The Unexpected Perspective
The Implications of Darwin and the Big Bang for Christians ... and Everyone Else


An Ironic Way to Think About Climate Change

Barely a day goes by in which one doesn't hear apocalyptic reports about potential environmental catastrophes that are expected later this century due to climate change.  While there is a general consensus in the scientific community that climate change is real, there does continue to be skepticism expressed in certain quarters, most prominently today by the Trump Administration.  I personally believe that climate change is real, but I do disagree with many of my fellow climate change "believers" in what should be done about it.  In my mind, the problem is real, and needs to be addressed, but how it is addressed could make all the difference. 

            Many, possibly even most, "believers" tend to think that the only way to address climate change is through governmental/regulatory intervention.  This focus on governmental and regulatory solutions, ironically, may be the key reason many conservatives are climate change "skeptics".  It isn't necessarily that they deny the scientific diagnosis, they just don't like the prescription.    Today, I'm writing about another very interesting potential "market based" solution to the problem of climate change.  What I find really interesting about this solution, along with a number of others, is that one can be an absolute climate change "denier" and still think what I describe below is a fantastic idea that doesn't involve the government.

            The Environmental Protection Agency has reported that about 29% of greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to energy production.  Coal is a major fuel source for electricity generation, and the contribution of coal to noxious air pollution, as well as to greenhouse gases around the world, is well known.  The governmental/regulatory "solution" has been programs such as the Obama Administration's "Clean Power Plan", which the Trump Administration is seeking to dismantle.   The impression the average person gets is that we're faced with a binary choice.

            Researchers at the University of Colorado in Boulder, however, may have a terrific solution that everyone could love.  I'll explain my thinking on that below, but first, let me explain the solution they've developed.  It's based upon the fact that the Earth's atmosphere allows certain wavelengths of heat-carrying infrared radiation to escape into space unimpeded.  The trick is to convert the unwanted heat into infrared radiation at the correct wavelength, then it will naturally reflect back into space and not come back.

            Back in 2014 a group of researchers at Stanford University came up with a way to do this.  Unfortunately, the solution, while technically elegant, was deemed impractical because it was both difficult and expensive to manufacture in bulk.  Now, some other researchers at the University of Colorado in Boulder have come up with what could be a very cost effective solution.  They published their findings in Science magazine recently.

            The solution the researchers developed begins with a commercially available material called polymethylpentene, sold commercially under the name TPX.  TPX is manufactured as rolls of transparent film.  It is very resistant to absorbing water and also has good chemical resistance.  The Colorado researchers then added a silver sheet on one side of the TPX, the purpose of which is to reflect sunlight.  That's helpful, but still not the key to the solution.  The heat reflected off of a building still needs to be converted to the right infrared wavelength so that it will head back into space and not linger.  To accomplish this, the researchers utilized tiny glass beads.  The diameter of the glass beads determines what wavelength the heat will reflect off the TPX.  What the researchers found is that a glass bead diameter of about 8 microns would create the "sweet spot".  Thus, they coated the TPX with 8 micron glass beads. 

            The TPX film, including silver reflective backing and 8 micron glass beads, can be manufactured for about 50 cents/square meter (about 5 cents/square foot).  Applying about 20 square meters of the material to a typical house roof, the researchers estimate, will cool the house to 20 degrees Celsius (about 70 degrees Fahrenheit) when the air temperature is about 37 degrees Celsius (about 98 degrees Fahrenheit).  Thus, based upon the estimates, a typical house could achieve this with a film that costs about ten dollars!  Most likely, the house will still need some type of heating and cooling to regulate the temperature throughout the day and night, but far less heating and cooling than in a conventional system.

            Applying such a system could potentially reduce greenhouse gas emissions due to electricity generation dramatically.  Both climate change "believers" and "deniers" could agree that that is a good thing.  While the two groups might vehemently disagree about greenhouse gases, they would likely both agree that the reduced electric bill at the house would be worth paying.  Moreover, developing such a solution doesn't require legislative or regulatory changes.  It's a scientific/technological solution coupled with marketplace economics.

