Science and religion have long been in debate, especially since the arrival of

Darwin and his theories. At first glance it appears that Darwinism contradicts the

Christian book of Genesis, but we will find that it all depends on the interpretation.

Through an alternative interpretation that is neither farfetched nor something

entirely recent, we can reconcile science and religion. To come to this conclusion we

will analyze the arguments of two scientists who agree on the science but come to

completely different conclusions about what it says about religion.

Perhaps one of the most renowned figures on the forefront against religion is

Richard Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist and ethologist at Oxford University.

Dawkins, an outspoken atheist writer, examines and dismisses all forms of religion

in his most recent book, The God Delusion. In his book, Dawkins is hopeful that

“religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down” (Dawkins, 28).

Dawkins primarily approaches the ‘God Hypothesis’, or the idea that “there exists

a...supernatural intelligence who...created the universe and everything in it”

(Dawkins, 52) with science. Through scientific evidence, or rather lack thereof,

Dawkins concludes that “God...is a delusion” (Dawkins, 52). In the place of the ‘God

Hypothesis’, Dawkins presents “an alternative view: any creative intelligence of

sufficient complexity to design anything comes into existence only as the end

product of an extended process of gradual evolution” (Dawkins, 52). Dawkins

asserts that people should only believe anything based on the evidence, and for him

the theory of evolution is clearly more evident than God. As an advocate of

Darwinism and the contemporary theory of evolution, Dawkins believes that science

and religion “are close to being irreconcilably different” (Dawkins, 85).

Dawkins’ main argument throughout The God Delusion is “not whether God is

disprovable (he isn’t) but whether his existence is probable” (Dawkins, 77). Dawkins

addresses the probability of God with what he calls “the Ultimate Boeing 747

gambit” (Dawkins, 136). This is a play on Fred Hoyle’s image “that the probability of
 2

life originating on Earth is no greater than...a hurricane...[assembling] a Boeing

747” (Dawkins, 137-138). The first target that Dawkins flies the Boeing 747 into is

the popular theological “argument from improbability” (Dawkins, 139). This

argument claims that because the origin of life is so improbable and so complex

that God must have directly created every living thing. Dawkins aims to use “the

creationist’s favourite argument” (Dawkins, 138) to show that “God is the Ultimate

Boeing 747” (Dawkins, 138)—that God “is very very improbable indeed” (Dawkins,

136). In a nutshell, Dawkins argues that “[h]owever statistically improbable the

entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be

at least as improbable” (Dawkins, 138). For example, if the probability for life on

earth is very low, then saying that a God exists to create that life is equally—if not

more—improbable. With God now considered improbable, Dawkins instead

promotes Darwin’s more probable theory of natural selection. Dawkins is confident

that God is no longer necessary to explain the natural world and that science,

whether through evolution or the anthropic principle, is capable of answering

everything. Furthermore, Dawkins asserts that because “God almost certainly does

not exist” (Dawkins, 189), “the factual premise of religion – the God Hypothesis – is

untenable” (Dawkins, 189).

One of many of opponents of Dawkins is geneticist Francis Collins, acclaimed

head of the Human Genome Project. In his book, The Language of God: A Scientist

Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins presents his own experiences with atheism and

why he is now a Christian. The aim of Collins’ book is to show “that belief in God can

be an entirely rational choice, and that the principles of faith are, in fact,

complementary with the principles of science” (Collins, 3). Contrary to Dawkins,

who has “the point of view that a belief in evolution demands atheism” (Collins, 4),
 3

Collins shows that there can be a “synthesis of scientific and spiritual worldviews”

(Collins, 3). Collins, like Dawkins, approaches the ‘God Hypothesis’ with science but

ultimately comes to an utterly different conclusion: that “[f]aith in God now [seems]

more rational than disbelief” (Collins, 30).

Collins’ primary argument is “that science, despite its unquestioned powers

in unravelling the mysteries of the natural world, [is not capable of] resolving the

question of God” (Collins, 30). “Science’s domain is to explore nature” (Collins, 6),

but God dwells “in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the

tools…of science” (Collins, 6). Like Dawkins, Collins’ goal is not to prove the

existence of God, but rather to show that “[f]reeing God from the burden of special

acts of creation does not remove Him as the source…[i]t merely shows us

something of how He operates” (Collins, 140-141). Throughout his book, Collins

sorts through a variety of scientific evidence and theory as well as some “concerns

faced by anyone considering a decision about belief in God” (Collins, 35). For

example, one of the elements of science that Collins tackles is the contemporary

theory of how it all began: the Big Bang. After a brief explanation of the theory,

Collins comes to the conclusion that such a theory can be acceptable to believers.

