Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reason to Believe : A leading geneticist argues that science can lead to faith
Washington Post ^ | 07/09/2006 | Scott Russell Sanders

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: asshatathiests; atheisttruebeliever; bewareofluddites; bewareyeccult; bloodbath; crevobloodbath; crevolist; droolingpavlovians; faith; geneticist; godsgravesglyphs; herecometheyecs; humangenome; keywordwar; keywordwars; lookout; pavlovian; pettykeywordfight; science; slaughterhousefive; timhardin; whatsayek
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-206 next last
To: Coyoteman; puroresu

There's also the matter of different skill sets. A great scientist may not be a great teacher -- that is, the scientist may not be able to break down the material into easily understood bits.


41 posted on 07/10/2006 7:44:21 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs; Coyoteman

That's true, of course.


42 posted on 07/10/2006 7:46:13 AM PDT by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
Well, all you're telling me is that you believe there's an unlimited capacity for variation and that that must be how we all got here. That's a belief, not a fact.

When I cite scientific studies, that's me telling you about my faith? Do you think everything is argued the way you witch doctors argue religion?

43 posted on 07/10/2006 7:47:32 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
Do you know for a fact that all life on earth descended via this method from a single original cell? Of course, you don't. No one does.

If Carl Woese is right, the common ancestor is precellular. (RNA-world.) So what? Common descent is still true in that case.

You don't seem to know what evolution is, never mind what the evidence is. Furthermore, I don't think you want to know. You should probably just let science class alone and go back to your voodoo dolls.

44 posted on 07/10/2006 7:50:29 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: tickmeister
Sorry, makes no sense to me.

Your choice, of course. But this article is a hit to the "argument" of some evols who try to dismiss the belief in intelligent design of some scientists. The extent of their argument is generally just that these guys are nutcases, blah, blah, blah. You've admitted (perhaps not intentionally) that it is a matter of faith either way, and I can respect that.

45 posted on 07/10/2006 7:54:41 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

>>Collins believes that science cannot be used to refute the existence of God because it is confined to the “natural” world. In this light he believes miracles are a real possibility. “If one is willing to accept the existence of God or some supernatural force outside nature then it is not a logical problem to admit that, occasionally, a supernatural force might stage an invasion,” he says.<,

This concept is lifted straight from C. S. Lewis' book "Miracles". The verbiage is even similar.


46 posted on 07/10/2006 8:11:18 AM PDT by RobRoy (The Internet is doing to Evolution what it did to Dan Rather. Information is power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tickmeister

>>So many of these arguments can be summarized as "Here is an impossibly complex reality, it must have been made by a thinking God."<<

You miss his point. You are an AM radio questioning the existence of FM. You will not get his point until you have, as he did, a defining epiphany, as ALL Christians have.

His message is not for you - yet.


47 posted on 07/10/2006 8:16:31 AM PDT by RobRoy (The Internet is doing to Evolution what it did to Dan Rather. Information is power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

"You don't seem to know what evolution is, never mind what the evidence is."

Not this cr*p again. The word "evolution" has as many meanings as the word "dark".

This "you don't know the meaning of evolution" baloney gets old.

I know the Corvette has evolved. So did the Corvair, but natural selction destroyed it anyway...


48 posted on 07/10/2006 8:23:46 AM PDT by RobRoy (The Internet is doing to Evolution what it did to Dan Rather. Information is power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TXFireman

ping


49 posted on 07/10/2006 8:26:43 AM PDT by Jonx6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TXFireman

ping


50 posted on 07/10/2006 8:26:51 AM PDT by Jonx6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Unless they're happily using the fallacy of equivocation, the people attacking evolution on the crevo threads are talking about biological evolution as explained first by Darwin. Of course, a lot of creationists ARE equivocating when they attack "evolution" with such questions as:

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.

This "you don't know the meaning of evolution" baloney gets old.

You guys not knowing what a theory you claim to be wrong EVEN SAYS gets old.

51 posted on 07/10/2006 8:36:54 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; puroresu
If you've ever talked to vade Retro you find he cannot hold a coherent thought for long, makes no sense logically, and knows very little about evolution or biology.

But he is enamoured by others even more accomplished in similar prejudices and ignorances so he thinks he knows something and regurgitates things.

Case in point his evolution = variation + selection.

52 posted on 07/10/2006 8:45:37 AM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
I was waiting for some lawyerly rectum to show up. Note that I immediately amended the post to leave a role for neutral drift.
53 posted on 07/10/2006 8:48:10 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Actually what you described was close enough to neutral drift.

Evolution = variation + selection is so broad as to apply to every reproduction or replication. It doesn't inform at all about evolution just redefines the word evolution to be equivalent to life.

54 posted on 07/10/2006 8:56:21 AM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Evolution = variation + selection is so broad as to apply to every reproduction or replication.

It does.

It doesn't inform at all about evolution just redefines the word evolution to be equivalent to life.

Life evolves, but that doesn't make evolution life. Stay stupid.

55 posted on 07/10/2006 8:58:36 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Life evolves, but that doesn't make evolution life.

You are the one who said that not me.

In every replicative event prior to meiosis or mitosis for non-sexually reproducing organisms there are or can be variations. In sexually reproducing organisms there is variation in every fertilization when one set of chromosomes comes from sperm and one from oocyte. There is then a selection event upon that organisms subsequent reproduction. Variation and selection describes life.

56 posted on 07/10/2006 9:37:38 AM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

Thanks for the ping! I would ping my list, but I am away from the compture upon which it is saved. Oh well, it's an excellent article anyway. Thanks for bringing my attention to it!


57 posted on 07/10/2006 9:56:24 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
What a silly dance you are doing.

Variation and selection describes life.

Dealt with. Variation and selection are the classic Darwinian mechanism of evolution. Evolution, not life. Life is about good books, old Three Stooges shorts, your first big zit, a smile from a pretty girl, a flat tire when you're in a hurry, a well-made cup of coffee, and six other things I'm keeping secret for now. Your attempted substitution fails.

Who do you fool with this kind of argument? Are you going to sway someone with enough brains to be an asset to antievolutionism? What would an asset to a nay-saying antiscience Luddite movement be, anyway?

58 posted on 07/10/2006 10:42:37 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; betty boop
Indeed. Works for me, too.

The Father has revealed Himself in many ways - through Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, Scriptures and Creation. I expect them all to agree and have never been disappointed.

59 posted on 07/10/2006 10:44:37 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; puroresu; Coyoteman

Macroevolution would require the addition of genetic material; natural selection does not, relying on existing genetic material in the population. You should know this already.


60 posted on 07/10/2006 10:48:28 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( http://www.answersingenesis.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-206 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson