Harmony and discord
A review of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
by Francis S. Collins
The Free Press, New York, 2006
by Lael Weinberger
Francis Collins is one of the world’s leading geneticists, well known for
heading the Human Genome Project (and bringing it to a successful completion ahead
of schedule and under budget). He is also a Christian, who came to faith as an adult
finishing his second doctorate. He has written this book out of a deep concern over
the common misconception that faith and science are incompatible. Nothing could
be further from the truth, he says, and begins by presenting some of his personal
saga.
Personal story
Collins was not raised in a ‘religious’ home—even when he was
sent to a local church choir to learn music, his parents admonished him to beware
of the theology! Indifference toward religion matured into outspoken scepticism
in college. After completing a doctorate in chemistry at Yale he went on to medical
school, and there decided to research the topic of religion, to make sure his atheistic
beliefs were well grounded. He came in contact with the writings of
C.S. Lewis,
and for the first time encountered a reasoned case for faith. He came away from
his study with the opinion that it was more reasonable to believe than to disbelieve
in the existence of God, and that agnosticism was simply fence sitting. Collins
rests his personal story at this point, and goes on to consider the arguments regarding
God’s existence.
Moral Law
The argument which most impressed Collins was Lewis’ exposition of the ‘Moral
Law’ case for the existence of God. The argument runs something like this:
(a) All men have some sense of right and wrong.
(b) Naturalism cannot explain (a).
(c) Therefore, something outside nature is responsible for (a).
Collins spends most of his time defending (b). He focuses on the issue of altruism
and sociobiology’s claim to naturalistically explain this phenomenon. Even
if sociobiology is correct that altruism among ants is with the purpose of preserving
their own genes, Collins suggests that this same argument breaks down when applied
to complex populations (p. 28). ‘Furthermore, for the evolutionary argument
about group benefits of altruism to hold, it would seem to require … hostility
to individuals outside the group’ (p. 28). While there is room for debate
both as to Lewis’ formulation of the case and Collins’ supporting arguments,
it is nevertheless good to see such a prominent figure as Collins willing to present
arguments against sociobiology’s reductionism.1
Objections and answers
Image by R. Hurt (SSC), JPL-Caltech, NASA
Collins uncritically accepts the standard evolutionary account of the cosmos, except
that he suggests that the addition of God into the story may help solve additional
questions about ‘what came before the Big Bang’. This sounds curiously
like the god-of-the-gaps theology he later (inaccurately) accuses creationists of
holding to.
Collins next responds to several objections to belief in God, which were important
for him in his life. He responds to the notions, first, that God is a delusion for
wish fulfilment, and second, that God is discredited by evils committed in the name
of religion. Collins’ answers are good, but lack detail because at this point
he is merely defending a general belief in God, not Christianity in particular.
Third, Collins tackles the problem of pain and suffering. He settles rather uncomfortably
on the position that suffering is necessary to build moral character. This fails
to answer the basic problem, why would a good God create us in such a way as to
require suffering to achieve moral perfection? This problem can only be answered
by a proper interpretation of the Fall, which recognizes that pain and suffering
were not created by God as part of his ‘very good’ creation,
but were rather a consequence of the Fall. Sadly, ‘suffering is necessary’
is the position that theistic evolutionists are often forced to adopt, showing how
a failure to appreciate the historical Fall of man in Genesis 3 cripples effective apologetics.
Fourth, Collins deals with whether miracles are rational. Collins rightly points
out that ‘a discussion about the miraculous quickly devolves to an argument
about whether or not one is willing to consider any possibility whatsoever of the
supernatural’ (p. 51). An atheistic worldview by definition rejects the possibility
of miracles,2 and the opposite
is true for theists. At this point, Collins fails to note a key point as to why
an atheist and a theist can agree about some science (such as the cause of the tides)
and yet disagree over other scientific issues (how old the seas, beaches and moon
are)—there is a difference between operational science and origins science.
Creationists can agree with Collins’ comments on miracles where he cautions,
‘… it is crucial that a healthy skepticism be applied when interpreting
potentially miraculous events, lest the integrity and rationality of the religion
perspective be brought into question’ (p. 51).
