Many reviewers note that Collins' book doesn't really provide evidence for belief and complain that the subtitle is misleading. It is-- no doubt thanks to the publisher. Many also note that Collins says as much in the text. "BioLogos [theistic evolution] 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" (p. 204). Faith and science are compatible, but if you are looking for an authoritative scientific demonstration of faith, you won't find it here or anywhere else.
So why did he write the book if it contains no dazzling new scientific breakthrough? Because today the vanguard atheists are evolutionists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, who proclaim that an acceptance of evolution in biology requires an acceptance of atheism in theology (p. 161). Collins is not attempting to convict atheists of "ignoring the evidence." He is pointing out that Dawkins and Dennett have no business claiming that all theists (not just Creationists and Intelligent Design theorists) are ignoring the evidence. Indeed, Collins suggests that it may very well have been the subordination of science to progressive politics by those two luminaries that led to the creation of Intelligent Design in the first place! "ID could be thought of ironically as the rebellious love child of Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett" (p. 184). If believers who do not understand evolution very well are told by evolutionary authorities that biology makes faith untenable, is it any wonder that they will see Darwin as the anti-Christ?
So do not criticize Collins because he is not offering breakthroughs. He is only trying to return to the status quo ante, where individuals had to decide for themselves what to make of life. Dawkins and Dennett want to change the situation in which we respect people's religious choices. Since they think religion is so harmful, they want to stamp it out, even if they have to claim more authority for science than it has. Despite the subtitle of Collin's book, it is Dawkins and Dennett who are arrogant (calling their side "bright"), while Collins- as most reviewers of all stripes recognize-- is modest and unassuming.
One other point: a number of reviewers seemed to think that Collins' God is a "God of the gaps" despite his explicit denial of that view (which invokes God to explain what science can't yet explain). Science will never explain a God that transcends nature. Neither will religion, of course. But religion wants to relate to God, not explain Him. If, like Collins, one comes to God though heart, mind, and soul, one has no need for gaps in the fossil record!
Albert Schweitzer was a physican, theologian, and musician. Collins gets my vote for an Albert Schweitzer award.
less
0 comments
Post a comment