review by Randall F.
More, P. Eng.
The subtitle, “A Scientist Presents Evidence
for Belief” leads one to infer that Collins provides reason for the mating of science
with Bible-believing faith. It is correct that the scientific evidence, when
examined unbiasedly and without prior evolutionary suppositions, does offer compelling
support for faith. However, Collins’ presentation offers no such scientific
foundation.
Collins’ premise is that one can believe in
God and still believe that evolution is a scientific explanation of our
origins. Based on Scripture and science, this is an untenable paradigm
undermined by innumerable contradictions.
Evolution does not constitute a scientific
explanation of our origins and it is certainly not consistent with the majesty
and awesomeness of God or with the revelation of Himself and His universe as
revealed either in His Word or through His Creation.
In his book, Dr. Collins does not present any
scientific data which constitutes evidence of evolution to the exclusion of
Creation (or to the exclusion of any other alternative). Most of the
evolutionary statements are conveyed as though evolution is a fact. It is
disingenuous for any scientist to state that any hypothesis is a fact... and
evolution is only an hypothesis.
Some of Collins’ more contentious references are
addressed as follows:
1)
“Aren’t the scientific and spiritual worldviews
antithetical, or shouldn’t they at least avoid appearing in the East Room (of
the White House) together?” (p. 3).
2)
“If God exists, then He must be outside the
natural world, and therefore the tools of science are not the right ones to
learn about Him” (p. 30).
God
does exist outside the natural world because He created it but that does not
preclude the tools of science from being “the right ones to learn about Him” when
the tools are applied properly. God is the God of all science and so we can know
with all assurance that His science and His created world will not contradict
His Word. If there seems to be a contradiction, then there is most likely
something wrong with the axiom. At the very least, that should be a believer’s starting
assumption.
The
apostle, Paul, reminds us in his letter to the Romans that we can know Him
through His created world and as a result science can help us know more about
His Creation. Paul reminds us that we have no excuse not to know Him as
evidenced through His created world, not an evolved world. It is His created
world which is studied and revealed through science.
3)
“Science is progressive and self-correcting: no
significantly erroneous conclusions or false hypotheses can be sustained for
long, as newer observations will ultimately knock down incorrect constructs” (p.
58).
This
assessment is correct with respect to virtually every area of scientific study
except for the study of our origins. That is primarily because the issue of God
verses godlessness is one of those areas that impacts the student and his work
in a manner unequalled by any other study. The study of our origins is a
further anomaly because, technically, the conclusion cannot ever be scientifically
validated.
Erroneous
conclusions are rarely self-correcting with respect to the study of our origins
because most evolutionists are atheists and most will not give credence to any
supernatural Creation because of their prior prejudice against God, regardless
of the evidence.
Erroneous
conclusions with respect to our origins continue to be propagated because of a political
climate that stems largely from evolutionists who denigrate and discourage
creationist views, science, and study within our educational system. The
squelching of creationist views, studies, and research should be considered an
anathema to the scientific world.
4)
“Earth came into existence some 10 billion years
after the Big Bang” (p. 67) AND “Scientists believe our own sun.... formed
about 5 billion years ago” (p. 68) AND “We know that the universe is
approximately 14 billion years old” (p. 88).
These
statements are based on the prior notion or hypothesis that evolution has
occurred, not on scientific evidence.
There
is an enormous amount of evidence which speaks of an Earth and a universe
having ages of a few thousand years.
No
one knows definitively when the universe, the Earth, or the sun, were formed.
We can conjecture and speculate but no scientist should state it as though it
is a fact.
Some
scientists may believe these ages but there are also many scientists who do
not. It is disingenuous for Collins to imply that all scientists hold the same
view in this and other areas when he knows that that is not the case.
5)
“For the first million years after the Big Bang,
the universe expanded, the temperature dropped, and nuclei and atoms began to
form” (p. 67).
This may all have occurred but it is neither a
scientific observation nor a confirmed scientific conclusion; it is a
conjecture or postulation only. Collins, as a scientist, should know that it is
misleading to the non-scientific public to state something that is only an
hypothesis as though it is a fact.
6)
“Unquestionably the language is poetic” (p. 83).
Why
would Collins state such? What part of the Genesis account of our origins
cannot be taken literally? Collins makes a personal decision to believe that
the references are poetic, symbolic, metaphorical, or allegorical but that
decision is rooted in neither science nor Scripture.
7)
“…the placement of Earth at the center of the
majestic starry heavens seemed to represent a powerful argument for the
existence of God. If He put us on center stage, He must have built it all for
us. When heliocentric science forced a revision of this perception, many
believers were shaken up” (p. 85).
In
fact, God did build it all for us, for the ultimate purpose of our fellowship
with Him.
We
may never know where Earth is located within the universe but even if we’re located
in the outermost corner, it shouldn’t shake one’s faith. Wherever God has
placed us, one can be well assured that He had an excellent reason.
Although
Collins may be shocked, there are recently developed scientific models which predict
that our solar system or our galaxy may, in fact, be at or near the centre of
the universe.
8)
“…science should not be denied by the believer,
it should be embraced” (p. 86).
9)
“The elegance behind life’s complexity is indeed
reason for awe, and for belief in God – but not in the simple, straightforward
way that many found so compelling before Darwin came along” (p. 86).
Why
not? Isn’t this exactly what God expects of us - that today we understand and
accept His Creation in a manner similar to the believers of 200 years ago, as a
fact, by faith, by the power of His Word, without the mindless, purposeless,
directionless, and lifeless process concocted by atheists, including Darwin.
When
the scientist studies the science without any prejudice, he will see that the
science is a further confirmation of the accuracy and truth of God’s Word. God-fearing,
Christ-honouring, Bible-believing, science-loving Christians had no problem
prior to Darwin as God’s own testimony about His Creation was just as relevant
and accurate then. Darwin was an atheist bent on proving indirectly that there
was no God, and as a result of his built-in prejudices, he contributed little
to wisdom, science, knowledge, or truth.
