How useful are “pointers”?

Dr. Francis Collins is a remarkable man. He was the director of the phenomenally successful Human Genome Project that mapped the entire human genome years ahead of schedule. He’s a devout evangelical Christian who enjoys leading worship and writing songs that express the deep faith he acquired long after his acceptance of evolutionary theory.

I thoroughly enjoyed Dr. Collins’s book The Language of God: a Scientist Presents Evidence for Faith, which is a testimony/autobiography as well as a discussion of reasons why he believes faith and science are complementary rather than at odds. I thought, though, that his evidence for evolution (directed at Christians skeptical of it) was much better than his evidence for faith (directed at atheists skeptical of it). This evidence relied on the moral argument and to a lesser extent, the fine-tuning argument. Really quick summary of the moral argument: certain core aspects of human morality seem universal and do not seem to be adequately accounted for by a materialistic world and an ancestry based in the amoral animal kingdom. Really quick summary of the fine-tuning argument: the probabilities that 1) a universe like ours, 2) a planet as habitable as ours is, and 3) life on this planet would all have originated naturally seem by current understanding to be astronomical. Collins has more good sense than to pass either of those arguments off as proof of a deity with an intention for humanity (still less as proof of the Christian God), but he uses them as his book’s subtitle suggests: evidence for faith.

As nice as it would be to be able to use those arguments, as yet I’m personally not comfortable with these sorts of “pointers to God”. Notice my italicized phrase in the last paragraph. If history is any indicator (and we keep looking), “the moral law” will turn out to have a much more natural explanation, and Christians who have been telling people that its supernatural origin is evidence for faith will have some egg on their face. No, evidence that the universe’s development is not so remarkable (for instance) would not alone undermine anyone’s faith. And Collins makes sure to say that his faith is more personal and relational than merely rational; in fact, I would say he is attempting more to explain why he can be intellectually satisfied as a believer than to hold up these things as evidences in and of themselves. Still, I can’t help wishing people would stop expecting to see supernatural peeking through the natural, as it were.

In other words, one can understand the physical world completely well in naturalistic, even materialistic terms. But trying to find God in the gaps of our current understanding of how (even in the question “how likely”) is bound to be an ever dwindling prospect as our understanding grows. If there is any place for God, we will find it in the search for meaning behind a gap-free understanding of the physical how’s of the universe. By my reckoning, Christianity’s still got the best description of meaning, one that functions on a practical level in giving believers a mission to love in a hyper-human way. As I have said before, I think Christianity was intended to be a vital phase in the evolution of humanity toward which the “moral law”, social consciousness, etc. was already pointing.

Now Dr. Collins has a wonderful new website discussing evolution that is oriented toward evangelicals. The organization behind the site is the BioLogos Foundation, named after a term he coined which he prefers over “theistic evolution” (I wonder what he thinks of “evolutionary creation“). In his words, “It’s a word that I made up, which means basically ‘life, by God speaking it into being.’ Bios is the Greek word for life, and Logos is from John 1:1: ‘in the beginning was the Word (Logos).’ “

Ok, as a substitute for “theistic evolution”, it sounds a bit corny (“I’m a BioLogician!”), if you ask me. But as a site and name for a foundation, it’s fine. And the site is wonderful.

The primary focus of the site right now is a souped-up FAQ answering evangelicals’ burning questions about evolution and how it jibes with Christian theology. Most of them are very good from what I’ve seen, but the question that is relevant to this post, “Question 13: What is a God-of-the-Gaps argument? Are fine-tuning and morality just new examples of this?“, is slightly troubling for the reasons described below. Here’s an excerpt talking about the “Fine-Tuning” argument:

One might argue that science could potentially explain the origins of these delicately balanced features, but there are two important things to keep in mind. First, it is very unlikely that a scientific theory could explain away the improbabilities of our Universe without raising other improbabilities. Second, an argument for fine-tuning is unlike a God-of-the-gaps argument in that it is not intended to prove God’s existence. While it is true that the fine-tuning of the Universe adds credence to belief in a creator, such recent scientific findings could hardly be called upon as the basis or justification of the long history of theistic belief. While the fine-tuning of the Universe does indeed lead many people to consider the possibility of God’s existence, the fact that science cannot disprove God’s existence assures us that it also cannot prove it. Instead, fine-tuning can be understood as a feature of the universe that is accordant with belief in a creator. A deeper scientific explanation of these features — albeit highly unlikely — would not ruin its usefulness as a pointer to God. [footnote omitted]

I don’t share Collins’s confidence that a forthcoming “deeper scientific explanation” is so improbable. Well, at least what we know so far is “accordant with belief in a creator”. But really: how many completely false ideas and inaccurate observations are “accordant with belief in a creator”? I find myself wondering how useful such a pointer is, any more than telling someone wanting to locate Draco to “look up at the sky when it’s nighttime”. I do understand his point: try not to look too delusional to atheists. This is a concern I share. But using as one of your primary evidences for your faith’s rationality statistics that have already shown some movement away from mind-blowing and toward simply scientifically interesting appears desperate (which is not much better than delusional).

Regarding the “Moral Law”, the site says:

The moral law also offers evidence that the world has evolved in a way that is consistent with the belief in a good and loving God. This remains true whether science eventually finds an account or explanation for morality. Even if a purely natural account of moral development could be found, the simple fact that morality has evolved is something that would be expected in a world created by a just and loving God.

I’ll admit, these apparent “pointers to God” are interesting, and I get what he’s saying; unless/until they are explained by a better understanding of the natural universe, the Moral Law and Fine-Tuning observations may well bolster pre-existing personal belief. The problem is that this talk is sure to be seized upon by Christians looking for another argument against the allegedly atheistic scientific establishment. This crowd will, despite Collins’s explicit rejection of this usage, take both of these as great apologetic tools or, worse, actual evidence against a universe governed proximately by non-supernatural laws, the type of universe that Collins and other “BioLogicians” such as myself believe in. There will doubtless be plenty of evolution-skeptics wandering around the site, not buying a word of it until they come to the Moral Law/Fine-Tuning stuff, whereupon they’ll tell themselves, “Well, at least my time wasn’t totally wasted: even an evolutionist can’t deny that this is dynamite evidence!” Used as purported evidence for the inadequacy of science to explain the processes responsible for the physical universe, these pointers will end up every bit as much God-of-the-gaps as Intelligent Design is.

So tell me, what do you think of the arguments as presented on the BioLogos webpage? Also be sure to let me know what you think of the site in general!

Related posts:

1. Enemies united against an imaginary foe I’ve been quite vocal on this blog in pointing out my disagreements with the Christian critics of science (ID advocates and other creationists). Unfortunately, these...
2. Limitations of science Dr. Keith Miller’s recent essay on the Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution site entitled “Creation, Evolution and the Nature of Science” included the following statement: In...
3. Dr. Ard Louis on science and faith: two videos I was intrigued by this short video showing Dr. Ard Louis (Oxford University) articulate a simple but profound critique of this fundamental aspect of the...
4. Cracks in the YEC wall? Early last year I had the pleasure of reading a book entitled Beyond the Firmament. The author’s site is on my blogroll, so you may...
5. Focus on the Family responds Focus on the Family has responded to an anonymous blogging friend we call Thomas who wrote a letter in protest of their misrepresentations about evolution...