t f p g+ YouTube icon

Evolution and the Imago Dei

Bookmark and Share

May 11, 2009 Tags: Image of God
Evolution and the Imago Dei

Today's entry was written by Francis Collins. You can read more about what we believe here.

Genesis 1:26-27 reads: "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Immediately after Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, the consequences for human origins, biblical interpretation and people's relationship with God were apparent. The potential disparity between this Genesis creation story and Darwin's theory leads people to assume the church at the time felt threatened and opposed evolution. But many church leaders in the late 19th century actually embraced Darwin's theory as insight to the means by which God created the world. As just one example, the conservative Christian theologian B. B. Warfield wrote,"I am free to say, for myself, that I do not think that there is any general statement in the Bible or any part of the account of creation, either as given in Gen. I & II or elsewhere alluded to, that need be opposed to evolution."

The idea that humans might be related to the great apes was not universally well received, however. The wife of the Bishop of Worcester, England, upon hearing this news, reportedly responded with some alarm. "Descended from the apes? My dear, let us hope that it is not true," she said. "But if it is, let us pray that it will not become widely known."

Now 150 years later, we still seem to be fighting this battle. A recent Gallup poll indicates that 44 percent of people in the United States believe God created humans in their present form fewer than 10,000 years ago. The Washington Post writer Kathleen Parker points out one of the serious consequences of this situation in her recent column. "The problem of not believing in evolution as one might not believe in, say, goblins or flying pigs has repercussions beyond the obvious -- that the United States will continue to fall behind other nations in science education," she writes.

The study of DNA -- the hereditary material -- has enabled the study of human origins to achieve a level of detail Darwin never could have imagined. The decoding of the entire DNA sequence of humans -- the Human Genome Project, which I had the privilege of leading -- along with the genomes of dozens of other vertebrates has been a rigorous test of whether the data actually fits a model of evolution from a common ancestor. And the evidence is overwhelming. Although some people might still argue that DNA similarities do not prove common ancestry -- after all, God might have chosen to use the same DNA motifs for animals of anatomic similarity -- the details of the analysis make that conclusion no longer tenable.

Most mammals, for example, do not need dietary sources of vitamin C because they can make their own using an enzyme encoded in their genomes. But primates, including humans, require vitamin C in their diet, or they will suffer a disease called scurvy. What happened here? Well, if you search through the human genome, you will find a degenerated copy of the gene for this vitamin C synthesizing enzyme. But it has sustained a knockout blow, losing more than half of its coding sequence. A claim that the human genome was created by God independently rather than being part of descent from a common ancestor would mean God intentionally inserted a nonfunctioning piece of DNA into our genomes to test our faith. Unless you are willing to contemplate the idea of God as a deceiver, this is not a comfortable explanation.

This past week I attended a meeting about the human genome at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York. I heard many astounding presentations on comparisons of our own genome to that of other species -- all consistent in exquisite detail with an evolutionary explanation. A particularly interesting paper described the latest findings on Neanderthals, whose DNA sequence is being painstakingly pieced together from several 30,000-year-old bones of different individuals. The DNA similarity to Homo sapiens is striking; but the evidence is most consistent with a separation of humans and Neanderthals nearly 500,000 years ago.

One particular finding about genetic variation caught the audience's attention immediately. To explain this discovery, it's first important to know that we humans are a lot alike at the DNA level. But if you compared your DNA sequence to mine, about one of every 1,000 letters of the code would be different. Most of these differences are common in the human population and fall in parts of the genome that tolerate variation. Therefore, those differences don't seem to have much effect. But they are interesting reflections of our history. So here's the new information: about one-third of those exact same variations are also found in Neanderthals. That means a precise location of the human genome where some individuals have the letter A and others have the letter G will often show that same exact variation in DNA from Neanderthal bones. That does not imply there was interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals in Europe 30,000 years ago -- so far, there is no DNA evidence to support that. Instead, this new discovery points unequivocally to a population of common ancestors of both humans and Neanderthals with these exact genetic variations living more than 500,000 years ago.

Why do so many people find it difficult to accept these conclusions? First of all, there is the general problem that evolution is somewhat counterintuitive. Our own human experience does not easily accommodate the vast intervals of time necessary for natural selection to produce the marvelous diversity of living things we see all around us. For believers, there is the additional problem of fitting together the concept of the creator God and the imago Dei, or image of God, with the words of Scripture and a process that seems so random. But does this struggle need to exist? Suppose God chose to use the mechanism of evolution to create animals like us, knowing this process would lead to big-brained creatures with the capacity to think, ask questions about our own origins, discover the truth about the universe and discover pointers toward the One who provides meaning to life. Who are we to say that's not how we would have done it? If you believe that God is the creator, how could the truths about nature we discover through science be a threat to God? For many scientists who believe in God -- including me -- it's just the opposite. Everything we learn about the natural world only increases our awe of the God the creator.

Yet many evangelical churches continue to fear the whole fabric of faith will be torn apart if the words of Genesis 1 and 2 are not taken literally. It surprises many to learn this ultraliteral interpretation was not considered necessary by many profoundly dedicated believers long before Darwin arrived on the scene. In A.D. 400, St. Augustine wrote no fewer than four books about the interpretation of Genesis, ultimately concluding it was not possible to arrive at a confident view of how creation occurred. In words that presciently warn against the current conflict, he writes, "In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it."

I urge us all to step back from the conflict and look soberly at the truth of both of God's books: the book of God's words and the book of God's works. As people dedicated to truth, let us resolve to move beyond a theology of defensiveness to a theology that celebrates God's goodness and creative power. For answers to the most frequently asked questions about science and faith, see http://www.biologos.org.

