Posted on 07/09/2006 8:40:40 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
Reason to Believe A leading geneticist argues that science can lead to faith.
Reviewed by Scott Russell Sanders
THE LANGUAGE OF GOD
A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
By Francis S. Collins
Here we are, briefly, under the sun, one species among millions on a gorgeous planet in the remote provinces of the universe, our very existence a riddle. Of all the words we use to mask our ignorance, none has been more abused, none has given rise to more strife, none has rolled from the tongues of more charlatans than the name of God. Nor has any word been more often invoked as the inspiration for creativity, charity or love.
So what are we talking about when we talk about God? The geneticist Francis S. Collins bravely sets out to answer this question in light of his scientific knowledge and his Christian faith. Having found for himself "a richly satisfying harmony between the scientific and spiritual worldviews," he seeks to persuade others 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."
As a researcher who helped discover the genetic basis for cystic fibrosis and other diseases and as the director of the Human Genome Project, Collins brings strong credentials to the scientific side of his argument. For the spiritual side, he draws on Christian authorities such as Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis. His aim is to address "extremists on both sides of the science/faith divide." On one extreme are those scientists who insist that the universe is purely and exclusively matter, and on the other are literal interpreters of the Book of Genesis who reject the last two centuries of scientific discovery.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You called this planet a ball of mud. You claim this planet is ordinary. In that case the whole universe is filled with nothing but balls of mud. You can't appreciate God's awsome mighty creation unless you appreciate the place God has placed us in.
There comes a point for the layman where the explanations become harder than the questions.
Good answer.
>>People who "love science," they "just have a problem accepting evolution" turn out to have problems with cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, and nuclear chemistry, not to mention at long last biology.<<Is this a joke? The people who don't exist in your world must have three different ping lists on FR. Wouldn't surprise me if you're on at least one. Relatively few creationists are not in this category. For instance, do you accept published radiometric dating results as providing a useful estimate of the age of a fossil when such are mentioned in news articles?I discuss this with people quite a bit. I have yet to meet a person who fits the description you give.
>>You guys not knowing what a theory you claim to be wrong EVEN SAYS gets old.<< I have noticed that few people on either side of this discussion (on internet discussion sites, anyway) know what "it" says.
The situation is not symmetrical at all. Any of the core group of evo posters could describe it perfectly, and give you a capsule of the major points of ID, OEC, and YEC. Creos who can both things are rarer than Precambrian rabbits.
The problem is that "evolution" is like Interstate 90. It is a different animal depending on where you are and what you are discussing.
I don't recall that you're one of the creos who shows any particular educability.
Like I said, the corvette has evolved...
And there you go.
Indeed. Thank you so much for your post!
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
Ping!
"... are rarer than Precambrian rabbits." Hmm, rabbits are mammals, precambrian hundreds of millions of years of life were mostly single celled thingies, not mammals ... nope, no marginalizing there, completely exclusionary. I like the analogy though, has a humorous ring to it, kind of like the bumper stickers of a turtlesque thingy with the word darwin inside juxtaposed with the fish shape and the play on ichthos for Jesus Christ Son Of God Savior of Mankind. But don't these marginalizing games grow tiresome?
Hyperbole, but only a little hyper
He believes that miracles are 'possible?'
This man is cognitively deficient if he doesn't see that miracles are not only possible, but are the ruling force of creation. But then, he believes in a weak god that had to rely on an imaginary evolving life system. Depressing!
Give him a break! :-)
He started out as an atheist and he's making progress. His statements are devastating to the idological atheists around here. They all seemed to think the human genome project would bolster purely naturalistic evolution, and now the top scientist on the project is talking about miracles.
TYPO: idological = ideological
I agree with you there, editor-surveyor: That would be the case of a bona-fide divine miracle. (Like ex nihilo creation for example.)
Then again, on the other hand, sometimes it happens that what we think of as a "miracle" gets a new understanding as our knowledge of the natural world increases.
Presently, many deo-Darwinists think that the Intelligent Design school is in the "miracle business." But I don't think that can be the case, because ID is so dependent on information theory (mathematics) for its method. George Gilder, writing in the July 17th issue of National Review ("Evolution and Me"), had some fascinating insights into this issue:
“Largely invented in 1948 by Claude Shannon of MIT, [information theory] rigorously explained digital computation and transmission by zero-one, or off-on, codes called “bits.” Shannon defined information as unexpected bits, or ‘news,’ and calculated its passage over a channel by elaborate logarithmic rules. The channel could be a wire or another path across a distance of space, or it could be a transfer of information across a span of time, as in evolution.Well, if not of all of modern science, then it seems at least as far as Crick's Central Dogma is concerned (as Hubert Yockey points out in his most recent book).“Crucial in information theory was the separation of content from conduit – information from the vehicle that transports it. It takes a low-entropy (predictable) carrier to bear high-entropy (unpredictable) messages. A blank sheet of paper is a better vessel for a new message than one already covered in writing. In my book, Telecom (2000) I showed that the most predictable available information carriers were the regular waves of the electromagnetic spectrum and prophesied that all digital information would ultimately flow over it in some way. Whether across time (evolution) or across space (communication), information could not be borne by chemical processes alone, because these processes merged or blended the medium and the message, leaving the data illegible at the other end....
“A so-called ‘Turing machine’ is an idealized computer that can be created using any available material, from beach sand to Buckeyballs, from microchips to matchsticks. Turing made clear that the essence of a computer is not its material substance but its architecture of ideas.
“Based as it is on ideas, a computer is intrinsically an object of intelligent design…. Equally planned and programmed are all the computers running the models of evolution and ‘artificial life’ that are central to neo-Darwinian research. Everywhere on the apparatus and in the ‘genetic algorithms’ appear the scientist’s fingerprints: the ‘fitness functions’ and ‘target sequences.’ These algorithms prove what they aim to refute: the need for intelligence and teleology (targets) in any creative process.
“I came to see that the computer offers an insuperable obstacle to Darwinian materialism. In a computer, as information theory shows, the content is manifestly independent of its material substrate. No possible knowledge of a computer’s materials can yield any information whatsoever about the actual content of its computations. In the usual hierarchy of causation, they reflect the software or ‘source code’ used to program the device; and, like the design of the computer itself, the software is contrived by human intelligence.
“The failure of purely physical theories to describe or explain information reflects Shannon’s concept of entropy and his measure of ‘news.’ Information is defined by its independence from physical determination: If it is determined, it is predictable and thus by definition not information. Yet Darwinian science seemed to be reducing all nature to material causes.
“As I pondered this materialist superstition, it became increasingly clear to me that in all the sciences I studied, information comes first, and regulates the flesh and the world, not the other way around. The pattern seemed to echo some familiar wisdom. Could it be, I asked myself one day in astonishment, that the opening of St. John’s Gospel, In the beginning was the Word, is the central dogma of modern science?”
The idea of intelligence being prior to existents would probably be regarded as an appeal to the miraculous by many of our friends here at FR. Plus notice, Gilder uses the "T" word: teleology -- purpose, or goal. Most neo-Darwinists I know stridently deny that nature, or the universe, is purposeful. FWIW
Thanks for writing, E-S, and for the ping!
p.s.: bolds added.
Not to mention the psuedo-scientists that proclaim, falsely and without basis, either that 'science' disproves God's existance, or that God's existance cannot be scientifically proven. They must discount mathematics as science to say either.
Yes, just a bunch of random wonderfulness; how could anything be sinful in such a universe? ;o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.