The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
by Francis Collins is the best book I have read on the intersection of faith and science. Collins, a former agnostic who converted, heads the Human Genome Project. Collins sees no reason that faith and science must continually butt heads. My thoughts prior to reading: God created the earth and used evolution to some extent, although I have trouble with the idea that we are descended from apes. I also found the ideas of Intelligent Design appealing (such as how evolution has trouble explaining the development of the eye). Collins seeks to convince atheists and agnostics that there is a God and he appeals to Christians to stop rejecting science as threatening to their worldview. He uses his knowledge of biology and genetics to challenge young earth creationists and Intelligent Design in a respectful way. Collins argues that the theory of evolution has been validated by genetics in ways Darwin never imagined and that unless we think God is trying to trick us, we should embrace what creation tells us about how life developed. Macroevolution has largely been rejected by Christians, but I am beginning to be convinced that this is akin to insisting on a 10,000 year old planet (which I believe requires the belief that God is trying to trick us). The appeal of Intelligent Design is the idea that evolution can't fully explain life, so there must be a God taking care of these discrepancies. However, promoting this "God of the gaps" theory leaves believers with smaller and smaller places to stand as science fills in the gaps. I am still thinking these issues through, but I highly recommend this book.
9 comments:
Jon this book sounds really interesting. Kyle or alex didnt you guys read this book or one semilar to it. What did you guys think?
Sounds like a great read. Kudos to the author for stepping up and challenging the Christian community on such a hot topic.
As for myself, I always thought the idea of intelligent design sounded nice but the fact remains that the question of WHOSE design will never be answered. Scientifically, "intelligent design" could mean anything from a creator-type being or it could mean aliens landed millions of years ago and evolved. See what I mean?
I feel that faith must be set aside when it comes to science. Faith is a pre-conceived notion that could possibly limit your vision when it comes to new research. And yes, I went to Calvin.
I actually haven't read this book, but I know of its existence and it sounds interesting. I stopped reading the Bible literally quite some time (it was a gradual thing) ago and it actually made Scripture more real to me. For instance, who did Cain marry?, etc. etc. etc.
The book you may be thinking of that I read was "The Physics of Immortality" by Frank Tipler (I got it from Mitch, in fact the copy I have in my library may be Mitch's). He is a physicist who developed a theory of the end of time that is essentially Judeo-Christian, though he himself is some kind of Agnostic, if I remember right.
Growing up, both atheistic science and traditional Creationism were fighting for my mind so I'm pretty familiar with arguments from either side. Whenever we talk science at my house, my dad always says stuff like, "It amazes me that people can think we just happened by chance!" "Well, if you want reasons, how's about hurricanes and fatal childhood illness for starters, dad" I say in return (though not that cocky). But I don't think he sees where the other guy is coming from. And neither does the agnostic thinker, for the most part.
P.S. I think the biggest barrier we have with the idea that we descended from ape-like creatures is pride (and I don't mean this as an attack on you Jon). I think that we stress the importance of mankind in the church, fearing that if we admit our physical likeness to apes that we are abandoning our God-given "ranking" and the stage is set for human devaluement. But Genesis says we were made from dirt and pride was Lucifer's fall, so I think its OK to keep ourselves humble. This is just my thought.
My biggest dissappointment is that this has to be a battleground at all. I love Science and Christianity and that makes me a bastard child in both.
Sorry about ramblin' here. I think about this often, but obviously in a disorganized manner.
Oh Jon, I hope I have not offended you. Not only because your analysis of The Language of God was insightful, but also because you could crush my head in one hand.
Good point about pride hindering our scientific thoughts. I don't think that's a strong enough argument to keep Christians from accepting macroevolution. Just because you can't fathom the idea of evolving from a common primate ancestor doesn't mean it didn't happen. Christians believe in all sorts of things they can't fathom, right? (No disrespect meant on my part either. I can clearly see each side of the argument because I grew up fairly conservative Christian myself).
