The scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is set to publish a book detailing an even more shocking discovery:
The existence of God.
Francis Collins was an atheist until he was 27. He became a believer, in part, due to the influence of C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity.
"[Collins’] book, The Language of God, to be published in September, will reopen the age-old debate about the relationship between science and faith. ‘One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war,’ said Collins, 56.
"’I don’t see that as necessary at all and I think it is deeply disappointing that the shrill voices that occupy the extremes of this spectrum have dominated the stage for the past 20 years.’
"For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to ‘glimpse at the workings of God.’"
I recall many years ago as a college student, before my conversion, being impressed with Paul Tillich’s view that faith and science conflict with one another only when faith attempts to express the truth of science, and when science likewise attempts somehow to qualify faith. I had a friend, an aspirant to priesthood in the Episcopal Church, who pointed out to me that in his estimation Tillich’s view was heresy. However, while dialogue between faith and science is necessary, especially if science is to respect the dignity of the human person, I think it wise to exercise caution to avoid views that confuse science and faith. Certainly, there can be no real discrepancy between faith and science but the two are far from being identical in the kinds of truths they express respectively. The reality of God’s being will always transcend the findings of science, although it is in keeping with our faith to understand that the natural world offers “proofs” for the existence of God, though not proofs in the sense of the natural sciences.
There are places where science and religion may overlap, somewhat.
But there are also voids between science and faith where neither is really qualified to speak with finality. The origin of the universe and life on earth is one of these places. It becomes problematic for me when someone from one side or the other claims to have it all figured out.
So when I hear scientific theory on this topic (atheistic evolution, for example) presented as absolute dogma, I know something is being distorted.
Similarly, when I hear simplistic religious explanations that claim to have all the Genesis events plugged in to a neat grid, I have my doubts.
We would be far better off to humbly acknowledge our ignorance in this area.
“For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to ‘glimpse at the workings of God.'”
This has been my experience as a scientist as well. The more I learn about creation, the more I see God’s hand in it.
Science presumes the existence of God because it examines the universe with the expectation that there will be order. If things were truly random, then science would be pointless.
It is from the mind of the believer that science historically comes and it is to the mind of the believer that the scientists must orient themselves to gain a moral bearing.
An atheistic society would have wallowed in its inherent pessimism before inventing science, and an atheistic scientific community is likely to turn suicidal in their goals and methods.
Stubblespark,
You would probably be right if human beings were completely rational, consistent beings. We are not, and as a result there are very ardent athiests who are not particularly pessemistic in their day to day attitudes and who fully accept as logical the order of the universe. They see no need to have a creator, since they believe the beauty and “design” of the universe is an illusion.