This review appears in the October issue of The
American Spectator. To subscribe, click here.
The Language of God:
A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
by Francis S. Collins
(Free Press, 304 pages, $26)
RECENTLY ASTROPHYSICIST and stalwart Darwin-defender George Coyne
lectured before the largest scientific organization in the world,
the American Association for the Advancement of Science. As he
railed against biological arguments for intelligent design (ID), I
wondered what Coyne thought of the now-mainstream design arguments
in his own field.
Luckily Francis Collins, who led the race to map the human
genome, rose to the microphone and broached the subject for me.
Collins probed Coyne as to why gravity is so “finely-tuned.” That
is, if the force of gravity was a tiny fraction smaller (one part
in 10 to the 14th power) the universe would have kept expanding
without forming galaxies (and thus we would not be here); yet if
gravity were the same tiny fraction greater, matter in our universe
would have glommed together and not expanded outward to form
galaxies, stars, and planets (and thus we would not be here). And
gravity is only one of many instances of fine-tuning. What Collins
wanted to know was whether Coyne thought this evidence suggested
luck or design.
It was a thoughtful question, but Coyne evaded it, saying it was
not really a scientific issue. I left feeling unsatisfied-like
Whitman after hearing the learned astronomer-and I suspected
Collins did too.
My suspicion was confirmed by Collins’s new book The Language of God. Although he is a
medical geneticist by training, Collins gives an excellent lay
treatment of the argument for design in physics and cosmology.
Given the heat of the current debate over Darwin’s theory in
biology, it may surprise many readers to learn that mainstream
physicists and cosmologists have been discussing design in their
disciplines for decades-please, no one alert the ACLU!
While in the 19th century most scientists thought the universe
was eternal, the rise of Big Bang cosmology in the 20th changed
things. Today, cosmologists generally agree there was a beginning
to the universe followed by a period of rapid expansion. Concurring
with many other scientists, Collins concludes that an intelligent
cause is the best explanation for the Big Bang and fine-tuning.
The logic he employs is common in science. It is called
Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE). Take his treatment of the
fine-tuning problem. Of several competing hypotheses, Collins asks
which one best explains the physical evidence: Sheer chance that
our universe has the right parameters to be habitable; multiple
universes with various constants exist, but we got the good one; or
the game was rigged (designed)? As the odds are terribly against
chance, and because these hypothetical multiple universes are
completely unobservable, Collins uses Occam’s razor (ironically, a
favorite tool of skeptics) to infer design. Collins adds:
One must leave open the door to the possibility that
future investigation in theoretical physics will demonstrate that
some of the fifteen physical constants that so far are simply
determined by experimental observation may be limited in their
potential numerical value by something more profound, but such a
revelation is not currently on the horizon.
Thus, according to Collins, science is always capable of changing,
so this argument for design is not a knockout. Still, design is not
asserted here merely to fill a gap in our knowledge. Rather, based
upon current evidence, Collins argues that intelligence is the
best explanation currently available.
Now in a later chapter, Collins opposes intelligent design
arguments in biology. But the interesting thing there is that while
he invokes certain methodological principles to rule intelligent
design out of court in biology, he has already violated those rules
in his design arguments in cosmology and physics.
Collins gets hung up on a common misperception about ID in
biology, namely that it is an argument from ignorance. Collins
thinks ID theorists look at nature, see extraordinary complexity,
and conclude God-musta-done-it. He writes:
Given the inability of science thus far to explain the
profound question of life’s origins, some theists have identified
the appearance of RNA and DNA as a possible opportunity for divine
creative action…. This could be an appealing hypothesis, given
that no serious scientist would currently claim that a naturalistic
explanation for the origin of life is at hand. But that is true
today, and it may not be true tomorrow. 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…. 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.
But this is hardly the ID argument. Rather, ID maintains that
certain aspects of nature exhibit positive signs of intelligence.
For instance, ID theorist Stephen Meyer-employing the same IBE
logic as Collins-recently contended in a peer-reviewed biology
journal that intelligence is the best explanation for the
information embedded in the DNA molecule. DNA exhibits
informational properties; and in our uniform experience, whenever
we see such properties and can discover their origin, they always
turn out to have been the product of intelligence. Moreover,
scientists have failed to show how information in DNA can be
generated by a mindless cause. Consequently, Meyer argues, we are
justified in inferring an intelligent cause for genetic
information.
One could try to counter this argument with evidence, but it
accomplishes little to mischaracterize it as an argument from
ignorance. Meyer’s argument is based upon knowledge of
what it takes to engineer information-rich systems, not upon a
lack of knowledge. Collins allows as much for his
arguments but not for others. There are “good reasons” to infer an
intelligence behind nature, Collins writes, “including the
existence of mathematical principles and order in creation.
They are positive reasons, based on knowledge, rather than
default assumptions based on (a temporary) lack of knowledge.”
(Emphasis added.)
Collins cannot consistently employ design logic in physics and
cosmology and then say that such logic is invalid in the biological
realm. In biology, Collins should have retained the sound logic and
high standards of critical judgment he used to skewer the
cosmological prophets of scientific materialism. What’s good for
the goose is good for the gander.
