Posted on 08/07/2006 10:27:04 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
The Human Factor :A man of science face Darwin and the Deity.
by David Klinghoffer
The Language of God A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
by Francis S. Collins
Free Press, 304 pp., $26
-------------------------------------
Head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins is among the country's foremost author ities on genetics, a staunch Darwinist, and a prominent critic of Intelligent Design. He's also an evangelical Christian who dramatically describes the moment he accepted Jesus as his personal savior. If that sounds like it might be a paradox, read on.
Collins was hiking in the Cascade Mountains of western Washington when, as he writes, he found that "the majesty and beauty of God's creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ."
Anyone who doubts that Darwinism may coherently be embraced alongside a faith in biblical religion will be intrigued and challenged by The Language of God. Besides offering a lovely, impassioned, and transparently sincere defense of his own Christian faith, Collins argues that one need not choose between Darwin and God. Indeed, he says, embracing both is the most profound and compelling way of penetrating "that mystery of mysteries," as Darwin called it, the puzzle of the origin of species.
He makes a strong and moving case for religious belief with the part of the book that is a memoir. Collins grew up an agnostic. After medical school, he treated a woman with crippling heart disease who relied on her faith for support. She asked him what he believed about God, and he was disturbed to find that he had no thoughtful reply. Another turning point came when, on a medical mission to Africa, he saved the life of a young farmer suffering from tuberculosis with a risky emergency surgery.
The man thanked Collins afterward and commented, "I get the sense you are wondering why you came here. I have an answer for you. You came here for one reason. You came here for me." The experience set Collins to thinking about the workings of Providence, God's oversight of our lives: "The tears of relief that blurred my vision as I digested his words stemmed from indescribable reassurance--reassurance that there in that strange place for just that one moment, I was in harmony with God's will, bonded together with this young man in a most unlikely but marvelous way."
His later, and historically significant, work on the Human Genome Project has mapped the genetic language, DNA, in which Collins believes God speaks His will for living creatures. Collins does a splendid job of clarifying for the layman what genetic information actually is. He explains how evidence for Darwin's understanding of the evolutionary mechanism may be observed in queer, vestigial features of the genetic code. However, if that mechanism was never at any point guided by a transcendent intelligence--as Darwin in The Origin of Species assumes it was not--this naturally raises the question of what need there was for a Deity as most believers understand Him. God has the right to command us because he created us.
Obviously in the background here, and the foreground too, is the Intelligent Design debate. Darwin and his followers advocate an unguided and purely material mechanism of natural selection operating on random genetic variation. Intelligent Design claims to find positive evidence that the mechanism was, indeed, guided--in short, that the software in the cell (DNA) did not write itself.
Collins's book rejects Intelligent Design as an "argument from personal incredulity." That argument, in his telling, would go this way: We don't understand exactly how the Darwinian mechanism could have produced certain aspects of biological information; therefore, a Designer must have done it. I believe Collins misrepresents Intelligent Design, and it appears that he hasn't followed the latest rounds in the scientific debate. But never mind. Let's assume he's right and ask: If Darwinism is the true resolution of the "mystery of mysteries," where does that leave God?
Something you'll often hear people say is, "Well, Darwinism doesn't mean God isn't the creator. Maybe evolution was programmed into the universe from the start. So He had no need to guide the process." The problem with such thinking is that it's directly contradicted by a major current in Darwinian evolutionary theory. In his book Wonderful Life (1989), the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould demonstrated what he called the "contingency" of life's history. Gould explained what an incredibly lucky break it was that Earth ever cast up intelligent life forms.
Wisely turning away from this doomed approach to showing God's hand here on Planet Darwin, Collins argues that we may discover evidence of His existence and love from looking to our own hearts, and to the heavens. In this he follows the lead of Immanuel Kant, who famously wrote, "Two things fill me with constantly increasing admiration and awe, the longer and more earnestly I reflect on them: the starry heavens without and the Moral Law within." The incredible fine-tuning of the universe's physical laws at the moment of the Big Bang, making existence possible against unimaginably high odds, must indicate that God had us in mind when He created the starry heavens. Collins quotes Stephen Hawking: "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create us."
But doesn't this sound like an "argument from personal incredulity" of just the kind Collins would attribute to Intelligent Design? Here is Collins on the Big Bang: "I cannot see how nature could have created itself."
The same objection may be lodged against Collins's favorite demonstration of God's being and caring. This comes from the "Moral Law," the sense of right and wrong, of charity and altruism, which he believes to be inborn in the human heart. Where else could it come from, he asks, but from God? "In my view, DNA sequence alone . . . will never explain certain special human attributes, such as the knowledge of the Moral Law and the universal search for God." Darwin, among others, would disagree. In The Descent of Man he advanced an evolutionary explanation of altruism.
