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.