Customer Reviews

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

5 star:		(211)
4 star:		(82)
3 star:		(70)
2 star:		(32)
1 star:		(34)

 

 

In this deeply personal book, Francis Collins tackles the "science vs. religion" debate. Since at least Immanuel Kant, we have known that this is a false dichotomy. However, modernity has in effect turned a deaf ear to Kant. In this book, Collins follows in the footsteps of the Kantian tradition, attempting the great synthesis of the empirical and the spiritual, the pure reason and the practical reason. Like Kant before him, Collins is sure to raise the ire of both sides of the aisle. And that is usually a good sign one is doing something right.

Collins reviews in the first part of the book his personal journey from atheism towards a theistic worldview, and the classical objections against it. His answers are mostly based on the apologetics of C.S. Lewis. This debate is much older than C.S. Lewis of course; most of his ideas can be found in St. Augustin, the Stoics, Pascal and Kant. However he does manage to present those arguments from a modern perspective, in an accessible conversational style.

The second part of the book is a popular science exposition, where Collins draws extensively on his considerable scientific background in both physics and biology and, in particular, the leading role he played in the Human Genome project.

The third part of the book is where Collins tries to reach a final conclusion about the issue of "faith in science and faith in God." He reviews his options, from Creationism to Atheism, and settles on the middle -of-the-road worldview he calls BioLogos. He expounds this theistic evolutionary view, according to which orthodox evolution theory is a fact, but also a divine means of creation. Here is where Collins slips a little, by trying to chew too much. While evolution from lower lifeforms seems to be an indisputable fact, the orthodox theory of evolution by natural selection operating on pure chance presupposes a metaphysical naturalist worldview, which is very contrary to a personal God model. From a scientific point of view alone, while evolution is a fact, it is clear that the mechanism of evolution is not yet completely understood (e.g., like Collins himself points out, the evolution of moral behavior has not been satisfactorily explained; but we can also mention the riddle of "junk" DNA, the various observed cases of puzzling "exadaptation," and so on).

One omission that stands out is that Collins never once mentions Martin Gardner, the contemporary philosopher and essayist, also Kantian, who has written extensively on the issues examined in this book.

All in all, I applaud Dr. Collins' courage and clarity in writing such a timely and important book. I have no doubt that it will leave creationists and atheists alike scratching their heads. It is a must read for anyone who wants a balanced and informed opinion on this subject.

Collins' book is a good introduction to its subject matter but is unlikely to be satisfying to anyone who has spent any time reflecting on the issues discussed. If you are an atheist/agnostic who assumes belief in God is irrational or a Christian who assumes that Darwinism is incompatible with your faith, the book makes some thought-provoking arguments to jog you from your "dogmatic slumbers." But for people in both camps who have already spent some time reflecting on the issues, Collins' superficial treatment is disappointing. One question that both atheists skeptical of Christianity and Christians skeptical of Darwinism might want an answer to -- and the reason I bought the book -- is the question of how a process of evolution fraught with death, suffering, sub-optimal "design" and waste is compatible with the existence of a loving God. Collins doesn't even bring this question up, despite his discussion of Christian objections to Darwinism. Given his scientific stature, I encourage Collins to write a second more scholarly book to flesh out the arguments begun here.

You have to hand it to Francis Collins, he is no fence-sitter, though some may mistakenly so perceive him. Some may think he is trying to win friends and influence people of all types--those who love science and those who love Scripture. In reality, a book like this is sure to displease more die-hards than please them. Evangelicals are sure to get squeamish about Collins' support for the big bang and evolution and his beliefs in a non-literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. On the other hand, as previous vitriolic reviews clearly indicate the so-called loving left will and have attack Collins for daring to value Scripture and claim that believe in God, the Christian God no less, are not only faith issues, but supportable by science. So, he's attacked if he does and he's attacked if he doesn't.

And what does he do? Using his personal faith in God and his professional expertise as an internationally-known scientist, Collins presents a case for the integration of science and Scripture. Both disciplines require the use of reason and logic, as well as faith and experience. Both must interpret the evidence. In Collins' skillful hands and able prose, "The Language of God" is sure to challenge the intellectually honest reader who will read it with an open mind, rather than a defensive heart.

Reviewer: Bob Kellemen, Ph.D., is the author of "Soul Physicians," "Spiritual Friends," and "Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction."

I read Dr. Collins' book with great anticipation, because of the his scientific reputation (one of the most respected research scientists in the world and the head of the Human Genome Project). I figured he'd offer a balanced approach to scientific and theological issues. I think that's why many people will read this book.

So, to the text. A large portion of the book is devoted to the basics of science such as the Big Bang, the theory of evolution, etc... In my opinion, this part of the book is probably one of the better overviews of the contentious issues in science today. Dr Collins makes an extremely convincing case for the plausibility and likelihood that the Universe was created through the Big Bang and that life on earth was created through evolution. This is the part of the book I have no qualms with.

The second part of the book is where my quibbles begin. At the beginning of this section Dr Collins lays out the case for the "Anthropic principle", a hypothesis that points to various aspects of the universe and suggests that they may point to God. Many of these points are very interesting and make for some thought-provoking discussions.

The more dubious part, to me, is where Dr Collins points to parts of the human psyche as evidence of Godliness. While initially deploring any explanation that suggests "God's in the Gaps", Dr Collins continues on to suggest that the human altruistic drive along with the collective search for spirituality is evidence of God. With this, Dr. Collins falls prey to the very philosophy he deplores, the "God in the Gaps" theory. It's unclear to me if he realizes that he's fallen prey to it, as he does not address this potential problem in his philosophy. He does point out that some suggest alternate reasons for the humans altruistic drive and search for spirituality, but ultimately rejects them because of the science, not the philosophy, behind them.

After this there are some middling attempts to synthesize parts of the bible with science, but they fall pretty short in my eyes. Dr Collins seems to be in favor of a semi-literal interpretation of most of the bible, but makes halfhearted attempts to convince the reader of his position. This largely continues until the end of the book where Dr Collins discusses some interesting ethical dilemmas.

So to summarize, this is a really great science book and has some decent theological points, but there's nothing too conclusive in it.

I bought this book, hoping it would describe, in detail, hard scientific reasons to believe in God. The cover, with its picture of DNA, led me to believe this.

It did not. Instead, it recycled the old arguments of C. S. Lewis. Don't get me wrong, I love Lewis and he largely helped me to remain Christian in college. But I have never been convinced by the particular argument that Collins recycles here.

I can summarize the main argument quite rapidly: We have a sense of morality within us. Therefore, God supposedly exists.

Collins tries to argue against the so-called "God of the gaps" fallacy. What people don't seem to realize is that if the gap is large enough, so that there is simply no way for blind natural forces to jump across it, it is not a fallacy to point this fact out.

There happen to be multiple huge "gaps" that there is simply no way for blind forces of nature to bring into existence without God's help. It is not a "fallacy" to point out these huge gaps. For example, it has recently been calculated that the absolute minimum size of DNA required for the simplest life forms is roughly 180,000 base pairs. And without God, supposedly dead chemicals just happened to randomly arrange themselves into the correct sequence? This is a major huge gap, and it simply points straight to God.

If you are looking for serious, hard science to back up your belief in God, I recommend that you read two books that made lifelong atheist Antony Flew recently convert to Deism. The two books are:

"The Wonder of the World" by Roy Varghese.
"The Hidden Face of God" by Gerald Schroeder.

The above two books are excellent, giving you nothing but hard science and great scientific details. This book by Collins pales in comparison, even if Collins happens to have impeccable scientific credentials.

By the leader of the Human Genome Project. A most important book for any curious person, scientist or layman.

Francis Collins is one of the most distinguished scientists in the world. This book is a call to end the wars between science and faith. The author proves that the theory of evolution is not an impediment to faith in God (theism). On the contrary, evolution is the language by which God spoke life into being.

Science will never be able to explain the big truths that humans are most concerned of: Why was the universe created? What is the meaning of life? In the first place because that is not the purpose of science, but to study empirical data.

The author claims that "Theistic Evolution" is the best option to stand by in this world of clashes between atheists, agnostics, creationists, proponents of ID, etc. He also intends to rename this synthesis of creation/evolution as BioLogos. Beautiful name, if may say.

