Friday, May 23, 2008
Molecular Design Similarities
Doug Lowrie of Austin, Texas, sent me a letter in the fall of 1996 urging me to explore the difference between hemoglobin and chlorophyll, and telling about his own experience. Hemoglobin is the molecule in the blood which accomplishes the transport of oxygen in the human body. That makes it of paramount importance to us as living beings. Chlorophyll is the molecule responsible for converting sunlight into useable energy in plants.
One of the questions that arises in any discussion of molecular structure is what the origin of that structure is. Whether one looks at the structure of the water molecule, of the carbon atom, or of complicated molecules like DNA, the incredible complexities of design seem to suggest an intelligence did the planning, not chance.
In the case of chlorophyll and hemoglobin we have two molecules that are amazingly similar in makeup, but which are very different in function. As you look at two schematic drawings, it is obvious that there is only one major difference in the makeup of the molecules and that is that hemoglobin has iron as the central atom in the matrix and chlorophyll has magnesium. In all other respects the molecules are the same.
It is the remarkable chemical characteristics of iron and magnesium which cause the radically different function of these two molecules. The rest of the molecule has an arrangement tailor made to allow the iron and magnesium to express their unique chemistry. Tailoring and arranging molecules and atoms for such specific roles is not something chance can accomplish. At a molecular level it is especially easy to “Know there is a God through the things He has made: (Romans 1:19-21).
—John Clayton, Dandy Designs, Sept/Oct, 1997
Cora Gail Trent
www.cgtrent.com
cgtrent@att.net
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Stem Cells: A Good Thing
There continues to be a distribution of massive misinformation being made throughout our culture about stem cell research. One part of the misinformation has been rooted in the fact that many people have tried to tie stem cell research into the abortion issue. It is true that there have been some research projects that were created around embryonic stem cells from aborted babies, but between politics, ethical concerns, and complications in the research this has not been where the most productive research has been taking place. Stem cells are a good thing, and may offer wonderful help in the battle against cancer, Parkinson's, diabetes and any number of other chronic health problems that humans face. It is important to be informed about this new tool of medicine, and not allow it to become a political or religious issue to the detriment of all mankind.
Stem cells are primal cells found in all multi-cellular organisms that are able to reproduce and can differentiate into various specialized cell types. This is a fairly new science which began in the early 1960s. There are three broad categories of stem cells. They are: (1) Embryonic stem cells, which are taken from an early stage embryo of approximately four to five days old and consists of 50 to 150 cells. These stem cells can develop into each of more than 200 cells types of the adult body when given sufficient stimulation. (2) Adult stem cells, which are found throughout the body that normally reproduce to replenish dying cells and regenerate damaged tissues. (3) Cord blood stem cells found in the umbilical cord and are able to differentiate into all of the specialized embryonic tissues.
To understand why stem cells are so useful, we might consider the repairs on a car as an analogy. If your car is overheating, what is likely to be the cause? Common sense tells you that the electrical system or the motor itself are not the probable villians. It is obviously the cooling system that has a problem, and there are only a few components that make up the cooling system. A quick check could tell you if you have enough fluid in the cooling system, and if so, a blockage or a dysfunctional water pump would be the likely culprit. It is relatively easy to determine if there is a blockage so if there is not, the mechanic would be likely to replace the water pump.
Many human diseases can be treated in much the same way. If a person is diabetic and his blood sugar is very high, it is not likely that the problem is being caused by the heart or the lungs. We all know that an organ called the pancreas secretes a substanace called insulin that allows the sugars in our food to be processed. If there is not enough insulin, our blood sugar will be too high and that has numerous side effects on the individual. We now know that in the pancreas there are cells grouped into what are called the "islets of Langerhans" and each islet contains approximately 1000 cells. These cells are grouped into four groups. Sixty-five to eighty percent are beta cells which produce Insulin and Amylin, 15 to 20 percent are alpha cells which release Glucagon, an activating agent, 3 to 10 percent are delta cells that produce Somatostatin, an inhibiting agent, and 1 percent are PP cells which contain a polypeptide. All of this tells us that the design of the human digestive system is incredibly complex. How do you fix it when something is wrong?