Although
there are occasions when we can all gain wisdom and knowledge from atheists,
there are areas of our Christian faith that will most certainly not be advanced
by the input of atheists, including Darwin, because their basis for
understanding and interpreting the data is faulty.
10)
“A believer need not fear that this
investigation will dethrone the divine; if God is truly Almighty, He will
hardly be threatened by our puny efforts to understand the workings of His
natural world” (p. 88).
Collins’
statement is correct but not likely in the same context in which he intended it.
God is not threatened by any of us or by anything that we think or believe but
there is nothing that is God-honouring about evolution. It is godless in every
way, not supported by science, and certainly not supported by His Word.
Our
efforts are puny and in the context of an infinite God they will always be just
that. That is the primary reason that for the purposes of understanding our
origins, regardless of how wise we think we are, we require His special
revelation.
11)
“All evidence currently available suggests that
the earth was a very inhospitable place for its first 500 million years. The
planet was under constant attack from giant asteroids and meteorites, one of
which actually tore the moon loose from Earth” (p. 89).
Not
all evidence suggests that the Earth was a very inhospitable place and not all
scientists believe this.
An
inhospitable Earth is certainly not consistent with the environment that God
describes in His Word as being “very good.”
Many
scientists, including both evolutionists and creationists, also understand that
the moon has a different composition than that of Earth and, if so, it is a
powerful indicator that the two do not have a common origin; they have a common
Designer.
12)
“The profound difficulties in defining a
convincing pathway for life’s origin have led some scientists, most notably
Francis Crick, to propose that life forms must have arrived on Earth from outer
space, either carried by small particles floating through interstellar space
and captured by Earth’s gravity or even brought here intentionally (or
accidentally) by some ancient space traveler” (p. 91).
As
Collins concedes, this exposition does nothing to explain the origin of the
life forms that are floating in space.
What
is so incredible about this postulation is that evolutionists often sound so
sure of evolution and how it all works and the age of everything and then
suddenly they come up with this concoction. It all goes to demonstrate that
contrary to what much of what the public has been led to believe, evolutionary
scientists have not really figured out very much about our origins. As
evidenced by this hypothesis, the extent that evolutionists will go to preclude
any biblical explanation of our origins is truly astounding. It is difficult to
understand how Dr. Collins can, as a believer, accept a postulation that rejects
what God has already told us in His Word with regard to our origins. God’s own account
is not only simple and straightforward, but it stands up to the scrutiny of
science. We all know why atheists reject it, but why would Collins make a personal
decision to reject it?
13)
“But this betrays a misunderstanding of the full
meaning of the Second Law: order can certainly increase in some part of the
system, but that will require an input of energy, and the total amount of
disorder in the entire system cannot decrease. In the case of the origin of
life, the closed system is essentially the whole universe, energy is available
from the sun, and so the local increase in order that would be represented by
the first random assembly of macro-molecules would in no way violate this law”
(p. 92).
From
a theoretical perspective this may be correct but as the evolutionist,
Isaac Asimov, noted in Life and Energy,
“we can say concisely: In any spontaneous process,
entropy either does not change (under ideal cases) or it increases (in real
cases). Forgetting the ideal, we can just take it for granted that in the real
world about us entropy always increases. Science means observation, and we have
never seen the spontaneous origin of order beyond that which was already
present in one form or another. There must be a reason for this. That reason is
the second law. Another point I wish to make is that the second law not only
contradicts spontaneous origins, but also contradicts evolutionary
transformations. Evolution of the species means constant and steady increase in
order and complexity – the amoeba to man idea. The second law says no such
thing can occur spontaneously... You confuse quantity of energy with quality of
energy – the abilities of energy. The question is not whether the earth was
open in the beginning to sufficient quantities of energy, but rather, whether
it was open to sufficient energy abilities and qualities. In other words, could
there have been in the beginning a quality of energy that endowed itself with
the ability to organize and order molecules into life? The second law would
contend that what quality was there would be lost, not that it would upgrade
and improve itself.”
14)
“Faith that places God in the gaps of current
understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in
science subsequently fill those gaps” (p. 93).
Contrary
to Collins’ assertion, this is most certainly not a worry for a believer as the
believer realizes that God’s science will not supersede His Word. What we can
know as believers is that His science and His Word are consistent and
coincident. An atheist has no such confirmation. If there appears to be an
inconsistency, then it is more likely a result of man’s interpretation or his
understanding of the science which is the problem. God’s own testimony is
secure. No archaeological, geological, geographical, or historical reference in
the Bible has ever been proven to be in error.
15)
“The vast majority of organisms that have ever
lived on Earth have left absolutely no trace of their existence” (p. 94) AND “The
timeline revealed by the fossil record is woefully incomplete” (p. 94).
How
would we know that they even lived if they left no trace of an existence? Palaeontologists,
both evolutionists and creationists alike, generally concede that the fossil
record is abounding with remnants scattered across much of Earth with little that
is considered to be missing.
It
is often considered by evolutionists that there is no trace of the existence of
organisms because the evolutionists cannot find those which would be considered
as the “missing links” of the proposed transitional fossils. The evolutionists
require these “missing links” in order to justify evolution. We can all
continue in our search but the “missing links” will more than likely always be
missing because they never existed.
The
timeline is woefully incomplete but only with respect to the evolutionist’s
position. In fact, the Earth is considered to be replete with fossils and so
any timeline will not likely be any more definitive.
16)
“Beginning about 230 million years ago, dinosaurs
dominated the earth. There is now general acceptance that their reign came to a
sudden and catastrophic end approximately 65 million years ago, at the time of
the collision of planet Earth with a large asteroid that fell in the general
vicinity of what is now the Yucatan peninsula” (p. 95).
There
is, in fact, much evidence to indicate that the dinosaurs lived within the past
few thousand years and that they lived contemporaneously with man.
Any
asteroid falling in the vicinity of the Yucatan peninsula that obliterated
dinosaurs is conjecture only.
17)
“That ancient asteroid collision is a
tantalizing event. It may have been the only possible means by which the
dinosaurs could have become extinct and mammals could have flourished. We
probably wouldn’t be here if that asteroid had not hit Mexico” (p. 96) AND “...if
the now well-documented collision of a large asteroid with the earth 65 million
years ago had not happened, it might well be that the emergence of higher
intelligence would not have come in the form of a carnivorous mammal (Homo
sapiens), but in a reptile. How is this consistent with the theological concept
that humans are created ‘in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:27)? Well,
perhaps one shouldn’t get too hung up on the notion that this scripture is referring
to physical anatomy – the image of God seems a lot more about mind than body”
(p. 205).
Based
on His Word, neither an asteroid nor a lack of an asteroid would thwart God’s
plan for mankind. The paradigm is incorrect. Science and nature do not dictate
God’s Word, His eternal plan, or His cosmology. Instead, science and nature
follow in the tracks of God’s Word and are a further confirmation of the truth
of His Word.
Collins
may conjecture about reptiles or any other creature being the pinnacle of His
Creation if evolution had followed some other route but this is a great disservice
to God’s Word. If such a statement makes sense, then anything can be said which
basically has no meaning. Collins places God’s Word far below where He intended
and he denies its rightful authority.
Although
His image does not primary pertain to man’s physical characteristics, so that
we can better know Him, God actually attributes human characteristics to
Himself: face, hands, sons, daughters, voices. Such anthropomorphic references
are God ordained, and certainly part of His original plan from the beginning. There
are, in fact, a number of human physical attributes that God has specifically and
intentionally imparted to mankind. The most obvious features are man’s ability
to stand and walk upright, possibly because of the inherent capability to look
heavenward and our language and voices as primary means to communicate and to fellowship
with Him and with fellow mankind. One can be quite sure that God wasn’t waiting
for evolution to near completion before He could decide which creature to bestow
His image upon.
Collins
would have us believe that if evolution had followed a different route, it
might have been a clawed, “cold-blooded” creature with reptilian scales that
would have given its life on the cross for the sin of fellow reptiles? As a
believer, if we are to honour God’s Word, we are to know that God had a plan from
the beginning of time which included mankind, not a reptile nor any other
creature, and all of this was preordained prior to the Creation of the universe.
His plan was most certainly not contingent upon the mindless, directionless, godless,
and convoluted process of evolution. God’s Word and His plan should clearly be
much more esteemed than Collins conveys.
18)
“Good evidence exists for transitional forms
from reptiles to birds, and from reptiles to mammals. Arguments that this model
cannot explain certain species, such as whales, have generally fallen by the
wayside as further investigation has revealed the existence of transitional
species, often at precisely the date and place that evolutionary theory would
predict” (p. 96).
19)
“No serious biologist today doubts the theory of
evolution to explain the marvelous complexity and diversity of life. In fact,
the relatedness of all species through the mechanism of evolution is such a
profound foundation for the understanding of all biology that it is difficult
to imagine how one would study life without it” (p. 99).
20)
“Evolution,
as a mechanism, can and must be true” (p. 107).
There are many
scientists and many people who don’t think that it is true. It is disingenuous
for Collins, as a scientist, to pronounce evolution as a fact when many other
very bright, intelligent, and thinking scientists do not accept that position
and it cannot ever be proven scientifically.
Dr. Collins should
know that any hypothesis, including that of evolution, can never be considered
as a scientific fact because it cannot be observed, either directly or
experimentally nor repeated.
21)
“Scientists are even catching evolution in the
act” (p. 131).
There
is no such reported case. What is an example of this? In a book of more than
300 pages, why would Collins not present at least one specific example? A genuine
example, if it existed, would be very powerful evidence, but none is available.
22)
“We have seen finch beaks change shape over
time... depending upon changing food sources” (p. 132).
Darwin’s
finches are examples of natural selection and microevolution at work but not
macroevolution, nor amoeba-to-man evolution. With Darwin’s finches, no new
genetic information, coding, or DNA was produced and any variation in the
finches was a result of the genetic information that was already present and
available in the parent population.
What
is astounding about this example is that it is the best that Darwin has to
offer and yet it doesn’t even qualify except if you happen to have an extraordinary
imagination.
23)
“Truly it can be said that not only biology but
medicine would be impossible to understand without the theory of evolution” (p.
133).
To
the contrary, most serious Christ-honouring biologists, in fact, do not believe
in evolution and their biology and their medicine is not adversely impaired. As
a matter of fact, it is most likely enhanced as they are not having to deal
with issues that they know or believe are not correct or true. Collins and other
scientists would be surprised and greatly rewarded in their scientific studies
and research if they accepted a different paradigm with respect to our origins.
24)
“Unless one is willing to take the position that
God has placed these decapitated AREs (Ancient Repetitive Elements) in these
precise positions to confuse and mislead us, the conclusion of a common
ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable” (p. 136).
We
can all be sure that, in knowing His nature, God did nothing to confuse or
mislead anyone.
Common
features could certainly be an indicator of common ancestry but a better
deduction for Collins would be that any commonality is more likely the result
of a common Designer. Again, the assumptions and the paradigm are erroneous. The
atheist evolutionist does not have the advantage that Collins has in being able
to acknowledge the Creator God. The atheist has a self-imposed limitation by
denying God and therefore he is not able to apprise himself of all the
available facts and truth, including that of supernatural revelation.
25)
“The placement of humans in the evolutionary
tree of life is only further strengthened by a comparison with our closest
living relative, the chimpanzee” (p.137) AND “...with the determination of the
complete sequence of the human genome... It is very difficult to understand
this observation without postulating a common ancestor” (p. 138).
