The Language of God
 Cover | |
| Author | Francis S. Collins |
|---|---|
| Illustrator | Michael Hagelberg |
| Country | United States |
| Language | English |
| Subject | Christianity and science, apologetics |
| Genre | Religious studies |
| Publisher | Free Press |
Publication date | 2006 |
| Pages | 304 |
| ISBN | 0-7432-8639-1 |
| OCLC | 65978711 |
| 215 22 | |
| LC Class | BL240.3 .C66 2006 |
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief is a bestselling book by Francis Collins in which he advocates theistic evolution. Collins is an American physician-geneticist, noted for his discoveries of disease genes, and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He currently serves as the director of the US National Institutes of Health. In the book, Collins describes briefly the process by which he became a Christian.[1][2]
Collins raises arguments for the idea of God, drawing from science and philosophy. He cites many famous thinkers, most prevalently C. S. Lewis, as well as Saint Augustine, Stephen Hawking, Charles Darwin, Theodosius Dobzhansky and others. In 2007 Christianity Today judged it one of the best books of the previous year.[3]
BioLogos[edit]
The book proposes the name "BioLogos" as a new term for theistic evolution. The term has not gotten wide usage for the position, but instead became the name of the science and faith organization Collins founded in November 2007.[4] The organization BioLogos now prefers the term evolutionary creation to describe its position.[5]
Bios is the Greek word for "life". Logos is Greek for "word", with a broader meaning in Heracleitean philosophy and Stoicism—namely the rational principle ordering the universe. This concept was appropriated by Christian theology. In Christian theology, "Word" is actually a creative agent for all that exists, in addition to being an ordering principle. Furthermore, in some Christian thinking the eternal and divine Logos merged and synthesized with a human nature to become Jesus Christ in the Incarnation. This is laid out in the opening prologue of the Gospel of John, forming part of the textual basis for Christian belief in the Trinity, as the concept of Logos morphed over time into God the Son for the second person of the Trinity.[6]
"BioLogos" expresses the belief that God is the source of all life and that life expresses the will of God. BioLogos represents the view that science and faith co-exist in harmony.[7]
Description[edit]
Collins' conversion to Christianity is detailed at the beginning and end of The Language of God. He grew up in an agnostic family, and knew at an early age that he wanted to be a scientist. At first, he was interested in the physical sciences, since "biology was rather like existential philosophy: it just didn't make sense" (page 181). However, nearing the end of a Ph.D. program, Collins took a biochemistry course and was hooked. He applied for and was admitted to medical school, from which he graduated and began genetic research and a clinical practice. During one clinic, Collins was asked by a Christian patient about his spiritual beliefs. He did not really have an answer, but determined that he should confirm his atheism by studying the best arguments for faith. A pastor directed him to Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, which he cites as the main cause of his conversion.
Another section of "The Language of God" focuses on 'The Moral Law Argument.' Moral Law is very important for Collins: "After twenty-eight years as a believer, the Moral Law stands out for me as the strongest signpost of God" (p. 218). Moral Law is an argument for the existence of a God. What is the Moral Law? Collins quotes C. S. Lewis, "the denunciation of oppression, murder, treachery, falsehood and the injunction of kindness to the aged, the young, and the weak, almsgiving, impartiality, and honesty." Collins has two main arguments: one is that all cultures and religions of the world endorse a universal, absolute and timeless Moral Law. It is overwhelmingly documented in the "Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics." According to Collins, it is a unique property that separates humans and animals. The Moral Law includes altruism which is more than just reciprocity ("You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours"). His second argument is: "Selfless altruism presents a major challenge for the evolutionist" (p. 27).
Collins argues that science and faith can be compatible. In an interview on the Point of Inquiry podcast he told D. J. Grothe that “the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives”, but he does not think “being a believer or a non-believer affects one's ability to do science”.[8] He also said that "the faith Dawkins describes in the God Delusion isn't the faith I recognise", and that, like him, "most people are seeking a possible harmony between these worldviews [faith and science]"[8]
Reception[edit]
The July 17 Publishers Weekly review reads: “This marvelous book combines a personal account of Collins’s faith and experiences as a genetics researcher with discussions of more general topics of science and spirituality, especially centering around evolution.” Robert K. Eberle summarizes his opinion of the book: "The Language of God is well written, and in many places quite thoughtful, but unless one is predisposed to the idea of theistic evolution, most will probably find the book unconvincing on this front."[9]
Sam Harris saw Collins's waterfall experience (three frozen streams reminding him of the Trinity) as no more valid than would be a reminder to him (Harris) of the three mythical founders of Rome, argued that Collins's treatment of the evolution of altruism should have considered kin selection and exaptation, and challenged Collins's theodicy by arguing that rationalists should ask whether evidence suggests the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God rather than whether it is compatible with it.[10]
In contrast to Harris' criticisms, physicist Stephen M. Barr for First Things writes that Collins' book is meant to be "the story of how and why he came to believe in God...There are many conversion stories and many scientific autobiographies, but few books in which prominent scientists tell how they came to faith." Barr concludes that while "so many people on both sides are trying to foment a conflict between science and religion, Collins is a sorely needed voice of reason. His book may do more to promote better understanding between the worlds of faith and science than any other so far written."[11]
References[edit]
- ^ Dean, Cornelia (July 25, 2006). "Faith, Reason, God and Other Imponderables". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-11-11.
- ^ "Scientists on Religion". Scientific American. October 2006. Retrieved 2007-11-11.
- ^ http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/june/8.36.html
- ^ "BioLogos — Home". Retrieved 2011-04-20.
- ^ "What is evolutionary creation?". Retrieved 2019-07-05.
- ^ See Athanasius treatise The Incarnation of the Word of God
- ^ The Language of God: a Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Francis S. Collins. Simon & Schuster, 2006. ISBN 0-7432-8639-1. p.203
- ^ a b D.J. Grothe (2007-08-31). "Dr. Francis Collins - The Language of God". Point of Inquiry. Retrieved 2015-09-03.
- ^ "The Language of God: If God Could Talk What Would he Say?". eSkeptic. October 2006. Retrieved 2007-11-11.
- ^ "Sam Harris: The Language of Ignorance". truthdig. August 15, 2006. Retrieved 2010-12-20.
- ^ Barr, Stephen. "The Form of Speaking". www.firstthings.com. First Things. Retrieved 15 August 2014.
External links[edit]
Francis S. Collins
The Language Of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief Paperback – 9 August 2007
by Francis S. Collins
4.6 out of 5 stars 1,644 ratings
Review
The Language of God is a powerful confession of belief from one of the world's leading scientists. Refuting the tired stereotypes of hostility between science and religion, Francis Collins challenges his readers to find a unity of knowledge that encompasses both faith and reason.
-- Kenneth Miller, Brown University, author of Finding Darwin's God
Collins's argument that science and faith are compatible deserves a wide hearing. It lets non-churchgoers consider spiritual questions without feeling awkward.
-- The New York Times Book Review
What an elegantly written book. In it Francis Collins, the eminent scientist, tells why he is also a devout believer....A real godsend for those with questioning minds but who are also attracted to things spiritual.
-- Archbishop Desmond Tutu
===
About the Author
Francis S. Collins is one of the country's leading geneticists and the longtime head of the Human Genome Project. Prior to coming to Washington, he helped to discover the genetic misspellings that cause cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, and Huntington's disease. He lives in Bethesda, Maryland, and in his spare time he enjoys riding a motorcycle and playing guitar.
Publisher : SIMON & SCHUSTER (US); 1st edition (9 August 2007)
Language : English
Paperback : 304 pages
Customer reviews
4.6 out of 5 stars
Lauren
5.0 out of 5 stars ExcellentReviewed in Australia on 1 October 2020
Verified Purchase
Deepened my understanding of how science and faith can be reconciled. This was the fastest I ever read a book - I couldn't stop reading it.
HelpfulReport abuse
Natalia Siminenco
5.0 out of 5 stars Good book.Reviewed in Australia on 18 June 2020
Verified Purchase
Good book.
HelpfulReport abuse
See all reviews
Top reviews from other countries
Jeremy R.F. Eves
5.0 out of 5 stars
Science which reveals rather than rejects God
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 14 November 2019
Verified Purchase
A really stimulating read. Collins is thoughtful, well argued and respectful of others. This is not a 'shouty' book. I am not a biologist and so although I read the biology I cant say I fully understood it - but to an ordinary reader like me the science seems logical. Clearly the insights and implications of genome research are useful in practice - to that extent they are undeniable. As a Christian I was convinced of the author's commitment to truth and God. The case he makes for theistic evolution - or Biologos as he would wish to rename it - is where I guess what many of us of who not young earth creationists really believe in practice. This book will disturb both the 'science has all the answers' crowd and the young earth creationists. For me it explains many truths both scientific and spiritual which complement rather than contradict each other.
9 people found this helpfulReport abuse
Verified Purchase
A really stimulating read. Collins is thoughtful, well argued and respectful of others. This is not a 'shouty' book. I am not a biologist and so although I read the biology I cant say I fully understood it - but to an ordinary reader like me the science seems logical. Clearly the insights and implications of genome research are useful in practice - to that extent they are undeniable. As a Christian I was convinced of the author's commitment to truth and God. The case he makes for theistic evolution - or Biologos as he would wish to rename it - is where I guess what many of us of who not young earth creationists really believe in practice. This book will disturb both the 'science has all the answers' crowd and the young earth creationists. For me it explains many truths both scientific and spiritual which complement rather than contradict each other.
9 people found this helpfulReport abuse
A Scary Man
5.0 out of 5 stars SuperbReviewed in the United Kingdom on 13 June 2018
Verified Purchase
Overall an excellent read. For me he did a superb job of arguing for the compatibility of science and faith in the life of a Christian today.
As someone who is still agnostic on the mechanism and timescale of creation, I found his arguments against both atheism and YEC to be solid and compelling, and his arguments against ID to be less so, yet I was impressed by his generally charitable approach to the views of those he disagrees with.
Recommended reading for anyone, believer or not, who wants to know how one of the world's top scientists remains fully committed to both his faith and his science without compromising either.
8 people found this helpfulReport abuse
M. R. Hickman
5.0 out of 5 stars Good science and good theology
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 30 August 2013
Verified Purchase
I have been a Christian for many years, organist, youth worker, occasional preacher, etc. Professionally I am a scientist (physicist) so that the links/boundaries between science and theology have always been an interesting area for me. The difficulty is that many authors who tackle this area are either theologians with some limited science or vice versa. This is not so with Francis Collins. Throughout the book he demonstrates his extensive knowledge in both fields with authority. He does not shirk the difficult issues nor ridicule those of a different standpoint. A book of sufficient rigour to be useful to those with professional knowledge in these areas, but at the same time it should not be over the heads of those reading for general interest.
25 people found this helpfulReport abuse
Dele Oke
5.0 out of 5 stars A fine piece of workReviewed in the United Kingdom on 26 October 2013
Verified Purchase
Francis Collins is the distinguished physician and geneticist who was the director of the Human Genome project. The Human Genome research was a 'complex multidisciplinary scientific enterprise directed at mapping and sequencing all of the human DNA, and determining aspects of its function'.
Collins writes eloquently about the implications of the findings for the human race. The human genome 'consists of all the DNA of our species, the hereditary code for life' - 3 billion letters long and written in four letter code.
