Interesting (Theological) Comments from a US Biologist
The following is excerpted from an article in The Sunday Times (of London) by Steven Swinford – with a tip of the gimme cap to VirtueOnline.
The scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is to publish a book explaining why he now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles are real.
Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man “closer to God”.
His book, The Language of God, to be published in September, will reopen the age-old debate about the relationship between science and faith. “One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war,” said Collins, 56.
“I don’t see that as necessary at all and I think it is deeply disappointing that the shrill voices that occupy the extremes of this spectrum have dominated the stage for the past 20 years.”
For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to “glimpse at the workings of God”.
“When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it,” he said. “But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along.
[…] Collins joins a line of scientists whose research deepened their belief in God. Isaac Newton, whose discovery of the laws of gravity reshaped our understanding of the universe, said: “This most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”
Although Einstein revolutionised our thinking about time, gravity and the conversion of matter to energy, he believed the universe had a creator. “I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details,” he said. However Galileo was famously questioned by the inquisition and put on trial in 1633 for the “heresy” of claiming that the earth moved around the sun.
Among Collins’s most controversial beliefs is that of “theistic evolution”, which claims natural selection is the tool that God chose to create man. In his version of the theory, he argues that man will not evolve further.
“I see God’s hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way,” he says.
“Scientifically, the forces of evolution by natural selection have been profoundly affected for humankind by the changes in culture and environment and the expansion of the human species to 6 billion members. So what you see is pretty much what you get.”
Collins was an atheist until the age of 27, when as a young doctor he was impressed by the strength that faith gave to some of his most critical patients.
“They had terrible diseases from which they were probably not going to escape, and yet instead of railing at God they seemed to lean on their faith as a source of great comfort and reassurance,” he said. “That was interesting, puzzling and unsettling.”
He decided to visit a Methodist minister and was given a copy of C S Lewis’s Mere Christianity, which argues that God is a rational possibility. The book transformed his life. “It was an argument I was not prepared to hear,” he said. “I was very happy with the idea that God didn’t exist, and had no interest in me. And yet at the same time, I could not turn away.”
His epiphany came when he went hiking through the Cascade Mountains in Washington state. He said: “It was a beautiful afternoon and suddenly the remarkable beauty of creation around me was so overwhelming, I felt, ‘I cannot resist this another moment’.”
Collins believes that science cannot be used to refute the existence of God because it is confined to the “natural” world. In this light he believes miracles are a real possibility. “If one is willing to accept the existence of God or some supernatural force outside nature then it is not a logical problem to admit that, occasionally, a supernatural force might stage an invasion,” he says.
I have worked full or part time at a university for the past 30+ years. In that time, I have found that the primary hostility to Christianity – and to Theism in general - doesn’t tend to come from the Natural Sciences. Most physicists I’ve met are theists of one sort or another, while chemists range from the evangelical to the “don’t bother me about it.” Biologists tend to be more atheistic than the other sciences, but in my experience this has more to do with observing the awful things that exist out there than with philosophy. It’s hard to see the Imago Dei in some hideous parasite that slowly devours its host from the inside out, or in some virus that makes the surface of your tongue slough off days before it kills you. Besides, biologists are on an intellectual high these days, and hubris is a major inhibitor to belief.
Most of the opposition to belief in God comes from the Humanities and Social Sciences. (A great many “real” scientists consider the “Social Sciences” to be a contradiction in terms, by the way!) Sadly, a great deal of the hostility to orthodox Christianity comes from the religion and theology faculties. The humanities are the major opponents of notions of absolute truth; the physics department is more likely to tell an English professor to go jump off the bridge. After all, just because gravity is true for physicists doesn’t mean it has to be true for Literary Critics – they’re welcome to find their own more tolerant path to sea level.
Speaking for myself, I’ve never been big on “theistic evolution” or intelligent design - not because I don’t believe in Providence or an Intelligent Designer! I’ve just never been convinced that “theistic evolution” is in any way discernible from “atheistic evolution” except by divine revelation, which takes us right back to where we were in the first place. I doubt you can prove Christianity, in the accepted usage of the term, any more than you can disprove it. All you can do is demonstrate that it’s a reasonable thing for a rational person to believe – and leave someone open to the workings of the Holy Spirit.
By the way, I love how they always throw Galileo in there to discredit the Church. For a more realistic appraisal of the Galileo Affair, see (of all places) Answering Islam. There are more formal and rigorous references to the same effect, but I can’t find them at the moment.