The Language Of God – Collin’s Personal Position
Collins is a Theistic Evolutionist but he doesn’t like the label because scientists are confused by the theistic part – what or who is a theist? Theologians are wary of the evolutionist part fearing that God is losing out in the label.
(A Theistic Evolutionist believes that God designed and started the evolutionary process and occasionally tweeks it to keep it on the planned track (ID??) as opposed to a Deistic Evolutionist who believes that god designed and started the evolutionary process and then lost interest or went away, leaving evolution to fend for itself.)
He prefers the term BioLogos. Biologists understand the Bio part – meaning life and the Logos part will be understood by some to be a Greek word meaning word or communication and might be OK with that. Christians love the word Logos - identifying it with Jesus and would be OK with the Bio part, suggesting life and Jesus somehow combined.
The basic tenants of Theistic Evolution or BioLogos as defined by Collins are as follows.
One – The universe came out of nothingness about 14 billion years ago.
Two – Despite massive improbability, the universe appears to be precisely tuned for life.
Three – The precise origin remains unknown but once occurring, the process of evolution produced simple and complex life.
Four – Once evolution got underway, no supernatural intervention is required to produce the universe as we know it.
Five – Humans are a part of this evolutionary process and share a common ancestor with the great apes. Except….
Six – Humans are unique in ways that defy evolution and point to a spiritual nature as exemplified by the universal (or at least earthly) nature of a moral code in all humans and also by the universal characteristic of a search for God in all humans.
Quite convenient and Collins believes that almost anyone from all of the great religions of the world wouldn’t have a problem with BioLogos thus defined.
(A Theistic Evolutionist believes that God designed and started the evolutionary process and occasionally tweeks it to keep it on the planned track (ID??) as opposed to a Deistic Evolutionist who believes that god designed and started the evolutionary process and then lost interest or went away, leaving evolution to fend for itself.)
He prefers the term BioLogos. Biologists understand the Bio part – meaning life and the Logos part will be understood by some to be a Greek word meaning word or communication and might be OK with that. Christians love the word Logos - identifying it with Jesus and would be OK with the Bio part, suggesting life and Jesus somehow combined.
The basic tenants of Theistic Evolution or BioLogos as defined by Collins are as follows.
One – The universe came out of nothingness about 14 billion years ago.
Two – Despite massive improbability, the universe appears to be precisely tuned for life.
Three – The precise origin remains unknown but once occurring, the process of evolution produced simple and complex life.
Four – Once evolution got underway, no supernatural intervention is required to produce the universe as we know it.
Five – Humans are a part of this evolutionary process and share a common ancestor with the great apes. Except….
Six – Humans are unique in ways that defy evolution and point to a spiritual nature as exemplified by the universal (or at least earthly) nature of a moral code in all humans and also by the universal characteristic of a search for God in all humans.
Quite convenient and Collins believes that almost anyone from all of the great religions of the world wouldn’t have a problem with BioLogos thus defined.
posted by complexspecificity | 2:10 AM
11 Comments:
Good work digging down to the framework of Collins' theistic evolution...
I am left with several questions after reading this... that he leaves unanswered I think. My thoughts?
1. Can this position explain how I am "fearfully and wonderfully made"? - i.e. am "I" still special if I have been made by a complex machine and not the hand of God?
2. Since it seems like this position precludes the possibility that Genesis describes the act of creation... (because things didn't just "spring up spontaneously" they evolved slowly - in line with the "God's pleasure" which seems like the opposite of evolutionary necessity ), does this also imply that Revelation's eschatological view of the end of the world is also non-descriptive of any real events ? - in which case... isn't Collins contradicting the Bible based only on his observations of the world?
I wonder if point number six needs more thought. For instance: the existance of a moral code in all humans could just be a requirement for social living. We see similar behaviors in wolves, monkey troops, and even groups of dogs.
The search for God is more precisely explained as a search for meaning, I think. The establishment of a god, or Religion, could also be seen as inventions of society to control the behaviors of its members. For example: If we're to live together, we can't kill each other. Why can't we kill our neighbor? Because GOD said so, and will smite us if we do.
Does Collins get into these points, or am I just way off base?
Response to Christof. To point 1, I’m not sure. Certainly Collins would conclude from a macroscopic to a microscopic look at living things that we and all life are ‘fearfully and wonderfully made”. He repeatedly states his awe of living things.
