evolution

I’ve been looking through the internet media for reactions to the launch of Francis Collins’ BioLogos Foundation, which I blogged about, politely (I hope) but unflatteringly, the other day (Theistic Evolution and the BioLogos Foundation).  As would be expected, these reflect the author’s own theistic or atheistic views, and in many cases a highly accommodationist approach. My own view is that BioLogos is scientifically flawed in many ways.

What’s interesting is the spread of opinion.  I’ve not so far seen commenters from the religious side of the debate who deplore the odd theist evolutionary slant.  In fact many people seem to be quite keen to see the Foundation carry out its accommodationist mission – often these opinions derive from the elevated status that Collins has acquired through his genetics and genome sequencing work.  I think this is dangerous.  The serious criticism comes from those of us for whom atheism follows directly from a scientific and evidence-based world view.

Jerry Coyne’s blog (Why Evolution is True) has featured several related articles which are highly critical of Collins and his bedfellows in BioLogos (for example the Templeton Foundation, who provided funding to help establish the BioLogos Foundation).  PZ Myers (Pharyngula) was where I noticed  reports of the launch of the BioLogos website, and has continued to blog on related issues, and of particular note is his argument against the Templeton Foundation (The Templeton conundrum).

The New Scientist magazine (which I confess I don’t pay much attention to, particularly since the “Darwin was Wrong” cover fracas) has weighed in with an article highly critical of the “god of quantum physics” stance evident at the BioLogos Website (Quantum arguments for God veer into mumbo-jumbo by Andy Coghlan). Quantum mechanics has the sort of buzz-words beloved of pseudosciences such as quack medicines like homeopathy.

To me, and to other scientists and commentators, Collins is straying into pseudo-scientific speculation simply to keep God in the earthly frame. Believing in God in the first place is by definition a leap of faith, and one that many scientists and many non-scientists are, after careful and reasonable thought, unwilling to take. For those who have trouble accepting that we’re a product of pure chance, there is the option of believing that God set everything in motion.

Larry Moran in his Sandwalk blog also touches on aspects of BioLogos (Theistic Evolution:How does God do it?), including the role of god in evolution – well worth reading, as are many of the comments there.

On the more pro-Collins side, we have Time magazine, which weighs in with an approving article, Helping Christians Reconcile God with Science, which I suppose reflects establishment belief that an eminent scientist is going to have seriosu views on subjects other than their own discipline.  Interestingly it seems to me to reinfoce a deep problem with theistic views and the BioLogos accommodationist stance: if there is a god, why are these guys so sure it’s the god of the christian bible?  As I noted in my blog article, there’s a deep christian odour through the theistic nonsense that pervades the BioLogos site.  What’s notable in this brief article is the lack of any counter-opinion.  The article finishes with a quotation from Collins:

“Science can’t be put together with a literalist interpretation of Genesis,” he continues. “For one thing, there are two different versions of the creation story” — in Genesis 1 and 2 — “so right from the start, you’re already in trouble.” Christians should think of Genesis “not as a book about science but about the nature of God and the nature of humans,” Collins believes. “Evolution gives us the ‘how,’ but we need the Bible to understand the ‘why’ of our creation.”

I do think Collins, with all his christian belief, is missing an important point here – that there may well be no “why” at all.

The Salvo Magazine (which I’d never heard of before) blog says (Francis Collins and The BioLogos Foundation):

He is attempting to answer very sincere and obvious questions that aren’t even being asked by much of the scientific community. I’m sure he is going to draw heavy fire from those whose very definition of science rules out even the possibility of God.

Salvo’s agenda is clear from their “about” link, and they do seem to publish material by individuals rather sympathetic to a creationist worldview. I suppose being backed by The Fellowship of St James (for Christ, Creed and Culture) somwhat gives their game away.  But they are correct, Collins’ site is drawing heavy fire, but from those who aren’t driven by a bizarre belief system to need to question the scientific evidence.

The GeoChristian blog (The BioLogos Foundation) has an interesting slant, in which the author says:

I’m excited about this because of the stature of Collins in the scientific community and because I see the need for both good science and good theology to counteract young-Earth creationism in the church on the one hand, and irrational atheism among scientists on the other hand.

Here’s an accommodationist view in which “good science” and “good theology” should combine to counteract YEC, possibly the most ridiculous form of creationism.  The problem with BioLogos is that it’s bad science and, I suspect, also bad theology (though, not being a theologist, I would bow to correction!).  The blogger talks of “irrational atheism” – which is quite some non-sequitur really.  The rational approach is to require evidence before belief.

The KHdN – Kenneth Hynek (dot Net) blog says (“Faith and science both lead us to truth about God and creation.”)

And it’s especially nice to see that quite a lot of thought has been put into their Questions section; I’ll have to go through it more thoroughly, but I like what I’ve been seeing thus far in my cursory forays into it.

I’m not sure a great deal of thought has been put into the Questions (or more accurately the answers to the questions).  Many seem to me to be pretty vacuous.  Of course Kenneth is approving of Collins’ stance regarding the validity of the bible, so accommodationism is going sit well with him.

A final note:  it’s quite evident from the BioLogos Foundation web page that they are resolutely christian in outlook.  This, of course, presents a logical flaw, as I don’t see how one Invisible Magic Friend is in any way better supported than any other.  This is reflected in the Google search I carried out: I’ve not seen any blog responses that offer an islamic or jewish opinion.

Bookmark It