All Comments for: Creation or Evolution? Yes! | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > January

Christianity Today, January, 2007 |

Creation or Evolution? Yes!

Francis Collins issues a call to stand on the middle ground.

Interview by Stan Guthrie | posted 1/16/2007 08:55AM

Francis S. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, reconciles his Christian faith with scientific theory, including evolution, in The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 141 comments.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ...

Show All

Mike Adams

Posted: January 28, 2007 11:55 PM

I saw this good question in another comment: "CT should run a retraction and apologize for running an article like this...what if you just gave someone an excuse to walk away from the faith?!" Of course Francis Collins never intended to cause any Christian to not believe in God. He is convinced evolution is a true fact, and he's trying to convince Christians it's not necessary to choose between scientific evidence and God. But what if someone, who all his life believed that God made humans in an instant a few thousand years ago, now realizes that maybe Francis Collins is right about evolution. Now instead of humans being created instantly and separately from other animals, humans are the result of 4 Billion years of evolution and are related to all other animals. Couldn't that shake someone's faith? If evolution is correct, was God necessary for all the life we see today? And if God is not necessary for something as complicated as life, why would He be necessary for anything else?

Felix

Posted: January 28, 2007 8:47 PM


What about Adam & Eve? When did they happen?

Anthony

Posted: January 28, 2007 1:21 PM

There will never be a time on this side of eternity where readers of the Bible bridge every gap between the world as we know it to be and the Divine mysteries. He or she who learns to be content in both worlds may well avoid some major pitfalls in this life. I do think it wise to drink at the well of sound science and also at the well of sound theology. Does not this require humility as well as itellectual integrity?

BobC	Posted: January 28, 2007 12:34 AM

Despite what many non-scientists here have said, the evidence for evolution is much greater than the evidence for the earth's orbit around the sun. Evolution is as true as any other accepted scientific fact. The only reason some people reject evolution is because it conflicts with a story in the Bible. Sorry but Genesis, if you want to read it literally, is just plain wrong. Francis Collins can't reject evolution because of the genetic evidence he has seen with his own eyes. The Christian non-scientists who reject evolution are telling the world that Christianity is anti-science.

Nathaniel Hardt

Posted: January 27, 2007 9:04 PM

At last! We can have it both ways. Paul said that "...by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin." Evolution--the atheist's creation myth--says that by a bunch of random deaths man entered into the world. Can we really have it both ways? Evolution assumes that the cart came before the horse, i.e, that death resulted in the creation of man and therefore preceded that creation. Paul declares the reverse. Is there a law of physics which permits events to simultaneously precede each other and simultaneously follow each other? Would it not be more logical to conclude that if believers cannot trust Paul on the first man Adam that unbelievers should not be blamed if they cannot trust Paul on the second man Adam? Francis Collins in his quest for the "comfortable synthesis" and the "happy middle ground" seems to have missed the Biblical boat.

Ken Osborn

Posted: January 26, 2007 12:34 PM


My father, who I believe was a Christian, did not go to Church because he never found a minister who didn't think our planet was created in 6 calendar days. He was a geologist and his fossil told him otherwise. I’m very happy that we are pretty much past that belief.

K. O'Connell

Posted: January 25, 2007 5:28 PM

I agree with Mr. Sparks that there are two different types of evolution, one of which, microevolution, has almost obtained the "rank" of scientific fact. As for Microevolution, the overwhelming lack of any data to support this requires Macroevolutionists to have more faith than Christians. Darwin himself devoted many pages of his book to objections to his hypothesis which he could not renounce. With our better understanding of genetics, the very platform of macroevolution has fallen, leading to different forms of the belief which rather inadiquitely attempt to explain this problem. Also, Molecular Biology denies macroevolution as does stuctual homology and the fossil record. Whether you believe that it was a literal 7 days, or 70 million years, if God did use evolution, I believe he must have removed all evidence of it.

Bob Stelter

Posted: January 24, 2007 7:43 PM

Well done for the replies thus far, not so well for the article and shame on CT for running such a piece. It is one thing to believe that evolution took place, it is another thing to blame God for it. This is theistic evolution which is a contradiction in terms. Nobel prize winning evolutionist Jaques Monod stated "natural selection is the blindest and most cruel way of evolving new species. The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process - I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea". Precisely. The fossil record nor molecular biology support evolution and CT should know this. CT should run a retraction and apologize for running an article like this...what if you just gave someone an excuse to walk away from the faith?! If this was Carl Sagan Today, I would expect this. We should be able to rely on CT to stay on the side of Truth. This article does not refer to one Bible verse, that should tell you something.

David Wisdom

Posted: January 24, 2007 10:05 AM

Ge. 1: 3-5 KJV. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness, And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And the evening and morning were the first day. How in the world can anyone two years old and up interpret that other than one revolution of the Earth around the Sun? Approximately twenty four hours. EVENING...MORNING.FIRST DAY...DUH.

