Nov 142005

I don’t want to give the impression that I am trying to attack Dr. Collins. I am happy to know that he is a brother in Christ. However, I feel that he is seriously in error both theologically and, more importantly in the current context, scientifically. Therefore while I respect his prerogative to practice his faith in anyway that he sees fit, I must oppose his attempt to peddle Darwinism to other Christians.

As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, I hope Dr. Collins would make a 180 degrees turnaround and fight for ID to have a place at the scientific table. I am not asking him to accept the theory of ID, just his support of a scientific debate.

I want to contrast Dr. Collins’ disparaging of ID with another prominent scientist Dr. Schaefer’s support of ID.

Collins: Darwin’s theory is accepted by virtually all mainstream scientists, is not on the brink of collapse (despite what some Christians may say) but is instead supported by “rock solid” evidence from both the fossil record and DNA.

Schaefer: Nevertheless, the position is commonly stated that “science has disproved God.” C. S. Lewis says, in his autobiography Surprised by Joy, that he believed that statement. He talks about the atheism of his early youth and credits it to science. He says,

    You will understand that my atheism was inevitably based on what I believed to be the findings of the sciences and those findings, not being a scientist, I had to take on trust, in fact, on authority.

What he’s saying is that somebody told him that science had disproved God and he believe it, even though he didn’t know anything about science.

A more balanced view is this by one of my scientific heroes, Erwin Schrodinger. He was the founder of wave mechanics and the originator of what is the most important equation in science, Schrodinger’s equation. He says,

    I’m very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight, knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.

Dr. Collins should know better than to use an argument from authority and especially using it against fellow believers in the faith. He also has too much “faith” in his interpretation of the “evidence” . I am only hoping that Dr. Collins is not denigrating ID due to fear of what his colleague might think of him. As indicated by his statement “when scientists start talking about God, colleagues tend to think they are either crazy or over the hill.”

The fact is that Dr. Schaefer also doesn’t see any conflict between being a scientist and a believer in Jesus Christ either. However, Dr. Schaefer does not feel a need to surrender to secular Darwinism and adopt a completely dichotomous explanation. Dr. Schaefer seems to have no problem looking at the “evidence” and concludes that it points to an intelligent designer.

I like to conclude by commending Dr. Collins for this statement:

Collins said he cannot accept the atheistic view that evolution occurred without the guiding hand of a creator.

So if Dr. Collins truly believe in this then he is not far from the ID position. Given this comment, I would hope that Dr. Collins could at least be open minded enough to support an honest debate between ID and Darwinism on a scientific basis.

  2 Responses to “Francis Collins vs. Henry F. Schaefer”

  1. Dr. Collins certainly needs to wake up a bit.

  2. Collins is right. Read his statements carefully. Nothing he says in support of evolution is not backed by solid data and dozens of studies.

    The Human Genome Project has provided not an iota of evidence to support ID, but mountains of evidence that only makes sense in evolution theory.

    Why do you ask Collins to deny the facts? What else about God’s creation would you have science deny to meet with your approval? And isn’t that the ultimate argument from authority, to claim that what we can see and observe repeatedly and replicate in laboratory experiments is, in reality, incorrect?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.