In the case of the car, someone has to have carefully built a water pump that will do what the original equipment was designed to do. That means that the original blueprint has to be understood, and all parts have to be carefully put together in the same way that the original equipment was produced. To fix diabetes, the same process has to be used. In type 1 diabetes in which insulin shots are required, the islets of Langerhans have been destroyed. If we can develop stem cells that will turn into islets of Langerhans and can inject them into the pancreas of the diabetic we will have replaced what is missing with an identical component. Science is very close to accomplishing this from adult stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells are not the answer to this type of research. Embryonic cells can become anything, which is why people have an interest in them, but this is also a major problem. Embryonic cells can be misled by biochemical signals when they are transplanted into an adult, leading to unwanted cell types and sometimes to tumor formation.
Three researchers at the University of Missouri have been able to sustain adult stem cells and induce them to turn into specific cell types by exposing them to different chemical signals. No abnormal tissue results from this type of stem cell work. Elmer Price, Randall Prather, and Mike Foley at the University of Missouri have taken the lead in this research. Price says, "In theory, embryonic stem cells have the ability to become almost any cell type or organ. Very complex chemical signals need to be in place with embryonic stem cells in order for them to develop into the appropriate type of cell. However, we have shown that if you can isolate adult stem cells, you can make them generate the appropriate type of cell with much more ease and specificity."
Remember that blood-derived adult stem cells are normally used by the body for regeneration and repair, and by copying what God has designed for the maintenance of the human body, some wonderful solutions to the afflictions humans endure are possible. Stem cell research is a good thing, and as we learn more about this part of our body's makeup we have to understand even more fully David's description of what God has done in forming us from the dust of the earth: "I will praise thee Lord, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:14).
--John Clayton, Does God Exist?, Nov/Dec 2007
Cora Gail Trent
www.cgtrent.com
cgtrent@att.net
Stem cells are primal cells found in all multi-cellular organisms that are able to reproduce and can differentiate into various specialized cell types. This is a fairly new science which began in the early 1960s. There are three broad categories of stem cells. They are: (1) Embryonic stem cells, which are taken from an early stage embryo of approximately four to five days old and consists of 50 to 150 cells. These stem cells can develop into each of more than 200 cells types of the adult body when given sufficient stimulation. (2) Adult stem cells, which are found throughout the body that normally reproduce to replenish dying cells and regenerate damaged tissues. (3) Cord blood stem cells found in the umbilical cord and are able to differentiate into all of the specialized embryonic tissues.
To understand why stem cells are so useful, we might consider the repairs on a car as an analogy. If your car is overheating, what is likely to be the cause? Common sense tells you that the electrical system or the motor itself are not the probable villians. It is obviously the cooling system that has a problem, and there are only a few components that make up the cooling system. A quick check could tell you if you have enough fluid in the cooling system, and if so, a blockage or a dysfunctional water pump would be the likely culprit. It is relatively easy to determine if there is a blockage so if there is not, the mechanic would be likely to replace the water pump.
Many human diseases can be treated in much the same way. If a person is diabetic and his blood sugar is very high, it is not likely that the problem is being caused by the heart or the lungs. We all know that an organ called the pancreas secretes a substanace called insulin that allows the sugars in our food to be processed. If there is not enough insulin, our blood sugar will be too high and that has numerous side effects on the individual. We now know that in the pancreas there are cells grouped into what are called the "islets of Langerhans" and each islet contains approximately 1000 cells. These cells are grouped into four groups. Sixty-five to eighty percent are beta cells which produce Insulin and Amylin, 15 to 20 percent are alpha cells which release Glucagon, an activating agent, 3 to 10 percent are delta cells that produce Somatostatin, an inhibiting agent, and 1 percent are PP cells which contain a polypeptide. All of this tells us that the design of the human digestive system is incredibly complex. How do you fix it when something is wrong?
