Fazale “fuz” rana, PHD - podcast interview transcript
Announcer:
00:03 Welcome to the Purpose Nation podcast, inspiring conversations with Christians in science, technology, and industries of the future. For more information or to make a tax deductible contribution, visit purposenation.org.
Brad Cooper:
00:16 This is Brad Cooper with Purpose Nation. And on the podcast today, I think we'll dive into a not-so-controversial topic in Christian circles and that's evolution. Uh oh, okay. So yeah, we're going to dive into various aspects of, not only evolution, but also a lot of other very fascinating topics, especially in the world of biology and the history of humanity and all kinds of things -- so maybe a little controversy in the podcast today. But I'm really, really looking forward to it. And with that, I'm just very honored and blessed to welcome my guest on the podcast from Reasons to Believe, Dr. Fuz Rana. Welcome to the Purpose Nation podcast!
Dr. Rana:
00:52 Brad, It's really an honor to be with you. Thanks for having me.
Brad Cooper:
00:54 Likewise. Thanks for being with us. We've been following you and your colleagues at Reasons to Believe. Dr Hugh Ross we had from Reasons to Believe on the podcast. And I've been reading his stuff and following him for about maybe 20 years or so and I just only though got to meet him in person... and hopefully I can meet as well. In Reasons to Believe, it seems like Dr Ross has kind of more leaning towards the cosmology and the physics and age of the universe and you kind of seem to focus more on the biology and chemistry. Is that sort of the breakdown there?
Dr. Rana:
01:21 It sure is. We also, in addition to Hugh and I, we have Jeff Zweerink -- he is an astronomer as well and then we also just recently hired a molecular biologist named Anjeanette Roberts. So there's actually four of us now, so two in the life sciences and two in the physical sciences. And even though there's four of us, there's still an enormous amount of ground to cover when it comes to the relationship between science and the Christian faith. And you know, the thing that's exciting to me is that no matter where we go, regardless of the scientific discipline, we just see overwhelming evidence for design and for purpose in the created order. And that to me gives me enormous amount of confidence that, that every discipline of science is unearthing and evidence for a creator.
Brad Cooper:
02:04 To me, in my view, the breakdown there in terms of who has kind of a little bit tougher job, I have to give it to you and I guess this Dr Roberts. Ha Ha. It seems like some of the cosmology things and age of the universe and Big Bang... they seem to have, like, you know, a bigger sort of arsenal that you would say "mainstream science" seem to sort of buy into. So, but on the biology side. I don't know if you agree with me, it seems like a little bit tougher job where you're sort of getting, getting, having had it from both sides of the issue here. Is that, is that sort of a fair assessment that you have a little bit harder job there?
Dr. Rana:
02:34 I think it is a fair assessment when it comes to the physical sciences, cosmology and physics. The evidence for design fits squarely in the mainstream thinking among most scientists. But, when we get into the life sciences, the idea of design is really an anathema. I mean, people in biology really reject the concept of design thoroughly. Yet it's not hard to find biologists and biochemists who are quick to point out that life has the appearance of design and some of the critiques that we would bring to the table when it comes to the the origin stories in the life sciences that are driven by evolutionary mechanisms, some of those critiques are critiques that scientists themselves working in those areas will make of the evolutionary paradigm. So for example, part of the argument that we would make for a creator being responsible for life's origin and design is the inability of evolutionary mechanisms to account for the origin of life. And it's hard again, to find scientists who would deny the fact that we don't really know how life originated through evolutionary means. So in one respect we are a little bit outside the mainstream, but on the other hand, the ideas that we argue for our ideas that are in play within the scientific community, it's just that there is this very strong, again, rejection of the concept of design in and biology, much more so than you see, I think in physics and cosmology,
Brad Cooper:
04:01 Right, and even more reason for Christians and believers to get into fields of biology to kind of bring it, bring a higher weight there of folks who believe like you. So real quick, before we dive into that and you know more and more of this conversation, I wanted to give you just a bio of Dr Rana. He's the Vice President of Research and Apologetics at Reasons to Believe he graduated with highest honors from West Virginia State College, now West Virginia State University, with a BS in chemistry and a PHD in chemistry with an emphasis in biochemistry from Ohio University. Did your postdoc there in biophysics of cell membranes at University of Georgia and University of Virginia... I have to give a shout out there. I'm a Wahoo. So go Wahoos!? Fun Time in Charlottesville, I hope. Dr. Rana was also a senior scientist in research and development at Procter and Gamble and then he joined Reasons to Believe in 1999. He's written many books such as, "Who was Adam?" Creating life in the Lab, The Cell's Design as well as articles, videos, podcasts, television, radio interviews, speaking engagements are kind of all over the place. I see you in the web everywhere. So awesome to see you everywhere. And also published in peer reviewed scientific journals and delivered many presentations at international scientific meetings. And he also has two patents. He lives, just north of here, north of Purpose Nation here in southern California with his wife Amy and their five children. So God bless you for that. Any scientists there in the bunch?
