Your Interview

Is it possible to hold a level-headed discussion or debate on the issue with such die-hard creationists as the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis?

Dr.Fairbanks: I can best answer this question with a quotation from my book: “Modern science is absolutely incompatible with the creationist views of a universe less than ten thousand years old, a worldwide flood that obliterated all terrestrial life except that preserved on an ark, and the special creation of all species including humans. For those who insist on such a narrow interpretation of religious texts, there is indeed a dichotomy.”

Does the theory of creation offer any scientific proof or any shred of evidence to support itself?

Dr.Fairbanks: I wouldn’t call creation a scientific theory. It is not the sort of thing we can readily subject to scientific inquiry.

Dr. Fairbanks,
I would appreciate an explanation, in layman's terms,and based on empherical data, how our DNA evolved from basic organic chemicals to the sophisticated DNA chain which we now are still understanding. Please include all the opportunites during its evolution for immediate relapse to their former self and the probability for each opportunity to occur. I assume this is available in the fossil record.

Dr.Fairbanks: With rare exceptions, DNA is not preserved in fossils. What we can do, however, is examine DNA sequences in living organisms and by analyzing those sequences reconstruct how modern species evolved from common ancestry. As detailed in my book, such reconstructions tend to parallel those determined from studies of fossils.

The only aspect of evolutionary theory that many Christians object to is the idea that it happened merely by chance and/or came about from "nothing". Otherwise, a growing number of Christians see evolution as simply a means by which creation was accomplished, and find no conflict between science and faith. Are scientists ready to concede that this view is as valid as the standard atheist's position?

Dr.Fairbanks: I’ll answer these two questions together. Nearly all scientists agree that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming and is an essential component of science education. The point of view that God guided the evolutionary process is called theistic evolution. Many scientists personally accept theistic evolution but recognize that it is based on faith and should not be taught as a scientific theory. Likewise, neither atheism nor any sort of theism should be taught as scientific theory.

Does the idea of the 'missing link' between modern humans and our animal ancestors persist in scentific circles or do we assume we have the whole picture? Humility would seem to be in short supply on both sides of the creation vs. evolution challenge.

Dr.Fairbanks: My book focuses on DNA sequences, which offer strong evidence of human evolution. No scientist would claim that we have the whole picture — there is much that remains to be discovered. However, the amount of DNA sequence available is so abundant that we now have a highly reliable picture of how our genome evolved relative to the genomes of several other mammals.

1. What evidence is there to accept the notion that evolution came about or negates creation?

2. Why are evolution and creation seen in contrast as opposed to two phases of events, one preceding the other?

Yes, I doubt that one can believe in God and evolution at the same time. Creation can be defined and explained, evolution can not because of constant changes.

Dr.Fairbanks: In line with the statements of most major scientific organizations, the evidence of evolution is abundant, and it does not negate faith in God. Religious doctrines of creation, however, are not derived from scientific evidence and thus do not constitute a part of science.

Some creationists believe the earth is very young but there are others,like myself,who believe in "old earth" creation (the "days" of Genesis being interpreted as literary construct instead of 24 hours). But I do have problems with certain dimensions of evolutionary theory, especially its beginning. What are the different stages hypothesized for the origin of the first viable cell? What are the theories as to how the first DNA strands were formed and then linked to the building of proteins through nucleoli, RNA and ribosomes without the prior existence of such cell structures?

Dr.Fairbanks: There is plenty of discussion about how organic molecules first arose, and experiments showing that organic molecules are capable of arising abiotically under certain conditions. However, there is no firm scientific consensus on the answer to these questions because there is so little evidence currently available. My book focuses on the abundant DNA-based evidence of evolution that is much more recent than the origins of organic molecules and the first cells.

What are your thoughts on the different words God used in the Bible to uniquely separate how man and how animals were created? God formed man from the dust of the ground. He didn't do that with animals. The only common ancestry between man and monkey is God, not each other. To go beyond that is simply ludicrous and completely unproveable.

Dr.Fairbanks: I suggest that you read my book. As the title suggests, it documents powerful scientific evidence of evolution in human DNA.

In your opinion, what are the strongest pieces of evidence for evolution? If you had less than 5 minutes to convince someone that evolution occurred, what evidence would you use?

Dr.Fairbanks: My book highlights several of the strongest pieces of DNA-based evidence. Among them are evidence that one of our chromosomes arose from the fusion of two chromosomes that remained separate in the great apes, the presence of transposable elements and pseudogenes in the same places in the human, chimpanzee, and rhesus macaque genomes, the genome-wide correspondence of DNA sequences in related species, and evidence in DNA of natural selection.

I don't doubt that it is possible for the coexistance of evolution and God - but... How does one follow the Bible, Church, Pope etc. when there is such strong evidence agains't the literature that they preach? In other words, do you follow and believe in the human-created interpretation of God? Also - is it possible for a scientist to have 'Faith' when we spend our lives critizing works without sufficient evidence?

Dr.Fairbanks: The purpose of my book, and my response to these questions, is not to detail my personal religious sentiments nor to promote any particular religious tradition. Rather, the majority of my book offers a fascinating glimpse into the compelling scientific evidence of evolution. In the end, I make the same argument that most major scientific organizations have made, expressed well in the following excerpt from a statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; “Science and religion ask fundamentally different questions about the world. Many religious leaders have affirmed that they see no conflict between evolution and religion. We and the overwhelming majority of scientists share this view.”

Could it not be said that the theory of evolution has evolved? In other words it has changed from what Darwin conveyed to what more recent scientists such as Gould has put forth, ie. punctuated equilibrium.

Dr.Fairbanks: Scientific conclusions are constantly being refined and augmented as new evidence emerges. In fact, much of what is in my book was unknown only a few years ago. And I’m anxious to update the book in a new edition because there is already new information to include.

Do you think it's the non-human-centric view of evolution that is so troubling to people? Is it comparable to the fight against Copernicus, in that suddenly Earth *wasn't* the centre of the universe? Or is it more to do with both extremes focusing on the "believe in one or the other" that scares people, as if by believing evolution works, they must discard any idea of an ethereal being watching over them?

I too am confused about the whole idea of God and evolution being incompatible. The idea of an all-encompassing diety being incapable of writing the laws of the universe at creation (ie pre-Big-Bang), which would inevitably result in the processes we see today, seems, well, insulting to the idea of an all-powerful diety... Almost like the creationists, in order to preserve their beliefs, must hobble their god into someone who's only capable of creating creatures by snapping one's fingers, rather than planning out a 30 billion year physics experiment. By definition, one who created our laws of physics is likely not bound by them, and as such cannot be measured anyway. So it's really irrelevant to the question.

Dr.Fairbanks: Throughout recent history, views of how life, our world, and the universe arose have changed in light of scientific discoveries. As people learn what science has to offer, their world views are often challenged. For many this is uncomfortable, for some unacceptable, but for others it is transformational.

Archaeopteryx is one of the very well known transitional species. What would be some examples of mammalian transitional species from the cenozoic (tertiary)?

Dr.Fairbanks: I’m a geneticist who studies DNA sequences and chromosomes. I admire paleontology and enjoy fossil hunting but I’m not an expert in this area. This question could be best answered by a mammalian paleontologist.

How have Dawkins and Hitchens "damaged evolution"? By pointing out that it directly debunks any literal interpretation of the Bible? By being blunt in making their points? Both of the above? If so, why is stating a fact in a clear way detrimental to truth? Shouldn't the blame be placed more clearly on the purveyors of the nonsense, rather than those who have the intellect and honesty to state the truth?

Dr.Fairbanks: I don’t think Dawkins and Hitchens have damaged evolution. As my answer to an earlier question indicates, a strictly literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation is incompatible with science. In my book, I stated, “If instead, however, we view religious texts as spiritual guiding documents rather than literal historical records, the perceived dichotomy fades. Religion and science become complementary ways to interpret our world.”