But it would have been helpful if Collins had pointed out that there is a difference
between accepting God’s authoritative revelation when it speaks of specific
miracles on the one hand, and applying scientific (as well as biblical) evaluation
to uninspired claims of supernatural activity on the other hand.3 Failure to distinguish these
situations causes confusion because it tends to mix origins science with operational
science.4 Confusion on this
point is typical of anti-creationist literature,5
and hints at problems to come.
Big bang
Using the topic of miracles and natural law6
as a bridge, Collins dives into science and origins. Collins uncritically accepts
and summarizes the standard big bang story (pp. 71–78),7 then discusses the Anthropic Principle. Collins
suggests that there are essentially ‘three possible responses to the Anthropic
Principle’: (1) there exists a virtually infinite number of universes (a ‘multiverse’),
and we happen to live in the one suited to life; (2) we live in a lucky universe
suited for life; or (3) we live in a universe precisely tuned for life by a creator.8 Collins certainly prefers
option (3) and throws out a few arguments against the first two, but tries hard
to avoid dogmatism. He concludes that
‘… there is nothing inherently in conflict between the idea of a creator
God and what science had revealed. In fact, the God hypothesis solves … questions
about what came before the Big Bang, and why the universe seems to be so exquisitely
tuned for us to be here’ (p. 81).
The problem is that the big bang is incompatible with what God has said
that He did, and Collins brings up the Genesis-as-poetry position, a theme he returns
to later.
Origin of life
… the only people who invoke a ‘god of the gaps’ argument are
evolutionists knocking down creationist straw men; creationists actually appeal
to what we do know about chemistry, biology and information theory.
Collins continues the mainstream evolutionary story of the origin of life. He believes
faith was needlessly damaged when science produced a naturalistic explanation for
the origin of the universe. He says faith should not be shaken by the revelation
that modern biology can explain life naturalistically. However, not only is it untrue
that the universe is ‘explained’ by naturalism9 (Collins himself was cognizant of at least a few
of the gaps left by the big bang), but, as we find out from Collins’ discussion,
the origin of life is far from having a naturalistic solution. Collins’ account
includes the Miller–Urey experiment10
and amino acids on meteorites11
as the high points of origin-of-life research: ‘Beyond this point, the details
become quite sketchy’ (p. 90). As both of the high points are quite unhelpful
toward explaining a naturalistic origin of life, the rest must be ‘sketchy’
indeed. Collins concludes that no ‘naturalistic explanation for the origin
of life is at hand’, but he warns against inserting God into the gap of scientific
knowledge, as he expects the gap to be closed sometime in the future (pp. 92–93).
However, the only people who invoke a ‘god of the gaps’ argument are
evolutionists knocking down creationist straw men; creationists actually appeal
to what we do know about chemistry, biology and information theory.
Fossils
Collins gives a cursory overview of the fossil record, claiming that the order is
what you would expect from evolution,12
and that ‘missing links’ are not good arguments against evolution because
they are arguments from ignorance. He does not consider that the choppy fossil record
is exactly what a creation model would predict, or that Darwin thought that the
fossil record should be full of the links, and agreed that their absence was a serious
objection to the theory. Collins claims that whales are an example of a species
where the transitional fossils have filled in the gaps, but he does not respond
to creationist criticisms of the proposed intermediate sequence.13
Evolution and DNA
Collins marvels that Darwin proposed natural selection before the discovery of its
mechanism, DNA, and states that this is a remarkable confirmation of evolution.
Actually, this was a confirmation of natural selection, and natural selection only.
Creationists of course accept natural selection.14
Collins goes on to give a description of DNA—his specialty—and concludes
that there are more reasons than ever to be in awe of God’s work in nature.
That is certainly true; but what is inspiring is the true (operational) science
of DNA, not molecules-to-man evolution, for which Collins has provided no new arguments.
