The Language of God by Francis S. Collins ~ Book Review

Part one deals with how he went from atheism to belief. He was homeschooled by his free-thinking parents until the age of 10 in a rural community. When he was 10 his family moved to town to care for an ailing Grandmother and he entered the public school system. For many years he was agnostic and drifted toward atheism until a patient asked him what he believed. This question started him on an odyssey where he sat out to prove or disprove God's existence. He references C.S. Lewis a lot at this point. Eventually he came to the conclusion that there is a God and that God and Science can peacefully coexist.

Part two deals with the great questions of human existence.

Science is progressive and self-correcting; no significantly erroneous conclusions or false hypothesis can be sustained for long, as newer observations will ultimately knock down incorrect constructs. But over a long period of time, a consistent set of observations sometimes emerge that leads to a new framework of understanding. That framework is then given a much more substantive description and is called a "theory" - the theory of gravitation, the theory of relativity, or the germ theory, for instance. (page 58)

Many Christians today demonize Darwin, but this is unfair.

Far from being ostracized by the religious community Darwin was buried in Westminster Abby.  Darwin himself was deeply concerned about his theory on religious belief, though in The Origin of Species he took pains to point out a possible harmonious interpretation. (page 98)

I have always wondered how many of Darwin's detractors have actually read The Origin of Species?

No serious biologist today doubts the theory of evolution to explain the marvelous complexity and diversity of life. In fact the relatedness of all species through the mechanism of evolution is such a profound foundation for the understanding of all biology that it is difficult to imagine how one would study life without it. (page 99)
The examples reported here from the study of genomes, plus others that could fill hundreds of books of this length, provide the kind of molecular support for the theory of evolution that has convinced virtually all working biologist that Darwin's framework of variation and natural selection is unquestionably correct..... As Theodosius Dobzhansky a leading biologist of the twentieth century (and a devout Eastern Orthodox Christian), has said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." (page 141)

Part three deals with Faith in Science, Faith in God

If God created the universe, and the laws that govern it, and if He endowed human beings with intellectual abilities to discern its working would He want us to disregard those abilities? Would He be diminished or threatened by what we are discovering about His creation? (page 153)

Following is a discussion on how the CHURCH was threatened by Galileo's claim that the earth revolves around the sun.

But along the way (to accepting Galileo's conclusion), considerable damage was done-and more to faith than to science. In his commentary on Genesis, Augustine provides an exhortation that might well have been heeded by the seventeenth century church "The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but the people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men." (pages 156-157)

Augustine sounds like a pretty intelligent guy.
How did Atheism gain such a foot hold, consider the following.

Both the French royal family and the church leadership were seen as harsh, self promoting, hypocritical, and insensitive to the needs of the common man. Equating the organized church with God Himself, revolutionaries decided it was better to throw off both. (page 162)

But Collins argues against using science to promote atheism.

Science cannot be used to justify discounting the great monotheistic religions of the world, which rest upon centuries of history, moral philosophy and the powerful evidence provided by human altruism. (page 169)

Creationism especially Young Earth Creationism (YEC) has it's own problems.

Young Earth Creationist argue that accepting anything other then the acts of special divine creation during the six twenty-four-hour days of Genesis 1 would put the believer on a slippery slope toward a counterfeit faith. (page 174)

Recognizing the overwhelming body of scientific evidence, some YEC advocates have more recently taken the tack of arguing that all of this evidence has been designed by God to to mislead us. (page 176)

This image of Gad as a cosmic trickster seems to be the ultimate admission of defeat for the Creationist perspective. Would God as the great deceiver be an entity on would want to worship? (page 177)

It seems they equate God with the trickster Q of Star Trek fame.
Intelligent Design has it's own flaws.

So, scientifically, ID fails to hold up, providing neither an opportunity for experimental validation nor a robust foundation for its primary claim of irreducible complexity. More than that, however, ID also fails in a way that should be more of a concern to the believer than to the hard nosed scientist. ID is a "God of the gaps" theory, inserting a supposition of the need for supernatural intervention in places that its proponents claim science can not explain. (page 193)

What's the answer according to Collins Biologos otherwise known as Theistic Evolution.

Theistic evolution is the dominant position of serious biologist who are also serious believers. That includes Asa Gray, Darwin's chief advocate in the United States and Theodosius Dobzhansky, the twentieth-century architect of evolutionary thinking. (page 199)

Unfortunately many people have never heard of Theistic Evolution, I did a Google search, below you will find a list of websites I found.

• Perspective on Theistic Evolution
• Origins of Theistic Evolution
• Theistic Evolution an Essay
• God and Evolution

To conclude Collins points out.

Science in not threatened by God; it is enhanced. God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible.

The appendix deals with bioethics.
I encourage you to read this book for yourselves, it is very thought provoking.

Homeschooling in nothing like creationism

I always enjoy the thoughtful post at Principled Discovery, Homeschooling as a protest movement is such a post.

This lead me to read Objections to evolution arise from incorrect interpretation of the facts Posted by Lawrence Kapture. I agree with a lot of his post, but I am infuriated by his assumption that all homeschoolers are anti-evolution idiots. Many homeschoolers BELIVE IN EVOLUTION and teach the theory of evolution to our children.

Homeschooling is essentially a protest movement. Regardless of motivation, homeschoolers believe public schools are unable to prepare their children to live in the world.

There is nothing inherently wrong with protesting. Many important reforms (Civil Rights to name one) have been enacted due to people protesting behavior they believed to be wrong. I proudly admit that my family left the Jackson County Public Schools in PROTEST of the mandatory public school uniform policy and it's socialist overtones. But we choose homeschooling because of the many opportunities and benefits it offered to my family.

