Theistic Evolution and Francis Collins

[Jason]

Does anyone here share the view that Francis Collins holds? I find it difficult to argue against his position of evolution through divine providence. Not that I agree with him, but all the philisophical arguments against evolution deal with the fact that natural origins for life are not possible. Well, Collins agrees with that and says that a Creator is needed to set things in motion and guide them along the way. He says that in his study of genetics (his field) he has concluded that God is way too big to place in a box and is far more creative and brilliant (and thus worthy of worship) than he ever expected. So in his view, evolution has given him greater cause to glorify God because he sees divine wisdom in it.

Of course, he says that Genesis 1 would have to be read figuratively but I don't find that part troubling at all since I also read parts of Isaiah (to give one example) as being figurative as well. My main concern here, however, is this: what would the symbolism of Genisis 1 convey? Symbolism is used in scripture to teach us a lesson so what would Genesis 1 provide us with?

Thoughts?

[TK]

jason-

i dont know the specifics of his theory, but he obviously believes that billions of years is enough time for evolution to have occurred (old earth creationists like Hugh Ross say that there simply isnt enough time for all we see to have evolved gradually, even assuming a very old earth). does collins say that since God was directing it, that it wasn't really "chance" that produced mutations, leading to gradual change, etc?

TK

[Jason]

TK, yes. Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian and believes God chose to create human brings through the process of evolution. He isn't sure whether Adam and Eve were allegorical figures or the first beings to transition from animals into humans. In most respects he teaches classical Darwinian evloution (gradual mutations, survival of the fittest) but disagrees with his contemporaries on the issue of chance and randomness.

Collins also dismisses the popular notion of "social evolution" which says belief in God and the moral code evolved through various cultures. He says risking your life for an enemy is something that humans will do, yet works against the social evolution theory which is still survival of the fittest. In that paradigm, risking your neck for an enemy wouldn't contribute to your survival, obviously.

[TK]

Hugh Ross believes (i think) that there were non-human primates (like Lucy or those apes at the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey) that pre-existed adam and eve, but that God did in fact use a special act of creation to create adam and eve. One of the things that I have never had adequately explained to me, from a literal 6 day creation account, is the "cave men" and where they fit into the biblical narrative. from the very beginning of the biblical story, man was intelligent, could build cities, worshipped, farmed, raised animals, etc. I have no idea where "primitive man" fits into the bible picture.

back to Colins- I suppose if his position is that God controlled every step of the evolutionary process, it is not any less "miraculous" than doing it in an instant of time. Further, it would solve the "there's not enough time" problem that faces standard evolution theory. if randomness and chance is taken out of the equation, then the process would seemingly be speeded up considerably.

i have never heard of francis collins- does he have a website or anything?

TK

[darinhouston]

One of the things that I have never had adequately explained to me, from a literal 6 day creation account, is the "cave men" and where they fit into the biblical narrative. from the very beginning of the biblical story, man was intelligent, could build cities, worshipped, farmed, raised animals, etc. I have no idea where "primitive man" fits into the bible picture.

For the record, I'm an old earth creationist.

Would it make a difference to you if you didn't see cave men squatting around picking nits off each other? It's hard to pair the notion of cavemen as dolts and the biblical view of Adam & Eve, but isn't it possible that Adam & Eve were cave dwellers and drew on walls while at the same time toiling the ground? Just because cave men didn't have mechanical harvesters doesn't mean they didn't know how to pick weeds and pull thorns from the wild vegetation, did they?

I think our views of cave men (from text books and museums) may be something like our "felt board" views of Sampson and Noah and Jonah, etc. and probably bears little resemblance to the reality of their existence.

[TK]

Hi Darin--

i pulled this quick passage from Gen 4:

Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.

19 Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah. 20 Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. 21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play the harp and flute. 22 Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of [g] bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain's sister was Naamah.

even a cursory reading of this suggests that man as early as cain was building cities, living in tents, making and playing rather complex musical instruments. while some may have lived in caves, this does not seem to be the "standard."

while i cant disagree with the possibility of what you say (i wasnt there!) it seems that from the earliest humans mentioned in the bible that they were rather advanced (albeit not technologically). remember, that per the bible narrative, if taken at face value, the pyramids could not have been built too much longer after the flood. From Wikipedia:

The Great Pyramid of Giza, also called Khufu's Pyramid or the Pyramid of Khufu, and Pyramid of Cheops, is the oldest and largest of the three pyramids in the Giza Necropolis bordering what is now Cairo, Egypt, and is the only remaining member of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. It is believed the pyramid was built as a tomb for Fourth dynasty Egyptian King Khufu (Cheops in Greek) and constructed over a 20 year period concluding around 2560 BC. The Great Pyramid was the tallest man-made structure in the world for over 3,800 years

and we know how advance the builders of this monument were.

TK

[Jason]

Tk, Francis Collins is a Christian apologist and you can find many of his lectures on youtube. However, he's very respected among secular scientists as he heads up the Human Genome Project. He was responsible for mapping the human genome (which is now complete) and his work is revolutionary in the field of DNA research and cellular biology. He wrote a book called "The Language of God" which his fellow biologists didn't take too well because it was an apologetic for theism, written by the leading expert in cell biology. However, Francis belives in evolution by way of divine providence. I believe MIchael Behe also shares this view, even though he's also an apologist for theism and design.

Again, I don't have a problem taking Genesis 1-2 as symbolic but if it IS symbolic, what's it telling us? I would think that Moses' original audience would've taken it literally though so I tend to do the same.

[TK]

jason wrote:

I would think that Moses' original audience would've taken it literally though so I tend to do the same.

i agree they would have taken it literally. but would moses' original audience have been able to comprehend a theory of "theistic evolution?" (assuming collins is correct?)

TK

[Jason]

i agree they would have taken it literally. but would moses' original audience have been able to comprehend a theory of "theistic evolution?" (assuming collins is correct?)

Good point. I highly doubt it but Collins might counter that by saying they wouldn't necessarily need to know about evolution because the whole thing is symbolic anyway. The problem, for me, is that phrase "each according to its kind" repeated throughout Genesis 1. Taken at face value, that would mean each species came into being fully formed. I don't think a lizard with gills and wings would qualify as a "kind" but rather, an "in-between." Or maybe there is such a creature, I don't know.

However, according to Collins, a great number of transitional species have been discovered in just the last decade, with some very important ones in the last 5 years. I'm not a scientist so I have nothing to counter that with. But as a student of the bible, I do have problems with the text affirming theistic evolution because I just can't find a way to squeeze it in.

[TK]

just to clarify my position- i am an old earther but i do not believe in species to species evolution. natural selection occurs, but i dont believe that fish crawled onto land and became amphibians, which in turn turned into reptiles, which in turn turned into birds.

i believe that species were created by God; there has been variation due to natural selection within species. but i dont believe that T-rex was walking around with noah, although it is possible that there were some dinosaur type remnant species still living in early bible times (e.g. leviathan).

TK