Dr. Rana:
05:26 One of our daughters is a math teacher, one is a nurse, so that's about the closest that we've gotten.
Brad Cooper:
05:32 Yeah, alright, so there we go. Well, so starting off with your work at Reasons to Believe. So what are, what's the sort of the main hot project that you're working on right now? What sort of a, what's the biggest thing you got going on?
Dr. Rana:
05:41 Yeah, well, I just finished the manuscript for a book and I collaborated with my friend Ken Samples who's a philosopher and theologian, but it's a manuscript for a book on transhumanism and the idea of human enhancement technologies. So I see this book in a sense of sequel to the book "Who was Adam?" as well as a sequel to the book "Creating Life in the Lab" and you know, we're really in exciting times because advances in gene editing and computer brain interface technology and artificial womb technology and anti-aging are really making it possible now for us to treat a lot of diseases and injuries for which we didn't have treatments. That these technologies represent stepping stone technologies to technologies that could be used to enhance our capabilities beyond our natural biological limits. And this is referred to as human enhancement technologies. But this is now giving impetus and credibility to a movement called transhumanism. That probably had its modern conception in the 1960s. And it's the idea that we can use technology to alleviate pain and suffering. To create a utopia and to ultimately attain eternal life for human beings by modifying humans and in doing so, creating post human species that are better adapted to a world that we live in today and it could be better adapted to the future world where we're marrying our biology with technology to create these post human species and this idea is suddenly become a mainstream idea among scientists and technologists and philosophers and it's beginning to infuse our culture and so I actually think that this very well may be the chief competitor to the Gospel and the next few decades where people will turn to science and technology for their salvation as opposed to the person of Christ and sort of the book is designed to essentially educate Christians on what is transhumanism? What are the technologies that's fueling this movement? And then on top of that, how do we effectively engage this idea? How can we move beyond just simply knee jerk condemnation of this and actually ask questions about what is this telling us about human need? How can we build a bridge between what's happening with transhumanism and the Gospel? So it was a fun book to put together. We're in now the stage of editing and getting the manuscript prepared for publication. Hopefully the book will be out, God-willing, July of next year, 2019.
Brad Cooper:
08:06 That's great. Yeah. I look forward to that. That's absolutely a hot topic right now. And it does have practical implications. I mean, like you said, this is sort of been happening for a while, but it seems like it's accelerating and picking up steam with even some big names, you know, Ray Kurzweil and obviously one of the big ones and I've actually seen, you've probably seen this to some Christians who, well they at least they claim to be Christian and they are sort of pushing sort of a Christian version of transhumanism, which I don't quite understand yet. I might have one or two of them on the podcast to see if I can have them see, explain to me how this sort of gels with scripture and they seem to have, uh, some ideas on that. But that sounds like a great one in a very interesting topic. And I do want to ask you a little bit more about genetic engineering and just a bit...