            I can envision that amongst the very greatest supporters of the Colorado "building film" solution would be climate change "deniers".  Why?  Well, it's pretty simple.  The people most likely to embrace this solution are probably entrepreneurial.  I can picture a lot of business owners, who tend to be more Republican than Democrat, wanting to get involved with something like this because of the potential to make money.  At the same time, climate change "deniers" typically are more Republican than Democrat.  I can envision a definite overlap.  After all, I think one can simultaneously deny climate change all day long while looking for ways to make money selling products than will have the side benefit of cutting greenhouse gases.

            While this is another example of employing a scientific/technological solution to solve a problem, it points to something else.  We humans have a tendency when under stress to become very narrow in our thinking.  I believe it is part of our evolutionary heritage.  When a threat is perceived, the ability to think and respond in "black and white" terms is advantageous.  Amongst our ancestors, those who were ponderous in the face of danger likely didn't survive.  Thus, when perceived threats such as global catastrophe brought on by climate change arise, we tend to respond in "black and white" terms.  I think this applies both to "believers" and "deniers".    The ability to think in "black and white" terms is certainly very beneficial when we're really in danger, it's just that we sometimes over-react.  When considering how to deal with the threat of climate change, I think this idea applies.

            While what the Colorado researchers have come up with is not a panacea, it could be very helpful, something one could endorse even as a climate change "denier" due to the potential economic benefits.  Rather than thinking in "black and white" terms about how to address climate change, we should spend more time looking for creative solutions.  Thus, I can envision the following scenario: a bunch of entrepreneurs, who just happen to be climate change skeptics or "deniers", going into business to create and sell a product based upon what the Colorado researchers have developed.  I can easily envision this turning into a billion dollar business because it could be a highly cost effective solution.  After all, who wouldn't want to make a small investment in a roofing material in order to save a huge amount of money on the monthly electric bill?  What an interesting, though ironic, situation: a group of entrepreneurs making lots of money by helping to solve a problem they deny exists, and their climate change "believer" customers loving them for the solution?   Odd … maybe even ironic … but no more so than my crazy idea of Christians loving Charles Darwin even more than do atheists. 

post a comment

While there seems to be lots of evidence that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection occurs on the scale of microbes, how much evidence is there that it occurs on a "macro" scale, meaning evolution of species?  From the initial publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859 until today, those who have been skeptical of Darwin say there isn't evidence of macro-evolution, meaning on the scale of species; and  in particular, there hasn't been evidence of "transitional species." 

What is meant by "transitional"?  As an example, the theory suggests that at some point, life forms made a transition between the seas and land.  What evidence, then, is there for such transitional species?  Opponents of Darwin like to point out that he, himself, acknowledged that if evidence of such transitional species couldn't be found, the theory would fall apart.  The answer is, yes, there is evidence, just not a lot.  The interesting thing is, biologists and other scientists say two things: 1) there is evidence of transitional species; and 2) it should not be surprising there is very little evidence.  Let's consider why this is the case.

Most anyone who has ever been to a science museum has seen fossils.  Scientists over past 200 years have uncovered and catalogued at least 250,000 different species of fossils.  That sounds like a lot, until you consider that just today, there are at least ten million different species alive on Earth.  That doesn't take into consideration all of the species that have gone extinct over time.  Darrell Falk, a well respected biologist as well as committed evangelical Christian, estimates that only one percent of all species that have ever lived on Earth have fossil remains.

An obvious question to ask is, given all of the research that has been done, why are there only fossil remains for about one percent of all species?  Falk, in his excellent book called Coming to Peace with Science notes the following: "As wonderful as fossils are for exploring the history of life, fossilization is an exceedingly unlikely event.  Only a minuscule fraction of organisms happened to be at the right place at the right time to be preserved in perpetuity.  Usually when an organism dies, it decays, leaving hard parts that are eventually subject to microbial decomposition, scavenging or chemical destruction.  In order for it to be converted into fossil form, most often the body has to be suddenly buried in a rapid accumulation of sediment.  The overwhelming majority of organisms, especially land organisms, would never be in the right time and the right place to be preserved forever in this manner."

One percent is a small percentage, but in certain cases, that's actually a pretty large percentage.  Take polling of voters in an election.  For example, the USA has about 200 million people eligible to vote in a Presidential election.  Organizations such as Gallup routinely sample about one or two thousand likely voters and are able to predict the result with plus or minus three percentage points.    A sample of 2,000 out of 200 million is far, far less than one percent, so what's the problem?  The answer is that those conducting the voter poll know the entire population, so they can select a representative sample of voters to poll.  Paleontologists can't do that with fossils because they don't have any data on the missing 99% of species that have never been fossilized.

