Francis Collins’ theistic Evolution is Deistic Origins

Francis Collins was a physician-geneticist  before becoming the director of the Human Genome Project and founder of the theistic evolution apologetics ministry BioLogos. He has also served as the director of National Institute of Health under three different American Presidents and is currently serving as Acting Science Advisor to President Joe Biden.

He is obviously a very brilliant and successful man and devote Christian. Piecing together his testimony of salvation from his book and his testimony posted at Biologos,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 we learn that he grew up in a home of “freethinkers,” the idea of faith was never important.²⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 11, 13 As he aged, he developed from agnostic to atheism by the time he attended Yale for his Ph.D.,³⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 15-16 but he would later conclude atheism was the least reasonable worldview.⁴⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 231 In his third year in medical school, during clinical, he was encounter by a bold Christian woman who shared her faith and asked what he believed, causing him to realize he never investigated the claims of religion.⁵⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 20 He expected his investigation would confirm his atheism,⁶⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 20, 30 but when he visited a Methodist minister to ramble off his doubts and questions, he was handed a copy of C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity.((Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 21)) He was most impacted by Lewis’ discussion of the moral argument,⁷⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), pp. 21-30, 218-219 and to a lesser degree from the anthropic principle.⁸⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), pp. 71-78 It is interesting that, as a scientist, he found the philosophical argument of morality most convincing. After reflecting on the moral argument he concluded that God must be a God Who cares about and loves people since morals are involved, which further caused him to consider himself a sinner for the first time.⁹⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 219-220 The historical evidence conjoined with reading the gospels confirmed the authors were eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ closed 2 years of investigation with Collins kneeling in prayer to surrender to the Lord.¹⁰⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), pp. 223-225 I should specify that he spent one year of studying which convinced him of theism in general and another year investigating Christianity specifically.

As the modern major defender of theistic evolution, it is necessary to note that this is his view, and most other theistic evolutionists would not agree with Collins position. But I am curious how his influence will impact others who hold theistic evolution as an option for origins.

I prefix this comment before expounding his view because what he says sounds extremely deistic. I am not accusing him as being a deist, he specifically denies the charge¹¹⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p 219. His denial may be because his expression of theistic evolution has caused others to accuse him of being a deist, but I do acknowledge he believes in the incarnation of Christ and the historicity of the Lord ministry and miracles.¹²⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), pp. 221-225

I would call his position a “deistic origins” view, similar to what I call many modern views of scriptures “deistic inspiration,”¹³⁾see Heath Henning, “Deistic Inspiration or Preserved Inerrancy,” May 2, 2016; https://truthwatchers.com/deistic-inspiration-preserved-inerrancy/ by which I mean people think God inspired the original autographs and left His word alone in the hands of man to become corrupt and it is now the goal of textual critics to discover what the original autographs may have said. This is the theology of many people using modern Bible versions, but they never thought through their concept of inspiration. Likewise, the “deistic origins” view is only deistic in the opinion concerning origins, but is not a full-blown deist.

Aristotle’s view of God being the “unmoved Mover” is a good representation of deistic origins. This unmoved mover is not a “creator” since Aristotle believed that substance of the universe was eternal. The unmoved mover merely acted  unintentionally to set this substance in motion which through natural processes reacted to produce everything.

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.”¹⁴⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 82 So, what Collins understands from science is suitable for deists to agree with.

He further 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.”¹⁵⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 88 This comment I find interesting because he has to give a warning about the science he will be discussing. True science should be glorifying God, not needing to be prefixed with a warning about potentially being perceived as dethroning God.

When discussing the origin of life, he writes, “at the present time we simply do not know.”¹⁶⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 90 Followed by a brief comment about the Miller-Urey experiment concluding “that such complex organic molecules can arise from natural processes in the universe.”¹⁷⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 90 The next paragraph starts off with “Beyond this point, however, the details become quite sketchy. How could a self-replicating information-carrying molecule assemble spontaneously from these compounds.”¹⁸⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 90 So he admits his view of science doesn’t have answers. However, notice his words “complex organic molecules can arise from natural processes” and “self-replicating information-carrying molecule assemble spontaneously” indicate everything is understood through natural processes, and he will not allow God to have any involvement with these natural processes.

Shortly after this he states, “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 mat be headed for crisis if advances in science subsequently fill those gaps.”¹⁹⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 93 Again he derides the God of the gaps. “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.”²⁰⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), 95 He gives no explanation for the Cambrian explosion. He just asserts there exist “facts” that exclude God’s intervention.

He later speaks of “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.”²¹⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 140-141  So God is freed from performing any actions of creation, but this somehow shows us how He operates. This doesn’t even make sense. Especially as we will see, Collins doesn’t even allow God to direct this evolutionary process. In context, Collins is saying the moral law and universal search for God makes mankind special. Note that is evidence for God is metaphysical. It has to be since his view of science would never direct our attention to God because God is burden free when it comes to creating.

Collins criticizes the Intelligent Design movement, saying “First of all, Intelligent Design falls in a fundamental was 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.”²²⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 187 Collins is essentially only arguing that ID is a God of the gaps, and therefore cannot be scientific. Collins has fallen for the atheistic idea of science that cannot allow a divine foot in the door. He says, “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.”²³⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 193 Again he claims “Advances in science ultimately fill in those gaps, to the dismay of those who had attached their faith to them.”²⁴⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 193 He has not provided any such examples but is making a dogmatic prediction which shows he has more faith in evolution.