The
deduction that Collins makes is made solely on the basis of his presupposition
in evolution. His assumptions are wrong.
Features
which are common to the chimpanzee and the human more powerfully point to a common
Designer than to any common evolutionary ancestry. If there are features in one
animal that are just as useful in another creature then, of course, God would
reflect commonality through common features in His Creation.
26)
“If
humans arose as a consequence of a supernatural act of special Creation, why
would God have gone to the trouble of inserting such a nonfunctional gene in
this precise location?” (p. 139).
That may be a
question to ponder but just because we do not know the answer does not nullify
the fact that He indeed has a very good reason. It only means that we do not yet
have sufficient scientific information to explain it. It is possible that we
may never be able to explain it but we can know with certainty that He has a
reason. The most reasonable assumption is that in all likelihood the paradigm
is wrong.
It is NOT correct that
“humans arose as a consequence of… Creation.” As a believer Collins should know
that humans, in fact, represent God’s fundamental reason for Creation, not the
consequence of Creation. His Word, which Collins acknowledges, but which
atheists mock and dismiss, makes this quite clear.
27)
“It
is possible that the development of weaker jaws paradoxically allowed our
skulls to expand upward, and accommodate our larger brains” (p. 139).
28)
“DNA
sequence alone…will never explain certain human attributes, such as the
knowledge of the Moral Law and the universal search for God” (p. 140).
For Collins who is a
believer, this should represent the most powerful evidence against evolution.
Evolution has no hope
of ever explaining His Moral Law or man’s God-given conscience.
29)
“...support for the theory of evolution that has
convinced virtually all working biologists that Darwin’s framework of variation
and naturally selection is unquestionably correct” (p. 141) AND “From a
biologist’s perspective, the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling”
(p. 146).
All
biologists do not find evolution unquestionably correct, and evolution, in
fact, is certainly not utterly compelling to all.
Conrad H. Waddington, Professor
of Animal Genetics, at University of Edinburgh noted, “To suppose that
the evolution of the wonderfully adapted biological mechanisms has depended
only on a selection out of a haphazard set of variations, each produced by
blind chance, is like suggesting that if we went on throwing bricks together
into heaps, we should eventually be able to choose ourselves the most desirable
house.”
W.R. Thompson, Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth
Institute of Biological Control in Ottawa noted, “As we
know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about
the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence
exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain
conclusion.”
30)
“If God created the universe, and the laws that
govern it, and if He endowed human beings with intellectual abilities to
discern its workings, would He want us to disregard those abilities? Would He
be diminished or threatened by what we are discovering about His creation?” (p.
153).
God
does not want us to disregard our abilities. In fact, He wants us to use them
in ways which glorify Him. Evolution in no way brings honour to Him for a
number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that evolution is not how
He described His Creation. Evolution is inconsistent with His power, His
majesty, His nature, His purpose, His plan, and His love. An atheist has no
comprehension of this.
God
is most certainly not diminished or threatened by what we discover. He will
never be threatened or diminished by anything. It is the evolutionist who
becomes diminished.
God
is honoured when our God-given intellect is used to discover the truths of His
science and His natural laws consistent with His Word.
The
apostle, Paul, in his letter to the Romans, reminds us of that which we are expected
to discover about God through His Creation. “For since
the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and
divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been
made, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). It is quite clear;
we are left with no excuse when we choose to ignore or dismiss His Creation. It
is His Creation which He uses to bring us to a richer and fuller understanding
of who He is.
31)
“Galileo ultimately came to the conclusion that his
observations could make sense only if the Earth revolved around the sun. That
placed him in direct conflict with the Catholic Church” (p. 154).
The
problem is that, not unlike that of the evolutionists of today, the Catholic
Church had formulated beliefs, statements, and dogmas that had no basis in
Scripture. Scripture is the ultimate authority, not science and not the
Catholic Church.
32)
“Either half my colleagues are enormously
stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional
religious beliefs” (p. 166).
Darwinism
is NOT “compatible with conventional religious beliefs,” and even if it was, it
wouldn’t make it right or truth. It would just make it conventional. We can be
thankful that the truth about our origins is not decided by a vote or
popularity contest.
33)
“…radioactive dating of rocks and the universe
is wrong because decay rates have changed over time” (p. 173).
This
is the claim of young-Earth creationists which Collins disputes. What should be
acknowledged by all scientists is that no one can ever know what the historical
decay rates were. We only know what recent and present rates were and are. As Collins
knows, Carbon 14 dating measures chemical composition and chemical component
ratios, NOT time.
One
cannot say with any intellectual integrity that radioactive decay rates have
not changed over time. As a scientist, Collins would know that this will never
be known by him or by anyone else. For a scientist to make such a statement is
disingenuous. No one can rightfully make any firm conclusion with respect to
the historical decay rates. An evolutionist makes a grand assumption that the
present is the key to the past but this is nothing more than an assumption. In
fact, the very act of Creation itself would have used processes that are quite
different than present day process rates. In addition, the great Flood and the
catastrophic events associated with it would, in themselves, violate the
assumption of present day process rates occurring for all time into the past.
34)
“For anyone familiar with the scientific
evidence, it is almost incomprehensible that the YEC (Young-Earth Creationist) view
has achieved such wide support, especially in a country like the United States
that claims to be so intellectually advanced and technologically sophisticated”
(p. 174).
Collins
is correct. It is exactly because the United States still has remaining some
unfettered freedom of thought and ideas such that wise, thinking Americans do
not have to be subjected to a story about their origins that is rooted in the
mindless, purposeless, lifeless, and godless process of evolution. Sadly and
unfortunately, most evolutionists would like to unilaterally close the door on
continued thought regarding our origins.