In his most satisfying defense of belief, Collins brings forward a clever way of reconciling an unguided evolutionary process with God as the Creator. He points out that God resides beyond the limits of time. Hence, what appears to us as evolution's unpredictable course was, from God's perspective, entirely predictable. It's a neat perspective--except, perhaps, if we ask whether an unguided process of "creation" is still "creation" even if its results were foreseen.
I am surprised that Collins didn't try another approach to harmonizing God and Darwin, an approach I find more promising. This one is brought forward by an Orthodox Jewish scholar who deserves to be more widely known outside Jewish circles. In his own new book, The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution, Rabbi Natan Slifkin also summarily dismisses Intelligent Design. On the other hand, he offers a sumptuous variety of theological and philosophical approaches to reconciling Darwinian evolution with religious faith. Slifkin's perspective, while endorsing Darwinism, holds that what may appear random and unguided in life's history may not be at all.
His writing is too fascinatingly rich to summarize here, but a hint of this line of thinking may be found in a citation from the book of Proverbs: "[When] the lot is cast in the lap, its entire verdict has been decided by God." Or as a cryptic verse of a famous Sabbath hymn, "L'chah Dodi," suggests, in Slifkin's paraphrase:
The end of the deed is first in thought, which explains that the final result sheds light on the entire process. In this case, it clarifies that when a seemingly meaningless process results in a highly meaningful conclusion, one looks back and sees that the apparent meaninglessness was a mere disguise for the goal, which was actually envisaged at the start of the entire process. This turns Stephen Jay Gould's notion of contingency on its head. The unlikely course of evolutionary history with its ultimate product--us--actually becomes an argument for the emergence of humans having been intended all along. After all, the unlikely thing actually happened. But Slifkin's attempt at harmonizing would likely trouble Darwin, who assumed that the process not only seemed to be unguided but also was unguided.
Can we reconcile God and Darwin without changing the accustomed meaning of one or the other? I remain skeptical. Yet readers owe Francis Collins--and Rabbi Slifkin--a debt of gratitude for making us think more deeply about issues that often get swept away with trite, unexamined formulations designed to give us an excuse for not thinking. The theological and scientific paradoxes will not be resolved in a book review, nor perhaps in any book that has yet been written.
David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, is the author, most recently, of Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History.
HOORAY! Thank you so much for pinging me to that post!
Interstingly enough, I was just using the Periodic Table of Elements in conversation the other day as witness unto God the Maker and Holder-together of all things! Thank you for the ping!
I guess this explains your rant!
But it HAS too!!!
Else Man cannot explain the Universe very well.
--EvoDude
That's not a very civil thing to say about people you don't know.
Carolyn
| Friday, August 04, 2006 | |||
| Surgery to separate conjoined twin girls |
| JENNIFER DOBNER - The Associated Press | |
SALT LAKE CITY -- They were born in a perpetual hug, their little bodies fused at the midsection so that they are practically face-to-face, and have grown into outgoing 4-year-olds who chatter away and finish each other's sentences. Conjoined twins Kendra and Maliyah Herrin say they like being together all the time, but they are also full of plans for separate lives. They want to walk without using their wheeled walker, sleep in bunk beds and ride bikes. "I want to have a princess bike," Kendra said. "I can go fast." On Monday, surgeons at Primary Children's Medical Center will separate the twins in an operation that could take 14 to 30 hours. The sandy-haired, blue-eyed girls share one pair of legs, a pelvis, a liver, one functioning kidney and part of the large intestine. If all goes according to plan, doctors will separate the liver and large intestine, and reconstruct the pelvis. It's possible they will need to make repairs or remove undeveloped or extraneous internal organs commonly found in conjoined twins. Each girl will get one leg and Kendra will keep the functioning kidney. Maliyah will be put on dialysis until she is strong enough for a kidney transplant from her mother, Erin Herrin, ideally within three to six months. Dr. Rebecka Meyers, the hospital's chief of pediatric surgery, said she believes this will be the first time separation surgery has been attempted on twins with a shared kidney. Conjoined twins occur about once in every 50,000 to 100,000 births. Only about 20 percent survive to become viable candidates for separation, and most separation surgeries occur when the twins are 6 to 12 months old. "The reason for that is partly psychological, partly mechanical," Meyers said. "If Maliyah had had a kidney, these girls would have been separated a long time ago." But a kidney transplant would have been harder before age 4, and doctors advised waiting, said Erin Herrin, who knew 18 weeks into her pregnancy that the twins would be conjoined. Previous surgeries were also delayed because Maliyah had difficulty eating and gaining weight. Before deciding to go ahead this year, doctors and the girls' parents -- who also have 6-year-old daughter and 14-month-old twin boys, who are not conjoined -- talked with ethicists, because the surgery could make things worse for Maliyah. Kidney dialysis and transplant present significant risks, from infection to organ rejection, Meyers said. "We have more than one ethicist who thinks these girls don't need to be separated," Meyers said. "Mom and Dad have had a chance to hear all of that and talk to people on both sides." Jake and Erin said they talked at length with the Kendra and Maliyah about separation and had the girls meet with a psychologist before committing to the surgery. They concluded that while the girls expressed some fear about the surgery, separate "was how they saw themselves when they were older," Jake Herrin said. To prepare the girls for surgery, doctors inserted 17 expanding balloons into the twins' torsos in June. Filled with saline solution, the balloons stretch the skin and muscles, giving doctors more tissue to work with during plastic surgery after the separation. Each week more saline has been added to the balloons. The process has been more painful than expected and the skin over a least one expander has been slow to heal, delaying surgery by a week. To reduce the pressure on their tender skin, the girls sleep on a 3,000-pound oval hospital bed that is filled with sand to cradle their bodies. To try to help the youngsters understand what is about to happen to them, Kendra and Maliyah have been given a set of conjoined stuffed dolls to play with. Like the girls, the dolls get Band-Aids and shots. On July 20, Kendra performed separation surgery on the dolls, as Maliyah looked on. "They gave the babies medicine and said that they were so brave," Erin Herrin wrote in a posting on the North Salt Lake family's Web site. "It is incredible to us how much they really do understand." Their parents say they are apprehensive about surgery, but eager to get past it and begin the process of recovery, helping the girls adjust to life as two people with separate bodies, not just separate personalities. Erin Herrin is also sad. "I guess I'm mourning their separation," Erin Herrin said. "We think they truly have something amazing." Meyers appears confident about surgery, but expressed concerns about how the family will cope after separation. "In terms of they way these two girls relate to each other, they have been exactly the same. Once they are separated, they are going to be different," Meyers said. "We've tried to prepare them for that."
HMmmm.... |
He's like one of the Blind Men; inspecting the Elephant.
No Stultus, we are not to say that. Nor any kind of field for that matter.
Hard to say.. Nobody knows what gravity is exactly..
Does a spirit have gravity?.. man you ask the hard questions...
Seems that gravity is related to "Light" matter/energy..
"Dark" matter/energy we know zero about.. could include gravity, we dunno...
I would say there is a buttload of things we don't about..
However; spirit attracts spirit.. there is polar attraction to spirit.. and in that sense magnetic.. Some might say the "Holy Spirit" is watching you right now.. and senseing your polar attraction.. and quantifing the strengh of your spirit.. What is, is, and what ain't, ain't..
Jesus is either who he said he was, and still is...
or wasn't who he said he was, and still isn't..
Both the easiest and hardest question ever posed to a human..
Is Messiah a mental construct or a savior?..
Carolyn
No Stultus, we are not to say that. Nor any kind of field for that matter."
Actually I disagree. The gravitational field, and all of the 4 forces (strong, weak, electomagnetic, gravitational) do indeed exhibit the properties of "spirit". But these ar not the only spirits/forces that exist, I believe.
In times past the effects of magnetism would indeed be considered a spirit influencing matter.
Modern science, string theory for instance, indicates that there are 10 or 11 actual dimensions, not just the 4 we comprehend.
It is very reasonable to suggest that additional fields and forces exist in these unknown dimensions, and also to suggest as many scientists have that those forces can and do interact with our 4 dimensions.
For instance in a discussion I had with Dr Sylvester Gates (father of supersymmetry theory) we discussed the idea that there is energy transfer between the other dimensions and ours, possibly even by particles.
We also discussed the possibility that dark matter, which is pulling galaxies away faster and faster, may actually be a function of extra-dimensional forces (undetectable by our current technology), which accounts for the fact that if dark matter was matter it accounts for about 98% of the entire matter in the universe, yet we cannot detect it?
There are 6 dimensions we know nothing about. Some of those dimensions will likely be timeless.
I know also the Holy Spirit exists, within many of us, from personal experience. It is real. Christ is real, and the true Messiah. I am also an evangelical and have as much (more)personal proof of that as any scientific proof today.
I don't have all answers about cosmology (I am doing physics research in cosmology and space-time at a university), but there are no questions that God fears to have answered, as long as we are sincere in our pursuit of knowledge, wisdom and understanding (as He asks us to pursue).
I know also the Holy Spirit exists, within many of us, from personal experience. It is real. Christ is real, and the true Messiah. I am also an evangelical and have as much (more)personal proof of that as any scientific proof today.
I don't have all answers about cosmology [hey, me either!] (I am doing physics research in cosmology and space-time at a university), but there are no questions that God fears to have answered, as long as we are sincere in our pursuit of knowledge, wisdom and understanding (as He asks us to pursue).
Hi Mark Felton! You wrote: "Actually I disagree [that gravity has no spiritual properties]. The gravitational field, and all of the 4 forces (strong, weak, electomagnetic, gravitational) do indeed exhibit the properties of "spirit". But these are not the only spirits/forces that exist, I believe."
I cheerfully grant the possibility that my statement is incorrect, for I (we) really have not yet fully understood what gravity "is." It is the only one of the 4 fundamental forces that continues to elude unification. Lisa Randall (IIRC) has suggested that gravity may be interdimensional -- and as you note, it is highly likely there are other dimensions beyond the four we directly sense; though their existence is strongly suspected, they have not yet been directly detected.
String theory is fascinating, holding that at least some of the hidden dimensions may be timelike, as well as spatial. Yet I also like Stuart Kauffman's "Two Times theory" -- where the "next" extra dimension is "timelike"; although, unlike the compactified dimensions of string theory, it has universal, "fieldlike" extension. I guess Kauffman's theory appeals to me because it reminds me of Sir Isaac Newton's speculation about the sensorium Dei.... That would seem to indicate that this "extra timelike dimension" would have spiritual implications.
The fact is, we are only beginning to plumb these mysteries, so we do not yet know for a fact what's what. The point is, as you say, "there are no questions that God fears to have answered, as long as we are sincere in our pursuit of knowledge, wisdom and understanding (as He asks us to pursue)." The search for His truth is a holy quest, and a thrilling one!
And I'm thrilled for you that you're pursuing formal studies in physical cosmology, Mark. How I envy you the ability to work on these issues full-time -- and under such distinguished tutelage!
Thank you so very much for sharing your thoughts with us.
I don't have all answers about cosmology (I am doing physics research in cosmology and space-time at a university), but there are no questions that God fears to have answered, as long as we are sincere in our pursuit of knowledge, wisdom and understanding (as He asks us to pursue).
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bravo, Mark -- and Amen! Thank you for sharing your testimony (which very closely parallels mine, BTW...)
Ladies, I believe I see in this young believer a kindred spirit. Unless you or he object[s], I intend to include him in my addressee list on some of these "Explorong God and Science" posts I have in the works. OK, Mark? OK, Ladies?
*(Somewhat minor point: I prefer to refer to the Holy Spirit as "He" --- for, in my personal experience, He is just as much a Person as is Jesus or God the Father...)
Oh by all means do so, TXnMA! Such a beautiful witness from Mark! He shows that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive but complementary (in Bohr's sense). Plus he reminds us that truly God does want us to look at His creation, to discover His "other" revelation of Himself to us, and to understand....
At any rate, I wanted to submit a thought concerning the four fundamental fields and Biblical metaphors - namely that the Scriptures refer to four winds - in some, the four winds of heaven and in others, the four winds of earth.
I meditating on whether "winds" wrt heaven is a metaphor for the four fundamental fields. Of course Biblical metaphors can also have multiple meanings. Here are two verses which come to mind, for your consideration:
And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. - Revelation 7:21
BTW: The Holy Spirit resides within us, as man, when we accept Christ and become able to receive it , so I find it particularly interesting to find the word "ruach" to mean "mind" as well as spirit. (consider also the "soul", which is spirit in a way)
I also know that life did not begin randomly. There are forces behind everythging and it defintely required some, as yet unknown, force, to drive material to form into complex compounds/molecules that could perform the material functions of life, ands begin evolutionary processes.
We do not yet know how to detect or measure life force, but then we didnt know much about gravity not too long ago though we were immersed in it.
That same force which drives life to exist and evolve, was later complemented by a God given, spirit of the soul (mind), and even later the chosen people (thoe who accept Christ now) receive the blessings of the Holy spirit.
It is that spirit as well that lives on eternally after our material bodies expire.
I can believe there are at least 3 forces, spirits, associated with life, that we cannot yet measure scientifically.
But then, we cannot even prove scientifically that "love" exists, yet it is so fundamental to life, and to God.
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." --Genesis 1:2-3
The most fundamental packet of energy we know of is light, it is pure electromagnetic energy, yet it also has mass like properties.
In the beginning with the big bang we can image a universe filled with light only, (before the creation, condensation of matter) which is the only thing in nature we know to behave both like a particle of matter and/or a wave packet of energy.
So in a sense light has properties of both spirit and matter.
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.