In the case of the car, someone has to have carefully built a water pump that will do what the original equipment was designed to do. That means that the original blueprint has to be understood, and all parts have to be carefully put together in the same way that the original equipment was produced. To fix diabetes, the same process has to be used. In type 1 diabetes in which insulin shots are required, the islets of Langerhans have been destroyed. If we can develop stem cells that will turn into islets of Langerhans and can inject them into the pancreas of the diabetic we will have replaced what is missing with an identical component. Science is very close to accomplishing this from adult stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells are not the answer to this type of research. Embryonic cells can become anything, which is why people have an interest in them, but this is also a major problem. Embryonic cells can be misled by biochemical signals when they are transplanted into an adult, leading to unwanted cell types and sometimes to tumor formation.
Three researchers at the University of Missouri have been able to sustain adult stem cells and induce them to turn into specific cell types by exposing them to different chemical signals. No abnormal tissue results from this type of stem cell work. Elmer Price, Randall Prather, and Mike Foley at the University of Missouri have taken the lead in this research. Price says, "In theory, embryonic stem cells have the ability to become almost any cell type or organ. Very complex chemical signals need to be in place with embryonic stem cells in order for them to develop into the appropriate type of cell. However, we have shown that if you can isolate adult stem cells, you can make them generate the appropriate type of cell with much more ease and specificity."
Remember that blood-derived adult stem cells are normally used by the body for regeneration and repair, and by copying what God has designed for the maintenance of the human body, some wonderful solutions to the afflictions humans endure are possible. Stem cell research is a good thing, and as we learn more about this part of our body's makeup we have to understand even more fully David's description of what God has done in forming us from the dust of the earth: "I will praise thee Lord, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:14).
--John Clayton, Does God Exist?, Nov/Dec 2007
Cora Gail Trent
www.cgtrent.com
cgtrent@att.net
Monday, May 12, 2008
Distillation
It is always interesting to read articles that others write on issues that we try to deal with in this journal. Trying to bring peace between science and faith seems to be something that is repugnant to extremists on both sides of the evolution/creation controversy. One frequently voiced challenge to those of us who try to resolve conflicts between science and faith is that we are trying to distill the Bible through science, when we should really be in the business of distilling science through the Bible. The challenge is that if you are using science to understand the Bible you are automatically going to distort the biblical message to make it fit what you believe to be true scientifically. People who espouse this belief would have us interpret all of science in terms of what the Bible says--rejecting anything that conflicts with the Bible (or more exactly, with their understanding of the Bible) as false.
The first point that I would like to make in this discussion is that the word distill is an unfortunate choice of words. When yhou distill water, you change it into steam and condense it back into water so that any impurity in the water is removed. The water is still water--just not contaminated by salt or bacteria or some other chemical. To maintain that the Bible is being distilled would be to maintain that it is being purified--that the impurities are being taken out. If the impurities are the additions, speculations, and modifications by humans, this would be a good thing. In the past there have been misunderstandings of the Bible that were in fact corrected by science.
In Revelation 7:1 we are told about "four angels standing at the four corners of the earth." People deduced from this passage that the earth was flat. When science finally proved beyond any doubt that the earth was round, the teaching about a flat earth disappeared. This was not a biblical error, it was a misunderstanding that had come about because of the ignorance of the reader. We now understand that this apocalyptic passage is talking about the points on the compass and not the shape of the earth, and the error of humans in reading what God has given us has been distilled--corrected.