He 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.”²⁵⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 193-194 I do agree with this critique of ID as an unsatisfactory view of God. I have often said God is omniscient, not a mere Intelligent Designer who regularly intervenes in a long process of creating. However, Im not the first to say it but am only repeating it here, a God that used evolution is retarded, and most of the intelligent design advocates are theistic evolutionists. But think about it. If one cannot tell the difference from God creating something or random processes producing something, it can hardly be described as designed. And Collins cannot stand in awe of God as almighty if his God uses such an extremely wasteful method as evolution, and did so hands off. How do you stand in awe of God who didn’t do anything like Aritotle’s unmoved mover?

Michael Behe’s discusses the human blood clotting cascade with a 20 page description²⁶⁾Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press (New York, NY: 1996), pp. 77-97, which Collins humorously offer a “rebuttal” with a meager 3 paragraphs.²⁷⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 189-190 In this “rebuttal,” he claims that gene duplication “gradually evolve to take on a new function driven by the force of natural selection. 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.”²⁸⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 190 So his argument consists of we don’t have any technical argument, but Darwinism predict that intermediates must have existed. He says this gradually evolved by natural selection, but Behe said in his discussion, “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.”²⁹⁾Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press (New York, NY: 1996), p. 95 Behe did not reject evolution. But the theistic evolution ascribed to by Collins is far apart from what Behe believes. I should also emphasize that it is Behe who has presented observational science, while Collins has no valid observation in his argument, but considers ID a scientific dead end.

This next quote is a key to understanding Collins view.

“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.”³⁰⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 200

Notable here is that he allows no expression of God directing evolution, and the only evidence that God gives mankind is metaphysical so science could not detect it. How could this understanding of theistic evolution fit what Paul wrote to the Romans, “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)

When Collins explains his BioLogos, 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?’”³¹⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 204 So ultimately, BioLogos is nothing but a atheistic science company that views God’s intervention in the world as strictly metaphysical. Now we question how does this fit with Collins view of the historicity of Christ being God incarnate and performing miracles? That would be God intervening in the physical world. And if God can do it during the time of Christ, Who performed creative miracles such as turning water to wine, feeding five thousand with a little bit of fish and bread, etc., than why cannot God have provided creative miracles to create as the Bible says? Furthermore, why does BioLogos bother writing on the topic of science if science cannot detect God’s existence? Why is not BioLogos a theological or philosophical apologetic ministry? It seems to me that there website is full of scientific articles. If God’s work is not evident through science than BioLogos is not a “ministry” and is therefore merely a secular science company.

Philip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial holds a theistic evolution view and writes, “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.”³²⁾Philip Johnson Darwin on Trial, Intervarsity Press (Downer Grove, IL: 1993), pp. 3-4 On page 14 he writes, “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.”³³⁾Philip Johnson Darwin on Trial, Intervarsity Press (Downer Grove, IL: 1993), p. 14 This is to much theism for Collins who criticizes Johnson ³⁴⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), pp. 183-184 My comment to Johnson is that if you identify as a Christian and believe in the God of the Bible, you should believe in the Bible. If that is “Biblical fundamentalism” as least it is logically consistent. God revealed how He created, and unless you think your smarter than God or that God is a liar, you should believe what He revealed.

At least Collins is consistent in that he does not believe the Bible. He denies Adam and Eve³⁵⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 207, 209, and denies Inerrancy.³⁶⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 209 He also uses Galileo to defend his view that science should trump religious text, and in doing so he lies and misrepresents history. 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.”³⁷⁾Francis Collins, “The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief, Free Press (New York, NY: 2006), p. 154-55 How did Calvin and Luther have any knowledge of Galileo when Calvin died 1564 and Luther in 1546? According to the quote from Collins the invention of the telescope was in 1608. Where did Collins even come up with this idea that Calvin and Luther has anything to do with Galileo? Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, “Galileo ran afoul of academic authorities. Not because his science contradicted the bible but because it contradicted Aristotle!”³⁸⁾Jimmy Davis and Harry Poe, Designer Universe: Intelligent Design and the Existence of God, Broadman & Holman Publishers (Nashville, TN:202), pp. 42-43 This is to imply that Aristotle’s philosophy became an intrinsic part of Catholic dogma after Thomas Aquinas had synchronized the two together. The Galileo affair had nothing to do with science, but metaphysical philosophy, which is what Collins view is mankind’s best evidence for God.

Theistic evolution fails to provide a defense for God, and it is an absolute rejection of the Bible since it rejects inerrancy. For Francis Collins view particularly, it is deistic in the topic of origin, which further contradicts what the Bible says about creation being evidence for the Creator. Collins ministry of BioLogos is not an apologetic ministry since is focus is on science which it claims offers no evidence for God. Though Collins is a brilliant man, it is amazing how he fails to see the ignorance of the points he is attempting to major on. Furthermore, for those who follow his work, it is evident that he twists details of science and history to  present his false view of dietetics origins.