Collins is a big fan of C S Lewis and quotes extensively from him and also from Augustine in which both conclude that the Genesis could be an allegory or an untrue myth teaching truth is much the same way that a parable teaches truth without being historically true. My biggest problem with an ‘evolutionary’ Adam is actually theological, the relationship between the first and second Adam. “By one man sin entered the world and by one man” comes salvation. The other issue is death. Genesis appears unambiguous is saying that death came as a result of sin implying that death did not occur prior to sin. Other hints of this fact is that humans at least were apparently vegetarians until after the flood subsequent to Genesis 7 and that the restoration of harmony in the ‘new’ earth will result in bears, oxen, wolves, lambs and poisonous snake will sleep together and little children will lead them.
One thing to remember about Collins is that he came to Christianity fairly late in life and had parents who were successful city people and college professors, ‘free thinkers’ who formed a ‘back to the earth’ type community (I think) in the Appalachians, way before that was popular. The community itself was unsuccessful, but the parents continued to live on a subsistence farm and that is where Francis grew up. They soon realized they couldn’t make a living on the farm alone and one or both of the parents started working for a local college. They believed the idea of God was completely irrelevant; for instance when they realized Francis was interested in music, they sent him to a local Baptist church to join the choir and warned him to participate in the music but just ignore the god stuff. Since then he has had major projects including advanced degrees in biology, medicine (an MD), and microbiology. He eventually became interested in DNA and went on the head up the genome project. I’m not sure how much time he has had to devote to spirituality. His analysis of positions other than his own is unusually shallow for someone with his education and status in the nation.
His great fear is that Christians take a position that is later proven to be false by science such as was in the case of Galileo. He refers often to a “God of the Gaps” position where Christians confuse that the unknown with the unknowable and who attribute that unknown to God. When later research changes the unknown to known, Christians and by associations God look bad and harm weak Christian’s faith.
Response to Soul Level. I actually wondered about that myself. Collins in “The Language of God” makes the statement as an a-priori assertion though it could be an a-posteriori statement based on his studies and experience. (I don’t often get a chance to use big words.)
I think a moral code goes beyond rules of behavior in animals. Our goats definitely have rules of behavior and strictly enforce them. Big momma gets first choice and does not share except with her babies. When the babies get big enough to claim a significant share of her food, the first rule takes precedence. I think human social codes can be similar to that, but humans add many ‘I oughts’ that are individual and personal and not linked to survival value for society. Having said that, I’m don’t know how I could defend the existence of a ‘universal moral code’, but Collins definitely believes he could.
I could defend a statement that “People are incurably religious” and would include some of the radical atheists in the group. It could be a simple as a search for personal meaning – why am I here, is there a purpose to life, how can I ‘make a difference’ - that sort of thing; but I don’t think the human passion for religion can be easily defended as a social survival mechanism. This is a bit off the subject, but an example of a bizarre social value is/was the value of treachery among the Sawi people of Irianjia. The highest status went to someone who could pretend friendship with someone to the point where the other thought they were best buddies and then kill and eat that person. Definitely not a good societal survival trait.
Still thinking. I'll respond better later...I do, however disagree that your treachery example does not support a societal survival trait. I bet, there are rules for who you can be treacherous to. Ie. You can't kill and eat members of your group or family. That would make it just survival of the fittest.
Politicians through the ages have done that same thing, though not to the same conclusion. Point is, the strong/treacherous/smooth talkers, will survive to perpetuate their genes, or ideas.
It has be at least 20 years since I read about this tribe but here are another couple of pieces that give some perspective. There were definitely rules but I don’t remember if you could be treacherous within in a family or village. The acts of treachery resulted in war between villages so that while they valued people who were treacherous; they also felt a need for retaliation. There must have had some kind negotiation process available because they also had a safety mechanism if things got too far out of hand. Two villages would stage a ritual war where the men would form two lines facing each other and take turns throwing a volley of spears at each other but would stand far enough apart so they had a good chance of dodging the incoming spears. The women and children would stand behind wailing in mourning. Eventually they would put down the spears and form two columns in line with each other. A headman from each village would go among the women of his village and grab a baby from a mother and give the baby to the front of the line of the other village and each person would pass the baby between his/her legs to the next person symbolizing a new birth/adoption into the other village and the baby would be raised by the other village. This child was known as the peace child and as long as it remained alive, there could be no war or treachery between the two villages.
