As someone who is educated in biochemistry and working in biotechnology, almost nothing frustrates me more than when trained scientists and engineers who are also Christians (or for that matter adherents of any religion) can look me in the eye and with a straight face announce to me that the theory of evolution is flawed and inconsistent with Christianity, and promote antiscientific ideals like creationism or Intelligent Design.
Rubbish.
I’ve never really been able to articulate my position why I think that evolution and faith in God are fully consistent in a way that fully satisfied me. So I was delighted to find a book by Dr. Francis Collins, who is head of the Human Genome Project, a Born Again Christian, and all around smart guy that addressed his reconciliation of the two. It is called “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.” Dr. Collins elegantly lays out his case for why science and faith can co-exist perfectly, without the need for compartmentalization. His views, what he terms BioLogos (a form of theistic evolution), as it turns out are pretty consistent with mine on the subject. (Say… 95% match.)
I highly recommend this book for either people who are convinced that the goal of science is to abrogate religion or that religion is inconsistent with rigorous scientific investigation.
And I should add that while Dr. Collins has an M.D., a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, and has spent his life working at the highest levels of science, the book is not highly technical. I think anyone with a high school diploma should easily be able to follow his arguments and the science behind them. I’d love to see a book from Dr. Collins on the subject aimed directly at life-scientists, this isn’t it.
Here are some selected quotes to give you the idea:
The rising cacophony of antagonistic voices leaves many sincere observers confused and disheartened. Reasonable people conclude that they are forced to choose between these two unappetizing extremes, neither of which offers much comfort. Disillusioned by the stridency of both perspectives, many choose to reject both the trustworthiness of scientific conclusions and the value of organized religion, slipping instead into various forms of antiscientific thinking, shallow spirituality, or simple apathy. Others decide to accept the value of both science and spirit, but compartmentalize these parts of their spiritual and material existence to avoid any uneasiness about apparent conflicts… But this, too, is potentially unsatisfying. It inspires internal conflict, and deprives people of the chance to embrace either science or spirit in a fully realized way.
The elegance behind life’s complexity is indeed reason for awe, and beleif in God – but not in the simple, straight-forward way that many found so compelling before Darwin came along.
A believer need not fear that this investigation [of evolution] will dethrone the divine; if God is truly Almighty, He will hardly be threatened by our puny efforts to understand the workings of His natural world.
A word of caution is needed when inserting specific divine action by God in this or any other area where scientific understanding is currently lacking. From solar eclipses in olden times to the movement of the planets in the Middle Ages, to the origins of life today, this “God of the gaps” approach has all too often done a disservice to religion (and by implication, to God, if that’s possible).
[W]hile the question of the origin of life is a fascinating one, and the inability of modern science to develop a statistically probable mechanism is intriguing, this is not the place for a thoughtful person to wager his faith.
Do not fear, there is plenty of divine mystery left. Many people who have considered all the scientific and spiritual evidence still see God’s creative and guiding hand at work.
[F]or those like myself working in genetics, it is almost impossible to imagine correlating the vast amounts of data coming forth from the studies of genomes without the foundations of Darwin’s theory.
(Collins is more imaginative than me. It is impossible for me, not “almost” impossible.)
Perhaps part of the problem relates to a simple misunderstanding of the word “theory.” Critics are fond of pointing out that evolution is “only a theory,” a statement that puzzles working scientists who are used to a different meaning of that word… [scientists use the term to mean] fundamental principles underlying a science, art, etc.: music theory, theory of equations… It is… this usage that scientists intend when they talk about evolutionary theory, just as when they mention gravitational theory or the germ theory of infectious disease.
A major part of the problem in accepting the theory of evolution is that it requires one to grasp the significance of extremely long periods of time involved in the process. such intervals are unimaginably beyond individual experience.
But the idea that scientific revelations would represent an enemy in that pursuit is ill conceived. If God created the universe, and the laws that govern it, and if He endowed human beings with intellectual abilities to discern its workings, would He want us to disregard those abilities? Would He be diminished or threatened by what we are discovering about His creations.
Science cannot be used to justify discounting the great monotheistic religions of the world, which rest upon centuries of history, moral philosophy, and the powerful evidence of human altruism. It is the height of scientific hubris to claim otherwise.
The intention of the Bible was (and is) to reveal the nature of God to humankind. Would it have served God’s purposes thirty-four hundred years ago to lecture to His people about radioactive decay, geologic strata, and DNA?
The image of God as a cosmic trickster [who plants false evidence to test belief] seems to be the ultimate admission of defeat for the Creationist perspective.
Young Earth Creationism does even more damage to faith, by demanding that belief in God requires assent to fundamentally flawed claims about the natural world.
[A]ttaching your position [Creationism] to a flawed foundation… offers the opponents of faith (and there are many) to win a long series of easy victories.
Intelligent Design proponents have made the mistake of confusing the unknown with the unknowable, or the unsolved with the unsolvable.
[When beginning to consider faith after becoming an atheist during Ph.D. studies] I was vaguely aware that some of those around me thought that this pairing of explorations was contradictory and I was headed over a cliff, but I found it difficult to imagine that there could be a real conflict between scientific truth and spiritual truth. Truth is truth. Truth cannot disprove truth.
Perhaps one shouldn’t get too hung up on the notion that this scripture [Genesis 1:27 - the "image of God" passage] is referring to physical anatomy – the image of God seems a lot more about mind than body.
I do not believe that the God who created all the universe, and who communes with His people through prayer and spiritual insight, would expect us to deny the obvious truths of the natural world that science has revealed to us, in order to prove our love for Him.
The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. He can be worshiped in the cathedral or the laboratory.
