Francis Collins and Theistic Evolution (Re: the book "The Language of God")

London Sunday Times writes: LONDON: I've found God, says man who cracked the genomeBy Steven Swinford
The Sunday Times
June 11, 2006THE 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."When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can't survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can't help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind."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.

Science & Spirit writes: Reading the Book of Life: Francis Collins and the Human Genome ProjectAs director of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins stands at the heart of the hopes and fears spawned by the revolution in genetics. Yet he finds no conflict between his fervent religious faith and his scientific endeavors, he says in this wide-ranging interview with Science & Spirit. Our Genes, Our Selves: Genetics, Behavior and Personhoodby Brent Waters and Ron Cole-TurnerFrancis Collins - physician, researcher, Christian believer - stands at the heart of the hopes and fears spawned by the revolution in genetic knowledge. As director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, Collins plays a pivotal role in the Humane Genome Project, an international effort to read the entire sequence of human DNA, laying bare the basic structures of human life for study, understanding - and alteration.While some have decried the effort as an unwholesome, if not unholy, scientific meddling in the essence of our humanity, Collins strongly affirms the basic benevolence of the project, with its emphasis on curing disease, easing suffering, and bettering the quality of human life. To be sure, genetic engineering - like all human activities - is subject to abuse, says Collins, and public vigilance and moral debate should accompany the continual advances in the field. But there is no conflict between his religious beliefs and scientific endeavors, he tells ethicists Brent Waters and Ron-Cole Turner, in this exclusive interview with Science & Spirit.Science & Spirit: How do you feel about the emphasis being placed on genetics today, particular in the popular culture? Some worry that we are giving too much power to the idea of DNA, to genes, that they are being exalted to the stature of a cultural icon.Collins: Yes, some people seem willing to put DNA on the church steeple and worship it as divine. I don't agree with that at all. It's just a chemical, for heaven's sake. But I do worry about a growing deterministic view that is slipping into our popular culture, our vocabulary, and certainly our media reports on genetics. Over time, however, I believe we will gradually get to the right balance. Genetics is a component of virtually every illness and plays a role in lots of other human traits, but in most instances it is predisposing, but clearly not deterministic. It is not reliably predetermining of anything except those relatively uncommon Mendelian disorders like Huntington's Disease. Furthermore, in the mix of factors that go into a particular human illness or trait, we should consider not only the hereditary part and the environmental part, but also the part that often gets left out, which is free will. After all, we all make critical choices about behavior and life style that have an enormous impact on who we are.S&S: What will the genome project tell us about our humanity?Collins: It tells us about the parts list. It tells us about some of the mechanics of human biology. It tells us what components are necessary to build an organism that has the biological properties of a human being from a single-celled embryo. But our "humanity" is much broader than that, incorporating other things such as our sense of right and wrong, our sense of community, our desire for a spiritual aspect to our lives, the capacity to love each other; and I don't think the genome project is going to tell us very much about those things. In my own perspective, science is highly appropriate for the exploration of issues that are based upon biological foundations, but the spiritual side of humanity may not necessarily yield all that easily to scientific exploration. We shouldn't fool ourselves about that. I reject completely the mechanistic view of humankind as nothing other than a marionette whose every move is controlled by invisible strings made of DNA.S&S: If the Human Genome Project will give us a parts list, are you concerned about some extravagant claims that are being made for it? For example, that if we can enhance the "parts," we’ll be able to make a better human "product"?Collins: Certainly there are extravagant claims out there that once we get a little further down this path of having the parts list and knowing how to tinker with them, maybe we could take charge of our own evolution and develop some dramatic advances of our own species. I think such scenarios are pretty unrealistic. They face a major ethical challenge, because if one is talking about that kind of alteration to the parts list, it would be done almost certainly in a circumstance where you're changing the germ line, altering the DNA sequence of that individual, in a way that causes that change to be passed on to offspring and future generations. The current general consensus, which I strongly support, is that we ought not to alter the human germ line unless we are absolutely convinced that it's safe to do so. In a circumstance where you're talking about altering the very nature of the biological aspect of being human, how could you possibly know whether or not that's safe over many generations? And being unable to answer the question, it then seems inescapable that to carry out the experiment is unethical. So while this makes great