He believes that “[t]he Big Bang cries out for a divine explanation” (Collins, 67)

because, he notes, “I cannot see how nature could have created itself” (Collins, 67).

Collins’ view is simply that acceptance of scientific views does not require the

abandonment of religious views. On the contrary, there can be “an honest

integration of these views” (Collins, 6). This integration is made possible in the

concept of theistic evolution, whereby evolution becomes one of God’s tools of

creation. Collins’ prefers the term ‘BioLogos’—the Greek equivalent of ‘life word’

(Collins, 203)—over the traditional term of theistic evolution.

 4

Both Dawkins and Collins are faced by the traditional view of Christians, or

better known as fundamentalism. These Christians are firm believers in a literal

interpretation of the Bible and in Creationism. In terms of the debate with science,

fundamentalists or Creationists refer to the book of Genesis for their position.

Fundamentalists believe that Genesis is a literal account—a divine explanation—of

how the universe began. This interpretation is contrary to what science is

uncovering. The contradiction lies in the fact that these Christians support the

Creationist view that the earth is less than ten thousand years old. As they did in

Darwin’s day, these fundamentalists refute many scientific discoveries based on the

Bible. Compared with Darwin’s theory, the Genesis account is fairly simple.

Creationists argue that God created the universe and all life on earth in six, twenty-

four-hour days. This interpretation of Genesis also declares that God created every

living creature—including humans—as they currently are in the world; no natural

selection about it. Creationism is more popular than one might think. Statistics show

that about 45% of Americans believe the earth to be less than ten thousand years

old (“Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design”).

Throughout The God Delusion, Dawkins chastises Creationists and their

“politically expedient fancy dress of intelligent design” (Dawkins, 138). It is very

evident that Creationism and its counterpart, intelligent design (ID), are not

compatible with evolution or various other types of science. Dawkins uses this

heavily throughout his book to dismiss not only these defences of fundamentalism,

but religion as a whole. Through his argument of evolution, Dawkins eradicates

Creationism on the basis of scientific evidence. Evolution contradicts the position

that God directly made every living creature, as a literal interpretation of the Bible

demands. “At this point, godless materialists might be cheering. If [all

 5

species]...evolved strictly by mutation and natural selection, who needs God to

explain us?” (Collins, 140).

To this Collins responds, “I do” (Collins 140). Collins may be in agreement

with Dawkins on evolution, but it is here that the similarities end. It should be

mentioned that Creationism is not Dawkins’ primary target. A number of

evolutionists asked why Dawkins called Pope John Paul II a hypocrite after he “wrote

a letter endorsing Darwinism” (qtd. in Dawkins, 92). In response, Dawkins quotes

Jerry Coyne, who said, “While religion can exist without creationism, creationism

cannot exist without religion” (qtd. in Dawkins, 92). Dawkins has made it very clear

that his goal is not simply to proclaim evolution over Creationism, but is ultimately

to proclaim atheism. Dawkins believes that the recent revelations of science give

reason not to believe in God. The problem with Dawkins’ argument is that his

argument is aimed solely at fundamentalist Christians. It is evident that science

disproves fundamentalism, or a literal interpretation of Genesis, but what about

those Christians who do not believe in a literal interpretation? To these Christians,

Dawkins writes, “I am continually astonished by those theists who...seem to rejoice

in natural selection as ‘God’s way of achieving his creation” (Dawkins, 144).

Dawkins essentially reasons that these Christians are hypocrites who render God

too lazy to do His own work.

Collins is one of these Christians and does not see the same consequences of

accepting evolution as Dawkins does. He argues that “[w]hile evolution rightly

relieves God of the responsibility for multiple acts of special creation for each

species...it certainly does not disprove the idea that God worked out His creative

plan by means of evolution” (Collins, 163-164). This position, often called theistic

evolution, is Collins’ solution to the conflict between religion and science.

 6

Interpreting the book of Genesis non-literally is by no means a new idea, for even

Saint Augustine encourages different interpretations (Augustine, 259). Dawkins’

argument does not even apply to Collins or others who interpret the account of

Genesis differently from that of fundamentalists. Collins argues that “[t]he

caricature of faith that Dawkins presents is easy for him to attack” (164), but it is

not the same faith that he or Augustine profess. Furthermore, Collins reasons “that

such repeated mischaracterizations of faith betray a...personal agenda, rather than

a reliance on the rational arguments Dawkins so cherishes” (Collins, 164).

Dawkins has “one thing in common with creationists” (Dawkins, 92): that

interpreting Genesis is simply a way of choosing “the nice bits and [rejecting] the

nasty” (Dawkins, 275) bits of the Bible. Dawkins, like fundamentalists, believes that

the Bible needs to be taken literally or not taken at all, with preference the later. If

you can take Genesis allegorically, what is to stop people from taking other parts of

the Bible allegorically? If Adam and Eve were indeed allegorical persons who

committed an allegorical sin, why would Jesus need to be “tortured and

executed...for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual?” (Dawkins,

287). Maybe even the story of Jesus was indeed an allegory. Collins responds to

these objects by arguing that “[m]any sacred texts do indeed carry the clear marks

of eyewitness history, and as believers we must hold fast to those truths” (Collins,

209). The evidence for Jesus’ existence is compelling and it appears to outweigh

evidence suggesting he never existed at all (Collins, 203). It is also clear by looking

at the world today that humans are far from what God clearly expected in the

Garden of Eden and from this alone we know that “sooner or later they fell” (qtd. in

Collins, 209). How or why humans fell is really of “no consequence” (qtd. in Collins,

209), because human-nature as it stands is evident enough of the Fall of Man.

 7

Collins asserts that “[t]he intention of the Bible was (and is) to reveal the nature of

God to humankind” (Collins, 175). He boldly asks, “Would it have served God’s

purposes thirty-four hundred years ago to lecture to His people about radioactive

decay...and DNA?” (Collins, 175). The fact remains that “[d]espite...centuries of

debate...the meaning of Genesis 1 and 2” (Collins, 153) is far from defined.

Dawkins likes to define faith as “blind trust, in the absence of evidence” (qtd.

in Collins, 164). Interestingly, Collins argues that “[a]theism itself must therefore be

considered a form of blind faith” (Collins, 165). Dawkins reasons “that to be an

atheist is a realistic aspiration” (Dawkins, 23). The problem remains, however, that

atheism, like religion “goes beyond the evidence” (Collins, 165). Atheism “adopts a

belief system that cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason” (Collins, 165).

As discussed above, Dawkins by no means attempts to prove or disprove God, but

simply grips onto probability. Since there still is a probability (according to Dawkins

a low probability), then on what grounds can atheists assert there is doubtlessly no

God? There is none, rendering atheism just as untenable as Dawkins asserts belief

is.

To be fair, Dawkins never claims to be a full-fledged or ‘level seven’ atheist

(Dawkins, 74) and he even claims that “the existence of God is a scientific

hypothesis” (Dawkins, 72). Collins echoes other modern theologians who again

argue that since “God is outside of nature, then science can neither prove nor

disprove His existence” (Collins, 165). He quotes Stephen Jay Gould, who says, “for

the umpteenth millionth time: Science simply cannot...adjudicate the issue of God’s

possible superintendence of nature” (qtd. in Collins 166). Collins also by no means

tries to prove or disprove God through scientific evidence, but merely suggests that

“those who choose to be atheists must find some other basis for taking that
 8

position. Evolution won’t do” (Collins, 167). Collins simply reputes the Dawkins

assumption that “science demands atheism” (Collins, 167). In response, Dawkins

smugly remarks that “You can bet your boots that the scientific evidence, if any

were to turn up, would be seized upon and trumpeted to the skies” (Dawkins, 83) if

it supported the ‘God Hypothesis’. This is a fair statement, but it is by no means an

argument.

It has been “demonstrated that a belief in God is intensely plausible” (Collins,

164). This by no means proves or disproves God’s existence, but rather shows that

the acceptance of science does not demand atheism. Science truly is the best

method of understanding the natural world but it is useless to examine the

supernatural. Science and specifically evolution are grounds for the dismissal of

fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible, but by no means do they trump Collins’

non-literal interpretations. These non-literal interpretations remain loyal to the

Bible, and continue to maintain God as the creator. Though these interpretations

give grounds for acceptance of evolution as a process used by God, they by no

means render God lazy or uncaring. They rather demonstrate another, more

fascinating side of God. Through theistic evolution or BioLogos it is clear that

Darwinism and religion can exist without conflict. There may be no proof of the

origins of life or of how the universe began but what everyone can agree on is that

“a cause…must exist” (Darwin, 201).