Reason to Believe : A leading geneticist argues that science can lead to faith

Washington Post ^ | 07/09/2006 | Scott Russell Sanders

[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.

[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.

I do bones, not genetics.

Are you saying "macroevolution" cannot occur? If that is so, what is the magic barrier that stops lots and lots of micros from forming a macro?

[VadeRetro]

Macroevolution would require the addition of genetic material;

Mostly, but not necessarily. You are confusing two issues.

... natural selection does not, relying on existing genetic material in the population.

Again, the mechanism of evolution (macro- or micro-) is variation and selection. Now, don't you feel like a drooling doofus?

You should know this already.

You should get to square one before posting again.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Generally a polite reply Mr. RobRoy. Other supposed Christians on some crevolist threads downright lambast the nonChristian evolutionists (usually atheists).

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

You ought to lay off the insults, VadeRetro. Can you expalin exactly how macroevolution could occur without additional genetic material? Or do you only have more rudeness to toss around?

[Skooz]

Too bad a pretty interesting article on a fascinating man is so quickly consigned to the crevo cesspool by the usual suspects.

[Coyoteman]

Can you expalin exactly how macroevolution could occur without additional genetic material?

Easy--lots of microevolution, lots of time.

[DManA]

a gorgeous planet in the remote provinces of the universe

People keep writing stuff like that. In what sense is our planet remote? Remote from what?

[VadeRetro]

You ought to lay off the insults, VadeRetro.

You should pay attention to the content of the "insults." You are attempting to bludgeon with your total complete sweeping incomprehension of what science has to say about evolution. This is very unconvincing. It would be better if you weren't totally unfamiliar with what you "know" is wrong.

Can you expalin exactly how macroevolution could occur without additional genetic material?

Evolution proceeds not only by addition, but by deletion. This is often an important step.

How Can Evolution Cause Irreducibly Complex Systems?

Or do you only have more rudeness to toss around?

I'm trying to get your attention to the exceedingly fallacious nature of your arguments. You have the utter basics utterly wrong.

[VadeRetro]

I have also once already on this thread cited another freeper's short compendium making it clear that increases in genetic information are a commonplace. The link I gave you in the preceding post addresses some of the same issues.

So, increases occur. Deletions occur. Mainstream science has known this for many decades now. Sites like AnswersInGenesis stick their fingers in their ears and shout "La! La! La! I can't hear you!"

You don't learn much about how the world works doing that.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Firstly, your reply was much more polite than your colleague, VadeRetro. As for macroevolution and microevolution, the common mutations observed in microevolution are often caused by a loss of genetic material, such as when winged beetles evolve into wingless beetles--through natural selection--on windy islands, or when (using the shade of melanin topic) darker skinned people are more prominent in the sunny equatorial regions and lighter skinned people are more prominent in the polar regions. in the first case, the ability to produce viable wings was lost. in the second, no additional genetic material was added; the original populations of both regions probably had the ability to be lighter or darker skinned, and most were probably in the middle range. However, darker skinned people in the polar regions would probably produce less vitamin d. Lighter skinned people near the equator would be at risk of sun cancer. Natural selection would produce a weeding out of light people in the equatorial regions and the dark people in the polar. Existing genetic material would be removed, and less genetic material would remain. To get from a unicellular organism to a vertebrate would require more genetic material, as would even getting from a chimpanzee to a human, genetic close though they be.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

.... genetically close....

[RobRoy]

>>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.<<

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 problem is that "evolution" is like Interstate 90. It is a different animal depending on where you are and what you are discussing.

Like I said, the corvette has evolved...

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

bye.

[Coyoteman]

Natural selection would produce a weeding out of light people in the equatorial regions and the dark people in the polar. Existing genetic material would be removed, and less genetic material would remain.

The genetic traits of the two groups would begin to diverge. You might call this microevolution. Given different environments and no contact this could grow to macro over time.

I don't see the removal of genetic material as being necessary here, only the change in genetic material. In other cases (sickle cell anemia, Thalassemia) there is an increase. But I'm a bones type myself, what do I know.

[tortoise]

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.

Evolution is an elementary dynamic in general systems theory in mathematics -- it is expressed in biology, but it is not a biological concept. It has nothing to do with life, but recognizing that it must exist in biological systems is a "duh, obvious" moment since it is basically a mandatory dynamic as a matter of mathematics. It does not have anything to do with speciation per se, but it is hard to ignore the potential impact on speciation given that this dynamic is in fact necessarily occurring.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

About your link, while bacteria can swap genetic material, there still needs to be at least two types of bacteria. Also, the fact is that it is far more probable for cellular life to mutate itself into extinction rather than become supposedly higher forms of life. Furthermore, while bacteria can get genetic material (from other bacteria), similar processes haven't been shown in any multi-cellular organism. Rather than being considered evolution, the gene swapping could be considered a form of mating (without production of immediate offspring) in that there is a mixing of genetic material. bye again.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

bye.

[MHGinTN]

Nice link, interesting read on Behe.

[MHGinTN]

"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." Well that does it! You have no right to direct 'conclusions from data' by omitting data. If you don't reveal the six others, I shall be forced to present my own list. Oh, wait ... my second wife took most of those in the divorce. Never mind ...

[ValerieUSA]

ping a ling