Darrell Falk offers another very interesting analogy.  Imagine one wants to get an idea of what life in the USA is like.  In order to do this, imagine that someone launched a drone with a camera.  The drone can take as many pictures as it wants, with two conditions: 1) each picture can be of an area of only 1,000 square feet (that's a square with a length of about 32 feet (10 meters) on each side; and 2) the pictures need to be taken randomly.  Think of each 1,000 square foot picture as analogous to a fossil.

What kind of results would the drone's camera record?  For the drone to record everything in one square mile (approximately 2.6 square kilometers), it would have to take 27,878 pictures, each being of a 1,000 square foot area. That's just one square mile!  The USA's total land mass is 3.797 million square miles!    So how many pictures would the drone have to take of the country to get a representative idea of what life might be like in the USA?  Falk notes that if the drone took 250,000 random pictures, there would only be a 25% chance that at least one of the pictures actually had a human in it!   Based upon my calculations, if the drone took one billion random pictures, it would only cover about one percent of the land mass of the country. 

But there's even more to it than that.  Falk notes that transitional species are most likely to occur in tiny populations.  To demonstrate this idea, he envisions two populations of the same species of bird.  On the mainland there are 100,000 birds while on the island, there are only 100 of the birds.  Now envision that on the island, a genetic mutation occurs that creates a bird with a much longer beak than usual.  That means one  out of one hundred birds will have this characteristic.  Now envision that the mutation makes the bird better able to hunt food.  The bird has a greater probability of surviving and reproducing.  Now, also envision another genetic change occurs that causes females of the species to prefer males with longer beaks.  Over time, a greater and greater percentage of the population will have long beaks.  Given that the population of birds on the island was small to begin, the birds will become inbred.  Dog breeders are certainly familiar with this.  Most likely, even after a relatively short period of time, virtually all of the bird on the island will possess long beaks.

On the mainland, however, if the same genetic mutations occurred, it would spread far more slowly in the population of 100,000 birds. The more likely place for the mutation to spread is in the small, isolated population.  Falk continues: "But how does that relate to the scarcity of transitional forms in the fossil record?  The main point is that where species change their characteristics, they tend to do so in small, isolated populations.  And remember that fossilization is an exceedingly unlikely event.  Thus, when fossilization does happen, there is a much higher probability that it will happen somewhere in the larger landmass."  Moreover, Falk notes that, "Similarly, if the transitional forms are present for only a relatively brief period of time as compared to the larger stable populations, then this further lowers the probability of being able to "catch" a transitional form in the fossil record … This is not surprising; it is exactly what geneticists would predict."

And yet, despite the low probability of finding transitional fossils, they have in fact been found. An excellent example, called Tiktaalik, is cited in my book, The Unexpected Perspective.  Tiktaalik (see an artist's representation above) was discovered near Ellesmere Island in northern Canada.  It's name is an Inuit word for "big freshwater fish."  The Tiktaalik was about the size of a crocodile, with scales like a fish and fins like limbs and an elbow joint that could push the animal off the ground.  One of the members of the discovery team said, "It's like a fish that can do push ups."  Tiktaalik most likely lived in the Devonian period near the Equator, in an environment similar to the Mississippi delta.  After 400 million years of continental drift, the fossils ended up in the Canadian north.  Darrell Falk cites other examples of transitional fossils in Coming to Peace with Science.

While comparatively few transitional fossils have been found, it is important to note that they have been found, thus providing additional evidence to back up Darwin, evidence of evolution by natural selection on the scale of species.




post a comment

A Brief Introduction to Biologos, as Well as Report on the Annual Conference

This week I had the distinct pleasure to attend the annual three day conference of Biologos.  If you're not familiar with Biologos, I encourage you to take a closer look.  On its website, it describes itself as "invit[ing] the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God's creation."  Biologos was founded about ten years ago by the eminent scientist Francis Collins.  Collins is currently the head of the National Institutes of Health, but is probably best known as the head of the Human Genome Project, which sequenced the entire human genome.  He was appointed to head the NIH by Barack Obama, and has been asked to continue to head the NIH, at least for now, by Donald Trump.  The organization literally began as a website dedicated to the "science versus faith" issue, but has since grown into a funded organization, currently headquartered in Grand Rapids, MI, and a worldwide following.

            While the mission of Biologos is multi-faceted, I believe its most fundamental one is to overturn the commonly held notion that there is some type of a religion versus science tradeoff and, more particularly, that there is some type of a tradeoff between the Christian Bible and science.  It's clear that certain groups want to promote in the public consciousness the notion that there is such dichotomy.  At one extreme, a small group of atheist scientist writers, most notably Richard Dawkins, evangelize the idea that if one believes in modern science, one can't possibly believe the Bible.  While coming from the entirely opposite end of the spectrum, certain evangelical Christians seem to promote the very same idea: if you believe the Christian Bible, you can't possibly accept the conclusions of modern science concerning evolution and the Big Bang Theory.   While many Christians, particularly evangelical ones, subscribe to this idea, perhaps the best known proponent is a group called Answers in Genesis.  This group emphasizes a literal interpretation of the Bible: that the Earth is no more than about 6,000 years old, and that the story of the Garden of Eden, recounted in Genesis 2 – 3, happened exactly as reported. 

In contrast, Biologos emphasizes the idea that the Christian Bible is not, and never has been, a science textbook, so it should never be used to draw scientific conclusions.  While some might think this is a new idea, it clearly isn't.  In fact, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and even St. Augustine all believed that one should never try to read the Bible as some sort of science textbook.  From that starting point, the organization promotes a concept called evolutionary creationism.  This is the idea that one can accept the very same findings of modern science to which people like Richard Dawkins subscribe, but that behind all of that one will find the same loving God portrayed in the Christian Bible.  Once one stops thinking of the Bible as some type of science textbook, it becomes very easy to embrace modern science as well as the Christian message of a loving God who is ultimately in control.

Biologos has attracted both very serious scientists and very well known theologians.  For example, Deborah Haarsma, the current president of the organization, has a PhD in Astronomy from MIT.  Her husband has a PhD in Physics from Harvard.  Collins, of course, has impeccable scientific credentials.  Among theological scholars associated with the organization is Nicholas T. Wright, a British New Testament scholar and author, as well as John Walton, an Old Testament scholar from Wheaton College in Wheaton, IL.  In short, there is clear intellectual "heft" behind the organization, both in science and theology; but equally, there is fervor to embrace the Bible and the love of God.

While there were many interesting presentations at the three day conference, let me point out two in particular.  First, Francis Collins gave a keynote address to the gathering.  As part of his presentation, he noted three things that are of particular concern to him:

#1: the perception by many that science and faith are incompatible (he definitely disagrees with the perception);

#2: the observation that Christian scientists so often feel they must hide their views about faith while at work; and then feeling the need to hide their work when they go to church;

#3: many new scientific developments bring tremendous promise, but equally they bring ethical challenges; and the Christian church needs to be a participant when these ethical issues are discussed, but won't be so long as the "faith versus science" debate continues to rage. 

The second very interesting presentation to note was one given by Elaine Ecklund, a sociologist at Rice University in Houston (and my alma mater).  Ecklund specializes her research on the subject of attitudes about religion and science, especially as they relate to how Christians and scientists interact.  She has published a number of books and papers on the subject.   Ecklund reported that about 36% of evangelical Christians believe that science is hostile to religion.  Her conclusion is that evangelicals as a whole don't seem to have problem with science, and aren't hostile to science, just that they perceive scientists to be hostile to Christianity. 

Quite a number of those in attendance echoed the point made by both Collins and Ecklund, that too many Christian scientists feel they must hide their faith at work, and hide their work in their place of worship, for fear of a very hostile reaction.  One other speaker, a biologist, gave a particularly moving testimony about her personal experience with this "need to hide", both at work and at church.

I look forward to attending next year's conference but, in the meantime, certainly look forward to following the Biologos website, as well as corresponding with those associated with the organization.  If you're interested in questions of science and faith, I doubt you'll go wrong by keeping track of this group.

post a comment

Creationism Is Being Embraced in Seemingly Unlikely Places

Stephen Jay Gould, the famous late scientist and writer, made the observation that belief in "creationism" is pretty much limited to certain groups in the USA.  He said, "I hope everyone realizes the extent to which this is a local, indigenous, American bizzarity."  Many outside the USA seem to share the belief.  Ronald Numbers, a Professor of History and Medicine at the University of Wisconsin – Madison, and perhaps the world's foremost authority on the study of creationism, says that Gould's idea is a complete myth. 