I just wrote this comment and some how it did not post so I'll shorten it up. Many Christians feel that evolution is a direct threat to the validity and authority of the Bible. If the Bible says that God spoke the world into existence in 6 days it must have taken 6 days. But as I am sure many of you heard at Calvin the infalibility of the Bible is that it is without error in terms of its meaning and scope. The ancients never intended to write a scientific expose on how God made the earth but rather tell a story about God's character and his relation to this world. If God chose to create through evolution that doesnt bother me. But it does pose some theological questions that I would be curious to hear if the book addressed this or if any of you have thoughts. Christian thought holds that God created the world and declared it good and then sin entered the world and contaminated the entire thing. This caused a need for a savior to come and redeem the entire world to himself. But evolution requires death, mutations and misfires. Some of this leads to benifits and progress and others lead to destruction. Evolution holds that the world has always been broken and is slowling impoving itself. The Christian thought is that God created the world good and then we messed it up causing everything to be totally depraved. I am not saying that i necessarily believe in a literal adam that ate a piece of fruit, but if we believe in common grace that all things bear a resemblence to their perfect creation. that all things are totally depraved that they require God's irristable grace for redemption. How does original sin and evolution fit together. What is the meaning of the genisis story in light of evolution. To be honest I am not sure but i would be curious to hear what you guys have to say. Suzan have you guys addressed this in seminary? anyway my thoughts are pretty scattered. It seems with evolution life is getting better. organisms are becoming more complex and more efficient. But it still seems important to Christian thought that at one point the world was good and then human pride caused that to crumble as we declared we knew better than God. I supposed evolution could be God's mechanism for perfection but instead humans have chosen selfishness and started the world on the path to destruction. Perhaps God gave us a chance at perfection but we denied it.
Anyone...Anyone...Bueler
wow, now we are entering into theological discussions about original sin, etc. i'll put in my two cents: i grew up as a dedicated christian but now, after many years of thought and struggle, consider myself a very content agnostic. why? too many reason to name here but a big one is the problem i have with calling a fallible historical document the absolute word of god. just because it says it's the word of god doesn't mean it is. tell me about inspiration, prophesy, etc etc and i'll ask you where's your proof? people sometimes believe what they want to believe regardless of the proof.
so in regards to original sin and a need for a savior i also say this: if you believe that, what does it mean about your idea of god? that he's a big bully that needs to be contented? he needs blood spilt to satisfy his fury? if he's all-powerful and all-loving then i don't think the bible would have played out the way it does.
i think people have equal opportunity in their minds for good and evil. if we say we need a savior, aren't we shirking off responsibility for our actions and the way we live out lives? that's not the way i want to live.
how does original sin fit into evolution? maybe you need to question the idea of original sin. why do we have to be sinful in order to need a god? can we see jesus as a model for living as opposed to a literal savior (which he never exactly said he was)? just some ideas. if you afraid to ask these questions of your faith, maybe that should tell you something about the restrictions your faith puts on your own mind.
Alex, no I am not offended. I will hold off on the crushing for now. I think Alex made a great point about the unnecessary war between science and Christianity on evolution. I am beginning to accept that God used evolution to create humans, so no problems between the two. The problem is the much feared slippery slope of choosing which books of the Bible to interpret literally and which ones are only demonstrating the character of God, as Micah said. Clearly, the Gospels are first person accounts and should be taken literally, unless you believe that the early Christians made it all up despite horrible persecution. Ancient manuscripts also demonstrate the accuracy of the current translations. As far as Micah's other theological questions, the book does not address them. However, I don't think that evolution necessarily means that life, or humanity, is perfecting itself. Rather, just that random variations that promote reproduction will be passed on. But that does leave the question of where sin entered in, etc. My guess is that at some point, humans were created (most likely through evolution) in God's image and with free will. Eventually, whether or not they gorged themselves on forbidden fruit, they rebelled against God. As far as Adrienne's comments, obviously, in the Christianity there are things you must accept, on faith. However, there is a lot of historical evidence demonstrating that Jesus was around when the Bible says He was. The Gospels have not changed throughout the centuries. So we have a choice, is Jesus who he said he was, or is he a lunatic, only claiming to be God? Also, I find C.S. Lewis' moral law argument compelling. Adrienne, are you familiar with this argument, from Lewis' book Mere Christianity?
I have indeed read "Mere Christianity", along with many other Christian theology books. I am familiar with that argument but from what I know, there is not a verse in the Bible where Jesus HIMSELF claims to be God.
As for the books of the Bible not changing much over the centuries, I have read much research that challenges that. Try "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, a Princeton New Testament scholar who points out the thousands of "errors" made in translation over the past 2000 years. The history of the cannonization of the Bible is a lot more muddled than the church lets on. What was "gospel truth" and what was "blasphemy" was not clear cut in those first few centuries and the ideas of the church have changed vastly from the first century version.
I'm no expert of course, but I've done a fair amount of research on both sides and the history of Christian theology is not something that's black and white. Maybe Susan could grace us with her scholarly knowledge to clear up this issue? :)
Post a Comment