Collins boldly addresses the issue of conflict between scientific observations and religious claims. As a dedicated Christian, who faced his own personal challenges to his Christian faith with the rape of his own daughter, he emerges as a strong advocate for the creation of the universe by a personal God.
Colin echoes the common understanding that 'the awareness of right and wrong, along with the development of language, awareness of self, and the ability to imagine the future' makes the human race stand out as unique among all of God's creation - created in His image.
Collins takes us through a quick review of the prevailing worldviews - Atheism, Agnosticism, Creationism, Intelligent design and the less well known Biologos.
In his view, Biologos is the most satisfactory explanation for human existence. This may not sit well with all Christians, and he leaves many questions unanswered.
Biologos, as defined by Collins, is science and faith working in harmony.
In summary, it posits that 'God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, plants, and animals of all sorts. 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'.
Biologos shares the same definition as theistic evolution and is simply a rebranding of it.
Theistic evolution is a view not embraced by all Christian apologists. Theistic evolution maintains that once evolution got going, no supernatural intervention was required for human kind to evolve. Yet it leaves the question of how life started in the first place unanswered. If God started life then why do we question direct creation of mankind in his image?
Even, if like me, you disagree with Collins conclusions, you cannot but marvel at the intricate nature of life and wonder why anyone could believe that we are all a result of some random accident.
This book is an excellent read but not for the faint hearted.
Read less
8 people found this helpfulReport abuse
Marykate118
5.0 out of 5 stars A must read.Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 10 June 2018
Verified Purchase
Well written and informative. This highly intelligent man offers explanations for the lay man that provoke thought allowing one to decide for oneself if we are here by accident or design. It is a must read for believers and non believers. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book.
5 people found this helpfulReport abuse
See all reviews
Verified Purchase
I have been a Christian for many years, organist, youth worker, occasional preacher, etc. Professionally I am a scientist (physicist) so that the links/boundaries between science and theology have always been an interesting area for me. The difficulty is that many authors who tackle this area are either theologians with some limited science or vice versa. This is not so with Francis Collins. Throughout the book he demonstrates his extensive knowledge in both fields with authority. He does not shirk the difficult issues nor ridicule those of a different standpoint. A book of sufficient rigour to be useful to those with professional knowledge in these areas, but at the same time it should not be over the heads of those reading for general interest.
25 people found this helpfulReport abuse
Dele Oke
5.0 out of 5 stars A fine piece of workReviewed in the United Kingdom on 26 October 2013
Verified Purchase
Francis Collins is the distinguished physician and geneticist who was the director of the Human Genome project. The Human Genome research was a 'complex multidisciplinary scientific enterprise directed at mapping and sequencing all of the human DNA, and determining aspects of its function'.
Collins writes eloquently about the implications of the findings for the human race. The human genome 'consists of all the DNA of our species, the hereditary code for life' - 3 billion letters long and written in four letter code.
Collins boldly addresses the issue of conflict between scientific observations and religious claims. As a dedicated Christian, who faced his own personal challenges to his Christian faith with the rape of his own daughter, he emerges as a strong advocate for the creation of the universe by a personal God.
Colin echoes the common understanding that 'the awareness of right and wrong, along with the development of language, awareness of self, and the ability to imagine the future' makes the human race stand out as unique among all of God's creation - created in His image.
Collins takes us through a quick review of the prevailing worldviews - Atheism, Agnosticism, Creationism, Intelligent design and the less well known Biologos.
In his view, Biologos is the most satisfactory explanation for human existence. This may not sit well with all Christians, and he leaves many questions unanswered.
Biologos, as defined by Collins, is science and faith working in harmony.
In summary, it posits that 'God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, plants, and animals of all sorts. 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'.
Biologos shares the same definition as theistic evolution and is simply a rebranding of it.
Theistic evolution is a view not embraced by all Christian apologists. Theistic evolution maintains that once evolution got going, no supernatural intervention was required for human kind to evolve. Yet it leaves the question of how life started in the first place unanswered. If God started life then why do we question direct creation of mankind in his image?
Even, if like me, you disagree with Collins conclusions, you cannot but marvel at the intricate nature of life and wonder why anyone could believe that we are all a result of some random accident.
This book is an excellent read but not for the faint hearted.
Read less
8 people found this helpfulReport abuse
Marykate118
5.0 out of 5 stars A must read.Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 10 June 2018
Verified Purchase
Well written and informative. This highly intelligent man offers explanations for the lay man that provoke thought allowing one to decide for oneself if we are here by accident or design. It is a must read for believers and non believers. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book.
5 people found this helpfulReport abuse
See all reviews
==
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
by
3.78 · Rating details · 12,300 ratings · 1,048 reviews
Does science necessarily undermine faith in God? Or could it actually support faith? Beyond the flashpoint debates over the teaching of evolution, or stem-cell research, most of us struggle with contradictions concerning life's ultimate question. We know that accidents happen, but we believe we are on earth for a reason. Until now, most scientists have argued that science and faith occupy distinct arenas. Francis Collins, a former atheist as a science student who converted to faith as he became a doctor, is about to change that. Collins's faith in God has been confirmed and enhanced by the revolutionary discoveries in biology that he has helped to oversee. He has absorbed the arguments for atheism of many scientists and pundits, and he can refute them. Darwinian evolution occurs, yet, as he explains, it cannot fully explain human nature - evolution can and must be directed by God. He offers an inspiring tour of the human genome to show the miraculous nature of God's instruction book. (less)
Francis Collins comes across as such a nice guy! He's clearly a very good molecular biologist - he led the Human Genome Project to a successful conclusion, no mean feat - and he has strong Christian ideals that he's thought about a lot and tried hard to realize in practice. Here, he outlines his philosophy, a kind of theistic evolutionary creed which he calls BioLogos. It's intended to combine his scientific and religious beliefs into a harmonious whole; although it appears to work for him, I remain unimpressed, and I fear that both sides of the faith/science divide are going to see him as what Richard Dawkins memorably described as a "compliant quisling". But more about that shortly.
The core message of BioLogos is that God created the universe in order for it to contain living beings with souls - us, and any other sentient creatures that may happen to exist - and cares deeply about His people. As you can see, for example, in Martin Rees's Just Six Numbers and Before the Beginning, the idea that the universe was designed is right now perfectly respectable, though I thought Collins's cosmological arguments were on the superficial side. In particular, he in no way gives proper consideration to the multiverse theory that Rees prefers; though the comparison with Dawkins's The God Delusion is amusing, Dawkins doing the exact opposite and dismissing the design theory in equally summary fashion. It would be nice to see a balanced presentation here some time. At any rate, the modern Argument from Design in terms of fine tuning of the universe's physical constants is one of the main planks of Collins's argument to the non-believers.
The other key component is derived from C.S. Lewis (Collins is a huge admirer), and is based on universal ethical norms, altruism, and the human hunger for religion which, Collins claims, can be observed in all cultures. If God doesn't exist, why do we all feel a need for Him, and why do we all agree on the important issues about what constitutes the difference between right and wrong? Here, again, I felt that Collins was on shaky ground, and the reasoning did not convince me. Many people have tried to explain the emergence of altruistic behavior in humans using an evolutionary perspective, but these ideas are hardly discussed at all, and there is almost no comparison with other social species. Yes, it's probably relevant that ants and bees are haplodiploid, and humans aren't, so "altruistic" behavior of insects may be misleading; but naked mole rats, which are not mentioned, are also a social species, and they are not haplodiploid.
So the first third of the book was disappointing, but it picked up again when Collins turned around and started explaining to the creationists and Intelligent Design people why their criticisms of evolutionary theory were misguided. This part was excellent, and if you want an authoritative dismantling of ID I have never seen it done better. Collins first explains the holes in the often-quoted "flagellum" argument, showing how the bacterial flagellum could indeed have been created by evolution; he then quotes St. Augustine and other luminaries of the Church on the dangers of Christianity making itself look ridiculous by trying to maintain logically untenable positions. He does his best to sweeten the pill, emphasizing that he respects the motives that have led people to believe in ID, but I can't think that many of them like it. Indeed, he describes talks he's given to American Christian audiences where he's tried to explain this stuff, and people often leave the room before he's got properly started. I can see why.
At the end, he tries to wrap it all up in his vision of BioLogos. Christians, be reasonable and admit that evolution is a simple fact that reveals God's power and glory with even greater clarity! Scientists, look into your hearts and admit how much you want to feel His love! I fear very few people on either side are buying it. But, blessed are the peacemakers, and Dr. Collins is doing his damnedest to spread peace and understanding. Who knows, maybe it will do some good in the long run.
__________________________________
I just have to include this wonderfully snarky quote from Russell's Science and Religion. Despite being written several decades before Collins was born, it is a perfect comment on his book:
(less)
The core message of BioLogos is that God created the universe in order for it to contain living beings with souls - us, and any other sentient creatures that may happen to exist - and cares deeply about His people. As you can see, for example, in Martin Rees's Just Six Numbers and Before the Beginning, the idea that the universe was designed is right now perfectly respectable, though I thought Collins's cosmological arguments were on the superficial side. In particular, he in no way gives proper consideration to the multiverse theory that Rees prefers; though the comparison with Dawkins's The God Delusion is amusing, Dawkins doing the exact opposite and dismissing the design theory in equally summary fashion. It would be nice to see a balanced presentation here some time. At any rate, the modern Argument from Design in terms of fine tuning of the universe's physical constants is one of the main planks of Collins's argument to the non-believers.
The other key component is derived from C.S. Lewis (Collins is a huge admirer), and is based on universal ethical norms, altruism, and the human hunger for religion which, Collins claims, can be observed in all cultures. If God doesn't exist, why do we all feel a need for Him, and why do we all agree on the important issues about what constitutes the difference between right and wrong? Here, again, I felt that Collins was on shaky ground, and the reasoning did not convince me. Many people have tried to explain the emergence of altruistic behavior in humans using an evolutionary perspective, but these ideas are hardly discussed at all, and there is almost no comparison with other social species. Yes, it's probably relevant that ants and bees are haplodiploid, and humans aren't, so "altruistic" behavior of insects may be misleading; but naked mole rats, which are not mentioned, are also a social species, and they are not haplodiploid.
So the first third of the book was disappointing, but it picked up again when Collins turned around and started explaining to the creationists and Intelligent Design people why their criticisms of evolutionary theory were misguided. This part was excellent, and if you want an authoritative dismantling of ID I have never seen it done better. Collins first explains the holes in the often-quoted "flagellum" argument, showing how the bacterial flagellum could indeed have been created by evolution; he then quotes St. Augustine and other luminaries of the Church on the dangers of Christianity making itself look ridiculous by trying to maintain logically untenable positions. He does his best to sweeten the pill, emphasizing that he respects the motives that have led people to believe in ID, but I can't think that many of them like it. Indeed, he describes talks he's given to American Christian audiences where he's tried to explain this stuff, and people often leave the room before he's got properly started. I can see why.
At the end, he tries to wrap it all up in his vision of BioLogos. Christians, be reasonable and admit that evolution is a simple fact that reveals God's power and glory with even greater clarity! Scientists, look into your hearts and admit how much you want to feel His love! I fear very few people on either side are buying it. But, blessed are the peacemakers, and Dr. Collins is doing his damnedest to spread peace and understanding. Who knows, maybe it will do some good in the long run.
__________________________________
I just have to include this wonderfully snarky quote from Russell's Science and Religion. Despite being written several decades before Collins was born, it is a perfect comment on his book:
Sir J. Arthur Thomson, as we saw, maintained that science is incomplete because it cannot answer the question why? Religion, he thought, can answer it. Why were stars formed? Why did the sun give birth to planets? Why did the earth cool, and at last give rise to life? Because, in the end, something admirable was going to result -- I am not quite sure what, but I believe it was scientific theologians and religiously-minded scientists.
(less)
Mar 12, 2008Ellis rated it it was amazing
Recommends it for: EVERY person of faith and every person whose reasons for not believing in God are based on science
Shelves: religion, science, nonfiction
This book was Fantastic. If it were up to me, this book would be required reading for every college freshman or senior in high school. I listened to Dr. Collins speak at last year’s scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. I couldn't pass up the opportunity to listen to the head of the international group responsible for sequencing the human genome. I was impressed with his clear forward-thinking mind. Probably because I'd heard Dr. Collins speak, knew his work, and had a very good impression of him, I was a little dismayed when I saw the title of his book. I thought maybe he was a little off track. Personally, science hasn't shown me anything that confirms, OR DENIES, the existence of God. I figured I had to read his book just to see what he had to say on the matter.
Fortunately, I was more than pleasantly surprised to find what this book contained. This book isn't an attempt to use scientific knowledge and proofs to demonstrate that God exists, but it contains a very beautifully laid out reconciliation of religion and science. (Reconciliation is really a terrible term, because religion and science never have been at odds. Unfortunately, some religious people have attacked science because they felt threatened by its findings and chose to fear it rather than understand it. Likewise, some people thought that scientific theories, such as the Big Bang and the evolution of species, proved that God didn't exist. Anyway, some people have wrongly put science and religion at odds when, in fact, there was no need for the two to be mutually exclusive. All truth is good for man: whatever its source.)
I was extremely surprised to find in this book the nearly exact conclusion I have come to after years of considering how the scientific theories on the origin of the universe, the origin of man, and of religion may fit together. I struggled over these issues for a long time, because I felt that it was my duty to not ignore two seemingly incompatible (big bang/evolution and man created by God in his image) things that I knew (as strongly as a scientist can ever claim to "know" that a theory actually represents reality) to be true. I knew that it wouldn't be right to reject either of these truths because it was inconvenient to have them together. This conundrum caused me to spend plenty of time thinking about this issue. Thus, I was very surprised to see that Collins had come up with basically the exact same conclusions that I had come to. (In fact, this is exactly the book I would have written on the subject if I just weren’t so lazy and had the ability.) Did this happen because the world-renowned scientist, Francis Collins, and I are on the same intellectual playing field? No, unfortunately no... I think that we came to the same conclusions because if one puts him/herself to thinking on the matter for long enough and uses the best material to aid in the process, then the conclusion comes very naturally and logically.
I would suggest that everyone read this book. There is no contention between science and religion. Science and religion have no disagreement or incongruities on how man came to live on earth. Of course, the most important thing to remember is that it doesn't matter how man came to earth, but why man is on earth and what we do while here. However, understanding how this process occurred is extremely interesting and gives me so much more appreciation for the creation of mankind than the traditional "poof theory" that many cling to tightly with eyes and ears closed to avoid being tainted by scientific theory. (Oh yes, and thank you very much, Dr. Collins, for spending appropriate time on what it means for something to be a scientific theory.) This book is very stimulating and satisfying to the scientist because shows that religion need not be discarded because of scientific theory, and to the religious person because it shows that the greatest and most proven and unifying scientific theories need not be discarded to protect religious beliefs.
(less)
Fortunately, I was more than pleasantly surprised to find what this book contained. This book isn't an attempt to use scientific knowledge and proofs to demonstrate that God exists, but it contains a very beautifully laid out reconciliation of religion and science. (Reconciliation is really a terrible term, because religion and science never have been at odds. Unfortunately, some religious people have attacked science because they felt threatened by its findings and chose to fear it rather than understand it. Likewise, some people thought that scientific theories, such as the Big Bang and the evolution of species, proved that God didn't exist. Anyway, some people have wrongly put science and religion at odds when, in fact, there was no need for the two to be mutually exclusive. All truth is good for man: whatever its source.)
I was extremely surprised to find in this book the nearly exact conclusion I have come to after years of considering how the scientific theories on the origin of the universe, the origin of man, and of religion may fit together. I struggled over these issues for a long time, because I felt that it was my duty to not ignore two seemingly incompatible (big bang/evolution and man created by God in his image) things that I knew (as strongly as a scientist can ever claim to "know" that a theory actually represents reality) to be true. I knew that it wouldn't be right to reject either of these truths because it was inconvenient to have them together. This conundrum caused me to spend plenty of time thinking about this issue. Thus, I was very surprised to see that Collins had come up with basically the exact same conclusions that I had come to. (In fact, this is exactly the book I would have written on the subject if I just weren’t so lazy and had the ability.) Did this happen because the world-renowned scientist, Francis Collins, and I are on the same intellectual playing field? No, unfortunately no... I think that we came to the same conclusions because if one puts him/herself to thinking on the matter for long enough and uses the best material to aid in the process, then the conclusion comes very naturally and logically.
I would suggest that everyone read this book. There is no contention between science and religion. Science and religion have no disagreement or incongruities on how man came to live on earth. Of course, the most important thing to remember is that it doesn't matter how man came to earth, but why man is on earth and what we do while here. However, understanding how this process occurred is extremely interesting and gives me so much more appreciation for the creation of mankind than the traditional "poof theory" that many cling to tightly with eyes and ears closed to avoid being tainted by scientific theory. (Oh yes, and thank you very much, Dr. Collins, for spending appropriate time on what it means for something to be a scientific theory.) This book is very stimulating and satisfying to the scientist because shows that religion need not be discarded because of scientific theory, and to the religious person because it shows that the greatest and most proven and unifying scientific theories need not be discarded to protect religious beliefs.
(less)
Jun 21, 2007Heather rated it it was ok · review of another edition
Shelves: history-philosophy-science
Let me preface this review by saying that I read this book as part of a discussion with my intelligent and faithful (not to mention extremely good looking - its a genetic thing) family members, who are open-minded to both science and religion. I hope that I can be likewise. They asked me for my sincere opinion about this book, and here is the result of that request. If they write a review, I will provide a link to it.
Collins seems like an intelligent, decent person with a sincere desire to help people overcome dissidence between two ways of understanding the world: science and religion. I admire his sentiments, and I appreciate any calm voice that enters the debate. He provides a nice summary of the evidence for evolution, and is obviously a highly qualified scientist (e.g. he was project manager for the human genome project).
I rate it as only OK because I found his arguments unconvincing. Here's why:
1) Collins did not provide data supporting the existence of a universal moral law, a law which he felt deserves the title of law, just like the law of gravity. He instead assumed that we would all agree that there is an absolute moral law that persists across time and cultural boundaries. While I imagine there are consistent moral codes, I would like a better description of what those are, especially if one is going to use that as the main support for one's belief in God. He cites the attributes of fairness and altruism, but doesn't define those terms well, nor does he describe their distribution within and among cultures. Those data are out there.
2) So let's say there is a moral "law", and it is reliable and persistent as any real law should be (a huge assumption). How can it be explained? While he belittled a "God-In-The-Gaps" approach to the study of creation/evolution, Collins advocated that approach for the study of human behavior. He invoked the existence of a supernatural power to explain the existence of morality in humans. His argument seemed to be that since science couldn't explain it (an argument that wasn't very strong, in my opinion), God must have given humans morality.
3) His other arguments for God include a distinct beginning to the universe (the big bang), and a hefty set of universal constants, constants that he finds extremely improbable without an intelligent creator.
The distinct beginning struck me as an idea consistent with his conception of God, but not really evidence for his conception of God.
In the case of the universal constants, Collins is committing the same errors he accuses the proponents of intelligent design of using.
Proponents of Intelligent Design claim that there are some parts of living things that are so complex that natural selection on random mutations (i.e. evolution) could not have made them. These parts (such as the complex eye and the bacterial flagellum) indicate an Intelligent Designer.
Likewise, Collins says that the development of so many universal constants is so improbable, that they provide evidence for an intelligent designer. As he said about Intelligent Design, this is another "God-In-The-Gaps" argument, one that is in danger of being explained by science as our knowledge progresses.
In short, Collins' use of the word evidence in the subtitle is premature. As the religions I am most familiar with would attest, belief in a supernatural being is ultimately a matter not of natural evidence, but of revelation. Therefore belief in that supernatural being comes down to a person's willingness to accept revelation, whether it be through scripture or prayer, as a valid way of understanding the world. Natural phenomena can be considered consistent with ones conception of the Almighty, but not the ultimate evidence for God. (less)
Collins seems like an intelligent, decent person with a sincere desire to help people overcome dissidence between two ways of understanding the world: science and religion. I admire his sentiments, and I appreciate any calm voice that enters the debate. He provides a nice summary of the evidence for evolution, and is obviously a highly qualified scientist (e.g. he was project manager for the human genome project).
I rate it as only OK because I found his arguments unconvincing. Here's why:
1) Collins did not provide data supporting the existence of a universal moral law, a law which he felt deserves the title of law, just like the law of gravity. He instead assumed that we would all agree that there is an absolute moral law that persists across time and cultural boundaries. While I imagine there are consistent moral codes, I would like a better description of what those are, especially if one is going to use that as the main support for one's belief in God. He cites the attributes of fairness and altruism, but doesn't define those terms well, nor does he describe their distribution within and among cultures. Those data are out there.
2) So let's say there is a moral "law", and it is reliable and persistent as any real law should be (a huge assumption). How can it be explained? While he belittled a "God-In-The-Gaps" approach to the study of creation/evolution, Collins advocated that approach for the study of human behavior. He invoked the existence of a supernatural power to explain the existence of morality in humans. His argument seemed to be that since science couldn't explain it (an argument that wasn't very strong, in my opinion), God must have given humans morality.
3) His other arguments for God include a distinct beginning to the universe (the big bang), and a hefty set of universal constants, constants that he finds extremely improbable without an intelligent creator.
The distinct beginning struck me as an idea consistent with his conception of God, but not really evidence for his conception of God.
In the case of the universal constants, Collins is committing the same errors he accuses the proponents of intelligent design of using.
Proponents of Intelligent Design claim that there are some parts of living things that are so complex that natural selection on random mutations (i.e. evolution) could not have made them. These parts (such as the complex eye and the bacterial flagellum) indicate an Intelligent Designer.
Likewise, Collins says that the development of so many universal constants is so improbable, that they provide evidence for an intelligent designer. As he said about Intelligent Design, this is another "God-In-The-Gaps" argument, one that is in danger of being explained by science as our knowledge progresses.
In short, Collins' use of the word evidence in the subtitle is premature. As the religions I am most familiar with would attest, belief in a supernatural being is ultimately a matter not of natural evidence, but of revelation. Therefore belief in that supernatural being comes down to a person's willingness to accept revelation, whether it be through scripture or prayer, as a valid way of understanding the world. Natural phenomena can be considered consistent with ones conception of the Almighty, but not the ultimate evidence for God. (less)
Nov 03, 2007Anand Patel rated it it was ok · review of another edition
I have no doubt in the sincerity of Dr. Collins's beliefs, but I found this book insufferable. I picked it up at the store, hoping to catch a glimpse of how an established (and wildly successful) scientist reconciles his faith with the tradition of scientific rationalism. Instead, I found a lot of C.S. Lewis fan-dom mixed with a clumsy rehashing of pretty tired theological arguments hinging on a mysterious intrinsic "Moral Law". To be honest, it reads like Collins is trying to convince himself more than the reader. In retrospect, I think it'd been more worthwhile to have skipped this book and jump into "Mere Christianity" and whatever the latest Richard Dawkins/Christopher Hitchens book is.
Reading (and suffering) through this book did make me wonder if it's at all possible to honestly be both a scientist and a spiritual person. Ironically, before I read this book I would've said maybe, but now I think I have to say no. A career as a scientist necessarily requires a dedication to rational observation, and most importantly, the flexibility to change models to incorporate new information. Religion (at least organized religion) requires a rigid flexibility to fixed beliefs. In other words, as Collins describes it, science is an inherently humbling study - somebody, someday will find a clever exception to your work, and these acts (with time) are the stuff of legend. There aren't "paradigm shifts" (it pains me to use that buzzword) in religion - I mean, how can "eternal truth" be mutable?
Personally, for me, the most troubling part of religion is that at its core, it reads like an exercise in vanity - no matter what other people say, the key endpoint of religion is to stratify people - some people will get rewarded (whether that's enlightenment, heaven, ...) while other won't (reincarnation, hell). (less)
Reading (and suffering) through this book did make me wonder if it's at all possible to honestly be both a scientist and a spiritual person. Ironically, before I read this book I would've said maybe, but now I think I have to say no. A career as a scientist necessarily requires a dedication to rational observation, and most importantly, the flexibility to change models to incorporate new information. Religion (at least organized religion) requires a rigid flexibility to fixed beliefs. In other words, as Collins describes it, science is an inherently humbling study - somebody, someday will find a clever exception to your work, and these acts (with time) are the stuff of legend. There aren't "paradigm shifts" (it pains me to use that buzzword) in religion - I mean, how can "eternal truth" be mutable?
Personally, for me, the most troubling part of religion is that at its core, it reads like an exercise in vanity - no matter what other people say, the key endpoint of religion is to stratify people - some people will get rewarded (whether that's enlightenment, heaven, ...) while other won't (reincarnation, hell). (less)
This is a long review, so here’s the shorter version first. There are atheists who believe science is inconsistent with religious belief. There are religious people who don’t believe in science. There are religious people who do believe in science, compartmentalizing the two and judging them by different standards. Okay, fine. I don’t want group two allowed on any boards of education, but aside from that, fine. Collins is in group three, but the thing that really irritates me is that he won’t ad ...more
While I am not usually a big fan of non-fiction (takes too long to read) this book really affected me. As a scientist I was ready to disagree with the ideas of this evangelical Christian, but his arguments were well, scientific. His rational arguments struck a chord with me and he convinced me that theistic evolution is a valid possibility as to where we came from.
I picked this book up because I thought it would be interesting to read about the religious views of the head of the Human Genome Project. What does someone who has his scientific credentials think about God and spirituality? Some of the reviews on GR attempt to attack perceived fallacies in his arguments and prove him “wrong,” but I was less interested in that than I was getting inside his head and listening to his personal story, whether I agreed with him or not.
The Language of God is a well-written, easily-read rumination on the conflict between science and religion and why the author (along with many in the scientific community) feels this conflict doesn’t need to exist. Despite arguing from a believer’s point of view, Collins spends quite a bit of time shooting down creationism, Biblical literalism, and Intelligent Design. He advises against using God to “fill in the gaps” in current scientific knowledge and instead encourages believers to base their faith on something more stable. He points to history to illustrate that current arguments that require a literal reading of the Genesis are relatively new and that pre-Darwin religious thinkers didn’t hold the same views that current conservative religious folks do.
The only downside from my point of view is that Collins is Christian; I feel like I've spent enough time reading about how people arrived at their faith in Jesus. I'd love to read something written from the perspective of someone who became just about anything else, just for the sake of hearing some different experiences. To Collins' credit, though, in the few times he discusses the Bible, he refers to the original Hebrew. He also acknowledges several times that although his exploration of his personal beliefs brought him to Christianity, that every person will find what is right for them. A strike against him, though, is his use of the phrase "Judeo-Christian" several times, especially in reference to religious texts. That phrase needs to be disposed of and never used by anyone ever again.
The book ends with an appendix detailing some current bioethics concerns, and while it's interesting (especially since a bioethics class I took with Lori Andrews was one of my more interesting law school classes), I'm a little puzzled about its placement in this book. (less)
The Language of God is a well-written, easily-read rumination on the conflict between science and religion and why the author (along with many in the scientific community) feels this conflict doesn’t need to exist. Despite arguing from a believer’s point of view, Collins spends quite a bit of time shooting down creationism, Biblical literalism, and Intelligent Design. He advises against using God to “fill in the gaps” in current scientific knowledge and instead encourages believers to base their faith on something more stable. He points to history to illustrate that current arguments that require a literal reading of the Genesis are relatively new and that pre-Darwin religious thinkers didn’t hold the same views that current conservative religious folks do.
The only downside from my point of view is that Collins is Christian; I feel like I've spent enough time reading about how people arrived at their faith in Jesus. I'd love to read something written from the perspective of someone who became just about anything else, just for the sake of hearing some different experiences. To Collins' credit, though, in the few times he discusses the Bible, he refers to the original Hebrew. He also acknowledges several times that although his exploration of his personal beliefs brought him to Christianity, that every person will find what is right for them. A strike against him, though, is his use of the phrase "Judeo-Christian" several times, especially in reference to religious texts. That phrase needs to be disposed of and never used by anyone ever again.
The book ends with an appendix detailing some current bioethics concerns, and while it's interesting (especially since a bioethics class I took with Lori Andrews was one of my more interesting law school classes), I'm a little puzzled about its placement in this book. (less)
It was very refreshing to hear a reasonable person discuss these issues without trying to overemphasize controversy. There are two portions of the book: Collins personal story of how he came to faith in God, and his views on a number of controversial issues in the overlapping worlds of science, ethics and faith. The first is particularly intriguing to scientists who are interested in faith. The second portion is more technical but valuable to anyone who wrestles with these issues.
Dave
Dave
Jun 17, 2009Dan rated it really liked it · review of another edition
This book is now my recommended first read for anyone who is asking the question, "Can a scientist be a Christian or even believe in God?" Collins, best known for being director of the human genome project, has impeccable credentials in the scientific world. He began as an agnostic. Feeling that agnostics who have not really tried to find God have no basis to defend their position or criticize others, Collins endeavored to see whether belief in God is possible. He leads the reader through the process by which he has concluded that not only is belief in God possible, he believes it is the most likely explanation for his cumulative observations. He further goes on the conclude that for him Christianity has the most credibility of the religions.
Collins addresses evolution, creationism, and intelligent design. He concludes that evidence for evolution, including the evolution of man from a common ancestor with the apes, is becoming more and more convincing as time goes on. He feels that seven twenty-four-hour days of divine creation is not the most likely explanation of the origin of the earth based on both scientific evidence and scripture. He feels that intelligent design makes a god who is too small, being reserved only for the gaps; he further feels that more and more of those gaps are being explained by already established scientific principles as we learn more.
Collins adds an appendix in which he discusses several controversial topics involving ethics and genetic research. This appendix is a great source for discussion. (less)
Collins addresses evolution, creationism, and intelligent design. He concludes that evidence for evolution, including the evolution of man from a common ancestor with the apes, is becoming more and more convincing as time goes on. He feels that seven twenty-four-hour days of divine creation is not the most likely explanation of the origin of the earth based on both scientific evidence and scripture. He feels that intelligent design makes a god who is too small, being reserved only for the gaps; he further feels that more and more of those gaps are being explained by already established scientific principles as we learn more.
Collins adds an appendix in which he discusses several controversial topics involving ethics and genetic research. This appendix is a great source for discussion. (less)
Full disclosure: I didn't read this whole book, as I was principally interested in Collins's arguments against Intelligent Design, so that and his arguments against atheism were the only two sections I have read so far. I will therefore confine myself to addressing those two sections.
Collins is a world-renowned scientist, a geneticist who headed the Human Genome Project, and as such his words carry a great deal of weight. In the cases where he gets it right, this is a good thing; where he gets it wrong, this is a terrible thing, especially since many of his readers will depend on him and his reasoning (instead of their own) to reach his conclusions. Where he gets it right is in the case of Intelligent Design: Collins argues that ID is simply not science, because it fails to solve any scientific problems, because it is unverifiable, because it fails to make any sort of useful prediction, and because it is ultimately a "god of the gaps" hypothesis. The fact that Collins is arguing this as an avowed theist who does not want to see faith fail because of a weak reed like ID does not undermine his arguments. Collins is a scientist, and—when he is not blinded by his own agenda and preconceptions—he can recognize science when he sees it.
Unfortunately, his arguments against atheism are utterly specious. In fact, they fail to be arguments at all: he merely cites passages by Dawkins (an atheist) and Gould (an agnostic) and pits them against each other. Sadly, he misquotes and mischaracterizes Dawkins's position (ironically calling it a "straw man"), and simply accepts Gould's (controversial, to say the least) position on "nonoverlapping magisteria" at face value.
Collins apparently has traveled from atheist to evangelical Christian, a journey that I can only describe as irrational in the extreme. I don't deny that he has thought long and hard about his beliefs, but it seems perfectly ludicrous to me that a person starting from square one, blank slate, as it were, could possibly narrow down the religious field to a specific set of beliefs using any kind of logic. And, reading ahead in his book, I find that this is the case: in his chapter on "Truth Seekers" he talks about reasoning, but that peculiarly religious kind of reasoning that is based ultimately on feelings instead of on empirical evidence. This is the same kind of apologetic, feel-good nonsense that C.S. Lewis churned out by the pound, and it is irrational, unscientific claptrap unworthy of one of the greatest geneticists of our age.
NOTE ON COMMENTING: Comments telling me to read the whole book will be deleted. Comments from people who clearly didn't read or understand my review will be deleted. Comments that annoy me for any other reason will be deleted. Basically: think twice before hitting the "post" button, please. (less)
Collins is a world-renowned scientist, a geneticist who headed the Human Genome Project, and as such his words carry a great deal of weight. In the cases where he gets it right, this is a good thing; where he gets it wrong, this is a terrible thing, especially since many of his readers will depend on him and his reasoning (instead of their own) to reach his conclusions. Where he gets it right is in the case of Intelligent Design: Collins argues that ID is simply not science, because it fails to solve any scientific problems, because it is unverifiable, because it fails to make any sort of useful prediction, and because it is ultimately a "god of the gaps" hypothesis. The fact that Collins is arguing this as an avowed theist who does not want to see faith fail because of a weak reed like ID does not undermine his arguments. Collins is a scientist, and—when he is not blinded by his own agenda and preconceptions—he can recognize science when he sees it.
Unfortunately, his arguments against atheism are utterly specious. In fact, they fail to be arguments at all: he merely cites passages by Dawkins (an atheist) and Gould (an agnostic) and pits them against each other. Sadly, he misquotes and mischaracterizes Dawkins's position (ironically calling it a "straw man"), and simply accepts Gould's (controversial, to say the least) position on "nonoverlapping magisteria" at face value.
Collins apparently has traveled from atheist to evangelical Christian, a journey that I can only describe as irrational in the extreme. I don't deny that he has thought long and hard about his beliefs, but it seems perfectly ludicrous to me that a person starting from square one, blank slate, as it were, could possibly narrow down the religious field to a specific set of beliefs using any kind of logic. And, reading ahead in his book, I find that this is the case: in his chapter on "Truth Seekers" he talks about reasoning, but that peculiarly religious kind of reasoning that is based ultimately on feelings instead of on empirical evidence. This is the same kind of apologetic, feel-good nonsense that C.S. Lewis churned out by the pound, and it is irrational, unscientific claptrap unworthy of one of the greatest geneticists of our age.
NOTE ON COMMENTING: Comments telling me to read the whole book will be deleted. Comments from people who clearly didn't read or understand my review will be deleted. Comments that annoy me for any other reason will be deleted. Basically: think twice before hitting the "post" button, please. (less)
Jan 23, 2010Joey rated it did not like it
The Good: Collins at least encourages fellow evangelicals and other fundamentalist believers to leave behind the bronze age science of religion and cross over into the 19th century. As the head of the Human Genome Project, he dispels the myth that science is a godless, liberal conspiracy to destroy religion.
The Bad: Collins' arguments for god are lacking. Human morality has a perfectly legitimate, natural explanation. Collins feels the desire to reach out and help that starving African child on the television because the genes and epigenes that built his brain evolved in hunter-gatherer societies without televison and where any suffering child that was witnessed was overwhelmingly likely to have shared genes. It's kin selection and reciprocal altruism. This guy was the head of the Human Genome Project and is now the head of NIH. Come on, Dr. Collins, don't insult our intelligence.
The Ugly: Nearly everything. How someone as bright as Dr. Collins (theoretical physics in undergrad, medical school, genetics fellowship, Human Genome Project, etc.) can say that non-theism is the weakest possible philosophical position is anathema to reason. I read this book as an overture to my wife after she threated me with divorce for declaring my unbelief. I was literally nauseated by the ignorance and half-truths contained in its pages. (less)
The Bad: Collins' arguments for god are lacking. Human morality has a perfectly legitimate, natural explanation. Collins feels the desire to reach out and help that starving African child on the television because the genes and epigenes that built his brain evolved in hunter-gatherer societies without televison and where any suffering child that was witnessed was overwhelmingly likely to have shared genes. It's kin selection and reciprocal altruism. This guy was the head of the Human Genome Project and is now the head of NIH. Come on, Dr. Collins, don't insult our intelligence.
The Ugly: Nearly everything. How someone as bright as Dr. Collins (theoretical physics in undergrad, medical school, genetics fellowship, Human Genome Project, etc.) can say that non-theism is the weakest possible philosophical position is anathema to reason. I read this book as an overture to my wife after she threated me with divorce for declaring my unbelief. I was literally nauseated by the ignorance and half-truths contained in its pages. (less)
Mar 11, 2014Jennifer rated it really liked it
Shelves: theology, seminary, read-in-2018, read-in-2017
This was a book I read for my seminary class on Science and the Christian Faith. I liked it enough that I would choose to read it again in the future when I'm not needing to speed through it for class. I think it is an important book in the conversation regarding Science and Christianity and how the two do not need to be at odds with one another. (less)
Jun 20, 2007Lynn Hay rated it did not like it
Recommends it for: people who think they can't believe in God and Evolution
This book was a disappointment to me, i did not gleam any new insight from it. It was the old circular 'I believe because I believe' argument meets an ode to C.S. Lewis. This guy obviously LOVES C.S. Lewis! He quoted him so often it started to feel a bit plagiarised. (less)
As someone with a deep skepticism for Christian apologetics, I wasn’t sure how much I would like Francis Collins’ apologeticy-sounding Language of God, though it came with high recommendations from people I trust. Thankfully, Collins spends much less time trying to convince his readers that God exists than in trying to convince his readers of the more modest argument that science and faith can coincide.
To that end, Collins – director of the National Institutes of Health, head of the project that ...more
To that end, Collins – director of the National Institutes of Health, head of the project that ...more
May 29, 2014SoulSurvivor rated it it was amazing
Amazing, except for intellectually-bound skeptics.
Jul 25, 2020Neil R. Coulter rated it liked it · review of another edition
Shelves: non-fiction, science-and-faith
I love that one of the nation’s top scientists is a fellow Christian—and not only that, but he is willing to talk about his faith and connect it to his delight in science. Francis Collins is a great guy, and I was happy to finally read through this book, which had such a part in launching the organization BioLogos, along with many good discussions. Collins’s main point in the book is to encourage all readers, whether faithful or atheist, to stop the angry, vitriolic tone that so plagues discussions about science and faith. As he writes in the conclusion,
In an excellent article in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith , Timothy Larsen showed how the science-vs.-faith conflict was manufactured in the nineteenth century, for reasons that have little to do with any actual conflict between science and faith. The wonder is that both sides bought into the conflict so wholeheartedly that it has continued to today, such that people assume this was always the way things have been. Collins concurs with Larsen, saying,
My rating for Collins’s book is tempered by the fact that I don’t think he quite accomplishes the promise of the subtitle: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. The book works best when it’s a memoir of Collins’s personal experience (and I hope that someday he’ll write a full-blown memoir, as I suspect he has a lot of great stories and can tell them well), but it’s less good as “evidence for belief.” Taking down the ridiculous arguments of people on extremes—Richard Dawkins as a representative of atheist perspectives, for example, or Ken Ham for young-earth creationism—is not difficult. Such arguments are full of holes in logic, even apart from the ugly, combative tone that people on the extremes tend to employ. And besides, people with the more extreme views are not likely to be interested in any kind of evidence from another perspective. But people in between are perhaps more open to learning though also more difficult to convince.
Collins’s apologetics for faith rely heavily on C. S. Lewis. I love Lewis, and I’m glad he still speaks to clearly to people today. But I wonder if his kind of logical argument is really the most helpful for contemporary seekers. I’d like to see “evidence for belief” drawing on a broader set of source material. Other books on this topic have done better in this regard—I would recommend anything by John Walton, for example, as a very good way in to other ways of understanding Genesis, and thus dismantling the war between science and faith.
Still, I appreciate Collins’s writing because he is at the very top of the game in science and he’s a good writer, willing to share his deepest, most personal feelings like this. (less)
It is time to call a truce in the escalating war between science and spirit. The war was never really necessary. Like so many earthly wars, this one has been initiated and intensified by extremists on both sides, sounding alarms that predict imminent ruin unless the other side is vanquished. Science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced. God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible. So let us together seek to reclaim the solid ground of an intellectually and spiritually satisfying synthesis of all great truths. (233–4)I wholeheartedly agree. I was raised in a Christian environment that cautioned against science, fearing that it was some kind of conspiracy against Christianity, or that to entertain the notion that God may have used evolution as part of his creation process is just a slippery slope toward total loss of faith. That perspective held me back from thoroughly enjoying science as I might have otherwise. In adulthood, I learned that there is no reason not to celebrate faithfulness to God and delight in science (including evolution)—and I feel in no danger whatsoever of losing my faith.
In an excellent article in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith , Timothy Larsen showed how the science-vs.-faith conflict was manufactured in the nineteenth century, for reasons that have little to do with any actual conflict between science and faith. The wonder is that both sides bought into the conflict so wholeheartedly that it has continued to today, such that people assume this was always the way things have been. Collins concurs with Larsen, saying,
Believers have led science at many times in the past. Yet all too often today, scientists are uneasy about admitting their spiritual views. To add to the problem, 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. The consequence can bring ridicule on the church, driving sincere seekers away from God instead of into His arms. (230)I hope books like this one will continue to help people see the science-vs.-faith conflict as artificial and unnecessary, and that we can move ahead in more fruitful ways.
My rating for Collins’s book is tempered by the fact that I don’t think he quite accomplishes the promise of the subtitle: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. The book works best when it’s a memoir of Collins’s personal experience (and I hope that someday he’ll write a full-blown memoir, as I suspect he has a lot of great stories and can tell them well), but it’s less good as “evidence for belief.” Taking down the ridiculous arguments of people on extremes—Richard Dawkins as a representative of atheist perspectives, for example, or Ken Ham for young-earth creationism—is not difficult. Such arguments are full of holes in logic, even apart from the ugly, combative tone that people on the extremes tend to employ. And besides, people with the more extreme views are not likely to be interested in any kind of evidence from another perspective. But people in between are perhaps more open to learning though also more difficult to convince.
Collins’s apologetics for faith rely heavily on C. S. Lewis. I love Lewis, and I’m glad he still speaks to clearly to people today. But I wonder if his kind of logical argument is really the most helpful for contemporary seekers. I’d like to see “evidence for belief” drawing on a broader set of source material. Other books on this topic have done better in this regard—I would recommend anything by John Walton, for example, as a very good way in to other ways of understanding Genesis, and thus dismantling the war between science and faith.
Still, I appreciate Collins’s writing because he is at the very top of the game in science and he’s a good writer, willing to share his deepest, most personal feelings like this. (less)
I highly recommend this book! Francis Collins is a well known, highly respected scientist. He is a medical doctor and also a research scientist. He was head of the Human Genome Project and is now the director of NIH. Collins tells the story of his conversion to Christianity as an adult. He is brilliant and he truly loves science. But he also finds vital meaning and, indeed, salvation in religion. The point of his book is to show that science and religion are not opposed to each other, as some people assume. Instead, they are complimentary. I find this to be true in my personal experience, as well. Faith explains the "why" and science explores the "how" of this wonderful universe we are part of. We need both.
I agree with most of what Collins says, and he explains it so well. His personal story and insights come at the beginning and end of the book. The middle of the book is Collins' explanation of fascinating topics in modern science. His expertise is in genetics, so an important section of the book is devoted to evolution. He argues decisively that 1) evolution is real and 2) the reality of evolution need not threaten faith. The book also includes an a very good, thought provoking discussion of medical and scientific ethics in an appendix chapter, so don't miss it. If you are religious and distrust science, this book is for you. If you love science and dismiss faith, this book is also for you.
Collins strongly makes the point that both sides need to come together in mutual respect for their different kinds of knowledge. Both viewpoints need to be valued at the table because we need to work together to find solutions to the pressing problems of our time. I find appreciating the blessings of both faith and science in my life to be very satisfying. To adhere only to one extreme or the other leaves important parts missing.
This book requires thought, but it is designed to be accessible to the lay reader. I learned a lot from it. I was struck by Collin's palpable enthusiasm for science, and also by his humanity and caring. He likes C.S. Lewis and includes good quotes by him. My scientist husband read this book several years ago and it has been on our bookshelf since then. I'm so glad I finally got around to reading it! It is excellent. (less)
I agree with most of what Collins says, and he explains it so well. His personal story and insights come at the beginning and end of the book. The middle of the book is Collins' explanation of fascinating topics in modern science. His expertise is in genetics, so an important section of the book is devoted to evolution. He argues decisively that 1) evolution is real and 2) the reality of evolution need not threaten faith. The book also includes an a very good, thought provoking discussion of medical and scientific ethics in an appendix chapter, so don't miss it. If you are religious and distrust science, this book is for you. If you love science and dismiss faith, this book is also for you.