Brad Cooper:
08:44 ...but before that I'm going to ask you the same question I asked Dr Ross, which is, he's been at it for something like 30 years, you know, you've been at it for a while here and many, many others have been down the path of tackling the perceived conflicts between science and faith and Christian faith in particular. To me it seems like it just keeps resurfacing and the media and atheists sort of attacking and how do we move beyond sort of the defensive position perhaps I would call it and also just move beyond, you know, and maybe tackling more of these issues that you bring up. Like, okay, transhumanism... how does that affect us? Is there a way for Christians who are experts in maybe AI technology or, like you, in genetics, who can kind of bring a Christian perspective to the table, or who are even be invited to the table, to have these have these conversations. How do we get into more of that, kind of a what I would call a more practical application of Christian viewpoints on these science and technology issues versus sort of more of the internal kind of rehashing of the conflict issue or the evolution issue... any thoughts on that? It sort of maybe your take on why. Why is that, that is maybe you don't agree, but it seems like we're sort of stuck in a rut a little bit and if so, how do we move forward?
Dr. Rana:
09:50 Yeah, that's a great question. To me, I'm surprised like you that this idea of conflict between science and Christianity is still so pervasive in our culture and it's not even outside the church. It's also inside the church as well and I think we so often view science as a threat or an enemy to the faith because of the age of the earth issue, because of the issue with evolution, we look out and we see things like genetic engineering and artificial intelligence and again, and we start seeing that as a, as a perceived threat and so Christians either condemn or avoid science as opposed to actually looking at taking our proper place within the scientific enterprise and you know, I think it's significant that even the enlightenment itself or the early stages of the enlightenment that birthed science, were driven by Christians and the Christian idea that we are granted dominion over the creation and part of that is to understand the world that God made and then the use that understanding to improve the condition of humanity. And so science and technology has strong roots in the Christian world view and I think it's very important for Christians to appreciate that and to be able to articulate that idea in our culture. Because if you don't have a worldview that looks like the Christian worldview, science itself is not possible. The assumptions that undergird science flow out of the Christian worldview.
Brad Cooper:
11:09 Right.
Dr. Rana:
11:09 But I also think that we need to recognize that we have to encourage young people to go into science and into technology, and to do so with the idea that we will become embedded missionaries within the scientific community, that we become salt and light in the scientific community, that we can help our culture think through the ethical conundrums that are emerging as a result of advances that are happening in science.
Dr. Rana:
11:33 But yet at the same time. recognize that science itself can be a calling, it can be an act of worship for Christians because we're unleashing insight into how God put the world together and that glorifies God. I think it all starts with developing a mentality on the part of parents and church leaders that we really want to encourage young people to go into science, that science isn't a threat, but it's something where we can actually serve God and minister to our world through our work as scientists, as engineers, as physicians. You know, and I think a beautiful example would be what we were just talking about with human enhancement technology. I mean, we should have Christians that are working in gene editing, that are working to develop computer brain interfaces, that are working on artificial intelligence because these technologies are going to improve the quality of people's lives.
Dr. Rana:
12:24 And is enhancing ourselves beyond our biological limits necessarily a bad thing with technology? I don't think the answer is necessarily "no" or "yes." I think it's...it really is situational. But again, I think having young people who are Christians working in these areas is so vital because again, they could benefit humanity, but at the same time begin to ask the appropriate and probing questions and show the value of the Christian worldview and in doing so, I think we would garner greater respect on the part of the secular world and the church in showing that that Christianity and Christians have a proper place in science. And it's only then that you're going to get rid of this idea of conflict.
Brad Cooper:
13:05 Amen. Yeah, amen to all of that. So just real quick on your story, in terms of you as a young person, it sounded like had a strong interest in, in science kind of early on. It sounds like you came from a family of scientists, which is common for the folks I interview on the podcast, but what sort of, what got you into science? What was, what sort of sparked your interest? Initially?
Dr. Rana:
13:23 You know, my father was a nuclear physicist and my mom was a science and math teacher. The expectation in our home was that we were going to do really well in science and math. There was no option...
Brad Cooper:
13:36 Ha ha ha...