Here are the premises on which he and many other scientists (at [...]) rest their proposal:
1. The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. The mechanism of the origin of life remains unknown. Development of biological diversity and complexity through evolution and natural selection.
4. Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required. (Evolution was part of God's plan).
5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of the right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.

This book is a very easy read for anyone. Science exalts God's creation; it does not dimish His work.

This book is also, partly, a testimony of a man who found his personal relationship with God after being an atheist, later agnostic and, finally, accepting Jesus Christ.

Dr. Collins is an accomplished geneticist, and from reading his book I can say that he is also a clear and able writer. But one thing he is not is a theological or intellectual heavyweight. This book will convince no one who has not already given this sort of topic some consideration, one way or the other. He adds little to the discussion but a friendly and civil manner - not that that is a bad thing. The key to the book, and the signpost to its downfall, is the subtitle, "A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." In the end, we are left asking, "what evidence?"

For more than two thirds of the book, Collins lays out the basic facts of genetics and the human genome, denounces Creationism and rejects Intelligent Design theory, rebukes Richard Dawkins, and sets a tone for reasonableness - the voice of reconciliation between science and belief (and by "belief" he means Christianity). As with the late Steven Gould, whom he quotes, Collins believes that science and religion operate in largely separate spheres, the natural and the supernatural, so that most instances of supposed conflict are actually misunderstandings or misapplications of one or the other. He argues that God and nature cannot ever be in true conflict, since God is the author of nature to begin with. Pretty standard, ho-hum stuff.

More importantly, none of this constitutes "evidence for belief." Instead, he has merely shown us that science does not rule out belief, so long as you are willing to grant science its due dominion in the natural realm. As long as your religious belief can accommodate evolution by natural selection and other well-founded scientific theories, your religious belief is OK. So far, we have no evidence for a Biblical God, only the plausibility of an impersonal philosopher's God who is the author of natural laws.

After two thirds of the book, Collins finally presents his theistic evolutionary point of view. Here's where Collins starts to get in over his head. Collins argues that the widespread human feature of a "moral impulse," along with the near universality of religion as a cultural and personal phenomenon, is evidence for the existence of God (the Christian God, of course). But what happens when science starts to explain the psychology and evolutionary origins of morality and religious belief - as it has already begun to do? What evidence does Collins have left for his belief in God? As much as Collins criticizes the old God of the Gaps, I am afraid he has created a Gap of his own! Other than the human traits of morality and religiosity, what reason does he give to believe in his Christian God? What evidence?

Another problem for Collins is that he is too good a scientist, and he realizes the vast scope and explanatory power that science encompasses. The natural world functions by itself so well that God is reduced (without Collins meaning to do so) to little more than the author of natural laws. The natural laws do all the actual work of making the universe go. This is not the Christian God, so what is it? His faith tells him that miracles are possible, but his training and his experience tell him otherwise. All the evidence, it seems, is on the wrong side.

Finally, and perhaps most devastatingly, if natural selection created human beings, what is the consequence of saying that God set up the natural laws that made natural selection possible? Doesn't that still mean that our origins are based every bit as much on pitiless luck, amoral competition, selfish genes, and eons of blind and wasteful trial-and-error tinkering as the Darwinians have been saying all along? If the human genome is the "Language of God," then what does it mean that it was created by natural selection? I'm afraid I just don't see the appeal of theistic evolution, to either theists or scientists - or to scientists who are also theists.

In the end, it may be intellectually and philosophically possible to reconcile belief in some kind of a God with the findings of modern science, but unfortunately Dr. Collins has not given us much in the way of evidence, least of all from the field of genetics or evolutionary biology.

Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project, has written a book presenting his case for belief in theism. Having read the pre-reviews, I was looking forward to reading a fellow biologist's viewpoint on the evidence supporting the existence of God. Although Collins presents much of the evidence supporting a Christian worldview, he discounts nearly all of it in his discussions. For example, although Collins fully accepts the anthropic principle (and devotes an entire chapter to it in "The Language of God"), he rejects the origin of life as requiring any input from God. Collins present the standard high school textbook version for the naturalistic origin of life and seems unaware of the wealth of evidence that contradicts all naturalistic scenarios, saying "this is not the place for a thoughtful person to wager his faith." Collins goes on to reject creationism (but seems to restrict the term primarily to the young earth variety), relegating virtually all of Genesis (other than Genesis 1:1) to being "poetic" and "allegorical." Another chapter is devoted to criticizing intelligent design, indicating that it is a "God of the gaps" approach "ironically on a path toward doing considerable damage to faith." Ultimately, the entirety of Collins's appeal for faith falls upon the design of the universe (which is covered rather superficially) and the existence of "moral law" among human beings. Collins rejects the idea that moral law is not universal, although he does not mention that things such as human sacrifice were once widely practiced among different societies.

