AAMC Reporter: August 2006

Is There Common Ground Between Science and God?

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., physician-geneticist and director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health

Q & A with Francis S. Collins

You haven't spoken out much about these issues and your religious views in public in the past. What led you to write this book at this particular time?

I've become increasingly concerned about the polarization between the scientific and spiritual communities, which I don't think is healthy for either one. As somebody who holds both of those world views, I thought it might be timely to put down on paper how it is that I find them to be not only compatible but mutually reinforcing. I was particularly influenced by being asked to give a series of lectures at Harvard, known as the [William Belden] Noble lectures. On three weeknights in 2003, hundreds of Harvard undergraduates showed up at the Memorial Church, asking many penetrating questions. It was clear to me from that experience that there is a hunger for a dialogue about whether these two ways of seeking the truth are compatible or whether they're at war. Right now, it appears to many that there's a war going on.

Why do you think there is so much hostility right now between faith and science?

I think this hostility is being whipped up by voices coming from the polarized extremes, and people in the middle are confused and discouraged by the scene in front of them. On the science side, outspoken atheist evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins are promoting the idea that an acceptance of evolution requires one to become an atheist. This argument suffers from a serious logical fallacy (science cannot prove or disprove things that are outside of nature) but is being articulately put forward.

On the other extreme, certain members of the religious community adopt the view that if you are a believer in God, you have to accept a completely literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. To them, that means that evolution cannot be true, and so it has to be resisted with every ounce of one's being.

In the book, you talk about reconciling science and faith in a perspective you call BioLogos.

The fundamental idea of BioLogos goes like this: God, who is outside of space and time, chose to create the universe and to populate it with creatures with whom he could have fellowship — namely, human beings. God used the mechanism of evolution to achieve this goal, knowing full well what the outcome would be. In other words, life, or "Bios" (in Greek), came about by God speaking ("Logos," the "word") it into being. The word Logos resonates with many believers, as so powerfully and poetically represented in the first verses of the book of John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

This Bios through Logos, or BioLogos, synthesis involves an acknowledgement that evolution is true, that the scientific evidence for it is overwhelming. The study of genomes, of course, has added to that very impressive body of data, strongly supporting the theory of evolution by natural selection and descent from a common ancestor. But accepting the fact that evolution is true does not answer the question of why the universe exists and why we are all here. That is where faith comes in. From my perspective as a scientist who studies the genome but who also sees in it the language of God coming into being, I find this synthesis very comforting and satisfying.

BioLogos is basically another way of describing what's been called theistic evolution. But that's an uncomfortable term for many: A lot of people aren't quite sure what a theist is. And since theistic is the adjective and evolution is the noun, Darwin's theory can seem the more important of the two, which puts off many believers. The alternative of BioLogos is offered humbly as another way of saying the same thing.

What struck me as I was writing the book was how few of the ideas I had were actually original.Many brighter minds than mine have arrived at a similar synthesis throughout many centuries.

How do you hope this book will be received in the academic medicine community?

Since academic medical centers in the United States are the major sites where scientific advances related to human health occur, and most Americans are believers, I would hope that some consideration of the spiritual perspective would be a natural topic of interest in this setting. This book, perhaps, may be of use in promoting a dialogue. Some in academia seem to think that to be a religious person you have to check your brain at the church door; the fact that scientists can have an intellectually consistent, vibrant, and sophisticated faith may be surprising.

Many professionals working in academic medical centers are believers, while at the same time they are using science to advance the practice of medicine. Encouraging some carefully chosen fora to advance the discussion of the interface between science and faith would not be an inappropriate step. This must be done with great care, of course, to avoid any appearance of proselytizing. But there are many in academic medical centers who, in their own way, are already considering these issues very seriously.Why not provide a opportunity for people to discuss how they have dealt with what is perceived as an area of conflict — but for many is not?

Mostly I'm hopeful that this book may start some conversations. As scientists, as physicians, we aim to answer important questions and to try to help people. While some of those answers and some of those abilities to help can be derived from the scientific world view, some can also be found by a consideration of the spiritual world view. The more holistic we can be in our approach, the better we can serve.

— By Gina Shaw, Special to the Reporter

Contact Us    © 1995-2009 AAMC    Terms and Conditions    Privacy Statement