Denis Alexander
Author of Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?
About the Author
Denis R. Alexander has spent the past forty years in the biological research community, most recently as the head of the Laboratory of Signalling and Development at the Babraham Institute in the U.K., where he also served as chair of the Molecular Immunology Programme. Dr. Alexander's interest in show more human genetics was sharpened during a period (1981-1986) spent as associate professor at the American University of Beirut on the Faculty of Medicine. While there he helped to establish the National Unit of Human Genetics, which performed specialized diagnostic work and carried out research on the genetic diseases found in Lebanon. In 2006 Dr. Alexander established the Faraday Institute at St. Edmund's College, Cambridge, where he is a fellow. Since that time he has served as director of the Institute. show less
Works by Denis Alexander
Associated Works
The Spirit in Creation and New Creation: Science and Theology in Western and Orthodox Realms (2012) — Contributor — 13 copies
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Canonical name
- Alexander, Denis
- Birthdate
- 1945-07-15
- Gender
- male
- Nationality
- UK
- Education
- Oxford University
Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK (PhD, Neurochemistry) - Occupations
- Lecturer
Writer - Organizations
- St Edmund's College, Cambridge, UK
National Committee of Christians in Science
International Society for Science and Religion
The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion - Short biography
- Dr Denis Alexander is the Director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, St. Edmund's College, Cambridge, where he is a Fellow. Dr Alexander was previously Chairman of the Molecular Immunology Programme and Head of the Laboratory of Lymphocyte Signalling and Development at the Babraham Institute, Cambridge. Prior to that Dr Alexander was at the Imperial Cancer Research Laboratories in London (now Cancer Research UK), and spent 15 years developing university departments and laboratories overseas, latterly as Associate Professor of Biochemistry in the Medical Faculty of the American University of Beirut, Lebanon, where he helped to establish the National Unit of Human Genetics. Dr Alexander was initially an Open Scholar at Oxford reading Biochemistry, before obtaining a PhD in Neurochemistry at the Institute of Psychiatry in London.
Dr Alexander writes, lectures and broadcasts widely in the field of science and religion. Since 1992 he has been Editor of the journal Science & Christian Belief, and currently serves on the National Committee of Christians in Science and as a member of the International Society for Science and Religion.
Members
Reviews
Summary: An exploration of the idea purpose in biology, the association of purposelessness with the randomness and chance of evolution and whether this is warranted, and how a Christian perspective may both be consistent with what may be observed, and how Christian theology may deal with questions of pain and suffering in evolutionary processes.
One of the common conclusions advanced with the support of evolutionary theory is that there is no inherent purpose evident in the natural world. Much of this is predicated on a process in which life arises through chance and randomness, and that any apparent purpose is illusory.
Denis Alexander, a researcher in biochemistry and Emeritus Director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, argues in this book that this is not necessarily a warranted conclusion. First, though he is careful to distinguish between Purpose and purpose. He will not be trying to show evidence of metaphysical Purpose in biology, but that the processes of evolution do evidence purpose in the sense that outcomes were not strictly random, either at a genetic or macro level, but are constrained in certain directions consistent with "purpose."
Chapter 1 begins with a survey of the use of the language of Purpose and purpose in biology through history from the Greeks up through the beginnings of science, and the subsequent denial of purpose as the theory of evolution became established. Then chapters 2 through 4 get "into the weeds" of evolutionary science.
Chapter 2 argues that the direction of evolution toward increasing complexity over time may be reflective of purpose and also that body size and plan is subject to "allometric scaling" and cannot simply occur in any form or size. Convergence where different species in different lines under similar conditions evolve similar structures, is another example of this. Chapter 3 observes that similar constraints exist at the molecular level. Chapter 4 then looks at the genetic level, and the idea of random mutations. It turns out that mutations are not purely random but seem to occur at particular places on chromosomes. Likewise, forces of natural selection are not random, but also constrain outcomes in certain directions. These chapters are fairly technical, but offer a good glimpse of the current state of the discussions in evolutionary biology, as opposed to popular caricatures.
In chapter 5, Alexander shifts to theological discussion. He recognizes that in practice, people do introduce discussions of Purpose that reflect their worldviews. What he does is articulate an understanding of "top down" creation at work through evolutionary processes--not in the "gaps" but throughout, a version of theistic evolution. A significant aspect of this has to do with his belief in God's "immanence" in creation, working in and through evolutionary processes.
Chapter 6 concludes the discussion by dealing with one of the problems of his proposal. To argue that God is involved "immanently" in evolutionary processes makes God in some ways responsible for the pain and suffering implicit for both animal and human species facing natural selection, or dying because of mutations leading to genetic defects or cancer. Alexander dismisses responses of "fallen creation" or attributions of suffering to sin, arguing for a kind of "freedom" in evolutionary processes that necessarily includes pain--that God no more compels creation than he does human beings.
