WASHINGTON – No microscope, Petri dish, or buffer was in sight as one of the nation’s leading geneticists, Dr. Francis Collins, stepped out of the laboratory and took off his lab coat to assume the role of a Christian apologist under the vaulted ceiling and intricately carved stone wall decorations of the famed Washington National Cathedral.
-
(Photo: The Christian Post)Francis Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institute of Health, gave a lecture on ''God and the Genome'' at the Washington Naitonal Cathedral on Friday, Apr. 27, 2007 in Washington, D.C.
“So you’re a believer and you’re a geneticist – doesn’t your head explode at this point,” joked Collins drawing laughter from the crowd after noting that he became a Christian during medical school at the age of 27.
Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institute of Health, gave a lecture Friday evening on “God and the Genome,” reconciling the Bible’s creation story with evolution and sharing how science should actually bolster a person’s faith instead of dismantling it.
“For me – as a scientist who is a believer [that] doesn’t think those things have to be compartmentalized – the exploration of nature and the discovery about good things about the human body becomes not only an exhilaration of personal resort but also becomes a glimpse of God’s mind,” said Collins.
“In that regard, science can be and should be a form of worship. You meet God in the laboratory and not only in a setting like this.”
The geneticist criticized Young Earth creationism – or what he described as the fundamentalist interpretation of creation – which teaches that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God relatively recently (about 6,000 years ago). It is held by those Christians who believe that the Hebrew text of Genesis can only mean a literal six (24-hour) day account of creation.
Another variant of the creationist view, Old Earth creationism, while still generally taking the accounts of creation in Genesis more literally than theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism), is more widely held by Christians and typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of geology, cosmology and the age of the Earth, in comparison to Young Earth creationism.
Collins described the fundamentalist teaching as a “terrible, terrible dilemma” to put people in – especially young scientists – where they can only choose either their faith or science.
He said he counseled many young scientists raised with the “narrow” interpretation that is in complete conflict with science, which asserts the earth as much older than thousands of years and that there is an evolution process.
“There is simply no way to come up with an explanation of the earth being two thousand years old without basically throwing out all the basic principles of cosmology, theology, chemistry, physics and biology,” commented Collins excitedly.
Collins explained that he believes evolution is part of God’s creation process. He pointed out that as he looks at the Bible’s creation process, it is the same as science’s evolution process in terms of formation chronology. Continue >>
RSS
Comments
The queston as I see it, is not could God have created the world in 5 minutes or 144 hours? but does the evidence that we have point to Him doing that? I also believe He could have ceated the world in 5 minutes, but we have no evidence that He did. Whether we believe that He created the world in six 24 hour days rests on our interpretation of what the word "day" means in this chapter. The Hebrew word "yom" is used in several different ways in the Old Testament. I personally have a little difficulty understanding the word "yom" to mean a 24 hour day before the account says the sun was created, since we define a 24 hour day in terms of the rotation of the earth in relationship toward the sun. The Genesis account relates the creation of the sun and the moon as occuring on the fourth "day." I believe and accept it as true, I just don't think it is speaking of cosmologcial creative events occuring in 24 hour periods. It is telling about the "who?" and the "why?" of creation.
There is a lot of fossil evidence that points toward some sort of old earth explanation, be it old earth creationism, staged creation or theistic evolution. Of course, God could have left these clues as a distraction or red herring, but that doesn't seem to fit with a God of truth that we read of in Scripture. He is powerful enough to have done it, but does the totality Biblical and scientific evidence point in that direction?
In order to fully appreciate a question like, "Is science against creationism (or God)?', we must consider the Scriptures. There are many Scriptures that place faith in God against man's ideas, such as science.) We are in the world, but not of the world. The Spirit and the flesh are constantly warring. It is not for man to know the times or epochs of God (things that only God knows and are not significantly linked to our faith). Does it matter if the world was created in 6 literal days of 24 hours each? It only matters to God that we believe He can and did do just that! If we can wink at such a profound statement (that, requires ultimate faith), then won't we be more likely to wink at other profound statements in the Bible like "He is not here for He has risen from the dead, like He said"? Quite simply, if God can create anything at all, why can't He create the whole world in 144 hours? I believe He could have done it in five minutes! Is anything too difficult for God? Are not all things possible with God? What we should wonder about is how a man can call himself a believer in God, and at the same time feel that God needs billions of years to do the job right. Isn't that a blurring of the line between faith in God and the need for acceptance within the scientific community? All that can be accomplished is the further confusing of young minds as to the omnipotence of the Creator. It's like saying, "Sure little Johnny, God is great and God is good, but He's not THAT GREAT!" Is He?