Dr. Francis S. Collins is former director of the Human Genome Project and founder and president of The BioLogos Foundation.

Dr. Francis Collins is a physician and geneticist known for spearheading the Human Genome Project and for his landmark discoveries of disease genes. Collins founded the BioLogos Foundation in November 2007 and served as its president until August 16, 2009, when he resigned to become director of the National Institutes of Health. (Note: All blogs written by Collins were completed before accepting his duty as director of the NIH).

View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Page 1 of 1   1
Anthony brabazon - #15861

June 1st 2010

An imperfection in the genetic code can be interpreted as an evolutionary process or evidence of a corruption of a perfect creation. This option better fits the Word of God. Evolution needs death as part of the “creative” process yet scripture makes clear that death entered not by a simple cell, nor ape but man. Blessings.  Anthony from Ireland

John O'Connor - #19060

June 26th 2010

Science is blind to the miracles of God.
While I am sure Dr Collins knows this, he appears to have overlooked it in his paragraph about the degraded vitamin C gene in the human and other genomes testifying to God-as-Deceiver.
eg when Jesus changed the water into a really excellent wine at Cana.  It is not unreasonable to surmise that the excellent wine produced would have the usual scientific configuration of a fine wine…indicating that the grapes it was made from had had plenty of sunshine to produce lots of sugar to give a generous alcohol content,  that the organic compounds that provide a good balance of flavour were present from a good grape variety and so on. Is Jesus a deceiver because we scientifically detect the evidence of a history of a sunny grape vintage in the fine wine that never occurred?  No. The author of the universe and his actions are not truthfully reported on by science because they are outside of the scope of science.

David von Rudisill - #24863

August 7th 2010

Anthony - There is no possible way for enough mutations to accumulate in all animal genomes after a Fall some few thousands of years ago. Animals have been dying for thousands of millions of years.

rimshot75 - #55636

March 25th 2011

Only if you believe in billions of years (old earth theory).  Christians would read and therefore believe that the earth is between 6000-8000 yrs old.  So millions of years do not fit that faith. Neither would having millions of years of death before the fall of man.  BTW, mutations are a reduction of DNA information; not an increase which would be necessary not once, but over and over and over again in a blind hope, that some kind of ‘life’ might emerge. Frankly, that takes way more faith than believing that God created everything Ex Nihilo.

Stephen - #37342

October 29th 2010

In terms of describing what the ‘image of God’ really means, I recommend the classic from Eric Fromm on ‘The Art of Love’.  He interprets the divine image as the point where man became something separate from nature by gaining self awareness, ‘like gods, knowing good from evil’.  In that very day, mankind did die, in that unlike animals, we know that we are mortal.  Man has ‘fallen’ insofar as we are now separated from nature, and yet not united with God. 

My view is that only God’s own descent as a human, to share in our suffering, pain and death, could bring about our ‘at-one-ment’. 

The very end of Dawkins’ own book, ‘The Selfish Gene’, is also (unintentionally) theologically inspiring.  Dawkins says unlike animals, every time we use contraception, we are no longer slaves to our genes - we have dominion over nature itself.  This is the essence of Christianity - we don’t have to mere living vehicle for dna.  We have reached a point where we can override our own programming.  In this way, we have become made in the divine image - we control creation!

rimshot75 - #55637

March 25th 2011

...bullcrap; you don’t and never will ‘control’ creation.  Contraception is about controlling what has already been created!  So in essence you are simply limiting creation.  That’s a whole different statement…and much more accurate.

Larry - #55641

March 25th 2011

“mutations are a reduction of DNA information; not an increase which would be necessary”

Wrong - you are just flat out wrong. You can say that you believe evolution cannot be squared with the Bible, you can scream until you are blue in the face that you think it is incompatible with Christianity, but you cannot make matter-of-fact declarations that are demonstrably and unequivocally false. There is quite simply no debate to be had here.

Here are five simple questions for anyone who insists otherwise. They are all based on based on the Kolmogorov interpretation of information theory.

Q1:  Can information be created by gene duplication or polyploidy?  More specifically, if x is a string of symbols, is it possible for xx to contain more information than x?

Q2:  Can information be created by point mutations?  More specifically, if xay is a string of symbols, is it possible that xby contains significantly more information?  Here a, b are distinct symbols, and x, y are strings.

Q3:  Can information be created by deletion?  More specifically, if xyz is a string of symbols, is it possible that xz contains signficantly more information? 

Q4:  Can information be created by random rearrangement?  More specifically, if x is a string of symbols, is it possible that some permutation of x contains significantly more information?

Q5.  Can information be created by recombination?  More specifically, let x and y be strings of the same length, and let s(x, y) be any single string obtained by “shuffling” x and y together.  Here I do not mean what is sometimes called “perfect shuffle”, but rather a possibly imperfect shuffle where x and y both appear left-to-right in s(x, y)
, but not necessarily contiguously.  For example, a perfect shuffle
of 0000 and 1111 gives 01010101, and one possible non-perfect shuffle of
0000 and 1111 is 01101100.  Can an imperfect shuffle of two strings
have more information than the sum of the information in each string? 

I’ll tell you now that the answer to all of these questions is ‘YES’ and that there is no argument about the maths involved.

Source for the questions can be found here - http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/01/test-your-knowledge-of-information.html

nedbrek - #55655

March 25th 2011

Larry is quite correct.  A well designed system can increase the amount of information.  As an analogy, the source text of a program can be passed through a compiler to produce an executable (which is almost always much larger than the source test, and cannot be readily compressed back into the text).  Similarly, that executable can run and produce interesting results.

Of course, that presupposes a “booted” (already running system).  To assume that such a system will arise from environmental noise is unscientific.

Page 1 of 1   1