I’m not sure if this qualifies as having survival value since they had to protect themselves with the peace child mechanism to keep from annihilating each other.
I love to learn new things and you've given me a lot to think about. Thanks a lot. While I wrap myself up in the political world, I need something to keep me grounded in other thoughts and you provide that.
I remember Peace Child, now that you mention it. Absolutely fascinating society. i forget what i was supposed to be arguing for, though.
I'm curious about the "what now?" and "what's next?" aspects of this discussion. Is evolution an event in the past, or are we participating in this unfolding? ie: are we there yet?
I’m not sure about ‘what now’ or ‘what next’. If the reference is to evolution, while Collins finds the evidence for evolution overwhelming, I find it like his arguments underwhelming. He talks about the current rate of DNA mutations for instance and deduces from that the time it takes for new species to evolve. I suspect that what he has actually found is the mechanism for devolving of species. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that the universe is headed toward entropy or disorder and sometimes referred to as heat death. Heat death is where there is no uneven distribution of heat in the universe meaning no work can be done. When entropy is applied to information; it says that all information will become disordered and eventually become completely random. What Collins infers from evidence of mutation is the mechanism for increasing order and complexity, i.e. new species. What I infer from mutation is the mechanism for increasing disorder, a hypothesis consistent with the 2nd law. He probably believes the human race is getting smarter and smarter; the evidence when I read history or the newspaper seems to belie that. Many ancient artifacts are so complex and difficult to construct (pyramids, Balbec temple, etc.) that we today with current technology would have a difficult time building them and can’t do using only yesterday’s technology (which is probably) why the idea of an xtee species seeding earth with life crops up so often even among modern scientists. It seems to me that humans are not getting smarter and smarter, but in fact are exhibiting the 2nd law by the way we live.
I read extensively on creationism and especially a short age for the earth about 15 years ago. There are literally dozens of anomalies (assuming a billion or two year old earth) in estimating the age of the earth. I’m not at home at the moment so can’t dig out the actual data but will list a few in general terms. The rate of erosion is a well studied phenomena with a handy measuring point at the mouth of every major river in the world. The rate at which solid ground is moving into the oceans will level the earth in a few millions, not billions of years. Dissolved solids such as mercury, lead, manganese, and salt etc are easily and regularly measured as they flow into the sea and there is not enough in the oceans basins to account for the current flow rate. Helium in the atmosphere is out of balance. Helium is formed when an alpha particle (two neutrons and two protons) hits the earth atmosphere, slows down and attaches two electrons. Helium is constantly being formed and constantly being lost to space but there isn’t enough around if the earth’s atmosphere is very old. I have a reference book with about a 100 examples of this type of ‘clock’ that give an average age for the earth well under a million years.
Radioactive dating is touted as a clear and consistent time clock as measured but the ratio of elements in a sample. For instance radioactive uranium turns into lead by losing a couple of alpha particles but the fundamental assumption you have to make in using this ‘clock’ is that at some point you had a pure sample of uranium. This is an impossibly unrealistic assumption and any initial mixture of uranium and lead will give an ‘apparent’ age to the sample which means that if we don’t know what the initial composition of the sample was, any age estimate based on that sample is only as accurate as the estimate of the initial sample composition. Crazy!
Scientists now know enough about design and information theory from such widely diverse projects as the SETI project to the study of noise and chaos theory. The universe appears to me to clearly be designed and not randomly generated. Not only that, but the evidence appears to indicate that it is designed for humans. For example, our location between the arms and far from the galaxy center gives us a platform for stellar observation that is fairly unique; too near the center and we would be bombarded with hard radiation and light so if we managed to survive, we couldn’t see other galaxies. Our atmosphere is transparent and fairly unique allowing us to see the stars. This list goes on and on; Guillermo Gonzalez in a work titled “The Privileged Planet” documents some of these. Maybe I’ll dig that out and report on it.
Anyway, so much for my thoughts.
Uhm... Dad,
That last comment should have been a totally new post. Maybe even two totally new posts. Like, if comments are ships, your last comment was the Titanic - too big for these waters, and dangerously close to getting lost in the North Atlantic. You know, because, like, since there are far fewer "patrols" in this area, it is a lot more likely that a large sinking ship of a comment might get lost and never seen again.
{end dangerously over-stretched metaphor}
Post a Comment
<< Home