Collin's stating that DNA is; God's language, is his personal belief, which he acknowledges is not something that science can confirm. One can say DNA is the language of aliens, it is the language of Zeus or anything else and that would be a personal position they have on faith.
Collins never said that DNA being God's Language was his own personal belief at any point - what he does note is that there's no escaping the fact that DNA has a designer...and the evidence of a Creator. Whether others feel it's Zeus or aliens is irrelevant since his main point was and always will be that the DNA itself has a creator. Collins already noted that DNA is Gods language. (from "
The Language of God" and
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief ) - Moreover, he notes that he sees plenty of "pointers to God," natural phenomena that imply the existence of a biblical God. In
The Language of God, Collins argues strongly for scientific evidence of intelligent design (though he doesnt call it that) in cosmology and human psychology. He adduces the fine-tuning of the universes physical constants at the Big Bang, and human moral instincts, as features of physical existence that defy purely material explanations. I cannot see how nature could have created itself, he writes. And DNA sequence alone
will never explain certain special human attributes, such as the knowledge of the Moral Law and the universal search for God.
However, turning to biology and the evolution of life in its countless forms, he dismisses intelligent design as an argument from personal incredulity. He writes that a religious believer may coherently believe in life as having been specified by God, and in genetic language as a kind of communication from God, even though, as per Darwinian theory, the evolutionary process was entirely unguided. Collins reconciles the seeming contradiction of a specified yet unguided history of life by observing that God stands outside time and so is unlimited by the human temporal perspective.
And on the issue of science proving God doesn't exist (whenever others say that claiming God exists based on evidence is speculation) - as Collins said directly:
I think strong atheism, of the kind that says, I know there is no God, suffers from two major logical flaws. And the awareness of those flaws might be reassuring to believers who are somehow afraid that these guys may actually have a point.
The first of those is the idea that anyone could use science at all as a conversation-stopper, as an argument-ender in terms of the question of God. If God has any meaning at all, God is at least in part outside of nature (unless youre a pantheist). Science is limited in that its tools are only appropriate for the exploration of nature. Science can therefore certainly never discount the possibility of something outside of nature. To do so is a category error, basically using the wrong tools to ask the question.
Secondly, I think the logical error that atheists of the strong variety commit is what English writer G.K. Chesterton calls the most daring dogma of the universal negative. I often use a visual analogy to explain this. Suppose you were asked to draw a circle that contains all the information, all the knowledge that exists or ever will exist, inside or outside the universe all knowledge. Well, that would be a pretty enormous circle. Now, suppose on that same scale, you were asked to draw what you know at the present time. Even the most assertive person will draw a rather tiny circle. Now, suppose that the knowledge that demonstrates that God exists is outside your little circle today. That seems pretty plausible, doesnt it, considering the relative scale? How then given that argument would it be reasonable for any person to say, I know there is no God? That is clearly going outside of the evidence.
Moreover, as it concerns science not proving God, Collin's focus was specifically on showing the full character of God and Who He was. As stated directly on BioLogos in
Are science and Christianity at war? | BioLogos (for brief excerpt) :
One way to erase the conflicts between science and Christianity is to view them as entirely separate endeavors, with different purposes, methods, and bodies of knowledge. This view emphasizes that science is a system of knowledge about the world and its behavior, whereas religion is about morality, God, and the afterlife. Thus, Christianity and science cannot conflict, because they are addressing different sorts of questions.3
This model has some weaknesses (see below), but it does help us understand some important aspects of the relationship. Many apparent conflicts between science and religion occur because of a lack of understanding of the fundamental differences between the two. When someone claims that the Bible answers a scientific question, and another claims that science answers a question about God, the conflict immediately flares up. Many conflicts become enflamed because participants forget that Christianity and science do generally address very different questions.
This model also reminds us that science is not the only source of knowledge. There are many sorts of questions that simply do not fall under the domain of science. Borrowing an example from the Rev. John Polkinghorne, there is more than one answer to the question of Why is the water boiling in the tea kettle?4 The scientific answer might be the water is boiling because at this temperature it undergoes a phase transition from liquid to vapor. Another acceptable, though nonscientific, answer is the water is boiling because I put the kettle on the stove. A third answer might be the water is boiling because my prayer partner is coming over for tea. None of the answers is wrong; rather, each gives a different perspective on the question. The scientific answer does not tell the whole story. Science cannot answer questions like Is my friend trustworthy? or Is this poem well written? Science is tremendously successful in understanding the physical world, but we should not let that tempt us to think it can be used to understand everything in life.
Artist Mark Sprinkle writes on the importance of music and poetry in understanding Gods world.
Science cannot answer the question Does God exist? Some people argue that Gods existence is actually a scientific claim that could be tested like a chemical reaction. But science studies the natural world, not the supernatural. No amount of scientific testing or theorizing could prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural creator. The claim that God exists is a metaphysical one, not a claim about nature or physical laws
Though science cannot prove or disprove Gods existence, it can provide clues that support belief in God. See What is the fine-tuning of the universe? and On what grounds can one claim that the Christian God is the creator?
This model also reminds us that the Bible is not the only source of knowledge. The Bible is silent on most of the topics that concern scientists, like protons, photosynthesis, penguins, and Pluto. The Bible is not a science textbook, in the same way that it is not a textbook of plumbing, agriculture, or economics. Instead, God teaches us about these things through his general revelation in the created order.
However, this model has some significant weaknesses. It isolates religion from science, which can be a first step in marginalizing religion from public discourse. By defining religion and science as separate, this model doesnt help us understand the interactions they do have, either negative or positive. The model also sets science on its own, apart from religion, while Christians believe that no part of our lives is outside of our walk with God.
Science and Christianity interact, correcting and enhancing each other
While many questions can be clearly categorized as science questions or as Bible questions, other questions are on the boundary. For topics like evolution, medical ethics, and climate change, we need to consider both science and faith when seeking out Gods truth. For such complex questions, we need all the knowledge and wisdom we can get, rather than handicapping ourselves by looking only to science or only to the Bible.
Collins, as said before, has never said that Science does not lead to having a basis for knowing God does exist. By itself it cannot show that God exists (as God is more than natural phenomena ) - but it does help in giving pointers to the fact that a creator DOES exist. And that is Collins in context. Speaking past that doesn't deal at all with what Collins has said.
Like I said, if you want to promote falsehood on what another said, no one is stopping you. But don't do so blaming others who disagree and claiming green is somehow red.
In essence, Collin's himself admits science can neither prove or disprove God
Not according to what he already said when he spoke on science giving pointers and science connecting with the METAPHYSICAL realm, bridging. Thus, it is again another falsehood you've advocated past what Collins actually said when it comes to science/pointers (especially fine-tuning of the universe and mathematics), it not being able to prove all things and yet also not being disconnected from God. Thus again, you already gave your opinion and not actually dealt with science at all. That is not rational.
