Modern science was birthed out of a Christian worldview. Many of the early pioneers of science—such as Galileo and Copernicus—were either Christians or working within the realm of Christian presuppositions.

Unfortunately, the current cultural climate between science and Christianity isn’t as friendly. In fact, some adults actively discourage bright young Christians who show promise in the fields of math and science away from pursuing a career as a scientist, engineer, or medical researcher. Parents are concerned about whether their child’s education will compromise that child’s faith. According to researcher David Kinnaman of Barna Group, only 1 percent of young adult pastors ever address science in their teaching—even though more than 50 percent of the 18- to 29-year-olds in the church aspire to careers in science and technology. And students often struggle to carve a career path that will result in them achieving their dream to become a scientist.

This is why Reasons to Believe is inaugurating a brand new summer youth program called The Lab. Our vision is to actively influence tomorrow’s influencers by encouraging Christian students to once again consider a career in science as a noble profession. Over the course of the next five years, we want to find 150 to 200 of the brightest young Christian minds and help them lay the groundwork for their calling.

The Lab, an elite 3-day summer experience for ages 16–22, is designed to energize students who desire a career in science, math, engineering, or medical fields. We want to support students in their career paths by helping them draw connections to their faith and discussing emerging arenas of research and how they can be a part of them from a distinctly Christian point of view.

Parallel sessions for parents will be available to equip them to support their student’s educational journey.

The Lab will run July 9–11, 2015, at Reasons to Believe’s headquarters in Covina, CA.

If you know of young Christians in your community who are aspiring to become scientists, encourage them to apply and join us as we empower future physicists, astronomers, chemists, biologists, and medical researchers for the kingdom of God. Applications for The Lab are now being accepted. There are up to 30 spots available for 2015. Although applications will be accepted through June 21, priority will be given to early applicants.

For more information and to apply, visit reasons.org/thelab.

****

By Krista Bontrager

Krista Bontrager is the dean of online learning at Reasons to Believe. She is a teacher at heart and enjoys teaching the Bible to all ages. She has an MA in theology and another in Bible exposition from Talbot School of Theology.

From time to time, biochemists make discoveries that change the way we think about how life works. In a recent paper, Ian S. Dunn, a researcher at CytoCure, argues that biomolecules (such as DNA, RNA, and proteins) comprised of “molecular alphabets” (such as nucleotides and amino acids) are a universal requirement for life.¹

Dunn’s work has far reaching implications. Perhaps the most significant relates to thecentral dogma of molecular biology (the organizing framework for biochemistry). First proposed by Francis Crick in 1956, the central dogma states that biochemical information flows from DNA through RNA to proteins.

The RNA world hypothesis, a leading evolutionary explanation for life’s origin, supposes that the central dogma of molecular biology is an unintended outcome of chemical evolution. This hypothesis posits that initial biochemistry was built exclusively around RNA and only later did evolutionary processes transform the RNA world into the familiar DNA-protein world of contemporary organisms. Thus, the DNA-protein world is merely an accident, the contingent outcome of evolutionary history.

Origin-of-life researchers claimed support for the RNA world with the discovery ofribozymes in the 1980s. These RNA molecules possess functional capabilities. In other words, RNA not only harbors information like DNA, it also carries out cellular functions like proteins. Researchers presumed that RNA biochemistry’s dual capabilities later apportioned between DNA (information storage) and proteins (function). Origin-of-life researchers often point to RNA’s intermediary role in the central dogma of molecular biology as further evidence for the RNA world hypothesis. In this view, RNA’s reduced role is a vestige of evolutionary history and RNA is viewed as a sort of molecular fossil.

However, if Dunn is correct and molecular alphabets are a universal requirement for life, it follows that the central dogma of molecular biology cannot be an accidental outcome of chemical evolution—a commonplace assumption on the part of many life scientists. Instead, it seems to be more appropriate to view this process as part of the Creator’s well-planned design.

Chemical Complexity and Life

Chemical complexity is a defining feature of life. In fact, the cellular operations fundamental to biology require chemical complexity. According to Dunn, this complexity can be achieved only through a large ensemble of macromolecules, each one carrying out a specific task in the cell. However, the macromolecules must be assembled from molecular alphabets because only molecular alphabets allow for the plethora of combinatorial possibilities needed to give macromolecules the range of structural variability that makes possible the functional diversity required for life.

Proteins help illustrate Dunn’s point regarding combinatorial potential. Built from an alphabet that consists of 20 different amino acids, proteins are the workhorses of life. Each protein carries out a specific role in the cell. A typical protein might consist of 300 amino acids. So, for a protein of that size, the number of possible amino acid sequences is (20)³⁰⁰. Each sequence has the potential to form a distinct structure and, consequently, perform a distinct function. It is impossible to achieve this kind of complexity using small molecules or uniquely specified macromolecules.

Two Types of Molecular Alphabets

Another defining feature of life is its ability to replicate. For a cell to reproduce it must duplicate the information that specifies the functional macromolecules’ alphabet sequences and then pass it on to the daughter cells. Based on this requirement, Dunn identifies a need for primary and secondary molecular alphabets.

Macromolecules comprised of a primary molecular alphabet must be able to replicate themselves. This requirement, however, places constraints on the macromolecules, preventing them from being able to carry out the full range of functional activities needed to support the chemical complexity required for life. A secondary alphabet is needed to overcome this restriction. Specified by the primary alphabet, the secondary alphabet possesses the full range of functional possibilities because it is not constrained by the need to replicate.

DNA harbors the information a cell’s machinery needs to produce proteins and also possesses the ability to replicate. Therefore, DNA’s nucleotide sequence serves as a primary molecular alphabet while proteins’ amino acid sequences comprise a secondary molecular alphabet, enabling proteins to serve as the cell’s workhorse molecules.

Molecular Alphabets and the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology

According to the central dogma of molecular biology, the information stored in DNA is functionally expressed through the amino acid sequence and protein activity. When it is time for the cell’s machinery to produce a particular protein, it copies the appropriate information from the DNA alphabet and produces a molecule calledmessenger RNA (mRNA). Once assembled, mRNA migrates to the ribosome and directs the synthesis of proteins.

In effect, the central dogma embodies the roles assumed by the primary and secondary molecular alphabets. Information in the cell’s primary molecular alphabet (DNA) is constrained by the need to replicate and so specifies the production of the cell’s secondary molecular alphabet (proteins) with the maximal amount of functional diversity. The translation from primary to secondary alphabet requires a decoding apparatus, which in the cell is comprised of RNA and ribosomes.

The key point is that the central dogma appears to be a fundamental requirement for life—a universal property, a necessary embodiment of life’s requisite chemical complexity. In this sense, it is reasonable to view the central dogma of molecular biology as part of the elegant, sophisticated, well-designed processes characteristic of biochemistry. Conversely, the central dogma of molecular biology can no longer be viewed as an accidental outcome of chemical evolution.

Undermining the RNA World Hypothesis

In the RNA world, the molecular alphabet that comprises RNA is a primary alphabet. But based on Dunn’s work, RNA would also have been constrained in its range of functional capabilities because of its need to replicate. Because of this restriction, the ribozymes of the RNA world cannot provide the chemical complexity necessary to sustain life. Dunn’s insight into the universal character of molecular alphabets unwittingly undercuts the RNA world scenario. Thus, it seems the central dogma of molecular biology (from DNA to RNA to proteins) had to be in place at the point that life originated.

From David—South Korea

Thank you for your question, David. We do believe that God, through His miraculous interventions, created various species during the creation week. The term “speciation” has at least sixteen different definitions in the scientific literature. Some of these definitions are so narrow that certain breeds of dogs and gray parrots would qualify as separate species. So, RTB’s understanding of speciation is based on the Hebrew word mîn, which means “biological kind.”

Specific texts within Scripture argue for a narrow definition of mîn. For example, the book of Leviticus 19:19 implies that different mîn can mate, but then states that “different kinds of animals” should not mate. In both Leviticus 11:13–18 andDeuteronomy 14:11–18 the horned owl, screech owl, little owl, great owl, and white owl are all referred to as separate mîn. Only these kinds of owls are described as “unclean,” while eating “any kind” of raven or hawk is declared unclean (emphasis added). Therefore, at least for birds, the definition of mîn appears roughly analogous to “species.” Also, in Leviticus 11:22, the text states “any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper” as separate mîn. In this passage the definition of mîn may have a meaning as broad as a genus.

What all this implies concerning God’s direct involvement in speciation is that God frequently intervened throughout the creation days to design new kinds of life. However, He created each new species with a built-in ability to adapt to changing environments. Because definitions of “species” are so varied and broad, many so-called speciation events may merely be examples of adaptation.

How does one know the difference between what is a miraculous speciation event and what is an example of adaptation? Biblically speaking, we can start by determining when the life-form in question appeared. Did it appear before or during the human era? Genesis 1 and 2 tell us God ceased creating new kinds life on the seventh day. Thus, during the human era only natural processes will occur in evolutionary biology. Before the human era (the six creation days), evolutionary biology will feature a combination of both natural and supernatural processes.

You can find a more detailed explanation of RTB’s perspective on speciation in my book Navigating Genesis.