Another example of how science has purified the Bible is seen in the Bible's classification of a rabbit as a ruminant. In Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7 the hare or rabbit is identified as an animal that "chews the cud" and thus was unclean for the Israelites. The rabbit does not have multiple stomachs that allow food to be regurgitated into their mouths to be processed again, so many atheists used these passages in years gone by to support their view that the Bible was full of mistakes. In recent years science has learned that rabbits practice a special kind of rumination called refection. Vegetable matter that is hard to digest absorbs specialized bacteria and then is deposited as droppings. After a period of time the rabbit will eat these droppings and reprocess the material so that the rabbit is very efficient in using all of the vegetable matter it eats. This is a kind of rumination and in fact fits "chewing the cud" very well. The Bible's accuiracy is clearly demonstrated by science in this matter, but science has not changed the biblical statement in any way. What it has done is provide support for what the Bible says.
The list of examples like these that can be given is huge. Bible writers did not view any fact of the creation to be at odds with their teachings or understandings. When Job writes about the skies in Job 38:31-32 he uses the constellation names of Pleides and the Bear in his description. These are names taken from the science of the writer's day, and one needs to understand that science to understand what the author is saying. To suggest that science has nothing to contribute to our understanding of the Bible is an ignorant position, and even in the Genesis account there are contributions that science can make to help us in our understanding of what we are being told. We should now understand that the word "kind" from the Hebrew "min" is not a reference to varieties or even species, but is a much broader word. We now have 142 varieties of chickens; and who would have ever guess that a chihuahua and a Saint Barnard would have a common ancestor? Questions like how Noah got all of the animals on the ark, and the wisdom of the sequence in which animals were created can be answered from science. Even the difference between creating something indicated by the Hebrew word "bara" in Genesis 1:1 and making something indicated by the Hebrew word "asah" in Genesis 1:16 can be understood and clarified by science. Just like the rabbit question or the shape of the earth, science helps us eliminate our misunderstandings and gives us proof of the credibility of God's word. The Bible and science support, illuminate, and provide understanding of each other. This is a positive thing and is necessary.
The place where most critics of those of us who believe science and faith are friends comes from, is when science provides help in places where the Bible is silent. There have been well over 10 million species of animals that have lived on this planet. Genesis makes no attempt to explain them all. The Hebrew words used in Genesis 1 cannot be used to explain viruses, amoeba, insects, leeches, worms, platypuses, sea plants, fungus, marsupials, echidnas, corals, bats, flying reptiles, or even dinosaurs. It is not the purpose of the Bible to give a detailed account of how every living thing came into being. People can assume that even though these living things are not described they are included in the descriptions that are given. That is an assumption and frequently violates common sense. It is not taking the Bible literally. Words mean something, and you cannot violate their meaning to fit your theology. Behemoth in verses 24:25 refers to cattle and cannot be applied to a reptile or a platypus. Science gives us some suggestions about these living things, and how they have been designed into the ecosystem. These suggestions are not a distillation of the Bible, but simply provide information where the Bible is silent.
Perhaps the best example of this problem is in the age of the earth. Nowhere is the Bible is the age of the earth stated. Humans have used assumptions to project a specific age to the earth, and these guesses have been heavily tainted by denominational creeds. Bishop Ussher's methodology, for example, is full of assumptions: (1) that there are no undated events or periods in the Bible; (2) that the genealogies in the Bible are complete; (3) that the genealogies are in a sequential order to be used for chronology; and (4) that there are no missing historical periods in the Bible. By making these and some other assumptions, some believers have been able to get the age of the earth as low as 6,000 years--even though we have cities with historical records older than that. Science offers some other estimates of the ages of things, based on different assumptions that lead to different conclusions. Could those assumptions and conclusions be in error? Of course they could, just as Ussher's assumptions are clearly in error. The point is that this is not a conflict between science and faith, and it is not a distillation of the Bible through science. It is simply a matter of whether we will take what the Bible says as truth and what it does not say as of no consequence. The two areas are independent and while they might appear to conflict, as better information becomes available both will change until they are in agreement. This is the lesson of history and of common sense. If science is the study of facts, and the Bible is the revelation of the one who created the facts, they cannot possibly conflict.