Dr. Rana:
13:36 ...other than to excel. And yet, you know, interestingly enough when I was a high school student, I wouldn't say that necessarily disliked science and math, I actually liked those subjects, but I just never saw myself as being a scientist.
Brad Cooper:
13:46 Hmmm...
Dr. Rana:
13:47 Ya know, I was actually more interested in girls and rock music and sports...
Brad Cooper:
13:53 Ha ha ha...
Dr. Rana:
13:53 ...but when I got to college I enrolled in the premed program because that was kind of what my father encouraged me to do. But it was my first class in biology where, the first day of class. we were taught that nobody knows how to define life. And I found that, for whatever reason, to be incredibly fascinating and I realized very quickly in that course that understanding how life works at a molecular level is key to understanding what is life and how life originates. And I was hooked. I fell in love with biochemistry and quickly abandoned any thought of going to medical school with the idea that I wanted to become a biochemist. And so it was really in college that I became really obsessed with the idea of science as a career and as a passion, and still very much passionate about science today... for me, I very seldom read works of fiction because the world of science is far more interesting than any kind of imaginary world that somebody can construct. But I fell in love with it in college actually, not so much growing up as a young man, though I had a very strong science influence.
Brad Cooper:
14:58 So hearing your story and your conversion story, it sounds like some of those questions you mentioned, how life's defined and other questions in evolution, seemed to lead you towards, "wait a minute, this doesn't seem to make sense that this is natural." What was the sort of tipping point for you, that something didn't see right there?
Dr. Rana:
15:16 Well, you know, as an undergraduate students taking courses in chemistry and biology, at that point in my life I was an agnostic and so I accepted pretty much uncritically the evolutionary story for the origin and the design and the history of life and it was largely by virtue of the fact that I respected and admired my biology teachers. But it was really when I was a graduate student that I began to question the evolutionary paradigm and this kind of went part and parcel with this radical idea that you pick up as a graduate student that you actually need to think for yourself and then you need to have the courage to question the paradigm. That's what it really means to be a scientist is to question everything including the standard paradigm. And so as I really began to appreciate in graduate school, the complexity and the elegance and sophistication of biochemical systems, I really wanted to know how do scientists explain where these systems come from.
Dr. Rana:
16:13 And so my interest in the origin of life was rekindled and this wasn't part of the coursework, but I just read about the origin of life on my own and very quickly came to the conviction that there's no way that unguided chemical and physical processes are going to produce, the types of systems that you see inside the cell. And it's at that point I became convinced that not only is the origin of life question from an evolutionary standpoint deficient, but that the design that we see can only be explained if there was indeed a mind that was responsible for everything. And then that recognition opened me up to I think more important questions. Namely, "who is the creator and how do I relate to that creator?" And that's where I found the best answer in the gospels.
Brad Cooper:
16:57 And your story seems like the reverse of what Christian parents are worried about with their kids. Because a lot of them are worried that if they send their kids to a secular university into the sciences, that somehow they're going to be persuaded by either the evidence or the professors to abandon their faith, but it almost seems like the opposite happened with you. They sent you off to be, you know, a working scientist and you became a Christian. I mean that's obviously God had a hand in that I'm sure, but it seems like sort of the opposite of what parents fear?
Dr. Rana:
17:25 That's right...But, I think about my experience as an undergraduate. I really have a lot of compassion to the concern that parents have and what students have to endure. Because I remember being in courses where, though the professors I had weren't on a soap box, they really did, from time to time, ridicule Christianity and Christians that were in their classes. And so when you're at that stage in your academic career, you're very vulnerable... because you're still learning, you want to fit in, you want to be respectable. What it means is that, what we have to do as Christian parents and as leaders in the church is equip students for what they are going to actually experience when they go into a college setting to understand how their faith may be attacked to understand world view issues and philosophical issues that are intertwined with the scientific enterprise and how that influences how people interpret data and that how a design argument can be can be made in a robust way even before they walk into that setting so that they at least have, you know, an understanding of what they're going to be confronted with and how to think about that.