Contrary
to Collins’ view, Sir Fred Hoyle, an atheist and astronomer at the
Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge, noted that challenges to evolution have
never had a fair hearing because the system of popular education from Darwin’s
time to the present provided an ideal opportunity “for awkward arguments not to
be discussed and for discrepant facts to be discussed.” Evolutionists are rarely
open to freedom of thought and are usually quick to mock or denigrate the
creationist position. Such an approach by evolutionists is certainly not
consistent with any open or honourable scientific perspective.
35)
“By any reasonable standard, Young Earth
Creationism has reached a point of intellectual bankruptcy, both its science
and in its theology” (p. 177).
What is it about the
YEC’s position that is bankrupt with respect to theology? If Collins honours God’s Word, it should
be very difficult to come to that conclusion, let alone so dogmatically. In
fact, the contrary would be more truthful. There isn’t a single direct or
indirect reference in the Bible that conveys any notion whatsoever regarding
evolution.
Collins
most certainly knows that the individuals who support creationism are also
fellow believers and some of them are also fellow scientists. One would think
that he would recognize that they have given their scientific and spiritual
beliefs a great deal of thought. These creationists are not intellectually
bankrupt.
What
is most striking about Collins’ derisive remarks, however, is the fact that he denigrates
fellow believers for their views but he has no criticism for his fellow atheist
scientists who hold a godless position. Isn’t that a far more important issue?
The impact of their decision with respect to having no faith in God is far more
relevant, important, and eternal than their view about the method involved in our
origins. Those are the individuals who one would think that Collins would be challenging
and encouraging with respect to their own intellectual bankruptcy.
36)
“By sending a message to young people that
science is dangerous, and that pursuing science may well mean rejecting
religious faith, Young Earth Creationism does even more damage to faith, by
demanding that belief in God requires assent to fundamentally flawed claims
about the natural world” (p. 177).
It
is difficult to understand how Collins could have formulated such a view. To
the contrary, every creationist, without exception, supports the education, discoveries,
knowledge, and wisdom gained through science. In fact, within North America, it
is the evolutionists who are working tirelessly to squelch genuine scientific
study with respect to our origins whenever Creation is mentioned. It is the
evolutionists who are inadvertently sending a message to young people that any
investigation outside of evolution is a threat to them.
Any
“fundamentally flawed claims about the natural world” stem only from the evolutionist’s
position.
Belief
in God would never require assent to flawed claims. This would be inconsistent
with the nature of God and His desire that we come to know Him better.
37)
“Presented with no other alternative than creationism,
is it any wonder that many of these young people turn away from faith,
concluding that they simply cannot believe in a God who would ask them to
reject what science has so compellingly taught us about the natural world?” (p.
178).
Contrary
to Collins’ assertion, most young people are NOT provided with any scientific
perspective regarding Creation because such views have been, for the most part,
expunged from the school systems in North America, primarily due to the fear of
evolutionists that creationism may, in fact, sound sensible to the young people
and that it stands up to scientific scrutiny. Most students within the secular
system are force-fed evolution and are provided NO thought provoking and
challenging alternatives.
God
does not and would not ask young people “to reject what science has so
compellingly taught us about the natural world.” The premise is wrong. When
examined unbiasedly, the science compellingly teaches us about His created
world. God is the God of all science and His science is further confirmation of
His Word. There is no inconsistency for young people or for anyone. As a
believer, it is astonishing that Collins would be unable to see the very clear
evidence in science which so clearly affirms God’s Word with respect to
Creation.
Evolutionists
“pretend” that they have all or most of the answers with respect to our origins
and yet they do not even have the answer as to whether there is a God or not. Most
evolutionists are atheists but there are some who are theists, including Collins.
If evolution explains our origins, then theists, like Collins, and atheists
should at least be able to agree on whether God was involved or He was not. It
is surprising, however, that theistic evolutionists and atheistic evolutionists
cannot even come to an agreement regarding this issue.
38)
“...one would expect that the rank and file of
working biologists would also show interest in pursuing these ideas (of
Intelligent Design), especially since a significant number of biologists are
also believers” (p. 187).
What
is most surprising and difficult to understand is the fact that Collins believes
in God but has no interest in supporting Intelligent Design.
With
regard to biologists who are genuine believers, their reluctance in supporting
Intelligent Design is, for the most part, based on the fact that the reference
to Intelligent Design is really no more than a non-legitimate, non-honouring pseudonym
for God. Most genuine believers would prefer to do real justice to the real God
of the universe and honour Him wholeheartedly for who He is, not just some impersonal
“Intelligent Designer.” That is not the God of the Bible.
39)
“The eye is another example frequently cited by
advocates of Intelligent Design as displaying a degree of complexity that
stepwise natural selection could never have achieved.” (p. 190) AND “It is not
prohibitively difficult, given hundreds of millions of years, to contemplate
how this system could have evolved into the modern mammalian eye” (p. 191).
The
human or mammalian eye has about the same probability of occurring from the
process of evolution as does the lunar module being designed, built, sent, and
landing on the moon all through the process of evolution. The evolutionist,
because he chooses to write God out of every scenario, thinks that by adding
multi-millions or billions of years he can place the event so far into the past
that no one can refute it. Adding time does nothing to provide an answer. Interjecting
the very necessary intelligence that is required is the only reasonable answer.
40)
“…the design of the eye does not appear on close
inspection to be completely ideal” (p. 191).
This needs to be put in the proper perspective. So, let
us attempt to understand this. Fallen mankind, who today has the eyes of fallen
man (i.e. man is no longer perfect and it is virtually assured that his eyes
are also no longer perfect), and the assessment of his own eyes today being made
by fallen man, deduces that there isn’t likely a God for the reason that man’s
eyes, although part of fallen man, are not perfect, at least not now. Of course,
if there was a God, He would have made perfect eyes (which, no doubt, He did in
original man). Because eyes may no longer be perfect, the evolutionist therefore
concludes that there is no God and instead is left with no other choice except
to conclude that miraculously, the purposeless, mindless, lifeless, directionless,
and godless process of evolution must be credited with developing and producing
eyes which are astoundingly phenomenal and nearly perfect. This scenario is
just too preposterous. This is deductive reasoning at its worst... all for the
purpose of denouncing God instead of recognizing and acknowledging Him. One
sometimes wonders whose “vision” is really impaired. The eye, itself, occurring
in countless different creatures in countless variations, should be considered
as one of the most powerful testimonies of our Creator God.