At what point does a beneficial mutation spawn into a seperate species? I mean, although humans and neanderthals were very similar, they were seperate evolutionary branchs from the same ancestor. I understand the basic rule of thumb, survival of the fittest, could be applied, but how is it that more than 1 different species came from the same ancestors? Is it a regional thing?

Dr.Fairbanks: The process of speciation is one of the most active areas of genetic research but too complex to adequately address here. Most college-level biology textbooks provide a nice explanation, and I deal with it a bit in Chapters 5 and 8 of my book.

One of the questions raised in the article is why scientists have not (generally) been more fervent in emphasizing the salience of evolution over creationism. I've asked this myself and seem to conclude that, in many ways, scientists are straight-jacketed by the agnosticism (for lack of a better term) of their profession. The history of science is one of theories being challenged constantly, so that it would seem irresponsible to state things unequivocally, knowing that a revision could be just around the corner. Do you feel that the nature of scientific investigation is (at least superficially) part of the problem - ie. that we are expecting an absolute answer from those who are understandably hesitant to answer in absolute terms?

Dr.Fairbanks: Yes, I do. I often struggle to help students understand the powerful reliability of well-supported scientific theories while recognizing the need for ongoing refinement of scientific conclusions in light of new evidence. On the other hand, we can view this progressive nature of science as positive — it makes science dynamic and exciting.

Please define the word "evolution". Do you mean "biological evolution"(evolution of species)? "Cosmological evolution"(a universe "ordering" itself)? Do you feel that the latter necessarily follows from the former?

Dr.Fairbanks: My focus as a geneticist is on biological evolution, and my book is restricted largely to the evidence of biological evolution in DNA. I don’t pretend to understand cosmological evolution nor am I compelled to tie it to biological evolution.

I am a high school science teacher at a Christian school who desires to help today's student navigate the troubled waters of the evolution debate.

Where did your journey concerning origins begin? What led to to your present understanding of origins? In your opinion, what would be the top 3 "must reads" (other than your book, of course!) that today's young science learners should have access to?

Looking forward to your suggestions!

Dr.Fairbanks: My journey as a biologist began as a child when I spent long summer days hidden in the grass by a pond near our home watching wild animals go about their lives. That childhood fascination has only grown during my professional career. The book I most recommend is Kenneth Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God.” Eugenie Scott’s “Evolution vs. Creationism” and Neil Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish” are also among my favorites.

How does an animal like the platypus fit into the theory of evolution?

Dr.Fairbanks: The platypus is one of five living species, and several extinct species in the fossil record, in a group called monotremes (egg-laying mammals). Recent DNA-based studies indicate that the ancestral lineages leading to monotremes and therians (mammals that bear live young) diverged more than 200 million years ago. For a recent scientific article on the DNA evidence of monotreme-therian divergence, see van Rheede et al. 2006. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23:587-597 (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/587).

Are there other species that demonstrate altruistic behavior? If we eveolved from apes, where does our sense of good and evil come from? And if, for instance, the Nazis had won WWII, would subsequent European generations believe that right was wrong, and wrong was right? Can our sense of right and wrong "evolve" into something else?

Dr.Fairbanks: The biological basis for behavior, including human altruism, is a topic of intense study. I am not an expert in this area and do not feel qualified to address it. There are plenty of books and articles on the topic but I have not read enough of them to confidently offer a recommendation.

My only question is: Why?
Why would one add in a belief in God when evolution is sufficient? If you can argue that no reasonable person would dispute the evidence for evolution, what need is there for a god? Evolution doesn't require a creator. And if such an entity isn't required, why force it to fit into your theory?

Dr.Fairbanks: For me, belief in God is a deeply personal and spiritual matter, not a way to fill in any perceived insufficiency of science to explain the biological nature of life. As I mentioned in my book, “all major religions are spiritual; they transcend the material world.” They deal with the purpose of life, not the mechanisms of how it came about. Science, on the other hand, “must remain silent on the spiritual purpose of life.”