Numbers is perhaps best known for having written The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism.  He has devoted a significant portion of his career to the study of the emergence and propagation of creationist ideas.  He has also edited a very interesting book entitled Galileo Goes to Jail, and Other Myths About Science and Religion.  He personally wrote the chapter describing the myth about creationism being a purely American phenomenon. 

It is certainly true that the creationist movement started in the USA, and it continues to be very strong here.   What appears to be a myth, however, is the idea that creationist ideas are a purely American phenomenon and haven't taken hold in other countries.  In fact, Numbers has meticulously recorded evidence of strong creationist groups outside the USA.  For example, he notes that creationist thinking has been very positively received in both Australia and New Zealand.  Closer to home, he observes that Canada may have more creationists per capita than anywhere else.  Even though less than one third of Canadians attend church regularly, survey data show that 53% of adults in Canada reject the theory of scientific evolution.

One normally doesn't think of people in Europe, especially Western Europe, as having strong religious leanings, yet creationism has definitely taken hold there.  Numbers cites a United Kingdom poll that shows four in ten people in the UK think that religious alternatives to Darwin's theory should be taught as science in the schools.  Surveys show that only 45% of respondents believe that evolution best represents their personal views.  On the other hand 22% identified themselves as supporters of creationism, while 17% endorsed Intelligent Design.

Elsewhere in Western Europe, Numbers notes that 20% of those surveyed appear to believe in special creation.  Young earth creationism, the most conservative version, is widely endorsed in various countries.  For example, surveys show that 21.8% of the Swiss say they're young earth creationists.  Lest you conclude that yodeling or Swiss chocolate may have inflicted some unintended consequences on the populace, 20.4% of Austrians self-identify as young earth creationists.  The number in Germany is 18.1%.

In Latin America, a similar phenomenon is occurring.  Belief in creationism has skyrocketed in Brazil, for example.  In Asia, belief in creationism also seems to be on the rise, particularly in Korea.

Perhaps even more surprising is the data Numbers has compiled about non-Christians outside the USA.  He notes much interest expressed by Muslims in Turkey.  A creationist movement has emerged there, too.  Not to be outdone, Jews in Israel have also been embracing creationism.  In fact, Numbers cites the emergence of the Torah Science Foundation in Israel to promote creationist ideas.  A particular variation on this is what is called "Kosher evolution".  This involves an acceptance of micro-evolution but rejection of macro-evolution.

The obvious question to ask is, how did this come about?  Numbers notes that various groups have been evangelizing the creationist message.  One group in particular, based in Kentucky and called Answers in Genesis, has definitely been proselytizing.  Just as Christians have been faithfully following the Great Commandment to spread the Gospel, so have creationists been adhering to a Great Creationist Commandment to do the same with respect to creationist doctrine.

The spread of interest in creationism outside the USA has been accompanied by an increasing desire to teach alternative scientific theories to evolution by natural selection.  Just as creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design have pushed to have alternative science taught in schools, the same is true outside the USA.

Numbers has observed that secular scientists in many of these countries are shocked at this development, seemingly thinking that the impossible has come to pass.  However, just as atheist scientists in the USA are absolutely shocked and appalled that, notwithstanding all of the scientific evidence, about half of the USA adult population is skeptical of Darwin, and only one quarter of Christians embrace Darwinian thinking, is it really a surprise that attitudes are the same in other countries?  This again seems consistent with the notion that there is no science/religion continuum.  The idea that the more one believes in science, the less they'll believe in religion … and vice versa … is a myth.  Moreover, it is a worldwide myth that applies throughout the world.

Just as the embrace of creationism by many in the USA has led to a battle about what science is taught in the public schools, so are similar battles emerging in countries around the world.  Scientists are understandably horrified by this, but they really shouldn't be surprised.  When all is said and done, there is nothing uniquely American about creationism, intelligent design, and other forms of opposition to Darwin's theory.

post a comment

Announcing My New YouTube Channel

I'm pleased to announce my new YouTube video channel.  I'm launching it with a series of short videos that provide simple explanations of my book.  Feel free to share it your friends who don't care to read a book, but might love watching short videos that explain the book.  Click on the "Subscribe" button and you'll automatically receive new videos as they're posted.  There will also be other interesting videos on topics related to science, technology, ethics and Christianity.  I hope you enjoy it!  Click here to see "The Unexpected Perspective" YouTube channel.

post a comment

Scientists are getting closer to synthesizing yeast. What are the implications?

