Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Francis Collins and Theistic Evolution (Re: the book "The Language of God")
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1 of 46 (321138)
06-13-2006 1:43 PM


This forum is basically about the congruence or disagreement between evolution and science. I am very interested in the discussion but I have no background or technical knowledge of any scientific discipline
I realize that you don't normally promote threads that are merely items copied from other sources but I hope you'll make an exception in this case. I am only able to put forward what others have written in hopes of starting discussion. In this vein I hope you might promote this, as it is central to what this forum is about.
I'm open to any forum that you wish to put it in.
London Sunday Times writes:
LONDON: I've found God, says man who cracked the genome
By Steven Swinford
The Sunday Times
June 11, 2006
THE scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is to publish a book explaining why he now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles are real.
Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man "closer to God".
His book, The Language of God, to be published in September, will reopen the age-old debate about the relationship between science and faith. "One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war," said Collins, 56.
"I don't see that as necessary at all and I think it is deeply disappointing that the shrill voices that occupy the extremes of this spectrum have dominated the stage for the past 20 years."
For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to "glimpse at the workings of God".
"When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it," he said. "But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along.
"When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can't survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can't help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind."
Collins joins a line of scientists whose research deepened their belief in God. Isaac Newton, whose discovery of the laws of gravity reshaped our understanding of the universe, said: "This most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."
Although Einstein revolutionised our thinking about time, gravity and the conversion of matter to energy, he believed the universe had a creator. "I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details," he said. However Galileo was famously questioned by the inquisition and put on trial in 1633 for the "heresy" of claiming that the earth moved around the sun.
Among Collins's most controversial beliefs is that of "theistic evolution", which claims natural selection is the tool that God chose to create man. In his version of the theory, he argues that man will not evolve further.
"I see God's hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way," he says.
"Scientifically, the forces of evolution by natural selection have been profoundly affected for humankind by the changes in culture and environment and the expansion of the human species to 6 billion members. So what you see is pretty much what you get."
Collins was an atheist until the age of 27, when as a young doctor he was impressed by the strength that faith gave to some of his most critical patients.
"They had terrible diseases from which they were probably not going to escape, and yet instead of railing at God they seemed to lean on their faith as a source of great comfort and reassurance," he said. "That was interesting, puzzling and unsettling."
He decided to visit a Methodist minister and was given a copy of C S Lewis's Mere Christianity, which argues that God is a rational possibility. The book transformed his life. "It was an argument I was not prepared to hear," he said. "I was very happy with the idea that God didn't exist, and had no interest in me. And yet at the same time, I could not turn away."
His epiphany came when he went hiking through the Cascade Mountains in Washington state. He said: "It was a beautiful afternoon and suddenly the remarkable beauty of creation around me was so overwhelming, I felt, 'I cannot resist this another moment'."
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.
Science & Spirit writes:
Reading the Book of Life: Francis Collins and the Human Genome Project
As director of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins stands at the heart of the hopes and fears spawned by the revolution in genetics. Yet he finds no conflict between his fervent religious faith and his scientific endeavors, he says in this wide-ranging interview with Science & Spirit. Our Genes, Our Selves: Genetics, Behavior and Personhood
by Brent Waters and Ron Cole-Turner
Francis Collins - physician, researcher, Christian believer - stands at the heart of the hopes and fears spawned by the revolution in genetic knowledge. As director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, Collins plays a pivotal role in the Humane Genome Project, an international effort to read the entire sequence of human DNA, laying bare the basic structures of human life for study, understanding - and alteration.
While some have decried the effort as an unwholesome, if not unholy, scientific meddling in the essence of our humanity, Collins strongly affirms the basic benevolence of the project, with its emphasis on curing disease, easing suffering, and bettering the quality of human life. To be sure, genetic engineering - like all human activities - is subject to abuse, says Collins, and public vigilance and moral debate should accompany the continual advances in the field. But there is no conflict between his religious beliefs and scientific endeavors, he tells ethicists Brent Waters and Ron-Cole Turner, in this exclusive interview with Science & Spirit.
Science & Spirit: How do you feel about the emphasis being placed on genetics today, particular in the popular culture? Some worry that we are giving too much power to the idea of DNA, to genes, that they are being exalted to the stature of a cultural icon.