copy and people like to talk about it, I personally think it faces enormous challenges before anything of that sort could be contemplated.S&S: Even more modest uses of genetics make some people think you’re playing God. Does this technology run the risk of transcending basic limits set on human action?Collins: I think it is fair to say the primary reason we are doing the genome project, and the primary reason why there is such a focus on genetics in medical research right now, is a desire to harness this new approach to better understand and treat disease. So the motivation is one of trying to alleviate suffering. As a motivation that is one of our noblest and purest. When one looks at the time that Christ spent on the earth, as short as it was, it is remarkable how much of that time He spent in acts of healing. I think we were supposed to notice that. Virtually all traditions of faith have put forward the notion of trying to heal the sick and alleviate the suffering of those who are in trouble as a very high mandate. If you accept that, and if you accept the premise that the science of genetics is a very powerful way to accomplish those goals, then I would argue the most unethical stance for a thinking person to take would be to say that we shouldn't be pursuing genetic research because it might get misused.S&S: We are learning a lot about variations in human genes, some of which add a healthy diversity, but others which are regarded as a genetic defect. Should we see this as a defect in creation or perhaps as a defect in God’s work?Collins: You can answer that on several levels. If evolution is the method that God chose to create human beings in his likeness with the capacity for spiritual fellowship with Him, then that mechanism by its very nature required a certain error rate in the copying of DNA. And as a consequence you inevitably have human diversity, which I agree is a good thing, but you also have the potential that some of that DNA variation is not neutral, but actually carries with it negative consequences.It seems to me we should not make the mistake of assuming that God's will for us is biological perfection, any more than we should assume that God's perfect will for us is the absence of suffering. It is those occasions where things aren't perfect where we often learn the most and where our closeness to Him, which is a higher goal even than our own happiness, is most likely to come about. And so perhaps God in a merciful way speaks to us through our imperfections, and we shouldn't neglect the significance of that. The underlying assumption that we should all be genetically perfect doesn't make sense to me. Furthermore, from the perspective of human diversity, it seems rather essential for the concept of the individual believer as having individual fellowship with God that we are not a herd of identicals. We are in fact unique individuals, each with our own opportunity to take advantage of or ignore building a relationship with God. Diversity is thus an important component of an understanding of free will, and of our own opportunities for coming to a saving grace through that relationship with God.S&S: Although the Human Genome Project is driven by humane intentions, are there some circumstances which could twist these intentions? For example, will parents be held responsible for the health of their offspring, and be blamed if they allow a child enduring "unnecessary" suffering to be born?Collins: The disability community is understandably concerned about this issue. If I have achondroplasia and if science now has an understanding of that gene which makes it possible to identify all the fetuses that have achondroplasia and make sure they don't get born, does that diminish my value in the eyes of society? It's a very significant issue. At the same time, it's another one of those possible scenarios that should not lead to the sweeping statement, "and therefore we should not be doing this research," because then you have doomed all the people with achondroplasia who are looking for some potential answers to their current medical problems to a future without hope. It comes down to trying to both focus on the positives of genetics and trying to prepare to avoid some of the negatives. When Christ healed the lame and the blind, did those who didn't get healed complain that somehow they were now being considered as less contributory to society than before? I don't think so. I suspect they were amazed and hopeful.S&S: Earlier you suggested that genetics and evolution not only fit with each other but that both can be affirmed by people of faith.Collins: I wish more people would go back and read St. Augustine from 400 A.D. His view of the first book of the Bible sounds very compatible with what is currently called "theistic evolution," where God used the process of evolution to create man. Augustine, without the need to be defensive, felt this evolutionary view of how human beings came about is entirely consistent with Genesis 1. The current battle between evolutionism and creationism makes me sad at heart, because it is so unnecessary. It's hard enough getting through life when you have to deal with the real challenges and the real controversies and the real battles. This polarization of evolution and creation is a battle that we shouldn't have had to fight, and yet it continues to rage. Serious Christians often think they're being asked to reject compelling scientific data to prove their religious commitment; serious scientists often think they're being asked to reject their own faith to prove their intellectual rigor. And none of this is at all necessary. A harmonious synthesis of science and faith is not only possible, it is deeply satisfying. We must work to spread that word.

