There is an incredible debate between atheist biologist Richard Dawkins and Christian geneticist Francis Collins in the Time magazine dated November 13, 2006. What struck me the most was how these two men could debate the very divisive topic of God vs. Science in such a civil manner. I’m not accustomed to that in the debates I see or get involved in online. And while I think Francis Collins still made his points much better than Dawkins, Richard refrained from name calling (with the exception of one question). The interesting thing to note is that Collins agrees with Dawkins scientifically. He says, "I don’t see that Professor Dawkins’ basic account of evolution is incompatible with God’s having designed it." I think this way of thinking is beginning to be more widespread among evangelical Christians. Less people are taking the account of creation in Genesis as literal; this paves the way for God to be the catalyst for evolution. At this point, I still disagree, but that’s okay.
Excerpts from the debate:
Time: When would [God designing nature] have occured?
Collins: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.
Time: The book of Genesis has led many conservative Protestants to oppose evolution and some to insist that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Collins: There are sincere believers who interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in a very literal way that is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge of the universe’s age or of how living organisms are related to each other. St. Augustine wrote that basically is it not possible to understand what was being described in Genesis. It was not intended as a science textbook. It was intended as a description of who God was, who we are and what our relationship is supposed to be with God. Augustine explicitly warns against a very narrow perspective that will put our faith at risk of looking ridiculous. If you step back from that one narrow interpretation, what the Bible describes is very consistent with the Big Bang.
This next one will get long because I want to include what both Collins and Dawkins said. It’s an interesting exchange, though I found myself completely flabbergasted at what Dawkins suggested.
Time: Dr. Collins, you have described humanity’s moral sense not only as a gift from God but as a signpost that he exists.
Collins: There is a whole field of inquiry that has come up in the last 30 or 40 years–some call it sociobiology or evolutionary psychology–relating to where we get our moral sense and why we value the idea of altruism, and locating both answers in behavioral adaptations for the preservation of our genes. But if you believe, and Richard has been articulate in this, that natural selection operates on the individual, not on a group, then why would the individual risk his own DNA doing something selfless to help somebody in a way that might diminish his chance of reproducing? Granted, we may try to help our own family members because they share our DNA. Or help someone else in expectation that they may help us later. But when you look at what we admire as the most generous manifestations of altruism, they are not based on kin selection or reciprocity. An extreme example might be Oskar Schindler risking his life to save more than a thousand Jews from the gas chamers. That’s the opposite of saving his genes. Many of us think these qualities may come from God–especially since justice and morality are two of the attributes we most readily identify with God.
Dawkins: Can I begin with an analogy? Most people understand that sexual lust has to do with propogating genes. Copulation in nature tends to lead to reproduction and so to more genetic copies. But in modern society, most copulations involve contraception, designed precisely to avoid reproduction. Altruism probably has its origins like those of lust. In our prehistoric past, we would have lived in extended families, surrounded by kin whose interests we might have wanted to promote because they shared our genes. Now we live in big cities. We are not among kin nore people who will ever reciprocate our good deeds. It doesn’t matter. Just people engaged in sex with contraception are not aware of being motivated by a drive to have babies, it doesn’t cross our mind that the reason for do-gooding is based in the fact that our primitive ancestors lived in small groups. But that seems to me to be a highly plausible account for where the desire for morality, the desire for goodness, comes from.
Collins: For you to argue that our noblest acts are a misfiring of Darwinian behavior does not do justice to the sense we all have about the absolutes that are involved here of good and evil. Evolution may explain some features of the moral law, but it can’t explain why it should have any real significance. If it is solely an evolutionary convenience, there is really no such thing as good or evil. But for me, it is much more than that. Themoral law is a reason to think of God as plausible–not just a God who sets the universe in motion but a God who cares about human beings, because we seem uniquely amongst creatures on the planet to have this far-developed sense of morality. What you’ve said implies that outside of the human mind, tuned by evolutionary processes, good and evil have no meaning. Do you agree with that?
Dawkins: Even the question you’re asking has no meaning to me. Good and evil–I don’t believe that there is hanging out there, anywhere, something called good and something called evil. I think that there are good things that happen and bad things that happen.
Collins: I think that is a fundamental difference between us. I’m glad we identified it.
Am I the only one who noticed that Dawkins said he doesn’t believe that there is something called good, but in the next breath said that good things happen? How can good things happen if there is no good?
Time: But to the extent that a person argues on the basis of Scripture rather than reason, how can scientists respond?
Collins: Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation. So such discussions between scientists and believers happen quite readily. But neither scientists nor believers always embody the principles precisely. Scientists can have their judgment clouded by their professional aspirations. And the pure truth of faith, which you can think of as this clear spiritual water, is poured into rusty vessels called human beings, and so sometimes the benevolent principles of faith can get distorted as positions are hardened.
That is the best analogy I’ve ever seen for faith and the fallibility of humans.
Time: Do the two of you have any concluding thoughts?
Collins: I just would like to say that over more than a quarter-century as a scientist and a believer, I find absolutely nothing in conflict between agreeing with Richard in practically all of his conclusions about the natural world, and also saying that I am still able to accept and embrace the possibility that there are answers that science isn’t able to provide about the natural world–the questions about why instead of the questions about how. I’m interested in the whys. I find many of those answers in the spiritual realm. That in no way compromises my ability to think rigorously as a scientist.
Dawkins: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot event dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constans, I provide what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable–but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don’t see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.
Yes! Dawkins got something right! "If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed."
Here are a few Scriptures that Dawkins may be interested in:
"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when the perfect thing comes, then that which is in part will be caused to cease." (1Co 13:9-10)
"And the peace of God which passes all understanding shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." (Phi 4:7)
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways My ways, says Jehovah. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa 55:8-9)
This was an incredible debate to read and I would encourage you to read the whole thing. It’s refreshing to read such extreme differences of opinion without the mudslinging.
Update: Jim Jordan has a great post on Dawkin’s concluding comments.
Tags: Christianity, Faith, God, Evolution, Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins
