Is this just an interesting twist for a college research project, or is it another biological scheme to eradicate the need for God?

No one will be surprised to hear evolutionary naturalism holds a dominant footing in the academic world and particularly in the field of science, nor should anyone be surprised to hear those holding such views are becoming bolder and more expansive in the research they conduct attempting to both validate and advance their views.

We’ve seen this recently in a widening array of research including such things ranging from the cosmological suggestions associated with the Large Hadron Collider (CERN); to the neuroethic studies seeking to map out the biological bases and attempting to manipulate human understanding and treatment of items pertaining to good and bad, right and wrong; to the philosophical efforts in attempting to substantiate a system of non-objective ethics; to the biomedical claims of approaching the technology that enable man to live forever; to the psychology of inception (planting ideas and manipulating memory), etc.

While these name just a few of the recent newsmakers, they all have one thing in common, the potential for trying to remove any real or perceived need for God. But while they individually and collectively set out to hammer away at this goal, thus far they have fallen short (not only in their respective areas, but) in addressing and finding a naturalistic solution for man’s ultimate need for God – that is, in his battle against and his need for a remedy for sin, and man’s sin nature.

It’s true, other attempts have sought to find ways to redefine, deny, mask or remove from man’s memory the presence, guilt and effects of sin, but until now, none have forthrightly and audaciously sought to discover and provide an outright biological solution to sin, that is until a recent research project was conducted and recognized by the scientific community.

In April of 2011, a professor and some first year students in the undergraduate biology course at McMaster University received recognition by a reputable scientific website for a research project whose aim was “to come up with the best molecule and design for a drug, or remedy, that counteracts sin.” The project took aim at what the Bible describes as the seven deadly sins, seeking to discover among four selected sins – sloth, gluttony, lust, and wrath – if there “could be molecular solutions for this daily struggle between good and evil?” Students were asked not only to “find out how [their randomly allotted sin] was related to the body’s physiological function”, but “to come up with the best molecule and design for a drug, or remedy, that counteracts sin.” (Story here.)

Whether this project was initiated for purposes of advancing the naturalistic agenda or not is immaterial, for naturalists will naturally salivate and bloviate over a project of this nature especially given its reach beyond just the relationship between sin and the physiological functions of the body to seeking biologically how sin might be counteracted, for if this could be done successfully and across the board, then antagonists to God would not only feel they had an ace in their sleeve, but undoubtedly would use such ammunition to declare the battle is as good as won.

Here’s the question: If in Jeremiah’s day, “an Ethiopian could not change his skin nor a leopard change his spots,” can a biologist (student or professional) in the 21st century change the nature of man or biologically do away with our sin? Or, is this an area which again points to man’s inability to provide solutions to our ultimate needs and thus another reason for man to look outside of humanity itself to God for the solution?

This question can be answered several ways.

First, from an historical and present perspective, man’s attempts to provide a solution to sin have come up extremely short. To this point, man biologically has only been able to mask or reduce the drive that results in certain manifestations of sin, and in the process has often created additional problems. Think “ADD” and the doping effects of the medicines used to treat it, which a study later showed was largely unnecessary.

In the present study, solutions only seemed to detect physiological effects once sin had already been conceived, and dealt only with the physical components used to manifest and express sin along with some of sin’s symptoms. Certainly, providing a solution to sin would involve not only solving particular physical points of sin (including their cause, transmission, manifestations and effects), but also dealing with the corruption itself as well as death and the curses associated with sin in this life, along with eternal factors.

Not only is man extremely far off, one might say a million miles away, from providing a solution to man’s sin, but even further off from changing man’s nature itself.

From an etymological & theological perspective, even if man ‘could’ discover a remedy to man’s nature and physical involvement with sin, this would still not address the problem of man’s original guilt and sin imputed and resulting from our relationship with Adam, the physical federal head of humanity.

Additionally, it would not be enough to simply deal with the faculties of man without also dealing with man’s soul and spirit. It also would not be enough to deal with these immaterial parts without also dealing with aspects of the law and our responsibilities toward and before God, most notably those contained in the first table of the law (i.e., the first four commandments).

From an ethical perspective, supposing man is just “matter in motion” raises all kinds of issues including matters of culpability. Here again, is an area where biological solutions create untold difficulties in other areas. Additionally, such solutions add to the quagmire surrounding issues of debate regarding the direction of evolution.

From a progressive and philosophical perspective, one must first ask how finding biological solutions to the very drive and passions that some naturalists are now describing as bringing about the advancement of man will affect man’s progress and future.

Additionally, one would have to ask if “good and evil are determined by appeal to universal human qualities,” then what does tampering with those qualities do the debate of what is good and evil but to further complicate it, including the issue of where one posits the authority on the issue.

From an anthropological perspective, changing the nature of man also presents a problem. Though philosophers have succeeded in changing the concept of what human nature means over time, no creature has ever changed its nature. Man develops, he grows, he transforms, but no man (or any other creature for that matter) has ever changed his nature, nor can he do so. That’s exactly what Jeremiah referred to when he asked the question “…can a leopard change its spots?” It was true then, it is true now, and it will continue to be true for all humans are but creatures, descendants of ordinary generation from Adam, who was created by God though fallen and now possessing a sinful nature.

One thing this study does is it admits the depravity of man, for else why try to “find solutions” to sin and ultimately to change man’s nature? Having recognized and admitted a problem with the nature and acts of man and his will, along with the fact that man not only has not come up with biological solutions to his sin and sinful nature, (and I submit “will not” do so), one is led then to the question “if man, who recognizes there’s a problem with his nature, and he cannot change his own nature, then how can his nature be changed?

That’s where Christ comes in, for God in holding out a promise to sinful man said through the prophet Ezekiel “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.”

This God does for man through regeneration and conversion when God gives to man a new heart and enables him to repent of sin and turn to Christ in faith, whereby he then is called to live in keeping with and demonstrating his new nature. Paul writes of this change saying “Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” and “Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.”

Tim Muse is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and serves as Senior Pastor at Brandon Presbyterian Church (PCA) in the Jackson, MS suburbs. He blogs at Christian Word Bearer where this article first appeared; it is used with his permission.

[Editor’s note: One or more original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid; those links have been removed.]