Jim Pemberton

Posted: January 24, 2007 9:57 AM

I've studied the science behind the origins debate with respect to the differences between the philosophical mores of naturalism and theism and each uses a separate set of presuppositions to analyze the scientific data. The view espoused by Francis Collins mixes naturalistic science with the anti-intellectualism prevalent among evangelicals today. There is a better science than that practiced through naturalistic presuppositions, which a priori denies "supernatural" causes. There is a better approach to theology than the semi-pelagianism practiced by most evangelicals. Setting aside each in favor of the truth yields a capacity to understand our creator through His creation. This includes the incarnation as well as His written revelation. It also means recognizing that science discovery without assuming a false boundary between the "natural" and "supernatural" indicates that a Creator is exceptionally likely... which means that the primary premise of naturalism is not.

solomon li

Posted: January 24, 2007 4:30 AM

there are many things in this world which we know little about. it is unfortunate some feel threatened by the notion that science is incompatible with the faith. truth be told, Christianity has a rich history in the sciences (ie. mendell, the father of genetics was a monk). if one were to read the genesis 1 with care, they would discover there is no set meaning on the word yom (day) cited in context: it is ambiguous. frankly, it does not matter. through the ages the various attempts to define the meaning of day have fallen short. it does not change the meaning of the text if you alternate between the views, so historicity is safely protected. even men like b.b. warfield found it possible that God worked in evolution. i would point any person curious to read w.r. godfrey's treatment in "God's pattern of creation". as for the "exclusivity" of salvation, the work of Christ was "inclusive" as we ALL deserve hell. see david clotfelter's book "sinners in the hands of a good God".

Louis

Posted: January 23, 2007 9:42 PM

In Genesis 1, over and over, it states, "after their own kind". This is as close to legalese as you'll ever find in the Bible, and it means that evolution is not how God did things. He set the species in place, and there they remain, "after their own kind." It's easy to miss a phrase like that, but the repetition of it drew my attention at last, and that's when I came to this realization. I hope I have managed to say this with love, that's my intent.

Rev. Scott

Posted: January 23, 2007 8:58 PM

I believe it is typical of a confused person to rely on "oppositions of science, falsely so called", as Paul so eloquently spoke. It is evident as it always has been, that God created man from the dust of the earth and created woman from the existing man Adam. And as another comment mentioned, the purpose, reasoning, and theology behind Jesus and his sinless life as well as His sacrifice for our sins would make no sense. No, just as God created the world and the heavens, He created man and all that dwell therein. To believe otherwise is to have faith in only what you think you see, which is no faith at all....

Timothy Davis

Posted: January 23, 2007 6:43 PM

Collins hints that taking an inerrancy view of the Scriptures (that God created in 6 days) puts our young people in the dilemma, as he describes it, to "disbelieve facts that now seem absolutely incontrovertible." First, with this statement the author hints at the fact that man's perception is a moving target. What he perceives to be "absolute" today is subject to change tomorrow. The only absolute in this discussion is God's word. If that word conflicts with the Christian's attempts to be accepted into the mainstream scientific community so be it. By doing textual gymnastics to make God's account of creation fit atheistic man's evolution account we become false prophets of the first order. Second, it is inaccurate to assert that science has facts absolutely incontrovertible in terms of various dating methods they employ to secure the length of time they claim necessary for evolution to have occurred. More accurately, evolution is impossible, given ordered complexity.

Jan	Posted: January 23, 2007 8:53 AM

It is amazing to me that it is so difficult for people to accept evolution as tool God used in His Creation. Jesus often makes statements that seem difficult to reconcile, and one of the things I have found so valuable about that is it teaches us to hold both views. God is complex beyond our wildest imaginings. So why do we feel we need to pigeonole Him into one simplistic little corner? Sure there are holes in evolution, but what if those "holes" get filled in? Then what? Evolution is a scientific theory, it is not religion or faith....or, at least, it shouldn't be. And belief in the One Creator should not exclude our attempt to understand black holes, quarks or quantum theory. As for me, I think God has created the most wondrous world, and the more I know about it, the more awe-struck I am. Please don't put God in a box.

David

Posted: January 23, 2007 1:00 AM


Dr. Collins (and Christianity Today to a lesser extent) is avoiding the issue. What is in conflict is between science and naturalistic Darwinism. How can Chritianity be relevant in science if a (detectable) intelligent design is impossible even in principle?

Rigor

Posted: January 22, 2007 5:47 PM

It isn't necessary for a Christian to refuse to consider that God may have chosen to create the world over a long time. By doing so we risk further disgrace of Christiandom, much as was the result of the dogmatic opposition of the church in the days of Copericus and Gallileo. If God set it all in motion by a speaking a Big Bang and brought creatures into existence through time, I'm okay with that--not that God asked my permission. Since the 1800s and Darwin, advances in microbiology and modern laser microscopes, etc, may well show God played a strong hand in shepherding any animal evolution. Multiple millions of cells coming together the right way and right time to form an eye is incredible. Genesis is tremendously important, foundational to our knowledge of God's plan. Mankind surely was a special God project, with unique characteristics that separate us from the animal kingdom. We need to live fervently for God because of what He has clearly revealed.