Unfortunately, what homeschooling can do is isolate children from the market of ideas, especially when it comes to biological science. There is a large amount of fringe literature published by religious groups that support the claims of creationists while providing no real information about the vast field of evolutionary biology.

Homeschooling does not isolate children from "ideas" anymore then the public schools do. In fact many homeschooling parents understand the difference in a scientific theory like evolution and Aunt Betty's theory of who shot JR. We embrace the field of evolutionary biology and make sure our children are well educated in science.

Homeschooling allows families to isolate their children from good information by providing them only with information that is comfortable with their own biases.

Homeschoolers have a wealth of information at their fingertips. Homeschooled children are just as capable of navigating the Internet as public school students are. Frankly I am amazed at the ignorant people who assume homeschoolers are isolated from the world.

Like homeschooling is a protest against public schools, creationism is a protest against anything that opposes a literal interpretation of the Bible. When it comes to the origins of life, creationism is not a scientifically educated movement.

Homeschooling is nothing like creationism. Creationism is a religious belief. It has nothing to do with science and does not belong in a science classroom. Homeschooling is an educational choice, just like sending your child to public school or private school is an educational choice.

Why It's Important to Teach Facts NOT Feelings

When my kids started kindergarten the latest fad in education was the writing to read program. The students were encouraged to write stories, and were told that spelling wasn't important, to just spell the word however they felt it should be spelt. My youngest who loves telling stories loved it. Then he hit first grade, all of a sudden he had to spell words a certain way, not the way he felt they should be spelled. He was miserable and confused. It took years of homeschooling to convince him that spelling words the way everyone else does is important.

Some parents feel that the theory of evolution challenges their religious beliefs. These parents want to discard teaching evolution because it contradicts the bible stories they were taught as children, what's the harm?
From The Bible Belt's Assault on Education By: Robert W. Tracinski

Some of these religious activists claim that they reject the teaching of evolution because it is "unproven," since it lacks "sufficient evidence." Yet their arguments systematically reject the need for proof and evidence. Scientists can point to a billion-year-long fossil record of continuous changes across all species as they develop from more-primitive to present-day forms. They can point to the natural variations among members of a species, variations that change from one climate to another as species adapt to their environments. But the Creationist categorically dismisses the evidence--because it contradicts Biblical dogma. The central issue is not whether there is enough scientific evidence to validate a particular conclusion--but whether science as such, rather than faith, is the basis for arriving at conclusions. There can be no scientific debate between these two positions. There can be no rational argument between a view that rests on observation and reason, and one that rests on blind faith--i.e., on its adherents' desire to believe something, irrespective of logic. If the Creationist approach were taken seriously, what would remain of education? If evidence and reasoning are to be "balanced" by faith or feelings--what, then, would not belong in the curriculum? Even the theory that the earth is flat has proponents who feel it is true. More to the point, what is to stop teachers from presenting any other non-rational view of the origin of man? Why not give equal time to, say, the Nazi claim that the white race descended from the superior Aryans? The most ominous implication of the Creationist position is its belief that, in judging the truth of an idea, one can simply ignore rational evidence--if it clashes with one's desire to believe otherwise.

I can only wonder how kids who have been denied a "real" science education feel when they go off to university and find themselves being confronted with "facts" they have never heard of. Maybe they should be introduced to The Language of God by Francis S. Collins.

Thus Collins a devoutly Christian geneticist and leader of the Human Genome Project, can comfortably accept that "a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable" . ~Scientists on Religion by George Johnson in Scientific American

Or the book Why Darwin Matters by Michael Shermer (publisher of Skeptic)

In Why Darwin Matters, historian of science and bestselling author Michael Shermer diffuses our fears by examining what evolution really is, how we know it happened, and how to test it. Shermer then discusses what science is through a brief history of the evolution-creation controversy from the Scopes “Monkey” trial of 1925, through the U.S. Supreme Court case of 1987, to the ongoing trials today, demonstrating clearly how and why creationism and Intelligent Design theory are not science. Dr. Shermer also builds a powerful case for evolution as the scientific theory that most closely parallels the Christian model of human nature and the conservative model of free market economics.

In "The Bait and Switch of "Intelligent Design", Keith Lockitch explains why "intelligent design" isn't real science.

The supposedly nonreligious theory of "intelligent design" is nothing
more than a crusade to peddle religion by giving it the veneer of
science--to pretend, as one commentator put it, that "faith in God is
something that holds up under the microscope."The insistence of "intelligent
design" advocates that they are "agnostic regarding the source of design" is a
bait-and-switch. They dangle out the groundless possibility of a "designer" who
is susceptible of scientific study--in order to hide their real agenda of
promoting faith in the supernatural. Their scientifically accessible "designer"
is nothing more than a gateway god--metaphysical marijuana intended to draw
students away from natural, scientific explanations and get them hooked on the
supernatural. No matter how fervently its salesmen wish "intelligent design" to
be viewed as cutting-edge science, there is no disguising its true character. It is nothing more than a religiously motivated attack on science, and
should be rejected as such.

I feel the Flying Spaghetti Monster should be the intelligent designer, because it's cute and I like eating spaghetti. Which goes to show why feelings shouldn't enter the classroom doors. Since everyone's feelings are valid if we teach strictly what parents feel is "right" then we open the door to any half-backed idea circulating at a particular time. IF on the other hand we stick to teaching "facts" our children will get the education they deserve.

Originally posted October 2006