Dr. Rana:
18:30 But also I think it's important that we don't necessarily shut doors with regard to different models for how science and faith fit together. You know, there's Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, which is what I ascribe to, Theistic Evolution... and each of these positions have strengths and weaknesses and limitations and shortcomings, but they also have positive features. But if we let students know before they go to college, that there are different landing places that they can find, depending upon their convictions and how they weigh the evidence and what they think scripture is teaching, then there's no reason for a young person, even if they are in a class, where a professor is ridiculing Christianity, to feel like they've got to abandon their faith in order to remain with integrity in terms of what the science is teaching.
Brad Cooper:
19:17 Yeah. That's fantastic advice!
Brad Cooper:
19:19 What is the number one thing you go to as far as either defending the faith against sort of the attacks... and coming from your expertise area, the biological and chemical sciences... is it origin of life? the Cambrian explosion? What's the one piece, if somebody wants to bone up on the holes that you see and maybe even something that young earth and old earth and evolutionists could even agree on. Is it origin of life issues?
Dr. Rana:
19:44 Yeah. To, me, I think that's right now the Achilles Heel when it comes to the evolutionary paradigm, and the beautiful thing about that is even people working in that field who have dedicated their entire careers to try to explain the origin of life through chemical evolution are very quick to acknowledge, we don't have an explanation. It doesn't mean that an explanation may not come one day. But what it does mean is that at least when it comes to the very genesis of life, you are free to posit, the role or the involvement of a Creator, and we also see incredible evidence for design when we look at biochemical systems and again, nobody denies the appearance of design. So on that virtue of those two ideas, I think you've got a strong case you can make for the reality or the necessary role of a Creator.
Dr. Rana:
20:29 What's also provocative to me are emerging areas of technology that really seem to reinforce the design argument.
Dr. Rana:
20:37 One of them is work synthetic biology. And part of that is to try to create artificial cells from scratch. And what is becoming really evident, is that unless you have incredibly brilliant scientists that have a very good understanding of how life works at a molecular level, who then employ very sophisticated strategies and laboratory protocols to pull off essentially assembling proto-cells, you're not going to have these things emerge through random mechanisms. In other words, we've got so much empirical evidence from work in synthetic biology that intelligent agency is required to bring about the origin of life that that conclusion buttresses essentially the appearance of design and again draws attention to the failure of evolutionary mechanisms to explain the origin of life.
Dr. Rana:
21:24 And then on top of that, there's also this area called biomimetics and bioinspiration for scientists are turning to designs in biology and biochemistry to inspire new technology. So there's incredible advances that are happening in nanotechnology that are driven by our insights into how biochemical systems work. One of them, that to me is mind blowing, is an area called DNA computing where you have scientists building computers from DNA, which is an information storage molecule in the cell and the machinery that manipulates the DNA. But the recognition that what's happening in the cell is literally a set of Turing machines operating on DNA, and this is the foundation for theoretical computer science. This is the foundation for our computer systems function. In fact, that similarity is so startling that scientists realize that they could take what the cell is doing and utilize that to build these very powerful computer systems that are that reside in test tubes. This is highlighting the elegant design of these systems, but it also is pointing out that these systems don't seem to be cobbled together in a haphazard way through evolutionary mechanisms that seem to bear such elegance.
Dr. Rana:
22:33 That it really makes sense that these are the product of a Creator. And so what's cool is that these emerging areas of science and technology are giving us new arguments for design. And in fact, I find that when I've engaged origin of life researchers... people that are like the Stanley Miller's of the world that are doing the work in trying to explain origin of life through chemical evolution... when I use the argument from synthetic biology and this idea that intelligent agency seems to be required to bring about the origin of proto-cells, that inevitably gives them pause for thought. They may not like the theological jump that I make, but they agree that that is actually very much the case.
Dr. Rana:
23:13 What's cool is that these are new arguments that we can make for design because these are actually areas that are the hot areas in biotechnology and in biology and these would be great areas for young people to go into as Christians who are interested in science because they would be at the cutting edge and the work that they would do would actually have implications for presenting a new robust case for God's existence.
Brad Cooper:
23:38 Right. Yeah. That's awesome. Dr Ross and I had also talked about this as well... so you have something called The Creation Model. My understanding is that it sort of takes some of what we read in scripture and put it to the test in terms of scientific methodology. Can you talk about that in terms of where that's at is and how does that relate to some of the issues facing us inside the church, even with origin of man and those kinds of things. So where is the creation model, especially from sort of your area and the biology and chemistry side?
Dr. Rana:
24:09 Yeah. Well... and the idea behind the creation model isn't so much to reform the way science is done, but rather it's really meant to respond to what we hear from people who are scientists or are influenced by science and that is the idea that, well we can't argue for design or for creation because that's a religious idea. It's not science. And so we're saying is that, well, you can actually take these ideas that flow out of scripture and you can test them just like you would have any idea in science and we can show that what scripture seems to teach regarding the creation lines up with what we are discovering scientifically to be the case. And so it's really kind of an apologetics tool more so than anything else, but it creates a lot of fun because it allows us to approach some of these controversial ideas in a way that takes some of the edge off of the controversy and, hey, let's just test our ideas. What do we think should be discovered if, if we really think the earth is young or if we think that the earth is old or what should we discover if we think that the world is designed or that life is designed? Or what should we discover if evolution is responsible and you know, is it possible to make sense of that, that same data that seems to support evolution from a creation or design vantage point.
Dr. Rana:
25:24 And so it's, it's a great tool, I think, to advanced conversations both within and outside the church. When you take on this kind of approach, there will be times that you get things right in times where we get things wrong. And that actually I think makes Christianity seem more winsome to nonbelievers is when you say, "you know, I thought that this was going to go this way and I didn't go this way, it went that way," but look, because it's gone this way, now opens up another way to think about things that actually makes it seem as if this idea that there's a Creator even more robust, invariably when we are, we've had a "failed prediction" always has driven us down a path that actually in retrospect makes things, uh, actually stronger for our position, not weaker.
Brad Cooper:
26:09 Well, sort of along those lines, and I don't want to dive into too many controversies, but I do want to bring up one, which is sort of Adam and Eve...you wrote a whole book on it [Editor's note: "Who was Adam?"]. There's another Christian scientist, who I believe I'm going to have on the podcast here soon, Dr. Josh Swamidass, who has proposed is sort of an interesting model. I don't know if you've had a chance to see it, but it's sort of, and it's talking about Adam and Eve and how it still preserves maybe a 10,000 year biblically-mapped timeline for Adam and Eve in the garden. They are both the ancestors of all living people today. At least. I don't know if you've. And so that, that seems to be with all the sort of DNA and genetics and kind of winding things back and I know you've done a lot of topics on your, uh, talks about Neanderthals and you know, intermixing and all these things. So does it seem like that is getting more and more complex or... where are we... you mentioned kind of going back and forth sometimes and refining models... that one seems to be...this sort of issue of human origins seems to kind of been a been blown open recently with DNA. I mean, how would you describe really quickly at least if you've, if you've seen that model and what you think, where do you think where are with that?
Dr. Rana:
27:16 Yeah. You know, you're making a very good point, Brad. Things right now to me are probably more so in turmoil than any time that I, that I've been doing this in terms of how do we make sense of the idea of a historical Adam and Eve. And our contention is we do see some things that are rather provocative from molecular anthropology, namely this idea that there was a mitochondrial Eve and a Y-chromosome Adam, that we would argue could very well be the biblical Adam and biblical Eve. Yet within evolutionary context, the argument would be, well, while this concept of the mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam seems to be valid, you know, most evolutionary biologists would argue that the genetic variability of humanity is too great to have come from two individuals.
Dr. Rana:
27:59 But one of the things that we've pointed out is that the methods that are used to estimate population sizes, in my opinion, are not necessarily robust methods that gives reliable results. So I question that claim that the methods that are used by geneticists are actually giving us reliable data. But there's been other people that have been working on this problem, that are in different organizations, not with Reasons to Believe, who've suggested ways to maybe accommodate this genetic diversity within two people, for example, that you could have Adam and eve being created with maximum amount of genetic heterogeneity so that that jumpstarts the genetic diversity that we see are there studies and conservation biology that say, for example, if you take two animals out of a population that 75 percent of the genetic diversity within that population would be represented by those two individuals. So it is possible that you could have three individuals and create a fair amount of genetic diversity and maybe, just maybe, explain the genetic diversity that we see today coming from two people. And others, some people at the Discovery Institute, that have been working on modeling the idea of there being two people and what would the genetic diversity look like. And again, they're suggesting that maybe we could actually accommodate that genetic diversity from two individuals.
Dr. Rana:
29:20 Now, Josh Swamidass... I'm not intimately familiar with his model, I'm generally familiar with the model. He's an evolutionary creationist. He argues that evolution is a fact in that humanity evolved, but what he argues is that even if there was a population, if you look at the genealogy of humanity, our genealogy will go back two individuals, just simply by necessity by the way genealogies work, to a pair that would have lived a few thousand years ago. And so he would actually argue that those people would be Adam and Eve, and so that Adam and Eve would be genealogical, not genetic. And I think what Josh is doing is very interesting. I think scientifically he's correct that geologically everybody would go back to a pair of people about several thousand years ago, but I'm uncomfortable calling that pair necessarily Adam and Eve. To me, I think it's essentially an artifact of how you would construct genealogies. And so I actually prefer the mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosomal Adam concept more so than the geological Adam concept.
Dr. Rana:
30:23 You know, part of Josh's model requires that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are sequential. I view Genesis 1 and the sixth day of creation, as being amplified by Genesis 2. That is, Genesis 2 is an expansion of Genesis 1, it's not sequential, but it's an expansion of the Genesis 1 account with respect to the 6th day. Whereas, Josh would argue that it's sequential where Genesis 1 is referring to all of these people and Genesis 2 is referring to the genealogical Adam and Eve. But, I am uncomfortable with Josh's interpretation, because I think when you go elsewhere in scripture, for example, Mark 10:6, Jesus seems to be convolving Genesis 1 on the 6th day in Genesis 2 when he talks about the creation of the institution of marriage. You see that convolution in the Genesis 5 genealogies... in Psalm 8. So I think biblically, I'm probably more concerned with Josh's model than I am scientifically, and I think it does create some theological issues that I think you don't have when you appeal to a Mitochondrial Eve and a Y Chromosomal Adam as being the first persons...
Brad Cooper:
31:37 Got it... and our audience is going, "Whoa...."
Brad Cooper:
31:37 So, these issues are not easy, as you're demonstrating just in this one little topic and all the more reason for folks at least at a base level, right, to sort of have a basic understanding of genetics and science, and hopefully more than a basic understanding of scripture, and using the two books {Editor's note: The "two books" being God's Creation as one "book" and the Bible being the other] as you just mentioned and doing and kind of comparing what's in each of them and you know, and that's sort of a hallmark there of Reasons to Believe, and comparing these things and matching them up. But in order to do that you sort of have to have a base knowledge, otherwise you're just sort of trusting people?
Dr. Rana:
32:03 Ya know, but as you're saying, I mean, I think we're looking at a time where things are really very confusing and where things are kind of in disarray. And so what I do when I engage people on the question of human origins, at least today, is I focus on the idea of human exceptionalism. You now, this is a concept that is emerging among evolutionary anthropologists and primatologists... It used to be thought, because of Darwin's influence, that human beings were only different in degree, not kind, from other creatures. So we're now actually seeing, even within the community of evolutionary biologists, this growing recognition that human being seem to be exceptional, that we seem to stand apart from all other creatures in ways that we would precisely understand as reflecting the image of God from a Christian theological perspective. So if I'm in front of a secular audience, what I do to argue for the biblical account of human origins is focused on the image of God concept and this idea of human exceptionalism and the fact that we don't have a good explanation for human exceptionalism from an evolutionary standpoint and the fact that what seems to make us exceptional seems to show up explosively out of nowhere when modern humans appeared on the scene. So I find that to be a more effective way to argue for the biblical account of human origins today, sidestepping kind of the mess associated with the genetics, until I think as a church we can collectively work together to kind of sort all of that out.