What happens if we distill science through faith? Science is defined by Webster's dictionary as "knowledge, as opposed to intuition." Science deals with facts. Sometimes some strange methods are used to get to the facts, and those methods may scatter some misunderstandings along the way. For science to function, it has to assume nothing when it starts. If scientists 1000 years ago had accepted Revelation 7:1 as factually referring to the shape of the earth and had not pursued it further, we would still be believing the earth was flat. The history of religion has been that humans have misunderstood scripture over and over and applied it in a destructive way. People have used the phrase "God's chosen people" to justify everything from slavery to political agendas. To use what you believe to control what you do scientifically assumes that you have absolute truth in all you believe, and while a few of us may be that egotistical most of us are old enough and experienced enough to know that is not true.
Science and faith are friends. They cannot conflict because they deal with different subjects. When they interact they always support each other when the information is correct, and they illuminate one another in very positive and useful ways. Einstein said it best "Religion without science is lame, and science without religion is blind." Galilio said "Science is the study of how the heavens go, not how to go to heaven." Let us work at a healthy, dynamic, positive growing relationship between our faith and what science tells us. This journal is dedicated to helping those who will think, study, and reason to arrive at that end.
-John Clayton, Does God Exist? Nov/Dec 2007
For more go to http://www.doesgodexist.org
Cora Gail Trent
www.cgtrent.com
cgtrent@att.net
The first point that I would like to make in this discussion is that the word distill is an unfortunate choice of words. When yhou distill water, you change it into steam and condense it back into water so that any impurity in the water is removed. The water is still water--just not contaminated by salt or bacteria or some other chemical. To maintain that the Bible is being distilled would be to maintain that it is being purified--that the impurities are being taken out. If the impurities are the additions, speculations, and modifications by humans, this would be a good thing. In the past there have been misunderstandings of the Bible that were in fact corrected by science.
In Revelation 7:1 we are told about "four angels standing at the four corners of the earth." People deduced from this passage that the earth was flat. When science finally proved beyond any doubt that the earth was round, the teaching about a flat earth disappeared. This was not a biblical error, it was a misunderstanding that had come about because of the ignorance of the reader. We now understand that this apocalyptic passage is talking about the points on the compass and not the shape of the earth, and the error of humans in reading what God has given us has been distilled--corrected.
Another example of how science has purified the Bible is seen in the Bible's classification of a rabbit as a ruminant. In Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7 the hare or rabbit is identified as an animal that "chews the cud" and thus was unclean for the Israelites. The rabbit does not have multiple stomachs that allow food to be regurgitated into their mouths to be processed again, so many atheists used these passages in years gone by to support their view that the Bible was full of mistakes. In recent years science has learned that rabbits practice a special kind of rumination called refection. Vegetable matter that is hard to digest absorbs specialized bacteria and then is deposited as droppings. After a period of time the rabbit will eat these droppings and reprocess the material so that the rabbit is very efficient in using all of the vegetable matter it eats. This is a kind of rumination and in fact fits "chewing the cud" very well. The Bible's accuiracy is clearly demonstrated by science in this matter, but science has not changed the biblical statement in any way. What it has done is provide support for what the Bible says.
The list of examples like these that can be given is huge. Bible writers did not view any fact of the creation to be at odds with their teachings or understandings. When Job writes about the skies in Job 38:31-32 he uses the constellation names of Pleides and the Bear in his description. These are names taken from the science of the writer's day, and one needs to understand that science to understand what the author is saying. To suggest that science has nothing to contribute to our understanding of the Bible is an ignorant position, and even in the Genesis account there are contributions that science can make to help us in our understanding of what we are being told. We should now understand that the word "kind" from the Hebrew "min" is not a reference to varieties or even species, but is a much broader word. We now have 142 varieties of chickens; and who would have ever guess that a chihuahua and a Saint Barnard would have a common ancestor? Questions like how Noah got all of the animals on the ark, and the wisdom of the sequence in which animals were created can be answered from science. Even the difference between creating something indicated by the Hebrew word "bara" in Genesis 1:1 and making something indicated by the Hebrew word "asah" in Genesis 1:16 can be understood and clarified by science. Just like the rabbit question or the shape of the earth, science helps us eliminate our misunderstandings and gives us proof of the credibility of God's word. The Bible and science support, illuminate, and provide understanding of each other. This is a positive thing and is necessary.