Collins tells the story of his own work in genetics in chapter 6, culminating in
the Human Genome Project. We can rejoice with him in the great new window this opened
for him on God’s creation. Unfortunately, Collins takes this opportunity to
fill the rest of the chapter with standard Darwinian arguments. He views the similarities
between genomes and the genetic phylogenies as great confirmations of evolution,
pseudogenes as problems for creationists and non-functional (‘junk’)
DNA stretches as evidence of common descent (but by the same reasoning, it is curious
that theistic evolutionists are never bothered that their god left junk DNA and
faulty genes in the genome). On this last count, Collins does cautiously note that
perhaps ‘our discounting of them as “junk DNA” just betrays our
current level of ignorance’ (p. 136). These so-called pseudogenes likely have
much more functionality than was originally supposed;15 but, even supposing that much of the ‘junk’
DNA does turn out to be nonfunctional, this could simply be the result of decay
since the Fall,16 and
thus cannot be conclusive either for or against evolution. The genetic phylogenies
argument for evolution (including the similarities in pseudogenes or ‘silent
genes’) is also problematic, for sometimes the genetic phylogenies cross
the evolutionary phylogenetic lines.17
Getting the facts straight
After establishing his strong belief in evolution, Collins sets down several possible
ways to react to the interface of science and faith. Before he gets into the specifics,
we already know where he’s heading: he frequently quotes Augustine (pp. 83,
152, 156), claiming him for a ‘loose’ interpretation of Genesis, and
also mentions Galileo and the geocentric controversy in several places (pp. 59,
85, 153–156) as a lesson against literalist construction of Scripture. First,
it should be pointed out that Augustine was a convinced young-earth creationist
even though he did allegorize other aspects of the creation account,18 so he does not quite fit the role into which Collins
is pushing him. Second, the Galileo example has problems as to both the history
and the theology that Collins is referring to. From a historical perspective, the
geocentric controversy was more the result of an unhealthy reading of Aristotle
into the Bible than it was the result of misreading Scripture itself,19 and the conflict between Galileo and the church
was not on biblical grounds at all.20
From a theological perspective, Collins has set up a straw man, making it appear
as if creationists have no understanding that there are metaphors and poetry in
the Bible; we certainly recognize this, but we argue that a proper hermeneutic requires
that Genesis be understood as history rather than poetry.21
Atheism
The first option for dealing with evolution and Genesis is atheism, which is when
‘science trumps faith’, Collins says (p. 159). Collins ends up quoting
none other than Stephen Jay Gould to the effect that science is not able to adjudicate
the question of God’s existence. The problem with Gould (which Collins glosses
over) is that he reaches his conclusion only by stating that religion (God) never
interacts with the physical world. Ironically, a profile of Collins himself, in
the anti-Christian Scientific American, praised him because he ‘strives
to keep his Christianity from interfering with his science and politics’22 (but they never have a
problem when antitheists let their atheistic religion dictate their science and
politics).
Creationism
Collins joins a host of other writers in citing Galileo’s conflict with church
leaders as a warning against allowing Scripture to influence science. However, a
careful examination reveals that this popular form of the Galileo story is not historically
accurate.
The second option is young-earth creationism (YEC), which is when ‘faith trumps
science’, according to Collins (p. 171). Collins appears superficially familiar
with YEC arguments: fossils formed during the Flood, radioactive decay rates have
not been constant, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics precludes evolution (p.
173). Collins brushes off all these arguments without argument, and without as much
as a footnote for more in-depth treatment. Obviously, he is not to be bothered by
actually refuting creationist arguments, perhaps indicating that he is not well-read
on the subject.
Within a few pages, he states that YEC proponents have spent the ‘last half
century’ attempting to refute evolution, and in frustration, ‘some YEC
advocates have more recently taken the tack of arguing that all of this evidence
has been designed by God to mislead us, and therefore test our faith’ (p.
176). Once again, Collins’ lack of references is annoying, for I would be
intensely curious to see to whom Collins is referring. Certainly there is no one
who says this in the mainstream of creation research and ministry; it sounds more
like Neo-Platonists23
than any creationists I have ever heard of. Tossing in a bizarre minority position,
with no evidence that anyone holds this, appears to be a ‘guilt by association’
and ‘poisoning the well’ tactic for marginalizing creationists as a
whole into a lunatic fringe.