A. Muxlow

Posted: January 21, 2007 8:20 PM

How do you have any faith whatsoever in a God who can't get his own story straight? If God doesn't know how he created the universe (or is lying), how can a person believe that God knows how we can be saved? The problem with evolution is in the definition of terms. Variation within species (Great Danes and poodles come from the same ansestor) is called evolution, but is in no way the "goo-to-you" evolution that atheistic "scientists" are pushing. Molecules-to-man evolution is a hoax and a fraud, and it is sad that Mr. Collins doesn't see the danger in undercutting God's Word. Read 1 Timothy 6:20 and Romans 3:3.

jrmd32

Posted: January 21, 2007 4:27 PM


After completing medical school and studying the Bible over many years, I agree with Collins.

Mike van't Slot

Posted: January 20, 2007 4:31 PM

This is, sadly, foolish nonsense. While I wholeheartedly agree that God is the God of the Bible and the God of the genome, evolution and creation are mutually exclusive, if we are defining evolution as the process for the production of new organisms. No one has an argument if we are simply defining evolution as "change"; change occurs constantly all around us. Evolution as a source of new genetic information, of creation, has no mechanism to do this and directly contradicts Genesis. If I'm going to choose who to believe, God or man, I'm gonna go with the One who was there when it happened!

Stacyman

Posted: January 20, 2007 3:02 PM

Middle ground, huh? It seems like Jesus mentioned something about being "lukewarm". Of course, it was probably just poetic. I'm sure it shouldn't be taken "literally". Why compromise when even the evolutionists don't agree with themselves? In a debate with Answers in Genesis, the Australian Skeptics made the following statement. "The fact that evolution doesn't require mutations (although they are a useful source of genetic change and diversity) has been explained many times, and will no doubt have to be explained many times again." The response from Answers in Genesis was a quote from another evolutionist. "One of the greatest evolutionists, the late Theodosius Dobzhansky, wrote: 'The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution...' (American Scientist, Winter 1957, p. 385). How many frauds, inconsistencies and lies do evolutionists need to conceive before we listen to what God plainly told us in His Word.

Dale	Posted: January 20, 2007 2:17 PM

Collins does not rule out of order questions that go beyond the natural order. Rather he rules out where the bible speaks on the natural order. God says that 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. Yet Collins relegates the existence of God to faith. A good article that exposes the thought process behind rationalizing Christianity with evolution. Dangerous teaching in my opinion, but I expect as a young earth creationist I would be labeled an "extreme voice".

Jay	Posted: January 20, 2007 9:27 AM

Good on Collins for his opinion. I have no opinion on whether evolution is true in its proposed form or not; I am no biologist. It's a little presumptuous for any Christian to totally discount evolution as a theory, as it would place the critic in the role of scientist AND amatuer theologian. Most of us are unqualified to make such statements. True, evolution has its holes, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. Like I said, I have no opinion on the subject, and I'm sure as sugar not ready to accept it just because I was taught it in grade school. Advice for fellow laymen: atheists will always use evolution as a theological cudgel, when they know nothing of the first few chapters of Gensis. Guide them in scripture, but leave the scientific arguments to the churchmen in that field. There's nothing wrong with saying you have no answer.

Gene	Posted: January 20, 2007 7:58 AM

This topic sure generates a lot of heat! One thing about this great nation we live in - everyone, no matter how informed or uniformed is welcome to his/her opinion. Ironic how many comments belie obvious lack of basic knowledge. Most of us don't "know" a lot - we spout off what we have been told by other so called experts - I'm as guilty as the next person in this regard, but as I study and learn more and more I begin to see the obvious holes in many of the so called "experts" assertions. Truth is, we do not know, nor are we ever likely to know, in this life time, whether God used Theistic Evolution to create man or not. Having studied in order to preach on Genesis 1-3 this week there is no doubt in my mind it was not intented to be read "literaly." It is in fact though a literary masterpiece! Incredible symmetry and literary beauty. Does it convey truth, absolutely, but not scientific truth. On the others side of the argument, sin posses a powerful counter argument to TE.

James Thompson

Posted: January 19, 2007 10:05 PM

Scientific Darwinism is neutral; Darwin delayed publication of his theory because of its Utility for negative use by Neo-Platonists. John C. Calhoun named Blacks as Emmanuel Kant's Radical Evil, who must be kept enslaved. Social Darwinism, also based on Kant's Deontological ethics, labels the poor as Kant's Radical Evil, saying the sooner the poor are let to die out, denying food and water, the happier the world will be; Adolph Hitler put in his death camps the elderly poor and disabled; put in political opponants, Jews and Gypsies, as WWII began. Focus on scientific Darwinism, distracts attention from real evils of neo-Platonisms. There is Aristotle's rational philosophy; there is neo-Platonism's Irrational Allegorical Method, which can use anthing to "prove" anthing else; neo-Platonisms are basicaly Irrational; differences are resolveable only by force, clacques, Baalem's and Marx's political correctness.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ...

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment