Francis Collins: We should “read the Bible at more than the most superficial level”.

Francis Collins. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.




Joel Kontinen

Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health and erstwhile director of the Human Genome Project, is a former atheist who converted to Christianity. He believes God used evolution as His method of creation. Recently Karl Giberson, a fellow theistic evolutionist, interviewed Francis Collins for Christianity Today.

His belief in theistic evolution prompts Collins to re-interpret Genesis. Giberson suggested that when young people read Genesis they ”think of Adam and Eve as real biological parents of the human race”. Collins pointed out that we should “read the Bible at more than the most superficial level.”

Karl Giberson has previously claimed that interpreting the creation account of Scripture literally amounts to robbing Genesis so it might not be impossible to guess what the outcome of this discussion would be.

According to Collins, evolution is more credible than creationism or intelligent design although we do not yet know all details of the development of life. But perhaps some day . . .

In ordinary language, this is usually called wishful thinking.

Francis Collins acknowledges that God is the source of all truth so that there can be no conflict between science and the Bible. As far as I know, all creationists would share this view but they disagree with Collins about the science in evolution.

Collins’ view resembles that of Hugh Ross, the foremost spokesman of progressive creationism. Ross regards nature as the 67th book of the Bible. Collins even says that God gave us the book of nature. Ross rejects Darwinian evolution. Collins accepts it. Unfortunately, both approaches require elevating science above Scripture.

And when the reigning paradigm in science is naturalism or the view that nature is all there is, Genesis becomes a myth that merely describes spiritual truth.

The scarcity of fossils does not prevent Collins from regarding evolution as fact. He says that since fossilization is ”extremely unlikely to have happened” [except in extraordinary circumstances such as the Genesis Flood], the lack of evidence is not a problem. Instead of fossils, Collins relies on the predictability of DNA sequence -based models that he hopes would ”predict the genome sequence of the common mammalian ancestor”.

The problem with this approach is that due to starting assumptions, models have a tendency to tell us exactly what we want them to tell us.

Giberson acknowledged that he did not have any first-hand knowledge of evolution:

I believe in evolution because people like you that I trust have told me it's true. I've never done a genome sequence; I've never done a fossil dig. So what do I—Karl Giberson—really know about evolution? All I know is that people I trust say it's true and people that I have less confidence in say it is not.

There seems to be nothing new under the sun. Two millennia ago, Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 BC - 40 AD) saw Greek philosophy in the Old Testament. While Philo saw Platonism, Giberson and Collins see Darwinism in Genesis. The original author ( Moses ) would most probably have thought that this interpretation was very odd.


Sources:

Bray, Gerald. 1996. Biblical Interpretation Past and Present. Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press.

Giberson, Karl W. 2009. Evolution, the Bible, and the Book of Nature. A conversation with Francis Collins. Christianity Today (10 July ) http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2009/julaug/evolutionthebibleandthebookofnature.html

Science acknowledges: The scarcity of fossils has prompted artists to depict our forefathers as ape-like creatures

The belief in the ape-like traits of our supposed ancestors stems from assumptions based on an atheistic worldview. An ape will not make this kind of musical instruments.


Joel Kontinen

Science publications and natural history museums often depict our assumed forefathers as hairy ape- like creatures. However, recently Science acknowledged that this is due to the scarcity of hominid fossils. Paleoartists have simply not known what our ancestors looked like. Their assumption led them to produce illustrations of creatures that looked somewhat like chimpanzees.

Recent finds have nevertheless caused artists to reassess their views.

Most of the evolution has occurred in the description of Neanderthal men. The earliest models described them as very ape-like creatures. But many fossil finds have shown that this assumption stems from the artist’s belief in Darwinian evolution.

In reality, Neanderthal men made musical instruments, produced effective weapons and buried the dead. These are not the characteristics of apes.

Michael Balter, who wrote the article on paleoartists in Science, thinks that their assumptions about our forefathers has also had an effect on how scientists have approached hominid fossils. This has resulted in a full circle.