Intelligent Design
The third option is Intelligent Design (ID), which is when ‘science needs
divine help,’ according to Collins. Collins takes ID’s arguments seriously,
and delineates three propositions which he believes are basic to ID. First, evolution
is atheistic and theists should oppose it; second, evolution cannot account for
the ‘intricate complexity of nature’; third, if evolution cannot explain
the complexity of nature, then there must be a designer ‘who stepped in to
provide the necessary components during the course of evolution’ (pp. 183–186).
(ID advocates would object to the arrangement of these points, as it tends to emphasize
the religious rather than scientific side of ID.) Collins then focuses in to critique
‘irreducible complexity’, a concept he believes confuses the ‘unknown
with the unknowable’ (p. 188). Collins’ arguments (discussing blood
clotting, the eye, and the bacterial flagellum) are mostly based on the unreliable
Ken Miller.24
Collins theologically objects to ID in that it, first, creates a ‘God of the
gaps’, and second, implies the Creator must have been ‘clumsy’
to have to keep intervening throughout geologic time to make his creatures turn
out right. From a YEC perspective as well, theological grounds are the weak spot
for ID, because by intentionally avoiding the identity of the ‘designer’
they have nowhere to turn for answers. When we are operating from a biblical standpoint,
however, the geologic timescales disappear, and the ‘God of the gaps’
problem evaporates. As Alvin Plantinga has explained, the ‘God of the gaps’
is deistic, not Christian, for it postulates a basically naturalistic world and
only invokes God at certain awkward points (a ‘large scale hypothesis
to explain what cannot be explained otherwise, i.e. naturalistically’25).
‘BioLogos’
Collins finally considers theistic evolution, which he believes is ‘science
and faith in harmony’. He thinks that theistic evolution would be much more
popular if it only received as much publicity as the more ‘divisive’
creationists and ID advocates, and Collins suggests a new name, ‘BioLogos’,
to improve theistic evolution’s appeal (p. 203). He says that he has found
theistic evolution a ‘satisfying’ and ‘consistent synthesis’
of faith and science (p. 200). Collins reports that this view avoids the pitfalls
of the other views, such as ‘God of the gaps’ arguments, by dealing
with the questions which science was not intended to answer anyway (p. 204). He
fails to note that a robust theism which allows God any involvement in His creation
will impinge on the realm of science at some point; Collins’ own Moral Law
argument, for example, intrudes into the realm of sociobiology. There is no way
to relegate religion and science into separate domains of ‘respectful noninterference’26 without turning God into
something even less than a deist’s deity. The only question is, will we accept
God’s revelation of where He has directly acted in the world, or will we arbitrarily
pick and choose where we can accept God’s action (for example creation
of a Moral Law, but not of man’s mind itself)?
Collins does not deal with the perennial problems for theistic evolution, namely,
the problem of death before sin, and the problem of theodicy for a deity using evolution.27 Collins does address the
objection,
‘Doesn’t a compromise of Genesis 1 and 2 start the believer down a slippery slope,
ultimately resulting in the denial of the fundamental truths of God and His miraculous
actions?’ (p. 209).
He responds,
‘While there is clear danger in unrestrained forms of “liberal”
theology that eviscerate the real truths of faith, mature observers are used to
living on slippery slopes and deciding where to place a sensible stopping point’
(p. 209).
But then the question becomes whether it is ‘sensible’ to stop where
the theistic evolutionist Christian stops. Can one consistently reject the Genesis
account as history while still holding to such a basic essential as the Resurrection,
for example?28 Collins
also fails to explain how the rest of the Bible treats the people, events, timeframes
and sequences as real history, not myth or allegory.29 This is a serious problem for Christian theistic
evolution proponents.