Collins proposes that God designed the universe with such precision that humans would be the end result. Thus, although Collins believes in "theistic evolution," the only part he accepts as being theistic was the original design of the universe. All subsequent events were the result of naturalistic processes (although the end result was guaranteed to result in the evolution of humans because of God's specific initial design). At some point in the process (Collins identifies it as occurring ~100,000 years ago) God put a soul into a group of hominids, creating modern humans. This kind of creation would be indistinguishable from naturalism and, therefore, would provide no evidence for God's existence. Also, it could never be falsified. Collins calls it "BioLogos" ("bios" through "Logos"). Accordingly, "BioLogos is not intended as a scientific theory. Its truth can be tested only by the spiritual logic of the heart, the mind and the soul." Although Collins calls it "spiritually satisfying" and "intellectually rigorous", I think most believers would find it biblically troublesome and scientifically irrelevant.

Collins experience in coming to faith was interesting and is detailed in the beginning and end of the book. 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." 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 confronted by a Christian patient who asked him about his spiritual beliefs. He didn't 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. Collins found the arguments compelling, and cites C. S. Lewis as the principle basis for his conversion. Why did Collins choose Christianity over all the other monotheistic religions of the world? Although he came to faith on the basis of evidence that is generally agreed upon by deists, Collins rejected deism because of the presence of the moral law, which seemed to represent God's personal involvement with His creatures. He recognized that the presence of moral law meant that God was holy and righteous, but was extremely concerned about his inability to live up to the demands of moral law on the basis of his best efforts. The answer that seemed best to him was Christianity, which is the only religion that claims to have a solution to the problem of sin that makes one absolutely righteous and justified before God.

Although the "The Language of God" is an interesting book to read, I don't think it will be satisfying to believers or convincing to non-believers.

I will try to be brief. Being a scientist myself I was looking forward to reading this book by a well known scientist. Overall, written well. I would not call it " a scientist presents evidence for belief" though, but " a believer presents evidence for science". The book feels more like a desperate search of a believer, with a strong need to believe, rather than the writing of a scientist reaching a realization.
In the book the author constantly quotes writings of C.S. Lewis as proof to satisfy his own questions. That is not proof and an author should present their own arguments on a matter.
The author bases his belief on God on the existence of the "Moral Law" and man's search for God. i.e. since man distinguishes right from wrong and since man has always searched for God, then God must exist. No, that is not enough "proof".
The author accepts evolution and accepts the big bang as the beginning of everything. So he argues that God knew all that would happen, made the big bang happen knowing that evolution will take place and all that we have today and will have in the future were known to God...This needs to be accepted, of course, as there is no proof. That is an easy way out to accept evolution as a fact, but also to accept God.
On human suffering he says: "hard though it is to accept, a complete abscence of suffering may not be in the best interest of our spiritual growth"...Once again, an easy way out to "explain" what cannot be explained.
Regarding Jesus Christ and whether he existed and whether he was God, the author claims that while hiking one day he saw a frozen waterfall that was so beautiful that "the search was over" for him and "he surrendered to Jesus Christ" -- that is completely against any scientific attitude.
This book was an interesting read, but if you are a scientist with questions about God, I doubt the answers are here.

First let me say that this book was very well written and made for a very interesting read. It certainly wasn't a boring book. I listened to the audiobook (read by the author), which was very well done. The sound quality was excellent and the author did a very competent job reading the book. With that said, though, I don't think that the author really proved his point. I found many of his arguments either unoriginal, unconvincing, or both. In addition, his writing contains many subtle and not-so-subtle logical fallacies.

