"These [the Bereans] were more fairminded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11; NKJV)
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Francis Collins and Theistic Evolution
Review:
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
Francis S. Collins
Free Press, 2006
280 pp., pb.
Dr. Francis S. Collins is one of the most distinguished scientists of our time. He is the head of the Human Genome Project as well as the director of the National Institutes of Health here in the U.S. He also happens to be a devout Christian, and it is this combination of circumstances that helped make his book a New York Times bestseller.
Dr. Collins gives us a fascinating account of his own personal journey from atheism to Christ, and then discusses, in the middle of the narrative, the current controversy between science and religion. In Dr. Collins' view the two are quite compatible, and what he offers as a solution is his version of theistic evolution. Unfortunately, his proposed solution has some serious difficulties.
The first of these difficulties is a theological problem. In discussing evolution Dr. Collins sounds very much like his secular counterparts such as Prof. Jerry A. Coyne. He believes that all living creatures, including human beings, share a common ancestry, with single cell organisms appearing some 550 million years ago and anatomically modern humans appearing 195,000 years ago. And yet Dr. Collins wants to say that humans are somehow different – that we have a "spiritual nature" that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom, a spiritual nature that defies evolutionary explanation.
There are, however, several difficulties with this scenario. For one thing, in order to accommodate evolution Dr. Collins has to adopt an allegorical interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. He argues that a "day" is not necessarily a literal 24 hour day. But the problem here is that the word "day" is defined within the text itself: "God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day:" (Gen. 1:5; NKJV). It is hard to see how the human author could have intended anything other than something close to a literal 24 hour day, and virtually no one else would have interpreted it any other way prior to the 19th Century. (Dr. Collins does note that St. Augustine raised some questions about how literally to take the six "days" of creation).
By the same token Dr. Collins denies that there was a literal Adam and Eve. Yet the whole theology of original sin rests on the assumption of a common ancestor whose actions affected the entire race. Thus it is hard to see how the biblical narrative can be reconciled with Darwinian evolution.
It should be noted that Dr. Collins arrived at his Christian faith largely through the philosophical arguments of C.S. Lewis. Lewis argued for the philosophical necessity of a Moral Law, which, in turn, implies both the existence of God as its author and a special capacity in human beings to discern this Law. To support the idea of evolution Dr. Collins relies heavily on comparative genetics and the presence of "junk DNA," both updated versions of the older arguments drawn from comparative anatomy and vestigial organs. Thus Dr. Collins begins with a philosophical presupposition, combines that with the standard scientific understanding of evolution, and then makes his interpretation of Scripture conform to the resulting conclusion. The result is that his theology is biblically weak, and this is a problem for the Christian believer who takes seriously the authority of Scripture as a divine revelation.
Next: the philosophical problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dr. Francis S. Collins is one of the most distinguished scientists of our time.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not that is true, it is irrelevant to everything.
There are, however, several difficulties with this scenario. For one thing, in order to accommodate evolution Dr. Collins has to adopt an allegorical interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 and 2.
Good for him. It cannot be anything else. Genesis 1 describes a naive pre-scientific understanding of the world. It describes the sky as a kind of domed ceiling over the earth. It asserts that the domed ceiling is luminous independent of the sun. It explains rain as water from above the ceiling somehow leaking into the world. In short, Genesis 1 is complete nonsense, though it makes for an excellent allegory of creation.
By the same token Dr. Collins denies that there was a literal Adam and Eve. Yet the whole theology of original sin rests on the assumption of a common ancestor whose actions affected the entire race.
Nonsense. There are Christian denominations that do not accept the theology of original sin. Your own understanding of original sin is based on a misreading of the Adam and Eve story. The story does not say that man was created good, and later fell into sin. What it actually say, is that man was created ignorant, and later came upon knowledge that revealed to man that he had been sinning all along.
It should be noted that Dr. Collins arrived at his Christian faith largely through the philosophical arguments of C.S. Lewis.
C.S. Lewis favored theistic evolution.
