Francis Collins’ theistic Evolution is Deistic Origins

Francis Collins is a physician-geneticist who served as director of the Human Genome Project and later founded the theistic evolution advocacy organization BioLogos. He has held prominent positions in the scientific community, including director of the National Institutes of Health under three U.S. presidents. As of this writing, he is serving as Acting Science Advisor to President Joe Biden.

Collins is widely regarded as a brilliant and accomplished scientist and is also a professing Christian. Reconstructing his conversion testimony from his book The Language of God and his personal account on the BioLogos website,¹⁾Francis Collins, “Is there a God and does he care about me? The Testimony of BioLogos Founder Francis Collins,” December 16, 2019; https://biologos.org/personal-stories/is-there-a-god-and-does-he-care-about-me-the-testimony-of-biologos-founder-francis-collins one learns that he was raised in a home of “freethinkers,” where religious faith was never emphasized.²⁾Francis Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), pp. 11, 13 By the time he was pursuing his Ph.D. at Yale, Collins had progressed from agnosticism to atheism.³⁾Ibid., pp. 15–16 However, he later concluded that atheism was the least reasonable worldview.⁴⁾Ibid., p. 231

During his third year of medical school, Collins encountered a bold Christian patient who shared her faith and asked him what he believed. This provoked his realization that he had never seriously investigated the claims of religion.⁵⁾Ibid., p. 20 Expecting that a rigorous examination would confirm his atheism,⁶⁾Ibid., pp. 20, 30 Collins visited a Methodist minister to discuss his doubts, and was given a copy of C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity.⁷⁾Ibid., p. 21 He was most deeply impacted by Lewis’s formulation of the moral argument for God’s existence,⁸⁾Ibid., pp. 21–30, 218–219 and, to a lesser extent, by the anthropic principle.⁹⁾Ibid., pp. 71–78

Notably, as a scientist, it was a philosophical—rather than scientific—argument that proved most compelling to Collins. Reflecting on the moral argument led him to conclude that a God who establishes moral values must also be a personal God who cares for humanity. This realization caused him, for the first time, to identify himself as a sinner.¹⁰⁾Ibid., pp. 219–220 His two-year spiritual journey—one year exploring general theism and another year focused on Christianity—culminated in his acceptance of the historical reliability of the Gospels and their authors as eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ.¹¹⁾Ibid., pp. 223–225 At the end of this process, Collins knelt in prayer to submit his life to Christ.

As one of the most influential defenders of theistic evolution today, Collins’s particular formulation of this view is worth noting—especially since it differs from other versions held by various proponents. While not accusing him of deism, some of Collins’s statements about divine action in creation sound markedly deistic. Although he explicitly denies being a deist,¹²⁾Ibid., p. 219 the characterization may reflect how his views are often perceived. To be fair, Collins affirms key elements of orthodox Christianity, including the incarnation of Christ, the historical reality of His earthly ministry, and the authenticity of His miracles.¹³⁾Ibid., pp. 221–225

Nevertheless, Collins’s perspective may be better described as a “deistic origins” model—akin to what might be termed “deistic inspiration” in relation to Scripture.¹⁴⁾see Heath Henning, “Deistic Inspiration or Preserved Inerrancy,” May 2, 2016; https://truthwatchers.com/deistic-inspiration-preserved-inerrancy/ This view suggests that God initiated creation and then allowed natural processes to take their course, much as those holding to deistic inspiration believe God inspired the original autographs of Scripture but left their preservation in the hands of fallible men. Just as many users of modern Bible versions do not fully consider the theological implications of their views on inspiration, so too proponents of theistic evolution may not recognize the implications of what is functionally a deistic model of creation.

Aristotle’s concept of the “unmoved Mover” aptly illustrates this idea of deistic origins. In Aristotle’s framework, the divine being is not a Creator in the biblical sense, since he believed the substance of the universe to be eternal. Rather, the unmoved Mover set the universe into motion unintentionally, and the natural processes that followed account for the emergence of all things.