Brad Cooper:
33:29 Right, and sort of on that note, I mean, what are some of your recommendations both for, I would say clergy in the church, and then just for laypeople in the church and with their kids and things like that... what encouragement would you give both of those types of audiences in terms of learning more about science and getting more engaged and kind of going into careers?
Dr. Rana:
33:46 I think learning about some science basics is absolutely indispensable no matter who you are. And you know, and I think there's a ton of great resources out there that can get people started on that journey. We're at a point in time in the church's history where we all have to roll up our sleeves and do our homework. To me, the thing that's encouraging is that there is a lot of evidence that's being uncovered that is positive evidence that supports the idea that there's a Creator, that we don't have to focus all of our attention on debating the age of the earth or whether or not evolution is true. That even regardless of the perspective and take on the age of the Earth or the evolutionary framework, there's a lot of evidence that we can all point to from science that seems to demonstrate the reality of a Creator. There are different models that Christians have developed for how to think about these issues and we should all be well versed in these different models, recognizing that we have landing spots. We're never going to be left abandoned by a scientific discovery and that we shouldn't fear science, but we should embrace the thrill of scientific discovery and scientific advance and be conversant in these advances because these are great bridge builders to the Gospel when we engage non-believers.
Brad Cooper:
34:58 Absolutely. Amen. So what's coming up and kind of more so recently, so you have the book, you're finishing up and he kind of talks or debates or conferences you have coming up.
Dr. Rana:
35:05 ...Got a busy fall schedule, traveling a number of places, speaking in churches and in businesses. I'm actually going to be heading to the Caribbean, to one of the islands...
Brad Cooper:
35:16 Nice!
Dr. Rana:
35:17 ...to do actually some really fun outreach to businessmen and government leaders about integrity... and the organizers actually want to build a bridge between kind of the Christian world view and Christian ethics and what science says about human beings being made in God's image....
Brad Cooper:
35:35 Wow!
Dr. Rana:
35:35 ...and with the idea that we can establish scientifically that humans are exceptional and that this image of God concept has credibility... and from there then justify building a system of ethics. I'm really excited, not only because I get to go to the Caribbean, but I think it's a really creative approach to outreach to, not necessarily the audience I would normally speak to... so it's not going to be scientists and technologists but it's going to be a business people and government leaders and so I'm looking forward to that... that will be a fun experience.
Brad Cooper:
36:04 That's great... yeah, it could be a worse location as well.
Dr. Rana:
36:06 That's right...
Brad Cooper:
36:06 ...rough part of the job...
Dr. Rana:
36:09 I gave two Darwin Day lectures in back to back years in Fargo, North Dakota, on Darwin Day, which was February 12. So I've done, I've done my penance! Ha ha ha...
Brad Cooper:
36:21 Ha Ha, did your time... That's right. This is making up for those times... that's awesome.
Brad Cooper:
36:25 Yeah, so well keep fighting the good fight out there, keeping those folks honest in the sciences and for just, you know, all of your encouragement and what you do and God bless you and Dr Ross and your whole team there and all the great work you do at Reasons to Believe. Please do also keep us abreast on the book that sounds like a fascinating one, would love to have you back on the podcast to talk about transhumanism when that comes out.
Dr. Rana:
36:47 Yeah. Well, thank you for having me on your show and for your support and I pray that God blesses your ministry and the work that you're doing as well.
Brad Cooper:
36:56 Thank you so much, Dr. Fuz Rana from Reasons to Believe. God bless you and thank you for joining us today.
Dr. Rana:
37:01 My pleasure.
Announcer:
37:02 Thank you for joining the purpose nation podcast. For more great interviews for resources or to make your tax deductible contribution to support our nonprofit ministry, please visit purpose nation.org. This program is copyright Purpose Nation Inc. A five zero, one c, three nonprofit corporation.