Chromosomes are a core constituent of life.  Humans each have 23 pairs of them.  Every other living creature has them, too.  Even yeast … something you don't normally think of as a living creature … has chromosomes.  I understand that yeast has sixteen chromosomes.


That wouldn't be particularly newsworthy until you consider that it has now been reported that scientists around the world have synthesized six of the sixteen chromosomes in yeast. (see Synthesizing Yeast).  There is hope that the remainder will be synthesized before the end of 2017.


Yeast is obviously something very simple, and the significance of this may not be particularly apparent.  Beer lovers, of course, may beg to differ.  Who knows, could the ability to synthesize yeast, an important element in making beer, lead to better beer?  I don't know whether we can count on better lagers, ales, and stouts in your steins in the future, but most likely, we'll end up with the ability to synthesize more complex chromosomes.


A little bit of speculation may lead one to the idea of synthesizing far more complex organisms some time in the future.  Does that sound a bit like "playing God"?  Obviously, there will be lots of questions that need to be answered along the way.  In my mind, Christians need to be part of any such discussions.


Once again, a scientific discovery points towards two dramatically different outcomes, one good … and one potentially very bad.  The ability to synthesize chromosomes could provide many benefits.  The prospect of better beer is a very mundane potential one.  However, as has been the case over and over, the potential for benefit from a scientific discovery once again brings the potential for serious, if unintended, consequences.  We need to proceed cautiously.  Moreover, in my mind, Christians need to be right in the middle of the discussion.

post a comment

New Evidence Suggests an Earlier Date for the First Appearance of Life on Earth

Our Earth is estimated to be about 4.4 billion years old. Over time, scientists have pushed the date of the earliest appearance of life on Earth farther and farther back. For the past two decades, the general consensus has been that life first appeared on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago, meaning that for the first billion years, Earth was "lifeless". Now a new study in Nature magazine suggests the date is much earlier.  The research is definitely controversial.  In fact, some critics of the new study have called the fossil evidence "dubio-fossils".  Obviously, it isn't just politics that's controversial today! Check out Oldest Bacteria.  

post a comment

Here's a list of books recommended by some of the editors and writers at BioLogos Foundation.

I am often asked, what's worth reading?  With respect to Christianity and the sciences, one of the sources I turn to is the Biologos Foundation.  If you're not familiar with Biologos, I encourage you to check them out.  A number of their writers and staffers compiled a list of top books for 2016.  I've included them below.  The compilers make the caveat that the list is entirely subjective, but based upon what I know of the group, particularly their scholarship, I think these are worthy of consideration. 


Brad Kramer


Finding God in the Waves: How I Lost My Faith and Found It Again Through Science by Mike McHargue, aka Science Mike (see


Particles of Faith: A Catholic Guide to Navigating Science by Stacy Trasancos.   (see


Jim Stump


 Enriching Our Vision of Reality: Theology and the Natural Sciences in Dialogue by Alister McGrath (see


The Emergence of Personhood: A Quantum Leap? by Malcolm Jeeves (editor) (see


Mike Beidler


The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth: Can Noah's Flood Explain the Grand Canyon? by Carol Hill et al (editors) (see  The title may be off-putting for some, but this is serious scholarship.  By the way, the authors conclude that Noah's Flood could not possibly explain the Grand Canyon.


The Crossroads of Science and Faith: Astronomy Through a Christian Worldview by Susan Benecchi et al. (see 


Ted Davis


Science and Christianity: An Introduction to the Issues by James Stump (see


Casper Hesp


Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post Critical Philosophy by Michael Polanyi (see  This book was actually written in 1958, so not exactly new, but apparently there was a recent re-issue. 


The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture by N.T. Wright (see  This is also an older book, having been issued around 2005.


I hope from amongst these you find some worthwhile reading!  At the same time, if you know of a good book that addresses questions of science, technology and faith, please share it.

post a comment

Most Christians didn't celebrate the 208th anniversary of the birthday of Charles Darwin last week. This post makes the argument that we should start doing so. In fact, eventually Darwin Day will be a recognized date on the Christian liturgical calendar.