Collins writes, “Deist like Einstein, who view God as having started the whole process but then paying no attention to subsequent development, are generally comfortable with recent conclusion of physics and cosmology, with the possible exception of the uncertainty principle.”¹⁵⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 82 This remark underscores that Collins’s understanding of science aligns with a worldview even deists would accept.

Elsewhere, he writes, “A believer need not fear that this investigation will dethrone the divine; If God is truly Almighty, He will hardly be threatened by our puny effort to understand the workings of His natural world.”¹⁶⁾Ibid., p. 88 This comment is revealing. Science, properly conducted, should point to the glory of God, not require prefatory reassurances that it may not “dethrone” Him.

When addressing the origin of life, Collins admits, “at the present time we simply do not know.”¹⁷⁾Ibid., p. 90 He refers briefly to the Miller-Urey experiment, claiming it demonstrated “that such complex organic molecules can arise from natural processes in the universe.”¹⁸⁾Ibid., p. 90 He then concedes: “Beyond this point, however, the details become quite sketchy. How could a self-replicating information-carrying molecule assemble spontaneously from these compounds.”¹⁹⁾Ibid., p. 90 While acknowledging the limitations of current science, his language—such as “complex organic molecules can arise from natural processes” and “self-replicating… molecule assemble spontaneously”—reveals a methodological naturalism that leaves no room for divine involvement, even as a possibility.

He further cautions:

“A word of caution is needed when inserting specific divine action by God in this or any other area where scientific understanding is currently lacking. …this ‘God of the gaps’ approach has all too often done a disservice to religion (and by implication, to God, if that’s possible). Faith that places God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in science subsequently fill those gaps.”²⁰⁾Ibid., p. 93

Collins reiterates this when he dismisses appeals to the Cambrian explosion as divine intervention:

“While attempts have been made by certain theists to argue that the Cambrian explosion is evidence of the intervention of some supernatural force, a careful examination of the facts does not seem to warrant this. This is another ‘God of the gaps’ argument, and once again believers would be unwise to hang their faith upon such a hypothesis.”²¹⁾Ibid., 95

Yet he offers no alternative explanation for the Cambrian explosion—only the assurance that unspecified “facts” render divine action unnecessary.

Later, Collins writes:“Freeing God from the burden of special acts of creation does not remove Him as the source of the things that make humanity special, and of the universe itself. It merely shows us something of how He operates.”²²⁾Ibid., pp. 140-141 This statement appears self-contradictory. If God is “freed” from creating, how can His operations be discerned through a process in which He is said to take no direct part? Moreover, as the broader context makes clear, Collins regards morality and the universal human longing for God as metaphysical markers of divine involvement. This is significant, because his understanding of science offers no such theistic indications. Rather, it portrays God as entirely uninvolved in natural processes, including origins.

Collins criticizes the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, stating, “First of all, Intelligent Design falls in a fundamental way to qualify as a scientific theory…. ID’s proposal of the intervention of supernatural forces to account for complex multicomponent biological entities is a scientific dead end.”²³⁾Ibid., p. 187 Collins essentially equates ID with a “God of the gaps” argument, thereby disqualifying it as scientific. In doing so, he reflects the atheistic presupposition that science must exclude any divine causation—a view that rejects the possibility of allowing “a divine foot in the door.”

He continues: “ID is a ‘God of the gaps’ theory, inserting a supposition of the need for supernatural intervention in places that its proponents claim science cannot explain.”²⁴⁾Ibid., p. 193 Collins further asserts, “Advances in science ultimately fill in those gaps, to the dismay of those who had attached their faith to them.”²⁵⁾Ibid. While he makes a predictive claim here, he provides no concrete examples to support it. This reveals a greater faith in evolutionary progress than in the evidential basis for such assertions.

