Comments on: Francis Collins, a Faithful Scientist

By: Leonard

Leonard — Wed, 29 Jun 2022 15:10:29 +0000

12 years later grateful for this man and you Philip Yancy

By: John Bidwell

John Bidwell — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:59:11 +0000

We must not make the mistake of elevating human reasoning, intelligence and scientific achievement as a badge of authority. The true authority is the Word of God which trumps science. We must submit our understanding of scientific discovery to the Word. Mostly, there is no conflict, but macroevolution theory is based on unprovable assumptions. We see microevolution working within species, and survival of the fittest happens, but one species turning into another has only been observed in the minds of its advocates.

Making sense of the cross depends on a literal interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 to 3, with a real Adam and a real fall. The real Adam did not evolve from a primate. In trying to win souls do we have to compromise by adopting the world’s explanation of the natural world? There is a difference between evidence and interpretation of evidence, a point that is not always discerned by biologists and geologists, scientific disciplines where the boundaries between true science and philosophy are blurred.

By: Peter Bangs

Peter Bangs — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:52:34 +0000

What a fascinating man. I attended a New Wine Christian conference with my family and some friends last year and one of the seminars I attended was “How should Christians react to science”. Of some 200 people in the seminar only myself and the woman sat next to me weren’t working in a scientific field. The seminar was lead by a man of science who had, after 15 years, entered a seminary and was now working in an Anglican church. He, wisely, offered no answers, only more questions but it seemed the majority of the attendees were looking for someone to tell them it’s okay to be a scientist. Many of our most famous scientists were Christians but it’s always a pleasure to discover someone who’s faith can withstand all the questions science can raise, and vice versa. I believe it was Einstein who said, the more he learnt about the universe, the more he knew there was a god.

By: Greg in Philadelphia

Greg in Philadelphia — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:43:10 +0000

Philip, your books have been so instrumental in shaping my own understanding and articulation of my faith. Could this topic – the sadly misunderstood “battle” between science and religion (read: Christianity) – be the basis of a future work?

I ask this because so few authors seem to have the ability to frame and explain the issue in a way that is understandable to a wide Christian audience. Even fewer can discuss the topic without inducing in so many readers an automatic, emotionally charged knee-jerk reaction against the ideas of evolution or an old earth.

But perhaps these reactions are unavoidable, at least for so many Christians who have been taught that evolution & old Earth = atheistic naturalism. I was one raised under this assumption, and I have seen my best friend abandon his faith because as an educated, scientifically-minded person he came to know that a 6,000 year-old Earth is completely untenable in the light of mountains of evidence to the contrary. What is desperately needed, I believe, is a book that will clearly explain to a wide Christian audience the following:

1) Accepting the now-obvious fact that the Earth is very, very old does not mean we must throw the baby out with the bathwater (i.e., our faith along with faulty teachings and assumptions).

2) Rather than an idea to be feared (or ridiculed), evolution as the mechanism of Creation is actually an amazing concept that provides us with a breathtaking picture of God’s creative awesomeness!

3) Clinging to a “literal” interpretation of the Genesis account of creation is history repeating itself. The church has been here before hundreds of years ago with the Copernican revolution! So many then believed that to remove the Earth from the center of the universe was to negate Scripture entirely, which of course it did not, and does not!

In any case, I am always saddened to see posts such as those here from Paul and greg…

Greg, I think you would find much of interest in the website for BioLogos, the organization that Francis Collins founded to address these very questions. And I know of some very capable writers who are working on what you describe. Thank you.

Philip

By: Ward Fenley

Ward Fenley — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 04:26:14 +0000

Just as many have noted, the language in Genesis suggests something far deeper than a literal interpretion which rips out the profound meaning of Genesis, i.e. the beginning of *covenant* creation rather than cosmological creation. Once we realize this is what Genesis is about, it soon becomes evident this is what Revelation is about. It’s unfortunate that modern “Left Behind” eschatology affects the interpretation of Genesis as well. After all, if the beginning of the Bible is about literal days and literal creation, then why not have the end of the Bible be about the same, except that it is about the end of that same creation? What if, however, the Bible is about the beginning of God’s covenant dealings with a covenant people, and the purpose of that first covenant was to drive them to seek a second and better covenant “built upon better promises”? Perhaps Genesis isn’t speaking about physical creation at all. Perhaps the evolution/creation debate is a moot point as far as the Bible is concerned.

Preterism, or the preterist interpretation of Scripture makes great inroads into the creation/evolution debate as well as answers many questions surrounding texts supposedly dealing with “physical” creation.

By: Clay Knick

Clay Knick — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:41:07 +0000

Philip,

This was splendid. What a gift he is to the church.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 05:01:58 +0000

I was genuinely surprised by your endorsement of Dr Collins and his BioLogos group. Both Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International (among others) have written specific rebuttals to some of this group’s claims, but for me anyway, the question ultimately becomes what does one believe – AND WHY. If Genesis 1 is wrong, how about Exodus 1 or John 1 etc – how does one decide what is truth and what is not? Ask scientists?
In Mark 10:6, Jesus said: “But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female”. According to BioLogos this can’t be true – so was Jesus wrong when he said that, or was he lying, and if one accepts either of those options, what does that say about any other of Jesus’ claims – such as being “the way, the truth and the life”? If HE was wrong about creation, then clearly HE could be wrong about other things. One can’t have it both ways, which it seems BioLogos is trying to do. Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, pointed out in a reply to Karl Giberson, vice president of Biologos: “If your intention in your book “Saving Darwin” is to show “how to be a Christian and believe in evolution,” what you have actually succeeded in doing is to show how much doctrine Christianity has to surrender in order to accommodate itself to evolution. In doing this, you and your colleagues at Biologos are actually doing us all a great service. You are showing us what the acceptance of evolution actually costs, in terms of theological concessions”.
I believe Dr Mohler is right on.

By: greg

greg — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 06:18:24 +0000

I am looking forward to the day in heaven when God replays the 6 days of Creation and the time of Noah’s Flood (which we will be able to see for we will no longer be limited by time{as the Bible says that time will be no more})and we will see that science and scripture match perfectly , and that an ALL MIGHTY GOD did not need any bit of a rediculous thing called evolution. Think about it–the Bible says that man comes from Man, and that an animal comes from animal,,,and evolution says that man comes from soup of some kind, and that animal may have come from a rock—-even just common sense says that evolution doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

By: Monex

Monex — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 22:22:29 +0000

RE: FRANCIS COLLINS… Well growing up I was vaguely aware of things that went on in church because I was in the boys choir at the local Episcopal church. But I got the clear message that I was supposed to learn music there and not pay too much attention to the rest of it and I followed those instructions very carefully. I listened to others make an argument that religion and beliefs were basically a superstition and I began to think Yeah that’s probably what I believe too.

By: Chandler Branch

Chandler Branch — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:12:38 +0000

Many thanks for this thoughtful post, Philip. It came to my mind again today by way of a BBC report on a debate on religion between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11843586 . The friendship between Hitchens and Collins, which you mention here in this post, is indeed significant.