I suspect there is material here in every chapter that someone will take exception to, including the basic theistic evolutionary position Alexander takes. Those who dismiss theism will reject Alexander's case for purpose. Others will struggle with his theodicy. Some would argue that you can see not only purpose but Purpose in biological science in itself. I would contend that the strength of Alexander's argument is that it is neither dismissive of evolutionary science nor of a God engaged with creation working out God's purposes. He shows how the two are at least consonant with each other. He chooses a "messy" explanation to the problem of pain that leaves room for mystery rather than pat answers. For those not interested in an oppositional approach to evolution and creation, Alexander's work offers a way, or at least hints of a way forward.
____________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.… (more)
One of the common conclusions advanced with the support of evolutionary theory is that there is no inherent purpose evident in the natural world. Much of this is predicated on a process in which life arises through chance and randomness, and that any apparent purpose is illusory.
Denis Alexander, a researcher in biochemistry and Emeritus Director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, argues in this book that this is not necessarily a warranted conclusion. First, though he is careful to distinguish between Purpose and purpose. He will not be trying to show evidence of metaphysical Purpose in biology, but that the processes of evolution do evidence purpose in the sense that outcomes were not strictly random, either at a genetic or macro level, but are constrained in certain directions consistent with "purpose."
Chapter 1 begins with a survey of the use of the language of Purpose and purpose in biology through history from the Greeks up through the beginnings of science, and the subsequent denial of purpose as the theory of evolution became established. Then chapters 2 through 4 get "into the weeds" of evolutionary science.
Chapter 2 argues that the direction of evolution toward increasing complexity over time may be reflective of purpose and also that body size and plan is subject to "allometric scaling" and cannot simply occur in any form or size. Convergence where different species in different lines under similar conditions evolve similar structures, is another example of this. Chapter 3 observes that similar constraints exist at the molecular level. Chapter 4 then looks at the genetic level, and the idea of random mutations. It turns out that mutations are not purely random but seem to occur at particular places on chromosomes. Likewise, forces of natural selection are not random, but also constrain outcomes in certain directions. These chapters are fairly technical, but offer a good glimpse of the current state of the discussions in evolutionary biology, as opposed to popular caricatures.
In chapter 5, Alexander shifts to theological discussion. He recognizes that in practice, people do introduce discussions of Purpose that reflect their worldviews. What he does is articulate an understanding of "top down" creation at work through evolutionary processes--not in the "gaps" but throughout, a version of theistic evolution. A significant aspect of this has to do with his belief in God's "immanence" in creation, working in and through evolutionary processes.
Chapter 6 concludes the discussion by dealing with one of the problems of his proposal. To argue that God is involved "immanently" in evolutionary processes makes God in some ways responsible for the pain and suffering implicit for both animal and human species facing natural selection, or dying because of mutations leading to genetic defects or cancer. Alexander dismisses responses of "fallen creation" or attributions of suffering to sin, arguing for a kind of "freedom" in evolutionary processes that necessarily includes pain--that God no more compels creation than he does human beings.
I suspect there is material here in every chapter that someone will take exception to, including the basic theistic evolutionary position Alexander takes. Those who dismiss theism will reject Alexander's case for purpose. Others will struggle with his theodicy. Some would argue that you can see not only purpose but Purpose in biological science in itself. I would contend that the strength of Alexander's argument is that it is neither dismissive of evolutionary science nor of a God engaged with creation working out God's purposes. He shows how the two are at least consonant with each other. He chooses a "messy" explanation to the problem of pain that leaves room for mystery rather than pat answers. For those not interested in an oppositional approach to evolution and creation, Alexander's work offers a way, or at least hints of a way forward.
____________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.… (more)
Written for evangelicals about evolution and how it fits with the bible and Christian teaching. It includes excellent descriptions of the mechanism of inheritance and how new species come about. He concentrates on genetics rather than fossils and clearly believes there is no escaping evolution from the genes alone, never mind all the other evidence. He thoroughly looks at the difficulties with genesis and outlines how they can be reconciled. He tackles the arguments of the young earth believers and then spends a lot of time on Intelligent Design. (The best account of this I have come across.) The final chapter makes it clear he is sure we will eventually find out the mechanism for the origin of cells DNA and life came about on earth.
The handling of Adam and Eve is thorough, and his favoured solution of a private revelation of God to A&E making them Homo Divinus, in among a lot of other H Sapiens is compared fairly to other theories. I am beginning to think its easier to take the whole thing as figurative.
I think he could have spent a bit more time dealing with evil and suffering, although they do get attention, and reminding us how God can still be in control when we seem to have a mechanism operating without needing him at all.… (more)
The handling of Adam and Eve is thorough, and his favoured solution of a private revelation of God to A&E making them Homo Divinus, in among a lot of other H Sapiens is compared fairly to other theories. I am beginning to think its easier to take the whole thing as figurative.
I think he could have spent a bit more time dealing with evil and suffering, although they do get attention, and reminding us how God can still be in control when we seem to have a mechanism operating without needing him at all.… (more)
Awards
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 16
- Also by
- 1
- Members
- 434
- Popularity
- #56,344
- Rating
- 3.8
- Reviews
- 6
- ISBNs
- 34
- Languages
- 3
More thorough I suspect than his famous book 'Creation or Evolution, do we have to choose?'… (more)