Faith writes:I think it's sad that people may come to a belief in the reality of God but feel constrained by their belief in evolution to conform Him to science and falsify the Bible, compromising their faith.

crashfrog writes:Honestly, though? Collins' ideas aren't much less silly.

crashfrog writes:On the subject of God, there's a key fact that I'm aware of that Collins is not, so I will assert greater knowledge on that subject than he possesses. That key fact, of course, is that there are no gods.

Freeman, Louise Margaret Date: Mon Oct 24 2005 - 16:56:43 EDT writes: At Ted's request, I am posting an account of the Francis Collins
presentation yesterday in Staunton VA.Francis Collins Presentation on Christianity and Evolution: 10/23/05Part 2 of the “Science and Christianity” Sunday School series organized by
Dr. Lundy Pentz (biology) and Dr. Jim Gilman (religion/philosophy) of Mary
Baldwin College.
Trinity Episcopal Church, Staunton, VA. Tal kwas given in the church
sanctuary, which was filled to capacity. There were probably 700-800 in
attendance, most of which were not regular Trinity attenders.(Background: Dr. Collins grew up in Staunton and attended Trinity as a
child, where he was confirmed and sang in the choir. Although, during his
talk he said that he didn’t really become a Christian until age 27, after
considerable exploration, inclduing reading CS Lewis’s Mere Christianity.)Dr. Collins began his presentation stating that when scientists start
talking about God, colleagues tend to think they are either crazy or over
the hill. However, he emphasized that for him, science and Christianity are
not in conflict, but instead complement each other. He then listed three
gifts God has given humanity. 1) the hunger to know Him, 2) the moral law as
contained in scripture and 3) intelligent minds capable of interpreting
data. His talk would focus evidence of evolution derived from the study of
DNA and what that means for the believer. He described his role as the
director of the human genome project and stated that we have now “read” the
book of the human genome (in the sense that we know what all the letters
are) though we are part from understanding what all the words mean.
Understanding this book will lead to much improved methods for treating
human diseases such as cancer. He added that an announcement of the major
medical breakthrough on this front will be made this Wednesday (10/26/05).DNA shows that human beings are 99.9% alike as far as their genetic makeup
goes. Understanding the 0.1% difference is critical to understanding why
some people are more vulnerable to certain diseases than others.
Furthermore, the chimpanzee genome has also recently been sequenced and
shows 98.8% homology to humans. Some of the differences between humans and
chimps are very interesting, particularly differences in genes responsible
for control of brain size. DNA analysis also shows a picture of human
origins different from a literal reading of Genesis: namely, modern humans
come from a common ancestor pool of about 10,000 individuals (not 2) that
lived in Africa about 100,000 years ago.Collins went on to explain what Darwin’s theory of evolution stated: 1)
species change over time 2) variations appear spontaneously; most are
harmful and are weeded out 3) some are beneficial to survival and therefore
get passed to offspring, resulting in a net change and adaptation over time.
He emphasized that the term theory is not used by scientists the same way it
is used colloquially (as an unsupported hunch or hypothesis) but is instead
a unifying principle that explains a whole host of observations. Darwin’s
theory is accepted by virtually all mainstream scientists, is not on the
brink of collapse (despite what some Christians may say) but is instead
supported by “rock solid” evidence from both the fossil record and DNA.
Collins did not address the fossil record (that was apparently covered in
the previous week’s session, which I did not attend) but focused instead on
DNA, particularly homologies as evidence for common descent..One reason intelligent design is an appealing alternative, according to
Collins, is that it is also a plausible explanation for genetic
similarities. The Designer works up a DNA template for a turtle, for
instance, and with some minor changes can create an alligator. This may in
fact seem more plausible to the believer than evolution, given the
difficulty we have visualizing the process from single-celled organism to
complex beings like humans. Part of this difficulty lies in the problems