Personal message
In his final chapter Collins returns to his personal odyssey. After coming to the
conclusion that there was a God, Collins recalls, ‘I spent considerable time
trying to discern His characteristics’ (p. 219). After some time of considering
his options, he was finally most impressed by the perfection that God must possess,
and Collins’ inability to meet that standard of perfection. ‘Into this
deepening gloom came the person of Jesus Christ’ (p. 220). Collins then explains
the claims of Christ, His redemptive sacrifice, and the way it all fit together
to make sense to him (although overlooking the connection of ‘the Last Adam’
coming to conquer death, ‘the last enemy’, brought by ‘the first
man, Adam’ in 1 Cor. 15:21–22, 26, 45). Collins concludes with a
personal note to readers. He encourages believers that science and faith are compatible
and that faith makes sense; he challenges sceptics to consider the arguments for
God and faith.
‘Don’t put off a consideration of these questions of eternal significance
until some personal crisis or advancing age forces a recognition of spiritual impoverishment’
(pp. 132–133).
Conclusion
All Christians, creationists included, can find much to like in The Language of
God. Collins’ personal story is fascinating. His intention in writing
the book is excellent: to spread the word that faith is reasonable. Like Collins,
we want to see an end to the widespread false impression that faith and science
are incompatible. However, we must sadly conclude that most of Collins’ arguments—his
means to the laudable ends that we all want to further—are going down the
wrong path. Instead of creating a harmony between faith and science, theistic evolution
subsumes the authority of Scripture to the authority of the latest scientific paper,
leaving philosophical confusion in its wake.
Related articles
Further reading
Related resources
References
- For development of the moral argument, see Craig, W.L.,
The Indispensability of Theological Meta-ethical Foundations for Morality, Foundations
5:9–12, 1997, 13 December 2006; and Sarfati, J.,
Bomb-building vs the biblical foundation, 24 December 2004. Return
to Text.
- But ironically, atheism cannot provide an epistemological
basis for believing in uniformity of nature, while Christian theism does:
see Sarfati, J, Correcting a severe misconception
about the creation model, 31 December 2004, and Sarfati, J.,
Miracles and science, 1 September 2006. Return to Text.
- See as an example Sarfati, J.,
Near death experiences? What should Christians think? 11 July 2000.
Return to Text.
- For further discussion, see Sarfati, J.,
Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’? <www.creation.com/naturalism>;
Batten, D., ‘It’s not science’,
28 February 2002, <www.creation.com/notscience>; Sarfati, ref. 2.
Return to Text.
- See Steel, A., The tower
with many flaws: A review of Tower of Babel: the evidence against the New
Creationism by Robert T. Pennock, Journal of Creation 14(2):41–46,
2000. Return to Text.
- Note that in a biblical worldview, there is no dichotomy
between miracles and natural law that entails that only the former is God acting:
natural law is our description of God’s ordinary way of sustaining
creation, and miracles are our description of His extraordinary involvements
in His creation (Colossians 1:15–17). Return
to Text.
- Collins does not even acknowledge that there could be scientific
objection to the big bang cosmology, but see Hartnett, J., and Williams, A., Dismantling the Big Bang, Master Books, Green Forest,
AR, 2005. Return to Text.
- It seems that it would have been easier to say ‘designed
for life’, but Collins seems to go out of his way to avoid using the catchword
‘design,’ lest he be linked to the Intelligent Design (ID) movement.
ID has been a major proponent of the Anthropic Principle as an argument for design
in the book and documentary, The Privileged Planet. See Henry, J., Designing
the earth without a designer: A review of The Privileged Planet
by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, Journal of Creation 18(3):58–60,
2004. Return to Text.
- See Hartnett and Williams, ref. 7. Return
to Text.
- The experiment, rather than showing how life could have formed,
instead did more to highlight the problems with abiogenesis. Bergman, J.,
Why the Miller–Urey experiment argues against abiogenesis, Journal of
Creation 18(2):28–36, 2004. Return to
Text.
- This is trivial for origin-of-life research, because the
building blocks themselves are unstable for forming life. Sarfati, J.,
Origin of life: instability of building blocks, Journal of Creation
13(2):124–127, 1999. Return to Text.
- But see Woodmorappe, J., The
fossil record: becoming more random all the time, Journal of Creation
14(1):110–116, 2000. Return to Text.
- Sarfati, J., Refuting Evolution, chapter 5, Master Books, Green
Forest, AR, 1999; Sarfati, J., Refuting Evolution 2, Master Books, Green Forest,
AR, pp. 135–142, 2002; Woodmorappe, J., Walking whales,
nested hierarchies, and chimeras: do they exist? Journal of Creation
16(1):111–119, 2002; Gish, D.T., Evolution: The Fossils Still
Say No, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, pp. 198–207,
1995. Return to Text.
- Years before Darwin published, creationist Edward Blyth authored
publications describing natural selection in 1835 and 1837. Eiseley, L., Charles
Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the theory of natural selection, Proceeding of the American
Philosophical Society 103(1):94–114, 1959, reprinted
in Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X: New Light on the Evolutionists, E.P.
Dutton, New York, 45–80, 1979. Return to Text.
- See further Walkup, L.K., ‘Junk’
DNA: evolutionary discards or God’s tools? Journal of Creation
14(2):18–30, 2000; Woodmorappe, J.,
Pseudogene function: regulation of gene expression, Journal of Creation
17(1):47–52, 2003; Woodmorappe, J.,
Pseudogene function: more evidence, Journal of Creation
17(2):15–18, 2003. Return to Text.
- Walkup, ref. 15. Return to Text.
- Woodmorappe, J., Are pseudogenes
‘shared mistakes’ between primate genomes? Journal of Creation
14(3):55–71, 2000; Woodmorappe, J.,
Potentially decisive evidence against pseudogene ‘shared mistakes’,
Journal of Creation 18(3):63–69, 2004.
Return to Text.
- Sarfati, J., Refuting Compromise, Master Books, Green Forest, AR,
chapter 3, 2004. Return to Text.
- See Faulkner, D., Geocentrism
and creation, Journal of Creation 15(2):110–121,
2001. Also see the essay by Russell Grigg, The Galileo ‘twist’,
Creation 19(4):30–32, 1997, which turns Collins’
lesson from the Galileo affair on its head. Return to Text.
- Schirrmacher, T., The Galileo
affair: history or heroic hagiography? Journal of Creation 14(1):91–100,
2000. Return to Text.
- Sarfati, J., ref. 18, chapter 1; Ham, K., Wieland, C., and
Mortenson, T., Are (biblical) creationists ‘cornered’?
Journal of Creation 17(3):43–50, 2003.
Return to Text.
- Beardsley, T., Where science and religion meet, Scientific
American 278(2):18–20, February 1998.
Return to Text.
- See Rudwick, M.J.S., The Meaning of Fossils, University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 33–35, 1985. Return to
Text.
- On Miller generally, see Woodmorappe, J. and Sarfati, J.,
Mutilating Miller: A review of Finding Darwin’s
God, by Kenneth R. Miller, Journal of Creation 15(3):29–35,
2001. For specific responses to his arguments on irreducible complexity, see Behe,
M.J.,
In defense of the irreducibility of the blood clotting cascade, 31 July
2000; Behe, M.J., A
true acid test: A response to Ken Miller, 31 July 2000. See also DiSilvestro,
R.,
Rebuttals to common criticisms of the book Darwin’s Black Box,
9 August 2006. Return to Text.
- Plantinga, A., Methodological naturalism? Perspectives
on Science and Christian Faith 49(3):148–149.
Return to Text.
- Borrowing the terms from Gould, S.J., Rocks of Ages:
Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, Ballantine, New York, p. 5, 1999.
Return to Text.
- For an overview, see Ham, K.,
The god of an old earth, Creation 21(4):42–45,
1999, and Batten, D., (Ed.), The Answers Book, CMI, Australia, pp. 41–44,
1999; 2006. Return to Text.
- For example, see Ruse, M., Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?
The Relationship Between Science and Religion, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, p. 96, 2001, ‘eviscerating’ the resurrection; and
my review in Journal of Creation 19(2):42–25,
2005. Return to Text.
- Batten, D. and Sarfati, J, 15 Reasons to take Genesis as History, CMI, Australia,
2006. Return to Text.
|
