|
I've read it twice and highly recommend it for any seeker with an intellectual, science interest. Great book.
Collins speaks. Collins sing the song he composed. The themes that have stayed with me after reading Dr. I recommend listening to the book on cd as I did, for the experience of hearing Dr. It was written for families who are affected by his research into DNA based diseases, and was a beautiful insight into the man's heart. Francis Collins' powerful book are these: 1)The creative power of God is limitless and observable in the natural order of our world 2) We don't know everything there is to know about God and His creation (and that's ok) and 3) Christians have nothing to fear from science and the truths it reveals.in act, believers have nothing to fear from Truth, period. I enjoyed the education I received from the book about recent scientificrevelations and the clarity with which Dr.
Dawkins and Dennett want to change the situation in which we respect people's religious choices. Its truth can be tested only by the spiritual logic of the heart, the mind, and the soul" (p. 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. "BioLogos [theistic evolution] is not intended as a scientific theory.
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. 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. 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. 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. 184).
"ID could be thought of ironically as the rebellious love child of Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett" (p. 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. Collins gets my vote for an Albert Schweitzer award. Science will never explain a God that transcends nature. 161). 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).
Many also note that Collins says as much in the text. He is only trying to return to the status quo ante, where individuals had to decide for themselves what to make of life. 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. 204). 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.
As a Truth seeker I felt compelled to share my analysis with others so I wrote my book "Decoding the Language of God" which makes the case for the scientific worldview not being consistent with any supernatural religion especially Chistianity. In spite of the book being a best seller and receiving good reviews I found his so called evidence to be totally unconvincing. Decoding the Language of God: Can a Scientist Really Be a Believer. I read this book several times because Collins claims to reconcile his scientific worldveiw with his faith in Jesus as God.
But then turns around and blames atheism for the doings of Stalin and Mao. The so-called "evidence" that Collins presents is thinly hypothetical at best, and that is not "evidence" in the way most people understand it. This immediately betrays Collins' ignorance in sociobiology, which is unforgivable for a scientist especially one of his eminence. If anyone wishes to read this book, borrow it. Collins criticizes Intelligent Design on the grounds that it is a "God of the gaps" theory.
(He conveniently forgot to mention both were megalomaniacs). Chapter three and four in the book has Collins explaining the origins of the universe and the origins of life on Earth. When addressing the evil done in the name of religion, he says we should keep in mind all the good things done in the name of religion. Instead, he says "In fact, by denying the existence of any higher authority, atheism has the now realized potential to free humans completely from any responsibility not to oppress one another" (p.
His arguments are ad hoc and present no reason why we should believe in God. Another problem, one of hypocrisy, appears in the second chapter. Only a person with the inability to think, or read any other work on the subjects, will be convinced. Lewis from an unbiased point of view should realize his arguments are downright pathetic. "The Language of God" by Francis Collins is, by far, one of the sorriest attempts by an eminent scientist to reconcile his faith (Christianity) with a scientific worldview.
Basically, they are the same tired arguments we have all heard before: uncaused first cause, improbability, etc. We do not understand how life arose of Earth, nor what caused the Big Bang, nor why the universe appears "finely tuned", nor why humans defy evolutionary explanation.yet. Lewis' "Mere Christianity." Right away, we should be suspicious: anyone who has read C.S. Basically, if you are a thinking atheist, agnostic, skeptic, etc., these arguments will do nothing. That is what science is all about: drawing conclusions based on empirical evidence and experiment.
First off, the subtitle, "A scientist presents evidence for belief," is grossly misleading. The first chapter ("From Atheism To Belief") is the high point of the book. Intelligent Design has been criticized on those grounds before. It is here that his arguments really fail. Skipping ahead to chapter nine (five deals with Collins work on the human genome; six deals with Genesis, Galileo, and Darwin; seven deals with atheism and agnosticism and tells why they are irrational; eight deals with Creationism and tells why it is irrational), Collins approaches the subject of Intelligent Design. If we skip ahead to chapter ten (BioLogos), Collins writes "There are many subtle variants of theistic evolution, but a typical version rests upon the following premises.the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.the precise mechanism of the origin of life remains unknown.humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation." Just by reading this, we can see Collins is offering nothing but another "God of the gaps" theory.
Also, the fact that Collins did not study certain branches of science shows that deep down, he is only holding on to what he wants to believe. All in all, Collins has presented us with a book that would have served us better had it stayed a tree. At least you can give it back, and not give money to this type of intellectual bankruptcy and faulty science.
The final chapter (Truth Seekers) seems pointless. Collins talks about his life growing up, his becoming an atheist, and his conversion by reading C.S. Intelligent Design proponents do not understand how certain complexities arose in nature, therefore attributing such "irreducible complexities" to the hand of God.
42). That leads to the first problem (and a major one it is seeing as Collins bases his entire system of faith upon this foundation) which is that Collins accepts the "Moral Law" argument given by Lewis. Now, while atheism is not a religion, but a position on a "supreme being", Collins does not mention any of the good done by secular organizations.
|
