in Christian Perspective
BIOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALS*
R. L. Mixter, Ph.D.
Professor of Zoology
Wheaton College, Wheaton, Ill.
From: JASA, 2,
Scientists are not forced by their science into any particular religion.
Goldschmidt1 has a man from Mars descend to inspect human beings and decide what significance there is to the differences in human structure. If this Martian should look
at the religious beliefs of scientists he would find them as varied as in one of the
graduate schools I attended. The head of the department was a Unitarian. The nature
study teacher embraced the Catholic faith and the specialist on conservation appeared
to have no religious beliefs at all. Across the campus a professor of engineering
was a fundamentalist. Each of these men was acquainted with the same scientific
method of induction and had the college library at his disposal. Science neither
makes one religious nor keeps him from religion.
Therefore, one may examine the controversies which have occurred between science
and religion unhindered by a "weight of opinion" held by scientists. The scientific
method is the Scriptural method. "Prove all things; hold fast to that which is
good.2 The scientific method is that of observing the data, experimenting with
phenomena, correlating the findings and drawing conclusions from them.
In spite of their use of the same method scientists may draw different conclusions. In the department of anatomy of a university in the city of Chicago, a famous anatomist and his pupil believed that the lining of the lung is a very thin
membrane formed by cells touching one another, derived from the inner germ layer.
In the same building were other anatomists who held that the blood capillaries were
only partially covered by cells of the middle gem layer. Both of these groups of
men had the same technique at their disposal but held to contrasting beliefs.
Outside their fields of research, scientists have opinions on many matters.
Consider the variants in political ideas among university teachers. Not all of
them adopt the same forms of recreation. In worship they bow before the God of the
Christian or reverence eternal forces and matter. As scientists they try to leave
the spiritual forces out of reckoning and yet in drawing their conclusions they
speculate at length. A recent book on processes in evolution illustrates this.
Simpson3 holds that only physical hypotheses should be used in scientific work but
is willing to construct these guesses on data which he admits are inadequate. He
does not rule out the spiritual in fields where the physical has so far failed to
explain natural phenomena. Another famous biologist believes that "we are the intellectual and spiritual children of .... that most influential character in all
history, Jesus Christ.4 He does not believe that the world was formed by chance.
He cannot believe that the world and man are the products of pure accidents.
Because scientists have such differing beliefs in their own specialties and in
every sphere of life we should not hesitate in our study of problems to follow the
advice of one of the greatest of modern scientists whose brogue has him put a profound truth in this expression, "Vat iss de evidence?"
1. Goldschmidt, Material Basis of Evolution, 1940. p. 121
2. 1 Thessalonians 5:21
3. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution, 1944. p. 76
4. Conklin, Man, Real and Ideal, 1943, pp. 181, 190
*Used by courtesy Young People's Paper, published by American Sunday-School Union,
In science. a theory is satisfactory if it is consistent within itself and
explains a group of phenomena. To me one of the chief Christian evidences is the
ability of Christianity to meet the needs of man. If he needs comfort there is
the 23rd Psalm. He is challenged by Hebrews 11. Some of his curiosity is
satisfied by God's answers to Job. He receives conviction from the apostle Paul
and derives his character from Christ Himself. The Christian Scriptures
consistently meet the needs in all phases of man's personality.
Consider some of the facts of Biology which are in harmony with great doctrines
of Scripture, First, organisms are machines. Carlson and Johnson call their
textbook of physiology THE MACHINERY OF THE BODY. They say, "the working
hypothesis of the biologist is that eventually the phenomenon of life will be
explained in terms of physics and chemistry."5 Whether their
ultimate goal will be realized is questionable but many features of body
activity are so explained.
In 1801 Paley argued that if one observes mechanical features in the body a
machinist is needed to explain them. Where there is a contrivance like a watch
there must have been a contriver. The more we find the body to be a machine, the
more we are indicating there must have been a machinist greater than the body in
order for the body to be produced. One of the best sellers in 1947 shows us that
in order to get by chance combination one of the simple proteins of which the
body is composed it would be necessary to have 1 followed by 243 zeros years.
This is the beginning.6 Not only must the proteins be formed but in addition
there must be enzymes to control them and cellular organization to give them
stability. It may safely be stated that by the activities of pure chance there
is no chance that life could have been spontaneously generated. Morrison has
similarly argued in his book, MAN DOES NOT STAND ALONE, which was reviewed in
the Reader's Digest of December 1946 under the title, "Seven Reasons Why a
Scientist Believes in God."
We see then that the facts of biology are consistent with our first fundamental:
there is a purposeful, intelligent Creator.
A second important fact in Biology is that organisms vary.. Creatures are not
confined to fixed types. The earliest human family has produced "all races
that dwell under Heaven." These races are of one blood. The blood groups so
important in blood transfusions are found in all races. If the phrase "of
one blood" refers to germinal potencies it is very apt for any race may
breed with any other and produce fertile offspring.
Paleontology also indicates that human beings have always been human beings.
Franz Weidenreich stated that all fossil men belong to the genus Homo.7 present
day human beings are not all alike nor were all fossil men like present day
human beings ,in all respects, but all are human in the essential
characteristics of structure and .behavior~
A similar situation exists in animals. Within a group of animals such as the
family of horses there is indication that there has been some change from one
form to another. It appears reasonable that the first.horse may have had four
toes on a front foot, a modern horse has only one. The first horse appeared to
have teeth adapted to a browsing diet; today's horses are definitely of the
5. Carlson and Johnson., The Machinery of the Body, 1941, p. 4
6. du Nouy, Human Destiny, Chap. 3.
7. Science, Vol. 104, No. 2709, 1946, p. 516
But all this change is within a limited group of animals. There is no fossil
to close the gap between supposed ancestors of horses and the first horses. It
is also true that there are "systematic deficiencies of record"
between all comparable groups of animals and plants.8
The science of heredity adds the same type of conclusion. It is possible to make
crosses within a species as in human crosses; between species as the mating of
horse and ass; between genera like the crossing of the cabbage and radish and
even between members of different families and orders as seen in the cross of
killifish by the mackerel. But not one has ever seen the result of an attempted
cross between such widely separated animals as the members of different classes
such as reptiles and birds. As one of my university professors put it, "the
answer to the origin of different classes of animals is outside of the field
where genetics can make a contribution." We see, therefore, that although
there has been some variation within the limits of the minor groupings of
animals there has been no change demonstrated from one major group to another.
This is in harmony with the Scriptural idea that God created the great sea
monsters, the winged birds and the swarms of living creatures of the water after
their kind and created man in His own image.
There is a third phenomenon of Biology which reflects on a miracle. It is called
parthenogenesis, which means the production of an animal from only one parent.
Gregory Pincus received credit for much of the research in this field. His work
was popularized a few years ago in Collier's by the title of an article on
rabbit production, "No Father to Guide Them" Pincus operated upon
female rabbits, by cooling stimulated the tubes down which the eggs were
descending and let the animals come to term. A rabbit was born without a male
One hesitates to compare this with the Virgin Birth which is the greatest of the
miracles and yet the possibility of its occurrence may not seem so remote
because of the demonstration that even mammals may have offspring without
Even miracles need not be inconceivable. A speaker in our chapel remarked
"if the Bible said a tadpole swallowed Jonah, I would believe it."
This appears to me to be asking one to believe something inconceivable, to
accept something that cannot be imagined. By contrast a miracle is not an
impossibility; it is the result of an Unusual Cause who does not distort nature
to produce His results. Animal parthenogenesis suggests that the miracle of the
Virgin Birth is within the realm of the possible. Thus a third great fundamental
of our faith can no longer be questioned by biological laws. God has stepped
into men's 'shoes in the person of Christ to reveal Himself to us and bring us
back to Himself.
A final observation from Biology is this: all complex organisms die. The
material of which they are composed disintegrates but we believe that the body
of man encompasses a mind. The body came from an extremely minute speck of
living material formed by a union of cells from each parent. Through this tiny
bridge the hereditary characters of the parents are passed on to the offspring.
Morrison said a thimble would hold all of the hereditary determiners necessary
to produce all humanity now living. If the physical contribution to man's person
demands so little material, it is possible that the entrance of mind into man
requires no physical bridge. This was Paley's reasoning in his famous work on
If so little substance is used in the early formation of a person, may the
spirit not leave the body without the aid of any material? The body.dies and
8. Simpson, op. cit., p. 107
we describe the changes as we can observe them. What happens to the spirit we
cannot see. Vernon Kellog remarked that we describe the before change conditions
but the after change conditions may be the most important. To some
biologists the only immortality is the passing on of our hereditary
characteristics to succeeding generations, plus any contributions we have made
to society.9 But if so small a speck of matter is necessary to maintain
biological continuity, the Creator can provide spiritual continuity without any
matter. Thus we conclude "Dust thou art, to dust returnest Was not spoken
of the soul."
Students of nature should remain confident that the facts of their research will
fit into the pattern the Bible outlined for the formation and preservation of
9. Conklin, op. cit., 1943, p. 179
Comments by Editor:
Paragraph 2. "The scientific method is the Scriptural method." This is
very good, but would be more forceful if amplified and emphasized in a paragraph
In regard to the miracle, it seems to me that the reflection on the miracle is
worthy of some more reflection. The Virgin Birth is the Great miracle, and I
doubt if we make much of a contribution of providing an analogous occurrence or
a mechanism which is purely within the realm of the natural. Sooner or later in
our Christian religion as it is centered around Christ, we must not only face
but triumphantly champion the supernatural, the miraculous. With Machen and
others it seems to me that the proper time is at the Virgin Birth rather than at
the wedding feast or the resurrection only.