I wish each of you belated Happy Darwin Day!  Sorry I didn't mention this last week, for Sunday, February 12th was Darwin Day, celebrating the 208th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, the formulator of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Oh, it wasn't on your calendar?  Truth be told, it wasn't on mine, either.  Probably not embarrassing at all to you, but I actually am a little embarrassed.  After all, I've been trying to study all things Darwin for a number of years – and I completely missed his birthday!  To my rescue came Jim Stump, Senior Editor at BioLogos, who mentioned it in a blog post this week.  Well, it could have been worse.  At least I didn't forget my wife's birthday!  I do have an excuse: I was in Ghana, getting ready to fly home to the USA; and like Jim Stump, I celebrated the day as I usually do each Sunday by going to a Christian Church.

Seriously, there is a movement afoot to celebrate Darwin's birthday.  It was first started by three Darwin enthusiasts.  Dr. Robert Stephens set up the first celebration in 1995 in Silicon Valley, followed by Prof. Massimo Piliucci at the University of Tennessee in 1997, and then by Amanda Chesworth in New Mexico in 2000.  Supporters even have their own website

The people behind Darwin Day want to turn it into a recognized holiday.  No doubt, Hallmark won't object.  However, Darwin was born the very day of someone whose birthday is already celebrated – Abraham Lincoln – though his birthday is now celebrated on President's Day, the 3rd Monday of the month.  The "Darwin Day" advocates want us to remember the famous English scientist because, in their words, it "will inspire people throughout the world to reflect and act on the principles of intellectual bravery, perpetual curiosity and hunger for truth as embodied in Charles Darwin."

            The website appears to me to have very much of a secular humanist bent; and the  implication, of course, is intellectual bravery and hunger for truth "other than Christianity".    In our fast-paced world, where everyone seeks simple, "either/or" answers, that type of thinking is appealing.  Traditional supporters of Darwin tend to think that if you believe in Darwin, then you must obviously reject Christianity; and on the other side, many conservative Christians believe that if you are a real Christian, then you can't possibly believe much, if anything, that Darwin has to say.  In my mind, very neat, very clean … and very wrong!

            Wrong to the point that I want to go out on a limb and make a prediction.  The prediction is, there will eventually be a Darwin Day, and it will be on the Christian Church calendar.  I say this because I think more and more Christians are going to come to the conclusion that not only is Darwin not antithetical to Christianity, his ideas actually are beneficial to Christians, and help reinforce things that Christians already hold dear.  That's the argument I've made in my book, The Unexpected Perspective.  The problem, of course, is to get people to reframe the issue.

            Christians, I believe, are coming to realize that embracing Darwin offers a number of benefits to them.  Let me share three of them in particular.  First, there is an increasing realization that original sin is the downside byproduct of evolution by natural selection.  Christian de Duve, a 1974 Nobel Prize in Medicine winner, drew that conclusion in his book Genetics of Original Sin (see my recent blog post on this), and I make a similar argument.  As I maintain in The Unexpected Perspective, original sin is the most basic doctrine in Christianity.  So Darwin's theory provides a modern day "bridge" to understand this ancient Christian concept.

            Second, Darwin can provide a "bridge" to help Christians evangelize the well educated.  Whereas for most of the past two thousand years, most educated people in the West were Christian, increasingly, that's not the case.  In fact, many well educated people seem to think the Bible is just a bunch of hocus-pocus.  It follows from the same type of  "either/or" thinking we see is increasingly common in all walks of life: if you're Chrstian, you must reject science in general and Darwin in particular; and if you reject science, then you must be stupid.  Darwin, I argue, can provide a bridge for Christians to have a serious, thoughtful conversation with well-educated non-Christians about science, Christianity and the Bible.

            Third, Darwin can provide a way to bridge the problem of how to teach science in the public schools.  For the past 100 years, many Christians have been fearful that if children in schools are taught Darwin's theories, they'll be on the road to rejecting Christianity.  In response, some Christians have sought to have alternative ideas such as Creationism or Intelligent Design taught, to the horror of scientists and many educators alike.  The result has often been that children aren't taught any science, to the detriment of all.  As I argue in The Unexpected Perspective, there is a way for Christians to embrace Darwin without fears that their children will be set on the path to atheism.  In fact, it may actually be the atheists who have to worry.

