Do Christian believers in evolution miss the most important arguments?

Premier Unbelievable? recently featured an interesting discussion between an atheist and a high profile Christian and scientist on the thorny subjects of evolution – and political divides. Dr. Francis Collins is the former head of US research body the National Institutes of Health and the Human Genome Project and author of the best-selling book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” and atheist Phil Halper, science populariser and creator of the popular YouTube series Before the Big Bang. A good combination to discuss the relationship between faith and science and Collins’ new book “The Road to Wisdom: On Truth, Science, Faith, and Trust”. 

It was similar to the conversation Collins had with Richard Dawkins on a past Unbelievable? Episode. While it was interesting and cordial, I was disappointed that Collin’s Christianity didn’t present much of a challenge to Halper’s atheism. In this article, I will explore several reasons for my disappointment.

Diving into the depths of divine discourse 

While a Bible-believing Christian, Collins considers the opening chapters of Genesis to be allegory or poetry, a view that presents little threat to Halper’s scientific materialism. 

“The first few chapters of Genesis, the book of Job, the Song of Solomon, and the Psalms, have a more lyrical and allegoric flavour and do not generally seem to carry the marks of pure historical narrative.” (The Language of God - p. 173)

While I agree with Collins that the first chapter of Genesis isn’t meant to be taken as literal history, it is certainly more than mere speculative allegory or beautiful poetry. It serves as a profound metaphor for God’s relationship with the universe. Collins correctly noted that we should not confuse it with a science textbook and must exercise proper exegetical care by uncovering the writer’s intention, the reader’s comprehension, and the historical and cultural context in which the material was composed. However, by applying these same principles, I believe Collins underestimates the impact of this opening chapter. 

While a miraculous six-day creation is a topic of debate among modern Christians, it likely wouldn’t have been viewed as extraordinary by those steeped in the religious culture of the Ancient Near East (ANE). The Hebrew audience for the opening chapter of Genesis, rather than being amazed by the rapidity of the universe’s creation, would have been disappointed if their God required more than a typical work-week to get the job done. Thus, Moses wasn’t focused on promoting God’s Protestant work ethic but instead wanted to reveal the unique character of the God who had just liberated them from captivity.

Genesis stands apart from every other ANE creation myth because it depicts an all-powerful God who works alone. It describes a God who initiates his creation by thoughtfully hovering over a formless void, preparing a series of creation lectures, and delivering them in an ordered, detailed, coherent, and rhetorically “very good” way. It reveals a God who created an ecologically coherent world that was finely tuned for image-bearing creatures commissioned to steward the planet and accompany him on his daily walks. 

The competing creation myths of the time suggested that the physical world emerged from the dismembered body parts of primal gods like Purusha, Pangu, and Tiamat. In contrast, Genesis describes a spoken-word performance that echoes through time as a still small voice that continues to be heard by those with ears to hear. Unlike these other myths, Genesis remains relevant today because science doesn’t waste time sifting through the remains of dismembered gods but instead meticulously deciphers the semantic content of the words spoken into existence by an intelligent designer.

Read more:

Dawkins the Apologist

The richer meaning within a Christian vision for the future

How should we respond to church scandal?

What the Church can offer someone suffering with depression

Comprehending the incomprehensible

Einstein famously stated, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” This notion, while surprising to Albert, makes perfect sense to those who believe that the world was formed in the mind of God, spoken into existence, and then understood by human beings equipped with divine voice recognition software. St. Paul further supports Einstein’s astonishment at the universe’s comprehensibility by stating that God’s eternal power and divine nature have been unmistakably revealed in the quality craftsmanship he displayed in the things he made:

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19-20)

An allegorical or poetic reading of Genesis 1 may inspire artists to write a song or paint a picture, but a metaphor of divine discourse invites scientists to enter the laboratory and dissect every word He said.