people have in conceiving of the enormity of the timescale; Collins
illustrated this with the familiar model of condensing the history if earth
into 24 hours. Collins then went on to explain why DNA evidence poses
problems for ID.He showed a hypothetical stretch of human DNA three genes (A, B, & C) and
spacer regions between them, then the same three genes in the mouse. First,
the genes are in the same order, as you would predict if they had a common
ancestor. But, that is also consistent with design: perhaps those three
genes work best together, so the designer put them there, Second, the
coding regions (genes) are more homologous than the non-coding regions:
exactly what evolution predicts, since the genes would be expected to be
more resistant to change than non-coding regions. But again, that poses no
special problem for design. Third, there is evidence “jumping genes” (or
transposable elements); genes which jump and “land” and “get stuck” in the
non-coding areas, often damaging themselves in the process, so they
apparently are not coding for anything. Human and mouse also share these
elements. This is harder to explain with design, but not impossible; perhaps
this gene has a purpose not understood yet and therefore the designer had a
reason for putting it there. Finally, however, Collins pointed to a
transposable element that was “hopelessly damaged” and therefore could not
possibly code for anything due to a lost (or truncated) element. The exact
same letter was truncated in human and mouse. It is hard to see any design
for this type of genetic evidence. It is, however, the exact thing a
designer would put in the genome if he wanted to plant false evidence for
common descent, perhaps to test the faith of the scientist. But Collins
expressed doubts about a “charlatan” God that intentionally seeks to confuse
us. A more reasonable explanation is that the mutation occurred in a common
ancestor to mice and humans, some 80 million years ago. If so, you would
expect to see this same element in many other mammals, and you do.It is dangerous for Christians to maintain that evolution is a hoax in the
face of such evidence; they are telling a “noble lie” and the damage will
ultimately be to faith, not science.Collins described five possible “solutions” to the problem of science-faith
controversies. The first option is to reject religion entirely in favor of
atheism, and even use evolution as scientific proof that there is no God.
This, in Collins’ view is logically unjustified, since, unless you’re a
pantheist, God exists outside of nature. Scientists like Dawkins and Wilson
are part of the problem here and are contributing to the polarization of our
society.The second route, which Collins admits he took as a young man, is
agnosticism, or throwing up your hands and saying “I don’t know” after
considering the evidence for God’s existence. This differs from simply not
considering the evidence, which Collins feels is the case for many
self-proclaimed agnostics. He joked that any agnostics in the audience be
cautious in carefully examining such questions, lest they “accidently covert
themselves” as Collins did.The third option is creationism, which Collins defined as young earth
creationism. People with this viewpoint adopt the Bible as their science
text and reject anything that conflicts with it. This extreme view,
according to Collins, was fairly uncommon until 100 years ago and arose as a
reaction to Darwin’s theory. He cited Augustine as an example of a great
theologian who did not read Genesis as science and who concluded that
exactly what God meant by the days in Genesis is difficult or impossible to
conceive. Viewing God as existing outside of time helps those troubled by
the apparent random or undirectedness of evolution, because, in that view,
God would know how it would turn out.Intelligent design, a recent (< 15 year old) view that has “taken the US by
storm” and been “embraced by evangelicals.” is option #4. Collins
presented the Behe/Dembski view of ID (old earth, common descent): life
proceeding more or less by “natural” mechanisms but with the Designer
occasionally stepping in to “fix things.” This view is certainly appealing
to believers as an alternative to evolution; the problem, Collins feels, is
that it’s likely wrong. He cited the exampled of ID’s “poster child,” the
bacterial flagellum as described by Behe. As we study more and more
bacteria, it becomes more and more obvious that many of the 32 proteins that
make up this “irreducibly complex” motor were recruited from other cellular