In other words, ape-like creatures have been a figment of Darwinian imagination, a wish to promote the good news that we are not any more special than chimpanzees to all those who are not yet convinced of the "truth" of evolution (i.e. the majority of the earth’s human population).

Balter’s acknowledgement is welcome - although it comes a bit late.

Sources:

Balter, Michael. 2009. Bringing Hominins Back to Life. Science 325:5937, 136-139. (10 July 7 2009)

Science Podcast 10 July 2009
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol325/issue5937/images/data/136/DC1/136.mp3

“Evolution is both theory and fact”?

The "fact of human evolution" according to T. H. Huxley. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.




Joel Kontinen


Richard Dawkins said that evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. No wonder, then, that many latter day atheists are aghast at any criticism of Darwinian evolution.

For instance Austin Cline of About.com recently showed his displeasure at people who would dare doubt Darwinism. He claimed that evolution “is both theory and fact”. In the same context he said, “Everything in science is supposed to proceed by tentative theories rather than dogmatic pronouncements.”

Obviously, seen from an atheistic perspective, “evolution is fact” is not a dogmatic pronouncement. Yet many Darwinists have a prior commitment to a certain dogma. Richard Lewinton confessed that scientists often choose to make up “unsubstantiated just-so stories ” because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism… Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

In other words, if a tentative theory points to a designer, it is excluded – on philosophical grounds. It is no wonder Dr. Henry Morris called his last book Some Call It Science.

The problem with Darwinian evolution is that it only allows naturalistic explanations. It is not a search for truth or even for knowledge.


Sources:

Cline, Austin. 2009. Evolution and the Law: Textbook Disclaimers. About. com: atheism. (23 June).
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blevo_law_disclaimers.htm?nl=1

Lewinton, Richard. 1997. Billions and billions of demons. The New York Review of Books, p. 31, (9 January 1997).

Morris, Henry M. 2006. Some Call It Science. The Religion of Evolution. El Cayon, CA: Institute for Creation Research.

The Majority of Americans Doubt Darwinism - and Would Allow the Strengths and Weaknesses Approach in Science Classes

The majority of Americans doubt Darwinism.



Joel Kontinen

Evolution is not popular in the United States - even though it is Charles Darwin’s 200th anniversary . Lucy, on tour in US museums, has failed to attract attention and according to a recent study 52 per cent of the American public believe that intelligent design explains the development of life better than the Darwinian explanation of random mutations and natural selection.

Only 33 per cent thought evolution was the better model. Of the interviewees, 7 per cent were not convinced of either view and an additional 8 per cent were unsure.

The study, carried out by Zogby International and commissioned by Discovery Institute, surveyed the views of 1 053 randomly chosen voting-age Americans. The margin of error was + / - 3.1 per cent.

The telephone survey consisted of approximately 44 questions. In addition to the development of life, it also asked about the view on the teaching of evolution in science classes. The results were interesting:

54 per cent strongly agreed that teachers and students should have the freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution.
26 per cent somewhat agreed.
6 per cent somewhat disagreed.
11 per cent strongly disagreed,
and the rest did not know.

In other words, 80 per cent of the interviewees would allow criticism of evolution in science classes.

The majority of Americans do not favour expelling dissenters but want more critical and honest science education. It seems that they have had enough of Darwinian hype, such as Ida, the recently advertised missing link that turned out to be more of a red herring than anything else.

Although evolutionists have a virtual monopoly on science education and control of the popular media, many still find it difficult to believe in Darwinian evolution. Even in Darwin‘s homeland Britain a sizeable portion of the population prefer to dissent from the official dogma of goo-to-you evolution.


Source:

Discovery Institute. 2009. In Darwin Anniversary Year, Zogby Poll Reveals Majority Support for Intelligent Design, Doubts about Darwinism.See the research in pdf form here .

God is – Good

Christ Pantocrator icon at Daphne, Greece. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.




Joel Kontinen



The media often bring before us a world that is far from perfect or even good. Recently, British MPs used state coffers as their personal piggy banks. In Myanmar or Burma the military junta rules the country with an iron grip. Zimbabwean strongman Robert Mugabe keeps on destroying what is left of the livelihood of his impoverished countrymen. In Iran, the regime mishandles opposition supporters and shoots to death a teen-aged girl watching a protest march.

In the midst of all this the Bible speaks about a God who is Good. The apostle Paul wrote a letter to Titus in which he said, “When the kindness and love of God our Saviour appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.” (Tit. 3:4-5).

We have made the world a mess. God did not command Mugabe to impoverish his country or the Burmese military junta to transform their state into a large concentration camp. He did not inspire Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s anti-Semitism, either.

Evil is a consequence of the Fall described in Genesis. Sin spoilt a world that originally was very good.

Sin does not mean that all people are as bad as they can be but that no one has ever succeeded in being completely good –except a carpenter from Nazareth who had to pay a high price for his goodness.

But this carpenter from Nazareth was no ordinary man. ”No one ever spoke the way this man does” (John 7:46), the Jewish temple police said of him.

Jesus of Nazareth was also the Jesus of eternity who entered history as the manifestation of God’s love. He still works through those who have accepted Him into their lives.

The Power of Presuppositions

Our presuppositions have an effect on our view of Lucy, for instance.




Joel Kontinen

Presuppositions have a profound effect on how we view the world around us. Popular science publications have caused many people to assume that ape men have once existed. The Bible, however, presents an entirely different view of history.

A few years ago Philip Bell, currently CEO of Creation Ministries International UK/Europe, used the following example to highlight the power of presuppositions:

If we have the information chain GODISNOWHERE, we might interpret it in two ways:

Either like this: GOD IS NOWHERE.

Or like this: GOD IS NOW HERE.

In both cases the data are the same but the latter interpretation has an extra blank space between the letters W and H.

Presuppositions can also have a profound effect on what we think about fossils. While a Darwinist, who rejects the idea of a Creator God, sees an ape man, a Bible-believing scientist sees an extinct ape, evidence for creation and the rich variety in the animal kingdom. (The word ‘kingdom’ used in a non-specific sense.)


Source:

Bell, Philip. 2006. Ape Men. Lecture at the Creation Without Compromise conference at Swanwick, UK (22 April 2006).

New Bird Study Demolishes Dinosaur-Bird Link

Birds are dinosaurs? A new study throws doubt on an old assumption.





Joel Kontinen

Natural history museums have often informed the public that birds are modern dinosaurs. However, a recent paper published in The Journal of Morphology suggests that the dino-bird link does not exist.

Devon Quick, a doctoral student at Oregon State University, and zoology professor John Ruben, also at OSU, examined how birds breath.

Commenting on their research, ScienceDaily reported:

It's been known for decades that the femur, or thigh bone in birds is largely fixed and makes birds into "knee runners," unlike virtually all other land animals, the OSU experts say. What was just discovered, however, is that it's this fixed position of bird bones and musculature that keeps their air-sac lung from collapsing when the bird inhales.

So a magpie has good reason for not walking like a gecko. What is more, it needs twenty times as much air as its cold-blooded reptilian cousin. Dinosaurs also walked in a way that differs from that of birds.

Professor Ruben also points out that birds have been found earlier in the fossil record than dinosaurs. "A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset," he says.

However, Quick and Ruben are not prepared to discard Darwinian evolution altogether. They believe dinosaurs and birds evolved independently from each other.

This conclusion is based more on worldview and a reluctance to discard the ruling paradigm in the biological sciences than on hard evidence. In many ways, Darwin’s double anniversary has weakened the case for evolution.


Source:

ScienceDaily. 2009. Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links. (9 June)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm