Re: Francis Collins statement

The headline for this was "Intelligent Design" and the choice of that
for a headline is uncharacteristically inaccurate for Hugh Hewitt. So,
I sent him the following e-mail. I will let you all know if I get I
reply.

I am pleased that you posted a story on Francis Collins as an example of
someone who is a scientist and a Christian and finds no conflict between
the two. However, I am disappointed with the headline and how you quoted
the story. The gist seems to imply that Dr. Collins supports intelligent
design. I am sure that this was unintentional on your part and hopefully
you will correct the misimpression. Dr. Collins is most definitely opposed
to intelligent design. Thank you for your consideration. If you need
further proof than the article you linked to note his keynote address to
the American Scientific Affiliation, an organization of scientists who are
Christians: (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf)

What about Intelligent Design?

Here is an area where I think that probably some of you in the audience
will disagree with me. The past ten years have seen the emergence of a new
theory of how God has intervened in the development of living organisms.
Intelligent Design proponents point to the complexity of multicomponent
molecular machines as unlikely products of a random evolutionary process.
The argument about irreducible complexity is an interesting one. And yet I
must say, the more one looks at these supposedly complex and irreducibly
complex structures (whether it is the flagella, the eye, or the clotting
cascade), the more one begins to see some evidence of intermediate forms
that could have had some selective advantage. While not offering strong
evidence against Intelligent Design, the study of genomes offers
absolutely no support either. In fact, I would say— and many others have
said it better—a major problem with the Intelligent Design theory is its
lack of a plan for experimental verification. I view Intelligent Design
ideas as an intriguing set of proposals, but I certainly do not view them
as the kind of threat to evolution that its most vocal proponents imply.
Again, let us be careful of the "God-of-the-gaps" problem that Augustine
was referring to. The disproof of an unnecessary theory like ID can shake
the faith of those who are asked to equate their belief in God with their
belief in the theory.
Received on Mon Jun 12 18:44:58 2006