Collins strongly makes the point that both sides need to come together in mutual respect for their different kinds of knowledge. Both viewpoints need to be valued at the table because we need to work together to find solutions to the pressing problems of our time. I find appreciating the blessings of both faith and science in my life to be very satisfying. To adhere only to one extreme or the other leaves important parts missing.
This book requires thought, but it is designed to be accessible to the lay reader. I learned a lot from it. I was struck by Collin's palpable enthusiasm for science, and also by his humanity and caring. He likes C.S. Lewis and includes good quotes by him. My scientist husband read this book several years ago and it has been on our bookshelf since then. I'm so glad I finally got around to reading it! It is excellent. (less)
Excellent book! I found myself cheering throughout. Every believer, unbeliever, and everyone in between should read this book. In a very eloquent, gentle way, he tells believers "don't be so stupid and closed-minded about science" and to the unbeliever he says "don't be so closed-minded and think you are too smart for belief in God." In other words, he puts both extremes in their place and shows us the error of our ways. I hope there are many more Francis Collinses in the future who continue to bridge the gap between both extremes of scienctific unbelievers and non-scientific believers. I also found this book deepened my faith as I learned the SCIENCE behind life on earth. (less)
Jul 23, 2019Ahmed rated it it was ok
I read the arabic translated Copy,
And i feel sorry to say it was an unpleasant experience.
This book failed to match my expectancies, judging from the title and the cover, you expect some answers or explaination to the the question of: does science contracts Religion? Regarding intrinsic points such as the evolution theory, But not even scratches were stripped to come close the answer.
The second half of the book, However, did deliver some good and important informations about the Human Genome project, And the ethics related, Which was required, useful, And quite entertaining, Unlike the First half of the book.
I wouldn't say i was mislead, Bit Francis did not provide convenient arguments, Not enough at least, regarding the topic discussed in a 300 Pages of text. (less)
And i feel sorry to say it was an unpleasant experience.
This book failed to match my expectancies, judging from the title and the cover, you expect some answers or explaination to the the question of: does science contracts Religion? Regarding intrinsic points such as the evolution theory, But not even scratches were stripped to come close the answer.
The second half of the book, However, did deliver some good and important informations about the Human Genome project, And the ethics related, Which was required, useful, And quite entertaining, Unlike the First half of the book.
I wouldn't say i was mislead, Bit Francis did not provide convenient arguments, Not enough at least, regarding the topic discussed in a 300 Pages of text. (less)
Aug 08, 2020Stephen Bedard rated it it was amazing
Those who struggle with theistic evolution will not like this book. But overall this book is a nice presentation of why one of the most intelligent men in our world is a Christian. His style of writing is engaging and this book is a very helpful resource for the right kind of person.
Sep 19, 2010John Wiswell rated it really liked it
A better title would be A Smart Guy Discusses Briefly a lot of Topics in Science and Religion. He makes and assesses several arguments for and against belief in God, but they make up less than half the book. Justifiably tired of religious fundamentalists and anti-theists polarizing discourse, Collins sets out to harmonize and inform on a range of topics. Two sections explain the Big Bang and basic genetics in some of the clearest expert-to-laymen descriptions I’ve come across. Another addresses the ethics of cloning, stem cells and invitro fertilization. He summarizes the careers of Darwin and Galileo, attempting to dispel untruths about their lives as well as illustrate the history of science. He also gives a cursory biography of what led him from childhood to agnosticism, from agnosticism to atheism, from atheism to Christianity, from chemist to biologist, from researcher to government employee, and from that position to his work in the Human Genome Project. The whole is so readable that I went through it in a couple of days.
Collins is remarkably calm and conversational, which renders his great breadth of topics universally understandable. Selected chapters would make fine introductory reading for basic science and theology courses. He is also well-read and perhaps tries too hard to let you know it – two pages seldom pass without him quoting Sigmund Freud, St. Augustine, E.O. Wilson, Stephen Jay Gould or some other notable thinker. But his biggest flaw lies in that giant library for he has so many topics to address that he sprints through them. He reduces Michael Behe’s arguments for Intelligent Design and Richard Dawkins’s arguments for a connection between evolution and atheism into a few pages. As rubbish as those men can be, they won’t go away that quickly (which is why other authors dedicate entire books to picking them apart). No serious agnostic is going to be convinced by the couple of pages he devotes to arguing against it, and it would be a pleasure to get more detail from the man himself on the struggles of the Human Genome project.
His favorite argument for belief in God is “The Moral Law,” that fundamental impulse towards good that he borrows from C.S. Lewis. Yet in discussing how evolution might not produce such complex altruism in its subjects, he ignores theories of reciprocal altruism and modern neuroscience. He seems to believe that its emergence speaks to a creative force that cares, but doesn’t clarify if this is mechanically similar to Intelligent Design, or if his God put it there physically, or if this a universal constant we evolved towards, or how his beliefs are affected by brain studies that show how habits start, form and are chemically reinforced. With its appendices his book is over three hundred pages, but you have the urge to slow him down and get him to expand. There is volatile complexity here that will not go away just because you breeze over it.
The avoidance of neuroscience does not ring as dishonest, however. Collins is not blindly faithful. He advises healthy skepticism towards miracles, with a scientific emphasis on pragmatic explanations. Science is the only way to study the natural world, he declares (and rankles me, as an artist). He disarms the arguments for God by way of the second law of thermodynamics, rightly pointing out that the equation itself is open for increased order or complexity in a system (like our planet’s) if there is an increase in energy – and gives succinct examples, that if you exert yourself you can clean up the kitchen, and that with all the light we get from the sun, our system has the potential for increased order.
He makes convincing pleas for the religious to remain open to science, and scientists to at least tolerate religion. It’s a book of strengths and weaknesses. When you are ignorant, he gets you up to speed quickly. When you agree, his speed is pleasant. When you disagree, you yell at him for selling somebody short. So if he planned to convert people with this book, Collins may have failed, but attempts to bring harmony to the discourse over modern science is still commendable. (less)
Collins is remarkably calm and conversational, which renders his great breadth of topics universally understandable. Selected chapters would make fine introductory reading for basic science and theology courses. He is also well-read and perhaps tries too hard to let you know it – two pages seldom pass without him quoting Sigmund Freud, St. Augustine, E.O. Wilson, Stephen Jay Gould or some other notable thinker. But his biggest flaw lies in that giant library for he has so many topics to address that he sprints through them. He reduces Michael Behe’s arguments for Intelligent Design and Richard Dawkins’s arguments for a connection between evolution and atheism into a few pages. As rubbish as those men can be, they won’t go away that quickly (which is why other authors dedicate entire books to picking them apart). No serious agnostic is going to be convinced by the couple of pages he devotes to arguing against it, and it would be a pleasure to get more detail from the man himself on the struggles of the Human Genome project.
His favorite argument for belief in God is “The Moral Law,” that fundamental impulse towards good that he borrows from C.S. Lewis. Yet in discussing how evolution might not produce such complex altruism in its subjects, he ignores theories of reciprocal altruism and modern neuroscience. He seems to believe that its emergence speaks to a creative force that cares, but doesn’t clarify if this is mechanically similar to Intelligent Design, or if his God put it there physically, or if this a universal constant we evolved towards, or how his beliefs are affected by brain studies that show how habits start, form and are chemically reinforced. With its appendices his book is over three hundred pages, but you have the urge to slow him down and get him to expand. There is volatile complexity here that will not go away just because you breeze over it.
The avoidance of neuroscience does not ring as dishonest, however. Collins is not blindly faithful. He advises healthy skepticism towards miracles, with a scientific emphasis on pragmatic explanations. Science is the only way to study the natural world, he declares (and rankles me, as an artist). He disarms the arguments for God by way of the second law of thermodynamics, rightly pointing out that the equation itself is open for increased order or complexity in a system (like our planet’s) if there is an increase in energy – and gives succinct examples, that if you exert yourself you can clean up the kitchen, and that with all the light we get from the sun, our system has the potential for increased order.
He makes convincing pleas for the religious to remain open to science, and scientists to at least tolerate religion. It’s a book of strengths and weaknesses. When you are ignorant, he gets you up to speed quickly. When you agree, his speed is pleasant. When you disagree, you yell at him for selling somebody short. So if he planned to convert people with this book, Collins may have failed, but attempts to bring harmony to the discourse over modern science is still commendable. (less)
Apr 01, 2021Stephanie Byrne rated it liked it · review of another edition
This book was like talking to someone at a party that you'd usually never talk to. It was super interesting and gave you insight into things you might not usually think about, but there were also times when it was a tad hard to relate.
I really enjoyed learning more about evolution, genes and DNA. Collins did a great job explaining all of that but the subheading of the book being "A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" I would say is inaccurate. To me, Collins did an excellent job of demonstrating how science and faith can exist harmoniously together but did he provide "evidence for belief"? No.
This book touched on a lot of similar beliefs I inherently resonate with and I appreciated Collins making a clear distinction between religion and spirituality.
I feel like this book could be quite controversial depending on the beliefs of the reader. (less)
I really enjoyed learning more about evolution, genes and DNA. Collins did a great job explaining all of that but the subheading of the book being "A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" I would say is inaccurate. To me, Collins did an excellent job of demonstrating how science and faith can exist harmoniously together but did he provide "evidence for belief"? No.
This book touched on a lot of similar beliefs I inherently resonate with and I appreciated Collins making a clear distinction between religion and spirituality.
I feel like this book could be quite controversial depending on the beliefs of the reader. (less)
Aug 13, 2017Rachel C rated it really liked it
Worth reading, if you're interested in hearing a fourth option of belief outside of Young Earth Creationism, Atheism and Intelligent design. Francis Collins introduces Theistic Evolution, or what he prefers to call, "BioLogos".
BUT... I was hoping for more out of this book. I completely disagree with the subtitle, "A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief". I just finished the book, hoping for this, so-called, evidence to turn up. Still waiting. What the reader does get is a lot of regurgitated C.S. Lewis. So if you love Lewis enough to read through a commentary by the man who lead the Human Genome project, you will love this book. His other anecdotal "evidence" includes his experience of a beautiful waterfall...
I must admit, Collins became a bit of my temporary hero during the middle of the book where he completely tears a strip off of Young Earth Creationists and Intelligent Design "scientists" (I'll throw in a few of my favourite quotes at the end). He also has a few minor criticisms on Atheism I found interesting, but they were not strong enough to convince any thoughtful atheists who have carefully studied their position.
I must say though, that I thoroughly enjoyed this book, even though I disagree with the conclusion. Perhaps I owe it 5 stars for entertainment factor? Alas, I factor in other ingredients into my reviews, and Collins' non-sequiter experience of coming to faith from the sight of a waterfall was just not worthy of mention, let alone of being called "Evidence". But, if anyone is looking to add an intelligent voice to the religious position, Francis Collins is your guy!
Here's some of my favourite quotes (below contains spoilers!)
“One of the most cherished hopes of a scientist is to make an observation that shakes up a field of research. Scientists have a streak of closeted anarchism, hoping that someday they will turn up some unexpected fact that will force a disruption of the framework of the day. That’s what the Nobel Prizes are given for. In that regard, any assumption that a conspiracy could exist among scientists to keep a widely current theory alive when it actually contains serious flaws is completely antithetical to the restless mind-set of the profession.” (Collins 2006, p. 58 - Collins, a scientist who was the head of the Human Genome project. He also happens to be a Christian)
“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. Faced with incomplete understanding of the nature world, believers should be cautious about invoking the divine I areas of current mystery, lest they build an unnecessary theological argument that is doomed to later destruction. There are good reasons to believe in God, including the existence of mathematical principles and order in creation. They are positive reasons, based on knowledge, rather than default assumptions based on (a temporary) lack of knowledge.” (Collins 2006, p.93)
“(…since we all have two genomes of 3 billion base pairs each, one from our mother and one from our father, we all have roughly sixty new mutations that were not present in either of our parents). The [mutations] that fall in the more vulnerable parts of the genome are generally harmful, and are thus rapidly culled out of the population because they reduce reproductive fitness. But on rare occasions, a mutation will arise by chance that offers a slight degree of selective advantage. That new DNA ‘spelling’ will have a slightly higher likelihood of being passed on to future offspring. Over the course of a very long period of time, such favourable rare events can become widespread in all members of the species, ultimately resulting in major changes in biological function.” (Collins 2006, p. 131)
Collins gives excellent examples of evolution in pages 131-133
“Despite twenty-five centuries of debate, it is fair to say that no human knows what the meaning of Genesis 1 and 2 was precisely intended to be. We should continue to explore that!But the idea that scientific revelations would represent an enemy in that pursuit is ill conceived. 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?” (Collins 2006, p. 153)
“Many believers in God have been drawn to Young Earth Creationism because they see scientific advances as threatening to God. But does he really need defending here? Is not God the author of the laws of the universe? Is He not the greatest scientist? The greatest physicist? The greatest biologist? Most important, is He homered or dishonoured by those who would demand that His people ignore rigorous scientific conclusions about His creation? Can faith in a loving God be built on a foundation of lies about nature?” (Collins 2006, p. 176)
On the view that God made things look old, as a test of our faith-
“…Young Earth Creationism has reached a point of intellectual bankruptcy, both in its science and in its theology. Its persistence is those one of the great puzzles and great tragedies of our time. By attacking the fundamentals of virtually every branch of science, it widens the chasm between the scientific and spiritual worldview, just at a time where a pathway toward harmony is desperately needed. By sending a message to young people that science is dangerous, and that pursuing science may well mean rejecting religious faith, Young Earth Creationism may be depriving science of some of its most promising future talents.
But it is not science that suffers most here. 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. Young people brought up in homes and churches that insist on Creationism sooner or later encounter the overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of an ancient universe and the relatedness of all living things through the process of evolution and natural selection. What a terrible and unnecessary choice they then face! To adhere to the faith of their childhood, they are required to reject a broad and rigorous body of scientific data, effectively committing intellectual suicide. Presented with no other alternative than [Young Earth] 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?” (Collins 2006, p. 177)
“On the surface, the objections to Darwinism put forward by the ID movement appear compelling, and it is not surprising that nonscientists, especially those looking for a role for God in the evolutionary process, have embraced these arguments warmly. But if the logic truly had merit on scientific grounds, one would expect that the rank and file of working biologist would also show interest in pursuing these ideas, especially since a significant number of biologists are also believers. This has not happened, however, and Intelligent Design remains a fringe activity with little credibility within the mainstream scientific community.’ (Collins, 2006 p.187)
“Many cracks are beginning to appear, suggesting that ID proponents have made the mistake of confusing the unknown with the unknowable, or the unsolved with the unsolvable.” (Collins, 2006 p. 188)
In response to the question: why would God use Evolution?-
“The solution is actually readily at hand, one one ceases to apply human limitations to God. If God is outside of nature, then He is outside of space and time. In that context, God could in the moment of creation of the universe also know every detail of the future… In that context, evolution could appear to us to be driven by chance, but from God’s perspective the outcome would be entirely specified. Thus, God could be completely and intimately involved in the creation of all species, while from our perspective, limited as it is by the tyranny of linear time, this would appear a random and undirected process.” (Collins, 2006 p. 205)
“I do not believe that the God who created all the universe, and who communes with His people through prayer and spiritual insight, would expect us to deny the obvious truths of the natural world that science has revealed to us, in order to prove our love for Him.” (Collins, 2006 p. 210)
Collins, Francis S. 2006. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: Free Press (Simon & Schuster) (less)
BUT... I was hoping for more out of this book. I completely disagree with the subtitle, "A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief". I just finished the book, hoping for this, so-called, evidence to turn up. Still waiting. What the reader does get is a lot of regurgitated C.S. Lewis. So if you love Lewis enough to read through a commentary by the man who lead the Human Genome project, you will love this book. His other anecdotal "evidence" includes his experience of a beautiful waterfall...
I must admit, Collins became a bit of my temporary hero during the middle of the book where he completely tears a strip off of Young Earth Creationists and Intelligent Design "scientists" (I'll throw in a few of my favourite quotes at the end). He also has a few minor criticisms on Atheism I found interesting, but they were not strong enough to convince any thoughtful atheists who have carefully studied their position.
I must say though, that I thoroughly enjoyed this book, even though I disagree with the conclusion. Perhaps I owe it 5 stars for entertainment factor? Alas, I factor in other ingredients into my reviews, and Collins' non-sequiter experience of coming to faith from the sight of a waterfall was just not worthy of mention, let alone of being called "Evidence". But, if anyone is looking to add an intelligent voice to the religious position, Francis Collins is your guy!
Here's some of my favourite quotes (below contains spoilers!)
“One of the most cherished hopes of a scientist is to make an observation that shakes up a field of research. Scientists have a streak of closeted anarchism, hoping that someday they will turn up some unexpected fact that will force a disruption of the framework of the day. That’s what the Nobel Prizes are given for. In that regard, any assumption that a conspiracy could exist among scientists to keep a widely current theory alive when it actually contains serious flaws is completely antithetical to the restless mind-set of the profession.” (Collins 2006, p. 58 - Collins, a scientist who was the head of the Human Genome project. He also happens to be a Christian)
“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. Faced with incomplete understanding of the nature world, believers should be cautious about invoking the divine I areas of current mystery, lest they build an unnecessary theological argument that is doomed to later destruction. There are good reasons to believe in God, including the existence of mathematical principles and order in creation. They are positive reasons, based on knowledge, rather than default assumptions based on (a temporary) lack of knowledge.” (Collins 2006, p.93)
“(…since we all have two genomes of 3 billion base pairs each, one from our mother and one from our father, we all have roughly sixty new mutations that were not present in either of our parents). The [mutations] that fall in the more vulnerable parts of the genome are generally harmful, and are thus rapidly culled out of the population because they reduce reproductive fitness. But on rare occasions, a mutation will arise by chance that offers a slight degree of selective advantage. That new DNA ‘spelling’ will have a slightly higher likelihood of being passed on to future offspring. Over the course of a very long period of time, such favourable rare events can become widespread in all members of the species, ultimately resulting in major changes in biological function.” (Collins 2006, p. 131)
Collins gives excellent examples of evolution in pages 131-133
“Despite twenty-five centuries of debate, it is fair to say that no human knows what the meaning of Genesis 1 and 2 was precisely intended to be. We should continue to explore that!But the idea that scientific revelations would represent an enemy in that pursuit is ill conceived. 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?” (Collins 2006, p. 153)
“Many believers in God have been drawn to Young Earth Creationism because they see scientific advances as threatening to God. But does he really need defending here? Is not God the author of the laws of the universe? Is He not the greatest scientist? The greatest physicist? The greatest biologist? Most important, is He homered or dishonoured by those who would demand that His people ignore rigorous scientific conclusions about His creation? Can faith in a loving God be built on a foundation of lies about nature?” (Collins 2006, p. 176)
On the view that God made things look old, as a test of our faith-
“…Young Earth Creationism has reached a point of intellectual bankruptcy, both in its science and in its theology. Its persistence is those one of the great puzzles and great tragedies of our time. By attacking the fundamentals of virtually every branch of science, it widens the chasm between the scientific and spiritual worldview, just at a time where a pathway toward harmony is desperately needed. By sending a message to young people that science is dangerous, and that pursuing science may well mean rejecting religious faith, Young Earth Creationism may be depriving science of some of its most promising future talents.
But it is not science that suffers most here. 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. Young people brought up in homes and churches that insist on Creationism sooner or later encounter the overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of an ancient universe and the relatedness of all living things through the process of evolution and natural selection. What a terrible and unnecessary choice they then face! To adhere to the faith of their childhood, they are required to reject a broad and rigorous body of scientific data, effectively committing intellectual suicide. Presented with no other alternative than [Young Earth] 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?” (Collins 2006, p. 177)
“On the surface, the objections to Darwinism put forward by the ID movement appear compelling, and it is not surprising that nonscientists, especially those looking for a role for God in the evolutionary process, have embraced these arguments warmly. But if the logic truly had merit on scientific grounds, one would expect that the rank and file of working biologist would also show interest in pursuing these ideas, especially since a significant number of biologists are also believers. This has not happened, however, and Intelligent Design remains a fringe activity with little credibility within the mainstream scientific community.’ (Collins, 2006 p.187)
“Many cracks are beginning to appear, suggesting that ID proponents have made the mistake of confusing the unknown with the unknowable, or the unsolved with the unsolvable.” (Collins, 2006 p. 188)
In response to the question: why would God use Evolution?-
“The solution is actually readily at hand, one one ceases to apply human limitations to God. If God is outside of nature, then He is outside of space and time. In that context, God could in the moment of creation of the universe also know every detail of the future… In that context, evolution could appear to us to be driven by chance, but from God’s perspective the outcome would be entirely specified. Thus, God could be completely and intimately involved in the creation of all species, while from our perspective, limited as it is by the tyranny of linear time, this would appear a random and undirected process.” (Collins, 2006 p. 205)
“I do not believe that the God who created all the universe, and who communes with His people through prayer and spiritual insight, would expect us to deny the obvious truths of the natural world that science has revealed to us, in order to prove our love for Him.” (Collins, 2006 p. 210)
Collins, Francis S. 2006. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: Free Press (Simon & Schuster) (less)
Frustratingly flawed. Naively blind and biased. Theologically shallow. There are some great insights here, and the writing is very personable and easy to understand, but despite his belief in God, Collins is still stuck within the macroevolutionary paradigm of the current naturalistic age.
Collins inserts lots of great rhetorical questions, but never seems to answer them -- or actually get to the point. Before he can develop any of his profound philosophical questions, he's off explaining a scientific theory that barely seems relevant to the chapter. When he does devote sections to philosophical questions, he never pursues lines of logic to their inevitable ends.
So wrapped up in his love of the Big Bang and Evolution and DNA structure, Collins ignores the fundamental conflicts that lie between the two predominating belief systems about the origin of life. He never describes the differences between the Big Bang, and God's act of creation in Genesis -- instead he's infatuated with their similarities (okay, true to some degree), but he never stops the train of thought from charging off to to macroevolution and derailing from there. He never describes details for why Young Earth Creationism is flawed: he just tells his readers that it is wrong and deceptive, and goes on his way. He brushes off the differences between microevolution and macroevolution in one paragraph, claiming it's insignificant. And earlier he avoids the language of Genesis by calling it "poetry" and claiming we don't need to take it literally because there's other poetry in the Bible, and... tradition can be flawed. He tears down the argument for Intelligent Design, but a chapter later he says that God is specifically, completely, "intimately involved" with evolution?