Collins argues:

“Furthermore, ID portrays the Almighty as a clumsy Creator, having to intervene at regular intervals to fix the inadequacies of His own initial plan for generating the complexity of life. For a believer who stands in awe of the almost unimaginable intelligence and creative genius of God, this is a very unsatisfactory image.”²⁶⁾Ibid., pp. 193–194

This critique is a valid theological objection to certain conceptions of ID. It reflects the idea that God’s omniscience excludes the need for repeated interventions. However, one must consider that theistic evolution—as Collins advocates—presents its own theological difficulties. If God employed an entirely natural, unguided evolutionary process, this would be a profoundly wasteful and inefficient method, calling into question the coherence of describing such a process as “designed.” Furthermore, the notion of standing in awe of a God who, functionally, remains uninvolved in creation resembles Aristotle’s unmoved mover more than the God revealed in Scripture.

Michael Behe’s discussion of the human blood clotting cascade spans over 20 pages, presenting intricate biochemical detail and arguing for irreducible complexity.²⁷⁾Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press (New York, NY: 1996), pp. 77–97 In contrast, Collins attempts a rebuttal in merely three paragraphs.²⁸⁾Collins, The Language of God, pp. 189–190 He suggests that gene duplication events could “gradually evolve to take on a new function driven by the force of natural selection.” He concedes, however:

“Admittedly, we cannot precisely outline the order of the steps that ultimately led to the human clotting cascade. We may never be able to do so, because the host organisms of many predecessor cascades are lost to history. Yet Darwinism predicts that plausible intermediate steps must have existed, and some have already been found.”²⁹⁾Ibid., p. 190

This argument amounts to a statement of faith in Darwinian predictions rather than empirical substantiation.

Behe had already addressed this issue: “I emphasize that natural selection, the engine of Darwinian evolution, only works if there is something to select—something that is useful right now, not in the future.”³⁰⁾Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, p. 95 While Behe does not reject evolution entirely, his position on intelligent design sharply diverges from Collins’s theistic evolution. It is also worth noting that Behe presents observational, testable scientific claims, whereas Collins offers little more than theoretical speculation and philosophical rejection of ID.

A pivotal quote from Collins clarifies the structure of his theistic evolutionary model:

“There are many subtle variants of theistic evolution, but a typical version rests upon the following premise:

1. 1. 1. The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago
      2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
      3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time.
      4. Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.

1. 1. 5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
      6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.”³¹⁾Collins, The Language of God, p. 200

Significantly, Collins’s view excludes any notion of God directly guiding the evolutionary process. The only evidence he allows for divine activity lies in metaphysical traits such as morality and the universal inclination toward religion—elements that science, by his own standard, cannot detect.

This model appears incompatible with the testimony of Scripture. Paul writes, “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:19-20) Paul argues that God’s eternal power and divine nature are evident in creation—not hidden behind a naturalistic process devoid of divine fingerprints.

When Collins introduces his BioLogos framework, he states:

“For the atheistic scientist, BioLogos seems to be another ‘God of the gaps’ theory imposing the presence of the divine where none is needed or desired. But this argument is not apt. BioLogos doesn’t try to wedge God into gaps in our understanding of the natural world; it proposes God as the answer to questions science was never intended to address, such as ‘How did the universe get here?’ ‘What is the meaning of life?’ ‘What happens to us after we die?’”³²⁾Ibid., p. 204

Ultimately, BioLogos presents itself as a theistic framework yet functions as a secular scientific organization that confines divine activity to purely metaphysical realms. This raises a critical theological inconsistency: if God is entirely non-interventionist in the natural world, how does Collins reconcile this with his belief in the historical Incarnation and miracles of Jesus Christ? Such events clearly involve divine intervention in the physical realm. If Christ could turn water into wine, feed thousands with a few loaves and fish, or raise the dead, then why would it be unthinkable for God to miraculously create the universe in accordance with the biblical account?