components. Collins is concerned about the ID movement for a number of
reasons: First, it falsely insists that evolution is wrong. Collins instead
predicts that ID will be discredited within a fairly short time, as
scientists come up with more and more evolutionary mechanisms to explain the
existence of “irreducibly complex” structures. In that event, Christianity,
not science, is what will look stupid. Second, ID strikes him as a “defense”
of God from Darwin’s theory, something Collins doesn’t think God needs.The fifth, and clearly Collins’ preferred alternative is theistic evolution:
the position that God could have used evolution as his tool of creation.
This is certainly compatible with what Collins called “lower case”
intelligent design: the idea that God had a plan for his creation but
differs from Intelligent Design the Theory, which states that evidence of
supernatural action is found in science. Collins rejects the latter but
accepts the former. Theistic evolution does not have to conflict with
Genesis 1-2 if one takes an Augustinian, non-literal view of it.Collins reported the 2004 Gallup poll that showed that 38% of Americans
believed humans came into existence long ago, with God guiding the process
(a view consistent with either ID or theistic evolution) 13% believing they
came into existence without God’s influence (atheism or possibly deism) and
45% believing they appeared in their present form 10,000 years ago
(creationism). Collins stated that churches who insist on the latter view
are forcing young people into the “terrible choice” of rejecting either God
or their faith. He described his own exhilaration and sense of worship he
gets from making scientific discoveries and called upon Christians to stop
presenting science and faith as conflicting views. He closed by playing the
guitar and leading the crowd in Thomas Troeger’s hymn “Praise the Source of
Faith and Learning” (sung to the tune of “Come Thou Long Expected Jesus.”)
Lyrics available here: Page not found – Plymouth Congregational Church.There was a brief question/answer session after the talk. The most
interesting question came from a young person who asked “How much of the
story of Adam and Eve do you believe?” Collins responded that he believed
the story was meant to teach us the nature of our relationship to the
creator God and the fall indicates the sinful nature of humanity and points
us to the need for a redeemer in the form of Jesus. He did not think it was
meant to teach that Adam and Eve were the literal genetic ancestors of all
people and pointed out that there were other people inhabiting the world
when Cain was sent away from home and that he and Seth found wives without
any mention of inbreeding. I don't remember him stating explicitly whether
he considered Adam and Eve historical or allegorical figures.Judging from the standing ovation at the end, the talk was well-received.The talk was covered fairly accurately in the Staunton News Leader
(http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...),
although please note the extremely misleading headline: the thesis of the
talk was that evolution and Christianity are compatible, not evolution and
intelligent design. Collins made it clear that evolution was good scientific
theory, while ID was not.__
Louise M. Freeman, PhD
Psychology Dept
Mary Baldwin College
Staunton, VA 24401

Collins
presented the Behe/Dembski view of ID (old earth, common descent): life
proceeding more or less by “natural” mechanisms but with the Designer
occasionally stepping in to “fix things.”

The fifth, and clearly Collins’ preferred alternative is theistic evolution:
the position that God could have used evolution as his tool of creation.

cavediver writes:Is God so crap that He has to? I see the universe as more of a Honda than a Ford

Faith writes:But isn't it the idea that species evolve AS adaptation to the environment? That is, new forms occur and if they enhance survival or fit the creature to a particular niche they get established and all it takes is a lot of that to make a new species. Do you think intervention is necessary for some reason; That is, you don't believe that species evolve naturally by chance plus selection?

deerbreh writes:The only way God intervenes in history is through the free will actions of humans. Without humans there is no intervention. Read Matthew 25. Natural selection is not intervention, it is natural selection according to the rules/laws of nature.

cavediver writes:Is God so crap that He has to? I see the universe as more of a Honda than a Ford