So many of his ideas have such potential, but Collins simply can't see the contradictions in his beliefs. If God did act through evolution, where does he draw the line between the monkey ancestor, and man's ancestor? Does moral law (which Collins heavily relies upon) apply to monkeys as well as man, if there is no line between man and animal? What right does God have to expect certain behavior from us, if we're just a more developed type of animal? Why didn't he wait for a more developed "man" to evolve in another million years, before beginning his plan? How could man be created in "God's image" if he happens to be only a highly developed type of animal? What makes him innately different, if he is just an animal? How could there be any death before the fall? What kind of "men" did Jesus come to save? Only those after Adam, and none of the ones before him who "almost made it," but weren't quite developed enough? Collins needs to pick one side and follow it through, and see where it leads him.
He's tried to interweave faith and science (as they should be!) in this book, so his goal is admirable, but the execution is abundantly flawed. Somewhat enjoyable, but annoyingly stunted. Dropped down to 1 star because the latter part of the book dove even deeper into his faulted worldview.
(less)
Collins inserts lots of great rhetorical questions, but never seems to answer them -- or actually get to the point. Before he can develop any of his profound philosophical questions, he's off explaining a scientific theory that barely seems relevant to the chapter. When he does devote sections to philosophical questions, he never pursues lines of logic to their inevitable ends.
So wrapped up in his love of the Big Bang and Evolution and DNA structure, Collins ignores the fundamental conflicts that lie between the two predominating belief systems about the origin of life. He never describes the differences between the Big Bang, and God's act of creation in Genesis -- instead he's infatuated with their similarities (okay, true to some degree), but he never stops the train of thought from charging off to to macroevolution and derailing from there. He never describes details for why Young Earth Creationism is flawed: he just tells his readers that it is wrong and deceptive, and goes on his way. He brushes off the differences between microevolution and macroevolution in one paragraph, claiming it's insignificant. And earlier he avoids the language of Genesis by calling it "poetry" and claiming we don't need to take it literally because there's other poetry in the Bible, and... tradition can be flawed. He tears down the argument for Intelligent Design, but a chapter later he says that God is specifically, completely, "intimately involved" with evolution?
So many of his ideas have such potential, but Collins simply can't see the contradictions in his beliefs. If God did act through evolution, where does he draw the line between the monkey ancestor, and man's ancestor? Does moral law (which Collins heavily relies upon) apply to monkeys as well as man, if there is no line between man and animal? What right does God have to expect certain behavior from us, if we're just a more developed type of animal? Why didn't he wait for a more developed "man" to evolve in another million years, before beginning his plan? How could man be created in "God's image" if he happens to be only a highly developed type of animal? What makes him innately different, if he is just an animal? How could there be any death before the fall? What kind of "men" did Jesus come to save? Only those after Adam, and none of the ones before him who "almost made it," but weren't quite developed enough? Collins needs to pick one side and follow it through, and see where it leads him.
He's tried to interweave faith and science (as they should be!) in this book, so his goal is admirable, but the execution is abundantly flawed. Somewhat enjoyable, but annoyingly stunted. Dropped down to 1 star because the latter part of the book dove even deeper into his faulted worldview.
(less)
Jul 28, 2007Kent rated it did not like it
Recommends it for: those not threatened by theistic evolutionists.
Very easy read considering the science involved in the subject matter. Collins develops his view of theistic evolution and gives it the name, "BioLogos."
Although Collins makes a very interesting history of the Human Genome Project, he is unconvincing in his argument against creation as presented in Genesis 1 and 2.
I find it funny that Collins is certain that his perspective of how nature begins is something "we know," but he can not seem to know what the Bible presents. Additionally, he "knows" that creation started "approximately 10 to 12 billion years ago" and that evolution produced humans approximately 100,000 years ago.
Collins argues, very ineffectively, for the evolution of an eye. In response to simple organisms, the flatworm, and the chambered nautilus, the author states: "It is not prohibitively difficult, given hundreds of millions of years, to contemplate how this system could have evolved into the modern mammalian eye, complete with light-sensing retina and light-focusing lens.
If Collins is correct, we should worship evolution, not God. For the author, God is a highly ineffective creator who couldn't create the heavens and the earth, he could only create some type of substance that, given hundreds of millions of years, became the heavens and the earth. God couldn't create humans, he could only create substances that evolved into humans and eventually God gave the human a spirit and soul.
Some reviewers of this work are pleased that Collins suggests you can believe in God and evolution at the same time.
I wonder, can you believe Collins and the Bible at the same time?
(less)
Although Collins makes a very interesting history of the Human Genome Project, he is unconvincing in his argument against creation as presented in Genesis 1 and 2.
I find it funny that Collins is certain that his perspective of how nature begins is something "we know," but he can not seem to know what the Bible presents. Additionally, he "knows" that creation started "approximately 10 to 12 billion years ago" and that evolution produced humans approximately 100,000 years ago.
Collins argues, very ineffectively, for the evolution of an eye. In response to simple organisms, the flatworm, and the chambered nautilus, the author states: "It is not prohibitively difficult, given hundreds of millions of years, to contemplate how this system could have evolved into the modern mammalian eye, complete with light-sensing retina and light-focusing lens.
If Collins is correct, we should worship evolution, not God. For the author, God is a highly ineffective creator who couldn't create the heavens and the earth, he could only create some type of substance that, given hundreds of millions of years, became the heavens and the earth. God couldn't create humans, he could only create substances that evolved into humans and eventually God gave the human a spirit and soul.
Some reviewers of this work are pleased that Collins suggests you can believe in God and evolution at the same time.
I wonder, can you believe Collins and the Bible at the same time?
(less)
Jul 03, 2013Angelo Marcos rated it it was amazing
I thought this book was excellent.
Francis Collins clearly explains how evolution and Christianity are not incompatible with each other. Coming as it does from such an esteemed scientist, this is a very well thought out and well argued position, although some of the very science-y stuff did make it necessary to reread certain parts!
Collins is also right in that it's only really those who have extreme views on either side of this debate who get the attention. Looking at the scientific data and Genesis, you can see that there really is no conflict between evolution and Christianity, but there is a lot of rhetoric and straw men flung about by fundamentalists on either side.
Hopefully this intelligent and well argued book will go some way to showing that science is not at war with religion, and in fact they can and do complement each other. (less)
Francis Collins clearly explains how evolution and Christianity are not incompatible with each other. Coming as it does from such an esteemed scientist, this is a very well thought out and well argued position, although some of the very science-y stuff did make it necessary to reread certain parts!
Collins is also right in that it's only really those who have extreme views on either side of this debate who get the attention. Looking at the scientific data and Genesis, you can see that there really is no conflict between evolution and Christianity, but there is a lot of rhetoric and straw men flung about by fundamentalists on either side.
Hopefully this intelligent and well argued book will go some way to showing that science is not at war with religion, and in fact they can and do complement each other. (less)
Mar 27, 2008Davyhong07 rated it it was amazing
Recommends it for: theists, atheists and everyone in between
If you are a faithful Christian but find it hard to believe that evolution is a false theory and can't accept intelligent design or the Young Earth theory on the origin-of-earth, this book is the book for you. The book makes the case for BioLogos, belief that God did create this world, but that evolution and other scientific theories and natural laws were God's method of creation.
To my fellow Christians...let's face facts here people, with the scientific knowledge we know now about life on earth we can safely say that evolution theory is a fact. Collins makes a strong argument that evolution theory should only enhance our love and amazement towards God and strengthen the faith of Christianity.
To my fellow Christians...let's face facts here people, with the scientific knowledge we know now about life on earth we can safely say that evolution theory is a fact. Collins makes a strong argument that evolution theory should only enhance our love and amazement towards God and strengthen the faith of Christianity.
I get the impression that a lot of these cosmologists are thinking about these issues from first principles and aren't that conversant with what has preceded them.
For example, does he discuss Aristotle's "unmoved mover"? (less)
May 14, 2012 02:05AM · flag
Homer: "Our god made their god." (less)
May 14, 2012 02:15AM · flag
These people are more conversant with the history than you might imagine. I can't remember for sure whether Collins mentions the "unmoved mover" (I think he does), but that has definitely been quoted several times in the books I've read recently. The modern version is the entropy argument - since entropy increases with time, somewhere in the past there will be a state with minimal entropy. Both Lemaître and Penrose use this as critical parts of their respective cases. (less)
May 14, 2012 02:17AM · flag
Homer: "Our god made their god.""
That can't be a coincidence! See also this joke. (less)
May 14, 2012 02:48AM · flag
May 14, 2012 05:13AM · flag
May 14, 2012 05:49AM · flag
Anyway - short version of original now lost post: Manny, neither you nor, apparently Collins has explained yet why the days of Genesis become so mixed up after the first day.
Ian wrote: "I'm going to believe in the universe expanding and contracting ad infinitum forward and backward in time, like a big yo yo, until you tell me otherwise. There is and has been no beginning or end. A..."
Yeah. Also, if existence requires a creator, who created God? Another God? And who created that God?..- and who created...etc. (less)
updated May 14, 2012 07:22AM · flag
Oh, Collins is very sensible, and says that it's wise not to take Genesis too literally. He quotes some distinguished theologians throughout history who agree with him.
if existence requires a creator, who created God? Another God? And who created that God?..- and who created...etc.
It's turtles all the way down. Everyone knows that. (less)
May 14, 2012 07:56AM · flag
Now I know too. ;)
updated May 14, 2012 08:20AM · flag
Hmmm. Maybe God had to make Dawkins a better writer because he was on the wrong side and needed some extra assistance? (less)
May 14, 2012 01:53PM · flag
You may really be on to something here. (less)
updated May 14, 2012 10:43PM · flag
Thank you. I thought it was one of my better ideas. (less)
May 15, 2012 12:02AM · flag
Hmmm. Maybe God ..."
Well, after all, God is supposed to be fair, right? ..so one has to level the playing ground in order to be fair, I guess. :D (less)
May 15, 2012 01:20AM · flag
May 15, 2012 08:11AM · flag
To me this is a weak argument. It's easy to apply it in either direction, so probably it says very little. (less)
May 15, 2012 08:30AM · flag
That is so very true. It is exactly my search for ontological truths/reality and for answers to a spiritual need that made me look at religion critically to start with.
Also, when you look at religion from the outside, it becomes so clear to you how religion fills a psychological need for people to feel "safe", amongst other needs, so I suppose it's not surprising that they defend it no matter how irrational it seems.
A lot of cognitive disassociation going on there. (less)
May 15, 2012 08:51AM · flag
May 15, 2012 08:58AM · flag
May 15, 2012 09:36AM · flag
May 15, 2012 09:53AM · flag
I don't actually think we have a need for God in her own right. We have a need for love and meaning. God and gods are two responses. Also, we should remember that some religions don't have any god.
The fact that the different religions believe in different, mutually exclusive gods or versions of God is confirmation of my intuitive belief that there is no God.
I find it disturbing that a scientist would apparently argue that when science can't yet explain something, it makes theism a more logical response. If I can't explain it yet, God must have done it. (less)
May 15, 2012 11:28AM · flag