Library management

Collins is fond of the idea that God wrote two books because it allows him to harmonise science and faith:

“I like the Francis Bacon analogy that God gave us two books: the book of God’s words, which is the Bible, and the book of God’s works, which is nature, and as a scientist, I get to read both of those books, and it’s really exciting to be able to put them together, not in a way, but in a way I find really harmonious and complementary.” 

While I find this idea intriguing as a way to give God credit for both nature and scripture, I believe, despite Collin’s assurance, that it comes dangerously close to Stephen J. Gould’s concept of “non-overlapping magisteria,” where the teaching authorities of science and religion are respected but not allowed to weigh in on one another’s course material. Although the two-book model of divine revelation brings them closer together by including both in a library of thought, simply placing them under the same roof doesn’t guarantee meaningful interaction. Once you assert that Genesis and nature belong to different genres, you effectively divide them into separate library sections, encouraging believers to walk past the science section and giving atheists an excuse to avoid the religious one.

I believe it is more beneficial to view natural and special revelation as parts of the same book, with nature serving as the preface to the Bible’s unfolding narrative of the greatest story ever told. The study of nature gives us clues to God’s eternal power and divine nature, but it is scripture that fills in the details by revealing his identity. 

Word-view

Collins states that having two books “makes science an opportunity to glimpse God’s mind. It makes the laboratory sometimes feel a little like a cathedral…We’re even worshipping by doing science.” 

I agree with Collins that the laboratory sometimes feels like a cathedral where God is worshipped through the ritual application of the scientific method. He highlighted this idea in his first book “The Language of God” by quoting author Annie Dillard:

“What is the difference between a cathedral and a physics lab? Are they not both saying: ‘Hello?’” (The Language of God - p.39)  

I resonate with the imagery of God saying “hello” because it suggests that when we study nature, we are not merely reading a text but meeting the Author at a book signing. Christianity is unique in its belief that God communicates both literally and metaphorically. We hear his voice in the words of nature, the words of scripture, and his incarnate Word. Therefore, our faith, rather than being a worldview, is better described as a Wordview. 

Get access to exclusive bonus content & updates: register & sign up to the Premier Unbelievable? newsletter!

Writing on the wall

Given the intelligibility of the natural world, I am puzzled that BioLogos, the organization Collins founded to bring science and faith together, has such a strained relationship with the Intelligent Design (ID) movement since both organizations share a similar goal:

“Ultimately, ID theory has fallen victim to advances in science that reveal natural explanations for constructs that were claimed to require supernatural explanation. In the long and unfortunate tradition of postulating a role for God’s divine intervention in phenomena that are not yet understood, ID has turned out to be another “God of the Gaps” theory, a shaky hook on which to ask believers to hang their faith. (Francis Collins – “The Road to Wisdom” location 2303)

The primary point of contention concerns the ability of the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary mechanism of random mutation and natural selection to explain the novel body types, specified complexity, and information content found in nature without the need for a designing intelligence. Collins is confident that the evolutionary process provides a satisfactory explanation, but rather than see God in the details, he credits him with devising the mechanism:

I think one can put that together quite comfortably that evolution, which is just about as well established as gravity, is, in fact the way in which lives like ours ultimately became possible. That was God’s mechanism of creation and was put in place at the very origin of the whole show and allowed to play out for billions of years, which for us seems like a long time, but for God is maybe a blink of an eye…What an elegant, amazing way to do it, which also meant that God could put in place natural laws so that matter and energy would behave in an orderly fashion that we as scientists could study and learn from.”

As a physician, the biological details—rather than the laws of nature—convince me of God’s existence. Limiting God’s role in biological diversity to just establishing a law is like saying that the Autobahn came into existence merely because someone created the basic rules of Stop, Go and Yield.

Dabbling in Deism

BioLogos credits God with creating something from nothing, being the unmoved mover, and fine-tuning the universe. Yet, it leaves him twiddling his thumbs until evolution produces a group of hominids worthy enough to be transformed into image-bearers with a moral compass.  