I have misread to Adam and Eve story, so did the apostle Paul. In Romans 5:12-21 and I Corinthians 15:21 he treats Adam as a real, historical person whose actions had consequences for all humanity. Granted, there are denominations today that deny the doctrine of original sin, but for lack of a more charitable way of putting it, frankly I think they're making up their own theology. The problem of human evil and the possibility of redemption lie at the very root of Christian theology.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that in some respects Genesis 1 reflects a naive, pre-scientific understanding of the world, although it is not clear that word "firmament" is a good translation of the Hebrew "raqiya." As a general rule the Bible gives us common sense descriptions of nature from the standpoint of the human observer from the ground. It is not the purpose of Scripture to give us a technical, scientific explanation of nature. It does, however, purport to give us real history.
In a way I am a skeptic. The young earth creationist says that the universe has the appearance of age, but the age is not real. The Darwinist says that nature has the appearance of design, but the design is not real. What if the appearances are more than just appearances -- that both the age and the design are real?
I have misread to Adam and Eve story, so did the apostle Paul. In Romans 5:12-21 and I Corinthians 15:21 he treats Adam as...
ReplyDeleteNope. That's an Argument from Authority. Collins and his distinguishesedness, remember?
...but for lack of a more charitable way of putting it, frankly I think they're making up their own theology.
People making up their own theology? How could that happen?
;)
It is true that in some respects Genesis 1 reflects a naive, pre-scientific understanding of the world...
Yes, it's wrong.
As a general rule the Bible gives us common sense descriptions of nature from the standpoint of the human observer from the ground.
Which explains why it's wrong.
In a way I am a skeptic.
No you are not. Find out what the word actually means before you start tossing it about. Skepticism is a process; not a position.
You are clueless when it comes to evaluating reality-based claims.
Let's take a trip down memory lane:
(Science and Religion – III) May 9, 2012 5:14 PM
(And the point of Henry Morris, the father of modern Creationism).
"Henry Morris is another dead kook. He believed in genuinely weird things. Science was not his strong point.
Ask yourself how the craters of the moon were formed.
That one is a hoot.
(No, really! Stop what you are doing and look it up. I dare you to read it with a straight face.)
Not even you are prepared to accept a 6000 year-old Earth.
How much do you know about the history of Young Earth Creationism? It's not as old as you might think."
I have The Genesis Flood, which Henry Morris coauthored with John C. whitcomb. Morris was a civil engineer who taught hydraulic engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. "The Genesis Flood" was first published in 1961. There is no mention, that I can find, of the moon it. His main interest was in how the Genesis flood would have affected the earth's geology.
"Ok, before you go digging any deeper on that one, let me ask you a question.
Those craters on the moon. What caused them?
(No peeking. Just come up with what you think a rational, mild-mannered person such as yourself would conclude. What caused those round holes that litter the face of the moon?)
Seriously, please give an answer. I suspect that your answer and mine will be the same."
(Adultery) May 26, 2012 12:40 PM
"Oh...and speaking of Morris...
How do you think those big holes on the moon got there?
No peeking.
Just think about it.
As a rational and reasonable man, what do you think caused them?"
(THE AGE OF THE EARTH - III) Saturday, June 30, 2012
How about the moon?
Those big holes on the surface. What caused them?
I have misread to Adam and Eve story, so did the apostle Paul. In Romans 5:12-21 and I Corinthians 15:21 he treats Adam as a real, historical person whose actions had consequences for all humanity.
ReplyDeletePaul speaks of Adam in about the same way that we speak of Sherlock Holmes. So, no, I don't think you can conclude that Paul took Adam to have been real.
The problem of human evil and the possibility of redemption lie at the very root of Christian theology.
But this requires only that man has a sinful nature (and who would deny that). It does not require the theology of original sin.
As a general rule the Bible gives us common sense descriptions of nature from the standpoint of the human observer from the ground. It is not the purpose of Scripture to give us a technical, scientific explanation of nature.
I agree with that. I don't take the wrongness of Genesis 1 as an argument against the Bible, nor as an argument against Christianity. However, I do see it as making a clear case against fundamentalist assumptions about biblical literalism and infallibility.
It does, however, purport to give us real history.
I don't see that. Rather, I see it (or parts of it) as a compilation of Jewish cultural folklore and tradition.
The Darwinist says that nature has the appearance of design, but the design is not real.
That probably depends on which Darwinist. I don't see any appearance of design in nature (though I also don't claim to be a Darwinist). It seems to me that what we see in nature is very different from what we see in things that we know to be designed.
The Darwinist says that nature has the appearance of design, but the design is not real.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Bob is referring to Dawkins here.
One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artefact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person.
The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a "crane," not a "skyhook;" for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.
The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that – an illusion.
(More here at the link)
Patterns do exist in nature. It would be surprising if they did not. However, they are due to natural means. There no need for magical intervention.
ReplyDeleteThe ripples in the sand and in solid sandstone are very uniform and pretty but...an invisible magic finger did not draw them.
Further, we read patterns into random shapes all the time. The cloud way up in the sky may look like a pony but that's also due to natural causes.
The face you see on Mars? Well, it's not really a face.
The face of Jesus you see in the tree stump? Nope. That's not a miracle.
Welcome to the wonderful world of Pareidolia.
Actually the immediate passage I had in mind was from Coyne. In the first three pages of Why Evolution Is True he describes William Paley and natural theology, and then says "the concept of natural theology, accepted by most educated Westerners before 1859, was vanquished within only a few years by a single five-hundred-page book. On the On the Origin of Species turned the mysteries of life's diversity from mythology into genuine science." (p. 3). Personally, I think Paley's arguments still make sense.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think Paley's arguments still make sense.
ReplyDeleteIt's just that they are not useful.
The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, is very useful.
Science goes with what works.
What do they mean that Paley's arguments are not useful? They can save western civilization - religion, the humanities, jurisprudence, the arts.
ReplyDeleteWhat do they mean that Paley's arguments are not useful?
ReplyDeleteI mean...not useful.
As in "can't do anything with it."
Take a scientist. Add a lab. Add lots of money.
Now tell the scientist to go forth and "do science" using Paley.
Nothing will happen.
The scientist will be stuck permanently in neutral.
(Sure, he's from your church but that makes no difference whatsoever.)
There is nothing to do.
No experiments to propose.
No discoveries to be made.
Put a gun to the scientist's head. It still won't help.
Paley's arguments are not useful.
The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, is very useful.
Just as the Theory of Gravity is useful.
Just as Germ Theory is useful.
You can do stuff with them. Real work.
On the contrary. Intelligent Design gives the scientist the confidence to believe that there is actually something there to study that makes sense -- it's all a part of an intricately complicated design. Evolution does the exact opposite. In an ironic sort of way it is a reversion to an earlier pagan worldview -- everything is there by way of happenstance. On that basis, why would anyone suppose it makes any rational sense at all? If there is no intelligent Supreme Being who designed it all, then everything just sort of exists for no particular reason at all. Why waste your time studying random chaos? The plain fact of the matter is that Darwinism leads to Post-Modernism. First Darwin killed humanism; now he's killing science itself. Just ask anyone in the English department.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary.
ReplyDeleteNormally, when people use this phrase they follow it up with a counter to what the previous person said.
I mean...not useful.
As in "can't do anything with it."
You have provided no examples to help the scientist with oodles of money sitting by their lonely selves in the lab.
Less talky-talky. More worky-worky.
Intelligent Design gives the scientist the confidence...
Translate that into something (here's the magic word) USEFUL.
Evolution does the exact opposite.
No, it won't wash. We can talk about Evolution another time. Right now we are talking about Paley's arguments A.K.A Intelligent Design.
If there is no intelligent Supreme Being who designed it all...
None of this is helping your scientist from your church actually do something. He's still sitting in the lab, twiddling his thumbs.
Why waste your time studying random chaos?
A heartfelt plea, I'm sure. However, there's a lab work schedule that is still suspiciously blank.
The plain fact of the matter is that Darwinism...
No doubt. No doubt at all.
(...looks at watch...)
So...um...Intelligent Design. No work.
Take a scientist. Add a lab. Add lots of money.
Now tell the scientist to go forth and "do science" using Paley.
Nothing will happen.
Nothing.
Sweet zippo.
The scientist will be stuck permanently in neutral.
(Sure, he's from your church but that makes no difference whatsoever.)
There is nothing to do.
No experiments to propose.
No discoveries to be made.
Put a gun to the scientist's head. It still won't help.
Paley's arguments are not useful.
The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, is very useful.
Just as the Theory of Gravity is useful.
Just as Germ Theory is useful.
You can do stuff with them. Real work.