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

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.Certainly a belief in the gods or God of other religions may be compatible with evolution, but the God of the Bible isn't.There is no reasonable way that I can see to reconcile Genesis with evolution. Just none. Even if you can shoehorn a few billion years in between the first few verses, there is still It must be that Augustine was still in thrall to the pagan ways of thinking he had come out of, and didn't think through all the implications of his view of Genesis.They say that a belief in evolution doesn't compromise one's salvation but I'm not completely sure of that, since it fragments God's word to such an extent that some of the most wonderful mysterious depths of it are lost. I'd like to believe it true for the sake of those who are sincerely seeking, and maybe for them it is, maybe God will pardon on the basis of weak faith. But otherwise, when Jesus said that only those could be His disciples who hate father and mother and even their own lives, I think He made it plain that ANYTHING that is put ahead of His word has to be abandoned whether one can follow the arguments or not.=================================================================
{Edit: To be clear I don't disagree with most of what Collins says. I see nothing threatening in studying the genome or anything else in the natural world, and curing diseases is always a fine aim.As always, what's dangerous comes from the fact that human beings are fallen which means an impaired moral judgment. To save one human being many can't see the problem with killing another in the form of a fetus for instance.I also appreciate this statement by Collins because he seems to be pretty much agreeing with what I've been trying to say in the Two Cultures argument:

quote:

---

Collins: It [the genome] 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.

---

Hear! hear!Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : to add quotes from OP and comments under double line.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, that's a way to put it I can agree with: science is not the "second scripture" itself, it is the STUDY of the "second scripture," and as such it is fallible. Nature is scripture, science is not; science makes mistakes (evolution being one very big one ).In principle I'm sure you'd agree that there can't be any contradiction between the Bible and Nature, but there IS contradiction on some points between the Bible and Science (evolution really, not any other areas of science).And as some do, you then go on to make the Bible fit Science: No, it is to be read straight as written. It's obviously neither a newspaper nor a science text, far from both. It poses no problem to some of us GDR. Having visited many kinds of churches, I've never had a problem finding a church that preaches the Bible as true in the same way I read it as true, literal where I read it as literal and metaphorical where I read it as metaphorical, despite many differences in emphasis and interpretation. And there are many many pastors and theologians and inspirational writers who preach and teach from the very same perspective, many many books and so on. They have no trouble taking Genesis as straight history same as I do. That's good, I'm impressed. God chooses whomever He will. But can he find Christ from there? If he is stuck having to make the Bible fit evolution, how can he understand how Christ is the second Adam and what He came to do? Perhaps he is able to recognize Jesus in a way that God accepts, but it could only be by overlooking some fancy footwork he's obliged to do around Genesis.

According to the traditional reading, the first account is the chronology of Creation. The second account takes the Creation as already finished, and is simply a discussion of some specifics in relation to Adam.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Skimming through the blog you linked does lead me to the conclusion that Collins is probably truly a Christian -- the degree of ridicule aimed at him makes that likely -- or at least on his way to becoming one -- but that he is hampered by his commitment to evolution and so far unable to shake it off completely. I can only hope that God will give him the insight and the courage to do so. His belief that human beings are no longer evolving despite having evolved to this point suggests the struggle he is in. I'm glad to know about his situation so I can pray for him.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I also think there would be something less... elegant, perhaps is the word, about God's correcting the physical design after the Creation. There is no hint in the Bible that He did, and in fact it suggests pretty clearly that He created all things in the steps laid out in the first verses of Genesis. Then He rested from His work, it says. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have trouble with the question. I don't know much about ID, so if they think God intervenes maybe an IDer could explain this. What sort of intervention is God supposed to have done? Sort of an "Oops can't let this creature evolve THAT way, gotta have it go THIS way" sort of thing?

I can't assume that theistic evolution is a fact, but I think we all agree that microevolution occurs naturally. 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?

I agree with your overall point by the way, but just had to answer this: The reason Jesus was virgin-born was that He was God as well as man, so he got his genes straight from God rather than from a human father; and there is another reason as well, in that the Savior could not BE the Savior if he had ordinary inheritance from a human father, because we all inherit the sin of Adam that way, and Jesus had to be free of that inherited sin from the fathers in order to be the unblemished Lamb of God, without any sin at all, who took on the sins of believers. EDIT: Since this is off topic and there may not be enough for a new PNT, and jar's answer doesn't seem very conducive to serious discussion, I'll add here that I may have always had a wrong idea about the virgin birth in that I assumed that Mary's genes were given to Jesus, simply because the Holy Spirit "conceived" Jesus within her. To be absolutely clear about this, I had nothing remotely in mind like human sex -- so jar's silly carrying-on is just playing on a misreading of "got his genes straight from God" -- but pictured God's simply CREATING Jesus according to His prescription. I merely assumed that this included Mary's egg.But I found at least one website that says that Jesus is considered to have been created altogether new by God, with no inherited genes at all -- the way Adam was originally formed. This makes sense. Because of my wrong picture of his inheriting Mary's genes, I had been under some misimpression that sin may only be inherited from the father, even though if I think about it I know that can't be true.So the point I'm trying to make here has to be made somewhat differently but it's still the same point. Jesus HAD to be virgin-born for a practical reason in the plan of redemption -- AND born without genetic inheritance from his parents -- because sin is inherited and He had to be the perfect man, completely sinless, just as Adam was originally sinless. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are raising some pretty complicated theological issues that I don't know much about. I don't have a problem with miracles at all, but the Creation is presented as a foundational thing, a finished thing, from which God rested. It makes no sense to me to think of God "tweaking" His Creation willynilly here and there after establishing it.And yes, I think the reason He doesn't do that has to be that He has created a lawful universe that can be studied by science, and He doesn't play tricks on us. Once it's been put in place it has to operate in a predictable way if He doesn't want to drive His human creation crazy.Also why should He need to tweak anything? He's omniscient and He's perfect, He knows from the very beginning exactly how everything is going to play out.I do believe that theology tells us that God maintains or upholds His Creation at all times, and that if He didn't it would all collapse or disappear. I'm not sure what that is based on or what it means, but it certainly implies a present God rather than a distant God.But none of this is what a miracle is. Miracle is God's intentional interference with the laws He set in motion for the purpose of demonstrating that He is God who has this power. This is the only reason He ever performed a miracle. Jesus performed healings and other miracles for the same purpose. In the sight of people so that they would recognize His identity.