“The Occam’s razor version of this draws me more comfortably to the idea there is a creator God who is an incredible mathematical physicist and also had an intention of creating a universe that would be interesting and give rise to thinking creatures with whom God could have a relationship.” (Collins – My emphasis)

BioLogos permits God to devise moral and natural laws but doesn’t allow him to get his hands dirty building flagellar outboard motors and digital information processing systems. Ironically, a God obsessed with showing his followers how creation was a hands-on project is confronted by Christian scientists who think dusting for his fingerprints is a waste of time.

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it on what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy. (Job 38:4-7)

While uncomfortable with a God who intervenes in the day-to-(6^th)day work of creation, BioLogos establishes its Christian credentials by allowing him to enter the world for a well-timed incarnation, some occasional miracles, and a resurrection. I fear BioLogos’ commitment to a God who sets evolution in motion and then waits to see the biological hand he is dealt comes perilously close to a form of deism with an occasional God sighting. 

Pulp creation

BioLogos admirably attempts to bridge the gap between science and faith. Still, it seems hesitant to attribute to God the words spoken into creation, choosing instead to give writing credit to an evolutionary ghostwriter. However, when you attribute an increasingly complex DNA code to mistakes in cellular information processing (mutations), you reduce God to a poor linguist who became famous for pulp fiction rather than his ability to turn a biological phrase. 

Surprisingly, BioLogos accuses ID of promoting a god-of-the-gaps fallacy despite ID being the only viewpoint that fills that scientific knowledge gap with anything intelligible. It’s hard to understand why a God who created intelligent, image-bearing beings would confuse them by having his lingua Dei sound like biological babble. I think it’s more reasonable to believe that a thoughtful God designed the world, spoke it into existence, and created beings who hang on his every natural, scriptural, and incarnate Word.

Biological Fine-Tuning

As a physician caring for premature babies, part of my daily routine involved evaluating their blood work, which included metabolic panels, blood counts, and blood gases, to name a few. Each result came with a corresponding set of normal values, assisting me in determining whether a therapeutic intervention was necessary. In other words, the human body is biologically fine-tuned for life, and while there are an estimated 26 fundamental cosmological constants, the number of physiological constants far exceeds this figure. Therefore, while we can gaze through a telescope and admire the precision of the cosmos, we must not forget to turn a microscope on ourselves and appreciate how fearfully and wonderfully we have been made.

Critics of Intelligent Design debate the anatomical efficiency of the eye and the perplexing existence of the appendix. Yet, they overlook how the body meticulously regulates the proper levels of electrolytes, hormones, and cells in our bloodstream. While this chemical fine-tuning is impressive, it is equally remarkable that the body functions as an integrated system, with each organ responsible for a specific function while collaborating in perfect harmony. This intricate integration raises some intriguing questions. Why does the thyroid gland care about providing adequate hormone levels to the developing brain? Why does the kidney carefully control the amount of water absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract? Why does the pancreas concern itself with the sugar levels in our bloodstream? While many may view the biblical language of God knitting us together in our mother’s womb as poetic, I interpret it as a scientific invitation to step into the lab and discover what kind of stitches he used. 

Bench to Bedside to Pew

In addition to “you can never get even with a night nurse,” one of the most famous medical maxims is “from bench to bedside.” It’s an adage that points to the importance of bringing potential therapies from the laboratory to the hospital bed. Sadly, neo-Darwinian evolution brings nothing to the patient’s bedside except the frightening thought that they may not be the most fit survivor. However, viewing a patient as intricately woven together and written into God’s book of life reassures them they are essential characters in God’s ongoing drama.

If the laboratory serves as a cathedral and science is a form of worship, then research should also transition from the bench to the pew, providing spiritual therapy for those whose lives have been rendered meaningless by scientific materialism. 