For one thing I think the author seriously misunderstands the positions and arguments of intelligent design and creationism, especially young earth creationism. He neglects to mention, for example, the rather important point that many intelligent design advocates, like Dr. Michael Behe, believe in common descent. His arguments in this regard contain many of the typical straw men and he often dismisses their arguments with generalities and unsubstantiated claims. For example, regarding young earth creationists argue that radiometric dating involves three key assumptions (that only the parent element was present initially, that none of the parent or daughter elements left or entered the sample, and that the rate of radioactive decay has been constant). He only mentions the last one and "refutes" it by claiming, without evidence, that haven't changed. He simply ignores many of the arguments for creationism and intelligent design, including many of their better arguments, and glosses over others.

He is frequently vague about the evidence for his own position; for example, he claims that the fossil record supports evolution and that creationists are wrong to claim otherwise but fails to give even one example of a transitional form. He also claims that, unlike intelligent design theory and creationism, his theory isn't "God-of-the-gaps," and yet I don't think he ever proved that point.

His treatment of young earth creationism comes across as very patronizing. He seems to think that young earth creationists are motivated entirely for religious reasons; it never occurs to him that there just might be scientific reasons for it as well. He strongly implies that young earth creationists are all ignorant fools who stupidly assume that the only valid interpretation of Genesis 1 - 2 is the literal one and are repeating the Galileo affair by letting the Bible trump science. (Yes, he does feel obligated subject us to that incredibly hackneyed, and historically more than a little dubious, story of Galileo).

It's interesting to note that he seems to think that Genesis 1 - 2 is practically impossible to interpret (so why try?). This is convenient for his argument, but theologically unsound. His argument here sounded like he was trying to rationalize the fact that the theory of evolution contradicts the plain reading of Scripture. His argument, which comes dangerously close to an assault on the clarity of Scripture, conveniently exempts him from any actual attempt to reconcile the theory of evolution with Genesis. This is a pretty serious flaw in his argument, especially given how central the issue is. I propose that the issue here isn't that the text isn't clear, the issue is Collins doesn't like what it says; he berates young earth creationists for taking the Bible literally and yet he doesn't really give us any reason to believe that it's not.

I should also point out that there are other forms of creationism he never addresses. Surprisingly enough, he says nothing about progressive creationism or other forms of old-earth creationism. This is a huge, and rather surprising, omission that greatly weakens his argument.

Furthermore, his argument suffers from special pleading at a very basic level. Immediately after decrying intelligent design as being "unscientific" (for many of the usual reasons it's usually called "unscientific") he proposes a theory that admittedly suffers from the exact same problems. For example, he accuses creationism and intelligent design of unnecessary appeals to God in their theories, and yet his theory has God directing the entire process of evolution! He also accuses both theories of being untestable, and yet theistic evolution is untestable by his own admission. Compare that to intelligent design and creationism, which often offer specific ways of testing (or at least falsifying) their theories. For a book that was supposed to be about resolving the conflict between science and religion, it was very disappointing for him to attempt to resolve the issue by proposing a theory that fails to meet his own standard of what constitutes science.

Third, his book lacks focus. Sometimes it read like an essay on why Christians should agree with Darwinism. The purpose of this book wasn't that clear to me - was he trying to convince Christians to believe in theistic evolution, persuade non-Christians to believe in God, or teach Christians to defend their faith better? His target audience wasn't that clear either (probably because of the lack of a clear purpose) - was he writing to Christians or non-Christians, scientists or laymen? Quite simply, this book didn't stay on topic.

Regarding his use of the moral argument and a few other arguments he uses for the existence of God, these certainly aren't original to him. He cites C. S. Lewis quite a bit on these points; however, you might as well just read Lewis himself on these points, since Collins isn't really saying anything anything new here.

In conclusion, I commend this book for its highly readable and engaging writing style, but ultimately I found many of his arguments unconvincing and unsatisfying. Frankly I doubt anyone will be convinced by this book unless they were already convinced of theistic evolution. Although I knew in advance that this book advocated theistic evolution, which I disagree with, I really wanted to like this book and be able to recommend it more strongly than I do; however, given the weakness of his arguments, I really cannot do so. Although Collins is an excellent scientist and a gifted writer and I'm sure he's a fine Christian, I found this book disappointing.