41)
“…wisdom teeth, and the curious persistence of
the human appendix also seem to many anatomists to defy the existence of truly
intelligent planning of the human form” (p. 191).
With
such a conclusion, one can know that the anatomist is looking through foggy
lenses. The scientist should be first looking to see what is wrong with his
assessment, not what is wrong with God or concluding that there is no God. One
can be quite sure that our wisdom teeth were most likely quite perfect in the
original perfect man, Adam. One can only conjecture, but in all likelihood,
instead of partaking of a diet of perfectly created food, man has likely chosen
to eat less than perfect food over the past few thousand years rendering his
teeth inappropriate for various aspects of diet and eating. This could, in
fact, be part of natural selection. This, too, is only a conjecture but the
basis is wrong when one first chooses to assume that there must be something
wrong with the Creator or His Creation. As believers, we should know otherwise that, at the very least, there is some better
explanation. That should be our starting point. We should also remember that
today, 6000 years later, we represent fallen man who no longer has the
perfection of the first man. The paradigm is wrong. The atheist believes that imperfection
proves that there is no God. The believer, however, should examine the facts in
view of the knowledge that all that God originally created was “very good.” If
there is something that does not appear right or good now, then one can be sure
that there is an excellent reason for which we may, or may not, ever know the explanation.
Further, if we are no longer perfect, it goes a long way to proving devolution,
not evolution. Our imperfections are further evidence of Fallen man. The
atheist would have no understanding of this.
180
organs in the human body at one time were deemed by the evolutionist to be
vestigial but today all such organs, including the appendix are known to have
some useful function. It is now known that the appendix contains lymphatic
tissue which controls bacteria entering the intestines. This and other
“vestiges” can no longer and should never have been used to support the evolutionary
concept. The appendix is all part of His “very good” original Creation and,
even if we don’t know all the details, as a believer Collins should still be
able to claim it as fact by faith in His revealed Word. The atheist has no such
privilege and so he is forced to come to other erroneous conclusions.
The
evolutionist should concede that if any useless appendages could indeed be
identified, they would only prove degeneration or devolution and effectively disprove
evolution. If man did indeed have vestigial organs, then we would be forced to
conclude that man at one time was a more complex organism than he is now, a
proposition in contradiction to the fundamental evolutionary hypothesis.
If
one first acknowledges the Creator, then one should first seek out what His
purpose might be for something such as the appendix or wisdom teeth, rather
than assuming that they have never served any purpose. Again, the atheist has absolutely
no comprehension of this. He sees the universe without the benefit of knowing
God’s purposes or His revelation to us. The atheist chooses to view life and
the universe without having access to all the gifts of discernment and senses
that are readily available to him... and all free for his asking.
42)
“Scientifically, ID (Intelligent Design) fails
to hold up, providing neither an opportunity for experimental validation nor a
robust foundation for its primary claim of irreducible complexity” (p. 193) AND
“The human genome consists of all the DNA of our species, the hereditary code
of all life. This newly revealed text was 3 billion letters long... Such is the
amazing complexity of the information carried within each cell of the human
body... Printing these letters out in regular font size on normal bond paper and
binding them all together would result in a tower the height of the Washington
Monument” (p. 1).
Yes, of course, Intelligent
Design provides no opportunity for experimental observation because, by
definition, it essentially constitutes special, supernatural Creation. ID is essentially a
pseudonym for Creation which by definition is a non-repeatable, one-time occurrence
which provides no opportunity for experimental validation. Not the act, but the
results of Intelligent Design, however, can be clearly observed.
Evolution should and would
offer experimental observation if there was a possibility of it occurring but
there is no evidence of that.
Irreducible complexity is not something that can ever
be proven; it is the complete lack of any other explanation from an intellectual
or common sense perspective which permits one to deduce the presence of irreducible
complexity.
With regard to Collins’ own personal remarkable scientific
discovery detailed in his own words, he would be wise to substitute the word
“irreducible” for “amazing.” How Dr. Collins cannot possibly see it when it is as
close to home as his own incredible and profound work is quite astounding? What
further proof does he need?
43)
“I
settled comfortably into a synthesis generally referred to as ‘theistic
evolution,’ a position I find enormously satisfying to this day” (p. 199) AND “Yet
theistic evolution is the dominant position of serious biologists who are also
serious believers” (p. 199).
Theistic evolution may be a position that Collins finds enormously
satisfying but that does not mean that it represents Truth. That view is NOT
“compatible with everything that science teaches us about the natural world.”
It is compatible only with what the evolutionary atheists teach us about the
natural world. The atheists are entrenched with their evolutionary perspective,
not because of a genuine and unprejudiced interpretation of the scientific
evidence but because their preconceived worldview forces them to formulate an
answer that precludes God. They have no choice because they are compelled to
have an explanation for our origins which is consistent with their own godless
belief system. Collins chooses to follow secular atheists for his scientific
explanation of our origins rather than pursue the insights and discoveries of creation
scientists.
Most serious biologists who are believers are NOT theistic
evolutionists. They are mostly creationists. Regardless, thankfully, truth and the
answer to our origins is not decided by popular opinion.
Dr. Randy Wysong notes
in The Creation-Evolution Controversy that it is “an easily passed bridge from theism to atheism.”
For the unbeliever
who is seriously considering a relationship with the risen Saviour, the theist
evolutionary position offers no new or real answers.
44)
“Most
remarkably, God intentionally chose the same mechanism to give rise to special
creatures who would have intelligence, a knowledge of right and wrong, free
will, and a desire to seek fellowship with Him. He also knew that creatures
would ultimately choose to disobey the Moral Law” (p. 201) AND “…the Moral Law
still stands out for me as the strongest signpost to God” (p. 218) AND “We all
have an innate knowledge of right and wrong” (p. 243).
The
Moral Law should also be the strongest signpost against evolution. The Moral
Law and its origin are completely inconsistent with the evolutionary
hypothesis. The evolutionist has no comprehension or explanation with respect
to the origin of the Moral Law in mankind.
Each human has “an
innate knowledge of right and wrong” but that is only because such innate
knowledge is God-given. Evolution provides no explanation whatsoever
of this extraordinary human attribute.
The Moral Law is built into every human
conscience by God and it is a characteristic that no other animal creature
knows. This should be one of the most profound signposts leading each
person to the Creator and His Creation.
For Dr. Collins to use evolution as the
explanation “to give rise to special creatures” is just not right. It is
nothing more than pure conjecture and speculation. There isn’t an
evolutionist who can give one ounce of credence to the development of the
concept of right and wrong, desire for fellowship with God, or the Moral
Law through the process of evolution.
Most evolutionists are atheists. Evolutionists
have a pretention that they all hold a common view. How does one explain
that these atheists have examined the same evidence as Collins and yet,
unlike Collins, have no recognition of God and certainly no desire to seek
fellowship with Him? Why are their conclusions so adrift in this area? Contrary
to public perception, it can be seen that there is really very little
unity even among evolutionists. Having God or not having God involved in
evolution should be considered as a very significant issue that should be resolved
between the theists and the atheists before confronting creationists.
45)
“Belief
in God will always require a leap of faith. But this synthesis has provided for
legions of scientist-believers a satisfying, consistent, enriching perspective that
allows both the scientific and spiritual worldviews to coexist happily within
us. This perspective makes it possible for the scientist-believer to be
intellectually fulfilled and spiritually alive, both worshiping God and using
the tools of science to uncover some of the awesome mysteries of His creation”
(p. 201).
Belief in God, in
fact, actually requires very little faith. It requires little more than some common
sense. This is how He designed that it should be. It is the apostle, Paul, who reminds
us in his letter to the Romans how readily we should acknowledge God and His
Creation and that we are without excuse when we do not because the evidence is in
the world all around us.
The scientific and
spiritual worldviews may coexist happily for Collins and others but that does
not make it right or truth. Such worldviews can readily coexist because for
those holding them, God’s Word has been relegated to such a low level of
authority.
It is most certainly
correct, however, that any genuine scientist-believer can use “the tools of
science to uncover some of the awesome mysteries of His creation.” His
conclusions, however, are very likely completely different than those of
Collins because he views the scientific
evidence in light of Scripture, not in spite of Scripture.
46)
“…that
this powerful document (Genesis) can best be understood as poetry and allegory
rather that a literal scientific description of origins” (p. 206).
What is the basis
upon which Collins believes that Genesis is a poetic or allegorical account? There
is no theological or scientific basis for concluding that any part of Genesis
is poetic, allegorical, metaphorical, symbolic, or mythological.
47)
“It
is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of
astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology” (p. 206).
To the contrary, it
is a blunder not to acknowledge that there has never been an astronomical,
geological, geographical, biological, anthropological, historical, or
archaeological reference in the Bible that has proven to be wrong. There are a
number of statements which have “appeared” to be erroneous in the past but they
have since been proven to be accurate. This is what one would rightfully expect
from God’s Word.
48)
“Where did Cain’s wife… come from?” (p. 207).
Adam
had many children and “fathered sons and daughters” (Genesis 5:4). In
the early generations of human history, males, including Cain, would have
married sisters or nieces. Marriage within families is not permitted today in
most cultures for the primary reason that children of such relationships have
an unacceptably high risk of suffering serious genetic impairments. Such risks
were not a problem in the early generations because the first two people were
created physically (and spiritually) perfect. It was only as a result of Adam’s
sin during the Fall and the resulting Curse that the human race began to
degenerate with genetic aberrations accumulating in generation after
generation. When God pronounced His Curse, every aspect
of His originally perfect Creation began to degenerate, suffering death and
decay. Mutations have accumulated since the Fall, resulting in more than 1000
human diseases including hemochromatosis, sickle-cell anemia, cystic fibrosis,
and hereditary diabetes. Because of the accumulation of genetic mistakes, God
eventually prohibited brother-sister and close family marriages in His law
which was given to Moses 1000 years later. All people on Earth today are descendants
of Noah, and originally of Adam and Eve. If you’re not married to a descendant
of Adam, then you’re not married to a human being.
Collins’
paradigm is wrong. He has not carefully examined God’s Word. As believers, when
God tells us something in His Word, wouldn’t we be wise to first assume that He
is advising us of truth and then do our best to confirm it instead of assuming
that there must be something wrong with His Word? If it’s not God’s Word that Collins
is studying, whose is it? An atheist evolutionist has very little comprehension
of the wisdom and truths to which he can be apprised through God’s Word and his
paradigm is therefore flawed because of it.
49)
“I do not believe that the God who created all
the universe... would expect us to deny the obvious truths of the natural world
that science has revealed to us” (p. 210).
No
creationist would disagree with this. The difference is, however, that the
truths are apparently not that obvious to the evolutionist as he sees and
understands the natural world differently than the creationist because His
paradigm is wrong.
50)
“Will we turn our backs on science because it is
perceived as a threat to God... will we turn our backs on faith, concluding
that science has rendered the spiritual life no longer necessary...?” (p. 211).
Nothing
is a threat to God and certainly NOT science. Genuine science, however, may
become a genuine threat to the evolutionist. When he non-prejudicially
examines the science, with eyes open, he will see that ultimately God is the originator
and author of all science.
As
a theistic evolutionist, Collins may turn his back on faith because it “seems”
to render the spiritual life no longer necessary but it is unlikely that a
creationist will turn his back on faith. For a creationist, science and faith
are wonderfully and remarkably interwoven and intertwined. Each becomes a
powerful witness and confirming testimony of the other.
51)
“…church leaders often seem to be out of step
with new scientific findings, and run the risk of attacking scientific
perspectives without fully understanding the facts” (p. 230).
52)
“The universal presence of mutations in DNA, the
price we pay for evolution, means that no one can claim bodily perfection any
more than spiritual perfection” (p. 238).
The
paradigm is incorrect. The lack of bodily and spiritual perfection in each of
our lives is, first and foremost, a spiritual issue, NOT a biological issue. Our
physical and spiritual degradation and shortcomings were assured with Adam’s Fall
through sin and the resulting Curse, not as a result of evolution.
If
there is proof of anything through DNA mutations it is devolution, NOT
evolution. At one time, Adam was perfect, physically and spiritually, but no
longer is mankind perfect.
The
evolutionist faces a huge dichotomy. He attributes evolution to a mindless,
thoughtless, purposeless, and directionless process which includes a never
ending stream of faulty and deleterious mutations but he credits these same
mutations with culminating in near perfection. This is a paradox of enormous
proportions.
53)
“...the entire DNA instruction book of an
organism is carried in each cell of the body” (p. 245).
The
truth of this statement represents one of the most powerful reasons for evolution
to be recognized as an impossibility.
Scientists recognize that DNA is the molecule that
makes and maintains all of life. DNA enables life to recreate itself. It
contains the blueprint for the complete operation of each creature and for human
beings. DNA is the genetic basis of reproduction and inheritance and contains
all the design parameters necessary for life. The human body contains 10
trillion cells, or so, and is far larger and more inextricably complex than a
single cell creature in primeval slime. Each cell contains a strand of DNA that,
when uncoiled, is about 2 metres in length. If the 10 trillion strands of DNA were
attached end to end, they would span the solar system. The DNA instruction book
speaks loudly and boldly of our Creator. Dr. Collins, of all people on Earth,
should recognize all of this through his own marvellous discoveries. Collins is
missing the greatest opportunity of all to be a witness to the awesomeness of
God’s Creation.
Dr. Collins, of all the people, should know the
truth more intimately than anyone else and yet as Walter James ReMine noted in
the The
Biotic Message: Evolution versus Message Theory, “In 10 million years, a human-like species could
substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely
0.0007% of the genome, nowhere near enough to account for human evolution. This
is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists.”
Summary
It is
difficult to understand how Dr. Collins can be a scientist and yet still make
statements to the effect that evolution is a fact. Neither Creation nor
evolution can ever be confirmed scientifically and so neither can ever be
claimed as scientific facts. As a scientist, Collins would know that neither can
ever be considered as anything more than a notion, concept, hypothesis,
postulation, or model, but certainly not a scientific fact. Collins knows that neither
evolution nor Creation can ever be observed directly or experimentally nor
repeated which together constitute the fundamental criteria for scientific
confirmation. (Technically, for the same reason, from a scientific standpoint,
neither Creation nor evolution can even rightfully be considered as theories.)
What one could
say is that Creation is a fact, by faith, but not by science. Science can
provide supporting evidence, but not proof.
One can only say the same about evolution, but no more. Anything else is
disingenuous, most especially for a scientist. With regard to the understanding
and acceptance of Creation, however, it is not a blind faith but a faith
reinforced by His revelation.
Collins writes
derisively about others of faith who hold a different view with respect to our
origins. Contrary to Collins’ assertion, any young-Earth creationist pursuing
science will not have to reject his faith. In fact, to the contrary, he or she
will find that the scientific evidence powerfully affirms his or her faith. It
should not be so readily forgotten that God is the God of all science.
Rather than
criticizing creationists, one would think that Collins would want to instead challenge
and encourage his fellow evolutionists who are atheists. It is their eternal
destiny which is ultimately at stake and it is our personal relationship with God
that is far more important in eternity than our view of how He did it all.
Believers
should be encouraged to examine the scientific evidence which is supportive of
a young-Earth and of a created world consistent with His Word. Dr. Collins
should be challenged
to adopt a different paradigm by first assuming that the truth of our origins is
as outlined in a more literal interpretation of the account in Genesis (a
revelation and an understanding which an atheist chooses not to believe) and
then use that as the basis for researching the scientific evidence associated
with our origins. In doing so, he will come to some very new, exciting, and
amazing conclusions.
Sure, one can
believe in evolution and still be a Christian but one does so in spite of Scripture
and the scientific evidence instead of in light of Scripture and the scientific
evidence.
The real “Language
of God” is that which is more genuinely spoken to us through His creative
works, Creation, not evolution. His power, His majesty, His omnipotence, His
awesomeness, His perfectness, His nature, and His love are demonstrated in
every aspect of His perfect Creation. Evolution is a concept which is not
capable of displaying any of this. The concept of evolution represents a
fundamental rejection of all that He is.
Contrary to the
notion of Dr. Collins, science is a very powerful testimony to the Creator God
but not One who used the random, purposeless, mindless, directionless, and
lifeless process of evolution, all of which become a denunciation of His Word
and who He is.
There are many
Christians who are evolutionists because, often and unfortunately, they have only
ever heard the hypothesis of evolution as the story of their origin. Both as
believers and as scientists we need to be leaders in encouraging the study of all
the hypotheses of our origins, including Creation.
Any comments
are not intended with any disrespect or impertinence to Dr. Collins. The ultimate
desire is for the furtherance of His kingdom and all to His glory. The doctrine
of our origins is a very important one but ultimately our objective, as
believers, should be unity in Christ.
