Defining Life

In the course of an argument calling for a reevaluation of Darwin's outmoded doctrine of evolution entitled, "Life after Darwin,"biologist Didier Raoult writes, "Life is primarily the expression of the information contained in genes."  His point is that Darwin's views on evolution were based on theological and philosophical currents of his day, which have proven inadequate to account for the way evolution works.

The quoted sentence, however, requires reflection and serious reconsideration.  Is life, in fact, primarily the "expression of the information contained in genes"?  While the sentence may make sense in the context of Raoult's article, it is not stated as having either context or condition.  It is stated as an absolute matter of fact.  If he had written that "life is an expression of the information contained in the genes" there would be no reason to argue his point.  As best we know today, that is true.  But when he claims that life is "primarily the" expression of genetic information without qualification, he reduces not some forms of life, but all of life to its genetic attributes.

It is fair to ask whether or not human life, which is a significant form of life, is primarily the expression of its genetic information.  Are all other aspects of human life secondary to our genetic code?  Is there, in fact, a hierarchy of humanness?  On the face of it, Raoult's statement seems rather imperial in its inmplied assumption that biology is the primary field of study when it comes to life, including human life—making biology the "queen of the sciences."  Is the leap from non-life to life a matter of the genes?  Is that where the miracle and the mystery of life is located in us?  We don't know.  Raoult doesn't know.

The statement that life is an expression of the information contained in the genes is a scientific statement based on what we know today about life.  We might better expand the statement by saying that the forms life takes as we understand them biologically are expressions of their genetic information.  In this more modest light, Raoult's statement is not a scientific statement.  It is an ideological claim stated as an absolute truth.  It is an imperial claim that assigns all other aspects of life, such as the human spirit, to a secondary status.  As I've written before, thus far science can't even study the nature of the human spirit let alone either discredit its existence entirely or assign it a secondary status.

Darwin, Texas, & Textbooks

According to a news posting on the Dallas Morning News website entitled, "New science e-books approved by state education board," the Texas Board of Education avoided a confrontation over materials for teaching biology in the state's schools.  Texas could not afford to buy new biology textbooks this year, and the board decided instead to publish a list of recommended supplementary online materials.  It looked like the the list might include some items promoting intelligent design (ID) theory, which is widely seen as a "front" for conservative Christian creationism doctrines.  According to the news posting, a number of "social conservatives" sit on the board, including its chairperson, and there was a real possibility that there would be a fight over the supplementary list as a result.  In the end, no ID texts were included, and the potential skirmish never materialized.

The Austin Statesman noted in its posting (here) on the Board of Education's decision that a Presbyterian minister, the Rev. Kelly Allen, was among those speaking against including the ID material on the supplemental list. It quotes her as saying, "I don't want my children's public school teachers to teach faith and God in a science classroom. True religion can handle truth in all its forms. Evolution is solid science."

Whatever our personal beliefs about evolution, Pastor Allen is correct in saying that evolution is solid science.  ID, on the other hand, has failed to establish itself as a viable scientific alternative for the study of biology. It is theology disguised as science, and as such it has no place in courses teaching the science of biology. If allowed in science classrooms, the teaching of ID not only introduces extraneous subject matters, but it also offers teachers of a certain theological persuasion the opportunity to evangelize their students with their religious beliefs.  Pastor Allen is also correct in her statement that religion can "handle truth in all its forms."  Religious faith at its best is a search for and a commitment to truth.  Not only can it "handle" scientific truths, it can embrace them.