Wednesday, September 15, 2010

"The Language of God - A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" by Francis Collins - Sep 15, 2010 - book review by Randall F. More



September 15, 2010



“The Language of God – A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”


by Francis S. Collins (Free Press, 2006)

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).

    • This is a sad commentary wherein there is an increasing tendency for Americans to be ashamed of the gospel. This is primarily due to a lack of genuine understanding. When viewed with the correct paradigm, scientific and spiritual worldviews are NOT antithetical.

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).

    • Collins is correct. The God of the Bible is the God of the universe and the God of all science. Our relationship with Him can only be enhanced by understanding the workings of the universe because it is His universe.
       

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).

    • What good evidence? What transitional species? What date? What place? What prediction? Each and every whale transformational postulation has been adequately refuted.

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).

    • There are many very serious biologists today who very much doubt the theory of evolution and some of them have come to that conclusion by examining the same evidence as Collins.

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).

    • Sure, anything is possible but the fact that this is a paradox should be the first clue that something might be amiss with the evolutionary notion.

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).

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).

    • More often the converse is true in that scientists often come to conclusions without first examining what God’s Word says about the issue. These are scientists who either ignore or reject God’s Word outright or who deliberately choose to undermine its authority or those who have no understanding or comprehension of His divine revelation.

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.




Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)