The place where most critics of those of us who believe science and faith are friends comes from, is when science provides help in places where the Bible is silent. There have been well over 10 million species of animals that have lived on this planet. Genesis makes no attempt to explain them all. The Hebrew words used in Genesis 1 cannot be used to explain viruses, amoeba, insects, leeches, worms, platypuses, sea plants, fungus, marsupials, echidnas, corals, bats, flying reptiles, or even dinosaurs. It is not the purpose of the Bible to give a detailed account of how every living thing came into being. People can assume that even though these living things are not described they are included in the descriptions that are given. That is an assumption and frequently violates common sense. It is not taking the Bible literally. Words mean something, and you cannot violate their meaning to fit your theology. Behemoth in verses 24:25 refers to cattle and cannot be applied to a reptile or a platypus. Science gives us some suggestions about these living things, and how they have been designed into the ecosystem. These suggestions are not a distillation of the Bible, but simply provide information where the Bible is silent.
Perhaps the best example of this problem is in the age of the earth. Nowhere is the Bible is the age of the earth stated. Humans have used assumptions to project a specific age to the earth, and these guesses have been heavily tainted by denominational creeds. Bishop Ussher's methodology, for example, is full of assumptions: (1) that there are no undated events or periods in the Bible; (2) that the genealogies in the Bible are complete; (3) that the genealogies are in a sequential order to be used for chronology; and (4) that there are no missing historical periods in the Bible. By making these and some other assumptions, some believers have been able to get the age of the earth as low as 6,000 years--even though we have cities with historical records older than that. Science offers some other estimates of the ages of things, based on different assumptions that lead to different conclusions. Could those assumptions and conclusions be in error? Of course they could, just as Ussher's assumptions are clearly in error. The point is that this is not a conflict between science and faith, and it is not a distillation of the Bible through science. It is simply a matter of whether we will take what the Bible says as truth and what it does not say as of no consequence. The two areas are independent and while they might appear to conflict, as better information becomes available both will change until they are in agreement. This is the lesson of history and of common sense. If science is the study of facts, and the Bible is the revelation of the one who created the facts, they cannot possibly conflict.
What happens if we distill science through faith? Science is defined by Webster's dictionary as "knowledge, as opposed to intuition." Science deals with facts. Sometimes some strange methods are used to get to the facts, and those methods may scatter some misunderstandings along the way. For science to function, it has to assume nothing when it starts. If scientists 1000 years ago had accepted Revelation 7:1 as factually referring to the shape of the earth and had not pursued it further, we would still be believing the earth was flat. The history of religion has been that humans have misunderstood scripture over and over and applied it in a destructive way. People have used the phrase "God's chosen people" to justify everything from slavery to political agendas. To use what you believe to control what you do scientifically assumes that you have absolute truth in all you believe, and while a few of us may be that egotistical most of us are old enough and experienced enough to know that is not true.
Science and faith are friends. They cannot conflict because they deal with different subjects. When they interact they always support each other when the information is correct, and they illuminate one another in very positive and useful ways. Einstein said it best "Religion without science is lame, and science without religion is blind." Galilio said "Science is the study of how the heavens go, not how to go to heaven." Let us work at a healthy, dynamic, positive growing relationship between our faith and what science tells us. This journal is dedicated to helping those who will think, study, and reason to arrive at that end.
-John Clayton, Does God Exist? Nov/Dec 2007
For more go to http://www.doesgodexist.org
Cora Gail Trent
www.cgtrent.com
cgtrent@att.net
