The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief [Paperback]

This book is both interesting and frustrating. It is interesting because as a prominent theistic scientist (who took over leadership of the Human Genome Project from a prominent atheistic scientist) Collins has a unique vantage point from which to contribute to the science / faith debate. It's frustrating because, in this reviewer's opinion, Collins should have gone so much further in engaging more fully in the wider Christianity / Atheism debate.

The book's subtitle "A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" is misleading. The pro-belief argument rests almost exclusively on the Moral Law whilst evidenced-based reasoning fills relatiely few of the book's pages. The reliance on philosophical argument is odd as one might expect the main evidence for belief from such a prominent scientist to be scientific in nature (Collins does touch on the Cosmological and Fine Tuning Arguments but these do not come across as central evidential pillars). However this reflects the thrust of the book - science doesn't land blows for theism or atheism - science should not even be in the fight.

Consequently I would say that this book does not add a great deal to the Christian / Atheist debate. Collins surveys that battle and seeks to pull back science from the front line. However I struggle to see how that is consistent with the worldview of someone who believes that the entire natural world has been created by the agency of a personal God, in order to declare his glory (which Collins must believe, as a self-confessed Evangelical). Science, as the study of God's creation, should be a powerful apologetic tool for those who have eyes to see, and thus I would recommend the book of another evangelical Scientist - John Lennox's "God's Undertaker" - above this book.

I found "The Language of God" frustrating for a number of additional reasons - at times Collins appears self aggrandising; in other places he seems to be humbly pleading with the wider scientific community to continue to take him seriously despite being a Christian (he spends much time criticising and distancing himself from his Christian brothers and sisters who hold different scientific views); his personal testimony chapter makes much of CS Lewis but little of the Lord Jesus.

However the book has many interesting and positive aspects. The general scientific education one receives from its pages is fascinating, irrespective of any religious connotations. The bioethics appendix is well thought through and raises helpful questions. It's fascinating to see how someone who appears to adopt everything the scientific establishment tells him from both within and outside his specialist field remains able to maintain an evangelical Christian worldview. It does a good job in presenting one way in which science and Christian theism can peacefully co-habit - Theistic Evolution or BioLogos in the author's own terminology (whether this is the correct answer is for the reader to decide). It is a well timed rebuke to believers who are tempted to use science as an excuse to give up on following Jesus Christ. It's reassuring to those who find the pseudo-scientific ramblings of Dawkins et al compelling. Ultimately this is a well intentioned book seeking to call an end to hostilities between science and the Christian faith and probably worth a read.

As a Christian trained as a physicist, I have always been drawn to books that tread the road between science and faith. "The Language of God. A scientist presents evidence for belief" by Francis Collins is one of the best. Dr Francis S Collins is head of the Human Genome Project and one of the leading scientists working on DNA, the code of life. He is also a man whose unshakable faith in God is clear throughout this book.

If you have been drawn to "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins then I would urge you to read Collins too. How can two men with such similar backgrounds and similar scientific interests come to completely opposing conclusions? Indeed Collins admits that in his student days and for sometime afterwards he was an atheist himself.

"The Language of God" is part autobiography, part layman guide to DNA and evolution theory; cosmology and quantum physics (though I can think of better introductions than Collins) making an interesting comment on Einstein's famous phrase "God does not play dice". It is also a profound analysis that fully endorses evolution theory as explored by science whilst fully upholding faith in the Christian God of the Bible, including the miraculous. These two worldviews are not incompatible in Collins' mind, and he builds some important bridges: "It is time to call a truce in the escalating war between science and spirit. The war was never really necessary."

Along Collins' road he tackles the main alternative positions including the atheism of Dawkins that he challenges on several grounds, concluding that atheists must find some other basis for taking their position, evolution won't do. The agnosticism of Thomas Huxley "Darwin's Bulldog" is also explored, and Collins' feeling that it is a comfortable default option for many becomes clear.

Collins also tackles the main positions adopted by people of faith today. Young Earth Creationism, probably more popular in the USA than in Britain, is explored and receives particular criticism for its ultraliteral interpretation of the Genesis creation stories, for its rejection of God-given reason and scientific study. The God of the Bible could not be deceiving us by planting false trails in the stars and galaxies, in the animal world or fossil record, or in our own genetic code. Collins is particularly concerned that Young Earth Creationism is driving a wedge between science and faith, sending a message to young people that science is dangerous, or driving then away from a God who would ask them to reject science.

Interestingly the recent Intelligent Design movement is not supported by Collins. He rejects ID on two main grounds. Firstly it presents itself as a scientific theory yet it fails at the first hurdle because it does not offer a framework in which new experiments can be conducted that will refine or challenge the theory. Secondly, one of the main principles of ID, the concept of irreducible complexity is increasingly exposed by scientific advances, and is looking more like another God-of-the-gaps approach, so ably demolished by Dawkins among others.

Collins' own position of science and faith in harmony becomes clear throughout the book. He presents six premises that lead him to an entirely plausible, intellectually satisfying, and logically consistent synthesis. "God, who is not limited in space or time, created the universe and established natural laws that govern it. Seeking to populate this otherwise sterile universe with living creatures, God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, plants, and animals of all sorts. Most remarkably, God intentionally chose the same mechanism to give rise to special creatures who would have intelligence, a knowledge of right and wrong, free will, and a desire to seek fellowship with him."

Collins also believes that there is a Moral Law (his capitals) written into the heart of every one of us. Clearly this is not science and it is a strand that runs throughout the book from his own conversion from atheism to faith, his experiences as a medic working in Nigeria, his views on science and faith, and finally to his appendix on Bioethics: the moral practice of science and medicine.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Dr. Collins has, in his own way, managed to reconcile what many consider to be conflicting disciplines: science and theology. Granted, some may argue that the theology isn't the most sophisticated ever produced, but this book is not intended for theologians. Nor is it intended for people with an extensive background in science. It is a fantastic and well-written introduction to the emerging field of scientific theology. the most critical point about the book, which some reviewers don't seem to understand, is that Collins never attempts to argue against mainstream scientific understanding. he states categorically that nothing in genetics makes sense without evolution, that the world is certainly over 6,000 years old, that the big bang happened, etc. in no way is the book a disservice to science. quite to the contrary, it is a great service to science, for it teaches deep believers of all faiths to accept the evidence of science without feeling like it poses a challenge to their religious views or values.

drawing from other heavy-hitters in this area - john polkinghorne, ken miller, alistair mcgrath, and C. S. Lewis, and St. Augustine - he pieces together a coherent argument in favor of God's existence, and in favor of the scientific evidence for evolution. From Bayesian probability theory, to an exploration of quantum physics, to the "free will" and "free process" defense, he briefly touches on most of the current arguments used in contemporary apologetics. Granted, he sometimes relies perhaps a little too much on C. S. Lewis, but this shouldn't undermine the validity of the arguments Lewis or Collins uses - to the contrary, It's nice to see someone give Lewis due credit, when many others have forgotten about his tremendous contribution to christian apologetics.

some might also argue that the scientific exploration and philosophical arguments he makes in favor of God's existence leads one only to believe in a "deistic" God, rather than the benevolent God of theism. I sympathize with this point. But what those who make such arguments don't realize is that if God is personal, then the only way to understand Him as a personal being is to approach him as if he had a personal component, or consider his presence in personal experience, not as a math problem to be solved. Think of it this way: I can know a fair amount about who you are by studying your medical charts, or a computer program you may have designed, but I can't really KNOW you on a personal level until I approach you as a person. The same may be true for God.

This is why we shouldn't scoff at Collins when he begins to recount his stories about how he accepted God as a personal presence. Of course these aren't going to meet the standards of rigorous scientific investigation. It's not supposed to. But if you accept the arguments in favor of a sort of deism, Creator God, well presented here, then you should certainly be more open minded about considering the personal aspect of God as well.