Ethical spreadsheet

The discussion then shifted to morality, which, along with Collins, I find to be one of the most compelling arguments for the existence of God. Collins explained: 

“The most compelling one for me remains the moral law. Where does morality come from? You can survey all human cultures down through history…and it’s hard to find any indication that that moral law was neglected or ignored by any collection of humans. They all agreed that there was something that was called good, and there was something that was called evil. They could agree about that but could disagree profoundly about what actions to put in each category, and that is very heavily influenced by culture and societal rules.” (my highlight)

I was, however, puzzled by Collins’s definition of morality. He suggested that the categories of good and evil were God-ordained but left the criteria for each category up to cultural and societal rules. The moral argument for God is powerful not because he put columns on an ethical spreadsheet but because he established the objective, unchanging, transcendent criteria for each. 

“I think the point is, we all still knew there was a column called good, and there was a column called evil, and maybe we were all vulnerable to influences about what fits in each column, but we know it’s there and were called to it. And when we basically screw up and do something in the evil column, we make an excuse don’t we? Which only proves the moral law is there and we just broke it.” (Collins)

In addition to harmonizing faith and science with a non-threatening neo-Darwinism, Collins tried to make faith more culturally acceptable with his explanation of morality; however, despite his best intentions, I felt like he was opening the door to a form of moral relativism.

The root problem

Collins appropriately referenced the biblical text to explain the origin of the moral law, but once again, he underestimated the text’s significance:

“The original sin was disobeying God, this was sort of a test and we humans failed, and the consequence of that was losing the opportunity to live eternally on the planet and also to have this knowledge of good and evil. But having failed to obey God, it was pretty clear how we were going to handle that next opportunity for good and evil, that we would often choose the evil part.” 

Collins suggested that the Fall was a simple act of disobedience by pointing to the first couple’s means and opportunity while overlooking the crucial motive of wanting to be like God. Adam and Eve weren’t juvenile delinquents but divine usurpers. The Original Sin wasn’t civil disobedience; it was a coup. They didn’t get in trouble for running around the Garden with scissors in hand but for parading around Eden with a royal scepter. The distinction between disobedience and coup d’état is crucial because the former involves breaking established rules, while the latter entails the far more egregious sin of establishing one’s own—a sin which science is quite prone to commit. 

Apologetic emptiness

Collins has expressed concern that Christians often struggle to accept evolution, citing the literalist tendencies of the faithful. However, I believe the real reason for their hesitancy is that the world appears so intricately designed, and a mechanism based on random mutations and natural selection sells God short.

Interestingly, both Christian and secular scientists have discovered that humans attribute agency to natural phenomena from early childhood, a condition cognitive scientist Debra Kelemen refers to as “intuitive theism.” However, instead of celebrating this natural developmental milestone, she views it as an obstacle to accepting evolutionary theory because the general populace intuitively perceives design in the natural world and attributes it to a Creator. Could it be that intuitive theism is simply another term for an image bearer captivated by an incredibly complex world? Are attempts at mitigating our developmentally programmed “intuitive theism” a form of medical malpractice?

I am grateful for Collin’s Christian witness and scientific contributions, but I find his apologetic approach lacking. While it may help some Christian scientists feel comfortable in the laboratory, it leaves the average person puzzled as to why they should only see God in the cosmological big-ticket items and not the biological nitty-gritty. 

Unfortunately, Collin’s “Unbelievable? appearance didn’t provide much of a challenge to Halper’s atheist worldview. While his goal was to foster harmony between science and faith, it seemed faith had to concede far more; instead of a treaty, it felt more like a surrender. I found Collin’s latest book both informative and inspirational; however, it left me feeling as though I had read the spiritual musings of a secular humanist rather than the reflections of a Christian apologist.

Erik Strandness is a physician and Christian apologist who practiced neonatal medicine for more than 20 years and has written three apologetic books. Information about his books can be found at godsscreenplay.com