Moreover, if science is inherently incapable of detecting God, as Collins suggests, then why does BioLogos focus so extensively on scientific discourse? Why not operate as a theological or philosophical ministry rather than a science-based one? The very nature of its content—scientific analysis—suggests that BioLogos seeks to influence public understanding of God through scientific means. If, as Collins argues, science cannot reveal God, then BioLogos ceases to function as a ministry and becomes merely another secular scientific organization.

Philip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, held a form of theistic evolution and wrote:

“The concept of creation in itself does not imply opposition to evolution, if evolution means only a gradual process by which one kind of living creature changes into something different. A Creator might well have employed such a gradual process as a means of creation. ‘Evolution’ contradicts ‘creation’ only when it is explicitly or tacitly defined as fully naturalistic evolution– meaning evolution that is not directed by any purposeful intelligence.”³³⁾Philip Johnson Darwin on Trial, Intervarsity Press (Downer Grove, IL: 1993), pp. 3-4

He further stated:

“I am a philosophical theist and a Christian. I believe that a God exists who could create out of nothing if He wanted to do so, but who might have chosen to work through a natural evolutionary process instead. I am not defending creation science… I assume that the creation-scientists are biased by their precommitment to Biblical fundamentalism, and I will have very little to say about their position.”³⁴⁾Ibid., p. 14

However, even this moderate view appears too theistic for Collins, who criticizes Johnson’s position³⁵⁾Collins, The Language of God, pp. 183–184. The fundamental problem lies in the fact that if one claims to be a Christian and affirms the God of the Bible, it is logically consistent to believe what the Bible says. If that is labeled “Biblical fundamentalism,” so be it. God has revealed the means of creation in Scripture, and unless one presumes to be wiser than God or suggests that God has misled us, His Word should be believed.

At least Collins is consistent in his rejection of biblical authority. He denies the historicity of Adam and Eve³⁶⁾Ibid., pp. 207, 209 and explicitly denies the doctrine of inerrancy³⁷⁾Ibid., p. 209. He also misrepresents history in his appeal to Galileo as an example of science overturning religious dogma. He writes:

“In 1608, inspired by information he had heard about the invention of the telescope in the Netherlands, Galileo made his own instrument and quickly made a number of astronomical observations of profound significance…. While much of the criticism came from the Catholic Church, it was not limited to that. John Calvin and Martin Luther also objected.”³⁸⁾Ibid., p. 154-55

However, Calvin died in 1564 and Luther in 1546—decades before the invention of the telescope in 1608. It is historically impossible for either to have commented on Galileo’s astronomical work. Where Collins derived this assertion remains unclear, but it severely undermines the credibility of his scholarship.

Furthermore, contrary to popular perception, Galileo’s conflict was not a battle of science versus Scripture. As Davis and Poe observe: “Galileo ran afoul of academic authorities. Not because his science contradicted the bible but because it contradicted Aristotle!”³⁹⁾Jimmy Davis and Harry Poe, Designer Universe: Intelligent Design and the Existence of God, Broadman & Holman Publishers (Nashville, TN:202), pp. 42-43 The true conflict was between Galileo’s scientific observations and the entrenched Aristotelian metaphysics adopted into Catholic theology through Thomas Aquinas. Ironically, Collins appeals to a historical event rooted in philosophical dogma to defend his own metaphysical view of divine non-intervention.

In conclusion, theistic evolution fails as a defense of theism. It ultimately rejects the authority and inerrancy of Scripture and reduces divine action to metaphysical symbolism rather than historical reality. Specifically, Francis Collins’ version of theistic evolution is functionally deistic concerning origins and contradicts the biblical teaching that the created order reveals the Creator (Romans 1:19–20). BioLogos, therefore, cannot be considered an apologetics ministry since it denies that science provides evidence of God. Though Collins is undoubtedly a brilliant geneticist, his philosophical assumptions and theological positions reveal serious inconsistencies and misrepresentations of both science and history.