 9:00 minutes into the YouTube recording and secondly, I have listed a few topics within the video. That way, as a question is asked, you will have an opportunity to take greater notice of the wisdom shared by these two phenomenal leaders. Some of the topics covered include:

·       Disparity in online learning

·       Spiritual depletion in busy times and the need to take time for spiritual refreshment

·       Adventures in rapid scientific development

·       The Church’s response to the pandemic

·       Innovation in the church – the replanting of local churches

·       Vaccines – when will we have one and who will accept it?

·       Medicine as God working rationally in his creation

·       Jesus recommending and using medicine

·       Theology of suffering

·       Disparity in healthcare resources

·       Affluent churches helping immigrant communities

·       Image of God and compassion toward all who are made in the image of God – the value of every human life

·       Hard utilitarianism does not hold sway in the Kingdom of God – the calculus of saving lives

·       Prayer and the work of God through those who are made in the image of God

·       How to use our time on earth to the greatest benefit

·       Asking for wisdom from God

That is a long list of relevant topics for each of us. I pray that you might find the time to be spiritually refreshed by these two leaders in God’s Kingdom. Jim Stump is great at asking the right questions and drawing out the best from each of his guests. May we be praying for the work of all who serve God in pandemic times. May God refresh his spiritual leaders in the work of the Kingdom of God.

Understanding Testing

The world of COVID-19 testing and our understanding of the virus has caused many of us to read science and health articles laden with new terminology that may be challenging to understand. One of the areas of knowledge that is difficult to understand is COVID-19 testing. Let’s take a closer look at some of the work presently being done.

When it comes to viruses and the diseases they cause, there are two basic types of testing. One, testing to see if the person being tested has virus in their system; and two, testing to see if the person has developed antibodies against the virus. We will look at each in turn with regard to the COVID-19 disease and the SARS-CoV-2 virus[1] which causes the disease.[2]

Virus testing in this first case, is done almost exclusively by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). This is the recommended initial test to see if a person is carrying the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the deep parts of the nasal passages.[3] This test detects the rna of the actual virus by transcribing its rna into DNA and amplifying the DNA (making more of the DNA). This is a highly sensitive test and is capable of detecting as few as one virus particle. The test relies on the concept that if a virus particle is detected deep in the sinus cavity of the patient, the patient’s body is likely manufacturing the virus particles in the cells of their respiratory system[4] and shedding them out into the world around them through moisture in their breath.[5] This article will not assess the tests but rather describe the tests (some of the readers of this article may already be seeing the pros and cons of this testing method). Spartan Bioscience in Ottawa has just received approval to sell their rapid detection kit to the Canadian market.[6] It is exciting to see this new made-in-Canada solution to testing for SARS-CoV-2.

In the second type of testing, the clinicians initiating the test are looking for antibodies against the virus. Normally, when our bodies are introduced to a new virus in our cells, our immune system goes through a system of activation and biochemical cascades which result in the production of antibodies against the novel virus.[7] These antibodies are part of a healthy person’s biological response to a virus and the beginnings of how we fight off this new challenge to the integrity of our cells. We want our cells to exclusively make proteins for our own use and we do not want them making more viral rna or viral proteins. Therefore, our immune system must initiate its own biological warfare against the invading army of viruses. Antibody testing relies upon this ability of the body to make antibodies against a foreign particle in our system. If our body has experienced the new virus and has had sufficient time to mount a response, there will be antibodies in our blood to indicate that this has happened. Antibodies such as this may last for a matter of months or many years. Thus, one can test for specific antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 while the person is in an active COVID-19 disease state or even after they have recovered. This type of testing may be invaluable in determining who has survived the disease and may possibly be a source of antibodies that could potentially be transferred to another person to give them immunity to the disease.[8]

This second type of testing is more of a classical immunological test. A molecule capable of binding to the antibody, something that bears a resemblance to the binding portion of the viral particle, is bound onto a substrate (perhaps a paper inside a testing cassette) and then a blood sample is placed in contact with the detection molecule. After an appropriate wash, to cleanse the cassette of any unbound particles, the one performing the test looks for evidence of bound antibodies. This is most often a colour change on the substrate (think of how an early pregnancy detection stick works) to indicate the presence of the antibody against the virus. (Again, there are pros and cons of such a testing regime, but for now, we will forgo any assessments.) Tests such as this are in development in Canada as well. The test manufactured by BTNX is approved for sale in the US and UK but is not yet approved for the Canadian market.[9] This type of testing will be critical to further research and for such important tasks as testing donor blood at Canadian Blood Services. We can applaud such active and rapid research into both of these areas of testing.

Post a comment or send an email if this article has created further questions. I will do my best to research the questions and provide answers.

---

[1] The virus itself is a simple little biological entity, less alive and more machine-like. It consists of only 30,000 base-pairs of rna and just a few proteins. Perhaps I will write more on that later.

[2] This virus is also sometimes referred to as “the coronavirus” (but of course it is simply one of many coronaviruses) or the 2019 novel coronavirus or 2019-nCoV.

[3] "Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020-03-21. Retrieved 28 March 2020.

[4] For that is what virus particles do, they get inside a host cell and use the cell’s machinery to make more virus particles.

[5] Notice I avoided saying, “by speaking moistly.” This is out of respect for our Prime Minister and the great job he is doing each day keeping the Canadian public informed. It is so easy to stumble over one’s words in such settings. We all need to give him a break.

[6] “Everyone wants them: Rapid COVID-19 test kits made in Canada approved for use,” CBC News, 2020-04-13, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/spartan-covid19-test-kit-new-1.5530669.

[7] People who are immune-compromised for various reasons may not be fully capable of mounting such an immune response against the virus.

[8] I am intentionally using a number of conditional words and clauses here. The research has not yet shown whether or not it might be possible to transfer immunity via this method. But, it is a hopeful plan.

[9] “Health Canada says rapid blood test for COVID-19 remains under review,” CBC News, 2020-04-12, https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/health-canada-rapid-blood-tests-under-review-1.5529590

Good-bye Opportunity

About three weeks ago I wrote about the Curiosity Rover that has been functioning on Mars for six and a half years. Today we say farewell to the Opportunity Rover (2004 – 2018) which was formally pronounced dead at a news conference yesterday. Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator of the Science Mission Directorate, said, "I'm standing here with a sense of deep appreciation and gratitude to declare the Opportunity mission as complete, and with it, the Mars Exploration Rover mission as complete."[1]

What a run this little rover had. NASA has a webpage[2]dedicated to the travels and images of this rover from more than fourteen years of roving. It was last heard from on June 10, 2018 when a dust storm caused it to begin to lose the ability to harvest electricity from the sun. Yesterday’s announcement emphasised the technological triumph of this rover staying active far beyond the days of its original 90-Martian-day (90 sols) mission.[3]Of course NASA’s Curiosity Rover is still expected to continue sending back data for the foreseeable future and NASA has plans for a Red Planet: Mars 2020 mission that includes another rover.

So, this Valentine’s Day, we send our love to Oppy, the little Rover who gave us so much more than we asked. We look forward to the next series of explorations of the Martian landscape.

---

[1]https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/mars-opportunity-rover-dead-1.5018038

[2]https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/mission/tm-opportunity-all.html

[3]https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/mars-opportunity-rover-dead-1.5018038

God Rested

Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good!

And evening passed and morning came, marking the sixth day.

So the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them was completed. On the seventh day God had finished his work of creation, so he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because it was the day when he rested from all his work of creation.

Genesis 1:31-2:3 (NIV)

Take some time to read again the account of creation in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 of the Bible. Most of us think that we already know what it says, but I find that each reading reveals new insights. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 each give the account of creation in different ways. Each offers rich insights into what God wants us to know about his creation, his place in the universe, our place in the universe, and the responsibility of each person, animal, and object in the story.

At one time, I thought that God was communicating to us that we are presently living in the seventh day. Genesis 2:2 says, “On the seventh day God had finished his work of creation, so he rested from all his work.” At one level, it sounds like God is finished once and for all and that he is now resting from the work of creation. That is not the case at all. 

Creation is most certainly continuing to happen. As I write these words, Kīlauea volcanoe on the island of Hawaii is spewing lava into the sea and adding to the size of the island. In 2013, a new island was formed in the Pacific Ocean just off of the coast of Japan. Currently, new stars and planets are being formed in the far reaches of space. Furthermore, new species of plants and animals are being discovered at a rapid pace. Some of these discoveries are in fact new species that have recently come into being.

So, what are we to make of the “rest of God?” What are these words communicating to us? Perhaps it is as simple as telling us that there is a time for work and that there is a time for rest. The Creator does not always spell out all of the implications of how we are to live, but he gives us grand principles and asks us to work out how we might live this out in our time. Humans have been working out the concept of sabbath rest ever since creation. In times when Jewish law was supreme, Sabbath was highly codified and legalized. Specific rules of what could and could not be done on the seventh day of the week were built into the society. Under the rule of the Babylonians, Assyrians, Romans, and other cultures, it was necessary to adjust how Sabbath was lived out. In recent history, as Christianity has sought to codify Sabbath regulations, we saw Sunday shopping rules enshrined in law, encroached upon, struck down, and now meaningless. Christians today find themselves in a place in time and culture where we each must reinterpret how we will appropriately live out a life of work and rest. Yet, the grand principle still applies: God’s best plan for us is a day of rest and six days of work.

Creation goes on and God’s principles of what is best for his people also go on. May we rejoice in an ever-changing universe, ever-changing culture, and the constant principles which guide our lives.

Robots and Wisdom

It may well be that the time has come to make three fictional laws, actual laws in our world. Perhaps the United Nations could be given authority over Artificial Intelligence and could enforce Isaac Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics.” Two articles in the news today bring to mind the need for greater regulation in the areas of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and “outer space frontier development."[1] We now need the “laws of robotics.” You may not remember these famous literary laws from Asimov’s short-story, “Runaround.” Allow me to refresh our memories:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.[2]

These laws would prevent the kind of military drones now being contemplated by the Pentagon as they discuss policy with Google and other leading AI industrialists.[3] It would be very easy for drones and AI drones to take over conventional warfare. Such laws, if written into international law, would have the potential to demilitarize the AI and Space frontiers and prevent us from reverting to a “wild-west” mentality in these spheres of influence. The UN (including the little known United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs [UNOOSA]) would need to be given authority to oversee and gain cooperation from member nations - and therein lies the difficulty. The recent launch of a swarm of private artificial intelligence satellites, each about 10 centimetres across, demonstrates how difficult it is to enforce the laws. These recently launched satellites are so tiny that they cannot be tracked and could pose a navigational hazard for the International Space Station (ISS) and other satellites encircling the globe. Swarm Technologies was denied permission to launch these satellites from within the United States, so they found a carrier in India willing to send them aloft.

So, if we can’t enforce the rules, laws, and guidelines already in place, how could we enforce the three laws of robotics? Yet, it seems we must try. My recent Bible readings addressed the topic of “good judgement.” What does good judgement look like in some of these recent developments? I leave that for the reader to meditate upon as we read the following excerpt from the book of Proverbs.

Proverbs 4:4-9

⁴ My father taught me,
“Take my words to heart.
    Follow my commands, and you will live.
⁵ Get wisdom; develop good judgment.
    Don’t forget my words or turn away from them.
⁶ Don’t turn your back on wisdom, for she will protect you.
    Love her, and she will guard you.
⁷ Getting wisdom is the wisest thing you can do!
    And whatever else you do, develop good judgment.
⁸ If you prize wisdom, she will make you great.
    Embrace her, and she will honor you.
⁹ She will place a lovely wreath on your head;
    she will present you with a beautiful crown.”

---

[1]See, “How we can prevent outer space from becoming the Wild West?”; Nicole Mortillaro, CBC News, Jun 17, 2018, http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/space-regulation-1.4687587

Also see, “Is Google's new set of principles enough to calm fears over militarized A.I.?”; Ramona Pringle, CBC News,  Jun 16, 2018, http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/google-militarized-ai-1.4707697

[2]Asimov, Isaac (1950). "Runaround". I, Robot (hardcover) (The Isaac Asimov Collection ed.). New York City: Doubleday. p. 40. ISBN 0-385-42304-7. This is an exact transcription of the laws. They also appear in the front of the book, and in both places there is no "to" in the 2nd law.
[3] See, “Is Google's new set of principles enough to calm fears over militarized A.I.?”; Ramona Pringle, CBC News,  Jun 16, 2018, http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/google-militarized-ai-1.4707697

Chromosome 2

Human Chromosome 2 is an interesting example of evidence that suggests God used evolution to create humanity. Darrel Falk has made a series of YouTube videos that explain why he believes that Chromosome 2 is evidence for God using evolutionary processes.[1] Here I will explain the basic concepts and leave it to the reader to investigate further.

To understand this evidence, we must first understand a little bit about genetics, chromosomes, and DNA. Chromosomes are the structures that keep our DNA organized. In every cell of our bodies there are strings of 3 billion base pairs of DNA. DNA is a string of adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T) molecules strung together in a variety of combinations that can be represented like this:

(Click on images to enlarge)

Notice that the strings of molecules can be put together in many permutations and allow for an amazing amount of information to be stored in this format. The image shown above is a representation of one side of the DNA ladder. DNA pairs in such a way that A pairs with T and C pairs with G, so the two sides of a DNA double helix can be represented in the following way:

Chromosomes organize and constrain this DNA into discreet packages that allow the DNA to be copied, moved around, and accurately passed from one cell division to another and from one generation to the next. The ends of the chromosomes have distinct DNA structures called telomeres. In humans, the sequence of these telomeres is a number of repeats of TTAGGG and these telomeres prevent DNA from unraveling, much like the tips on the end of shoelaces prevent our shoelaces from fraying. Chromosomes have centromeric structures near the centre of the chromosomes where proteins look for specific conformations or shapes of DNA on the chromosome to grab the chromosomes and pull them in a specific direction when cell division such as mitosis or meiosis occurs (two forms of cell division in which the appropriate amount of DNA must be segregated into each cell).

Most humans have 23 pairs or a total of 46 chromosomes that look something like this when painted with fluorescent dyes:

Telomeric structures would be at the ends of each chromosome and centromeric structures would be at the darkened and pinched-in point generally toward the middle of the chromosome.

Different species of animals have different numbers of chromosomes. Here is a list of some animals and their chromosome number. I will continue to speak of the number of pairs of chromosomes in the typical animal, rather than the total number of chromosomes.

Mice have 20 pairs of chromosomes;

horses, 32 pairs;

donkeys, 31;

cows, 30;

tigers, 19;

lions, 19;

orangutans, 24;

gorillas, 24;

chimpanzees, 24;

and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees), 24 pairs.

These last four entries represent the great apes and are especially interesting to the rest of this article and we will pursue this topic more in the next few paragraphs. But before we get there, let me remind the reader that plants also have distinct numbers of chromosomes and we could list some of those as well. The coffee plant has 22 pairs of chromosomes whereas the pineapple has 25 pairs. The number of pairs of chromosomes is one mechanism that acts as a boundary between species and prevents the crossing of one species with another. There are a few rare exceptions such as horses and donkeys in which cross-breeding is possible despite different chromosomal numbers, but for the most part, such crossings fail. This is sufficient background regarding our DNA and its packaging into chromosomes to remind us that our bodies are fearfully and wonderfully made and that there is still much to learn about how the mechanisms of genetics work.

Now we come to the interesting instance of human Chromosome 2. As noted above, humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while the great apes have 24 pairs. If we look closely at and compare the chromosomes of humans and the great apes, a good deal of similarity is noted. G-banding patterns are a crude method of looking at the overall structure of chromosomes, but they are instructive in showing the similarities of chromosomes. Traditionally, this G-banding technique has been used to uniquely identify and arrange each of our 23 pairs of chromosomes.

Of particular note is the similarity between human chromosome 2 and ape chromosomes 12 and 13. The picture below shows the similarity in banding patterns of the human chromosome 2 compared to the banding patterns of two chimpanzee chromosomes.

What becomes immediately apparent at a crude structural level (and is further borne out in the actual DNA sequence of the chromosomes) is that human Chromosome 2 looks like a fusion of two chimp chromosomes. In fact, as we analyse the DNA sequence of human Chromosome 2, we find telomeric repetitive structures in the middle of Chromosome 2 (when they should only be at the ends of the chromosome) and a second, non-functional, centromeric structure where one would expect it would be if the chromosome resulted from a fusion event.

What this suggests is somewhere in the evolutionary development of humans, a fusion event occurred which resulted in the reduction of the number of chromosomes to 23 pairs for the humans and human-like species, while the great apes continue to have 24 pairs. The following diagram represents the phylogeny (or family-tree) with regard to this one feature (note, this diagram speaks of 46 and 48 chromosomes rather than 23 and 24 pairs). The question mark next to Neanderthals in the diagram represents the fact that, although the chromosomal number for humans and Denisovans has been experimentally confirmed, we do not presently have DNA of sufficient quality from Neanderthals to experimentally confirm that Neanderthals indeed had 23 pairs of chromosomes.[2]

[3]

Such evidence supports the idea that God used an evolutionary process to create species including the human species. It would indicate that we share a common ancestor with the great apes and that at a certain point in the evolutionary process our line diverged from the family tree of our ape cousins. It does not detract from God as creator and does offer insight into the mechanisms he used as he created.

A blog of this nature can only whet the reader’s appetite for further investigation into such topics. As previously stated, Darrel Falk’s YouTube videos may be the next place to turn for further understanding. The BioLogos website at biologos.org is always a great resource. Perhaps this blog might also open doors for respectful conversation, logical analysis, and a hunger and thirst for truth wherever it may be found. God is indeed the great creator and the mechanisms of biology are no surprise to him. We can continue to be confident that he is guiding the universe and guiding his revelation to those who seek him.

---

[1] Darrel Falk series of YouTube videos regarding the human chromosome 2 fusion:

Part 1 - https://bit.ly/2JUIKeq

Part 2 - https://bit.ly/2HJbTEz

Part 3 - https://bit.ly/2HJsRCJ

[2] See “Denisovans, Humans and the Chromosome 2 Fusion” September 06, 2012, BioLogos Blog, Dennis Venema,  

https://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/denisovans-humans-and-the-chromosome-2-fusion

[3] The diagram is from “Denisovans, Humans and the Chromosome 2 Fusion” September 06, 2012, BioLogos Blog, Dennis Venema, https://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/denisovans-humans-and-the-chromosome-2-fusion