            The bottom line is that the idea of a Darwin versus the Bible and Christianity dichotomy really is a fiction.  Not only can Christians accept Darwinian science, they can love it.  They can love it for different reasons than do atheists.  If Christians can love it, they'll have a reason to celebrate Darwin, including the anniversary of his birth.  So it didn't happen this year, and it may still not happen next year, but pretty soon I predict, you'll see Darwin Day on the Christian calendar.    Charles Darwin, happy belated 208th birthday!


post a comment

A review of a book published by a winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine. It also concludes that original sin is an unfortunate byproduct of evolution by natural selection.

I recently read a book by the Nobel Prize winning Belgian scientist Christian de Duve titled Genetics of Original Sin: The Impact of Natural Selection on the Future of Humanity.  The author, who was a co-recipient of the 1974 Nobel Prize in Medicine, as well as the author of a number of other books, passed away not too long after this book was published.  He was, however, ninety five years old.

I recommend the book for a number of reasons, but two in particular.  First, it provides an excellent layman's overview of the science behind the theory of evolution by natural selection: sufficiently detailed and approachable, but not too technical.  Second, one of his key conclusions is the same one I reach in The Unexpected Perspective.  In his book he maintains "original sin is none other than the fault written into human genes by natural selection."  He concludes that natural selection "privileges all of the personal traits that contribute to the immediate success of individuals."  Further, he observes that natural selection favors cohesion of individuals within like groups and hostility to others, something that is obvious to all: we prefer to be with people who look and act like us, and distrust people who look different and who come from different backgrounds.

One particularly interesting thing he examines is the growth of the brain in mammals.  He notes that it took about 600 million years for the brains of animals to grow to 21.4 cubic inches, but that it only took 2 to 3 million years for human brains to grow from 21.4 to 82.4 cubic inches.  In other words, when viewed on a graph, the human brain's growth over time looks like a proverbial "hockey stick."  He further posits that the human brain only stopped growing beyond this because of limitations of female anatomy: a larger brain could not pass through the birth canal of a Homo sapiens female.

While both his book and mine link original sin to evolution by natural selection, de Duve's conclusions are dramatically different than mine.  De Duve's book is greatly concerned about the future prospects for humanity, embracing a Malthusian doomsday viewpoint.  Natural selection has caused humans to be shortsighted and selfish, and as a species, we have collectively brought the Earth to the bring of ruin. 

Though de Duve never explicitly stated it, he appears to have been either an atheist or a deist.  As such, he felt that it is up to mankind to save itself.  The latter part of the book then addresses the question, how can humanity overcome what natural selection has "gifted" to us as a species?  He lays out seven possible options for humans to save themselves:

  • Option 1: do nothing
  • Option 2: improve our genes
  • Option 3: rewire the human brain to overcome the problem of original sin
  • Option 4: call on religions to be more influential
  • Option 5: protect the environment
  • Option 6: give women an opportunity to play a greater role in human affairs
  • Option 7: control population growth.

While he did not say it, I believe he felt the options with the greatest potential for success were numbers two and three.  He did not offer any specific way to accomplish this, but merely expressed how this would be desirable.  While I think only option 4 makes sense, it is interesting to see his thinking on the other options.

            The other reason I recommend his book is because I think it gives a good preview to the arguments that atheists and secular humanists will likely make in response to the idea that original sin is "baked in" to our genetics.  I think they will recommend options 2 and 3, too.  Are these options realistic?  While I do believe that humanity demonstrates incredible capacity to improve technology, I'm extremely skeptical that it can be done.  Further, even if it could be done, what is the chance that there will be lots of unintended consequences.  After all, Victor Frankenstein had only noble intentions, but look what he created?  While Frankenstein is but a fictional character, is it unreasonable to assume that even if options 2 and 3 might work, there would be a terrible toll to pay on the route to the destination?  De Duve's option 4, particular in the Christian flavor, sounds like a better choice to me.

post a comment

Buy the Book Now

Westbow Press · Amazon · Barnes & Noble

Get Carl's Updates In Your Inbox

Subscribe to our free e-mail updates and receive a free chapter from his latest book, The Unexpected Perspective.

Carl Treleaven is an entrepreneur, author, strong supporter of various non-profits, and committed Christian. He is CEO of Westlake Ventures, Inc., a company with diversified investments in printing and software.


© 2016 - 2017 Unexpected Perspective - All Rights Reserved.