Collins: Yes, some people seem willing to put DNA on the church steeple and worship it as divine. I don't agree with that at all. It's just a chemical, for heaven's sake. But I do worry about a growing deterministic view that is slipping into our popular culture, our vocabulary, and certainly our media reports on genetics. Over time, however, I believe we will gradually get to the right balance. Genetics is a component of virtually every illness and plays a role in lots of other human traits, but in most instances it is predisposing, but clearly not deterministic. It is not reliably predetermining of anything except those relatively uncommon Mendelian disorders like Huntington's Disease. Furthermore, in the mix of factors that go into a particular human illness or trait, we should consider not only the hereditary part and the environmental part, but also the part that often gets left out, which is free will. After all, we all make critical choices about behavior and life style that have an enormous impact on who we are.
S&S: What will the genome project tell us about our humanity?
Collins: It tells us about the parts list. It tells us about some of the mechanics of human biology. It tells us what components are necessary to build an organism that has the biological properties of a human being from a single-celled embryo. But our "humanity" is much broader than that, incorporating other things such as our sense of right and wrong, our sense of community, our desire for a spiritual aspect to our lives, the capacity to love each other; and I don't think the genome project is going to tell us very much about those things. In my own perspective, science is highly appropriate for the exploration of issues that are based upon biological foundations, but the spiritual side of humanity may not necessarily yield all that easily to scientific exploration. We shouldn't fool ourselves about that. I reject completely the mechanistic view of humankind as nothing other than a marionette whose every move is controlled by invisible strings made of DNA.
S&S: If the Human Genome Project will give us a parts list, are you concerned about some extravagant claims that are being made for it? For example, that if we can enhance the "parts," we’ll be able to make a better human "product"?
Collins: Certainly there are extravagant claims out there that once we get a little further down this path of having the parts list and knowing how to tinker with them, maybe we could take charge of our own evolution and develop some dramatic advances of our own species. I think such scenarios are pretty unrealistic. They face a major ethical challenge, because if one is talking about that kind of alteration to the parts list, it would be done almost certainly in a circumstance where you're changing the germ line, altering the DNA sequence of that individual, in a way that causes that change to be passed on to offspring and future generations. The current general consensus, which I strongly support, is that we ought not to alter the human germ line unless we are absolutely convinced that it's safe to do so. In a circumstance where you're talking about altering the very nature of the biological aspect of being human, how could you possibly know whether or not that's safe over many generations? And being unable to answer the question, it then seems inescapable that to carry out the experiment is unethical. So while this makes great copy and people like to talk about it, I personally think it faces enormous challenges before anything of that sort could be contemplated.
S&S: Even more modest uses of genetics make some people think you’re playing God. Does this technology run the risk of transcending basic limits set on human action?
Collins: I think it is fair to say the primary reason we are doing the genome project, and the primary reason why there is such a focus on genetics in medical research right now, is a desire to harness this new approach to better understand and treat disease. So the motivation is one of trying to alleviate suffering. As a motivation that is one of our noblest and purest. When one looks at the time that Christ spent on the earth, as short as it was, it is remarkable how much of that time He spent in acts of healing. I think we were supposed to notice that. Virtually all traditions of faith have put forward the notion of trying to heal the sick and alleviate the suffering of those who are in trouble as a very high mandate. If you accept that, and if you accept the premise that the science of genetics is a very powerful way to accomplish those goals, then I would argue the most unethical stance for a thinking person to take would be to say that we shouldn't be pursuing genetic research because it might get misused.
S&S: We are learning a lot about variations in human genes, some of which add a healthy diversity, but others which are regarded as a genetic defect. Should we see this as a defect in creation or perhaps as a defect in God’s work?
Collins: You can answer that on several levels. If evolution is the method that God chose to create human beings in his likeness with the capacity for spiritual fellowship with Him, then that mechanism by its very nature required a certain error rate in the copying of DNA. And as a consequence you inevitably have human diversity, which I agree is a good thing, but you also have the potential that some of that DNA variation is not neutral, but actually carries with it negative consequences.
It seems to me we should not make the mistake of assuming that God's will for us is biological perfection, any more than we should assume that God's perfect will for us is the absence of suffering. It is those occasions where things aren't perfect where we often learn the most and where our closeness to Him, which is a higher goal even than our own happiness, is most likely to come about. And so perhaps God in a merciful way speaks to us through our imperfections, and we shouldn't neglect the significance of that. The underlying assumption that we should all be genetically perfect doesn't make sense to me. Furthermore, from the perspective of human diversity, it seems rather essential for the concept of the individual believer as having individual fellowship with God that we are not a herd of identicals. We are in fact unique individuals, each with our own opportunity to take advantage of or ignore building a relationship with God. Diversity is thus an important component of an understanding of free will, and of our own opportunities for coming to a saving grace through that relationship with God.
S&S: Although the Human Genome Project is driven by humane intentions, are there some circumstances which could twist these intentions? For example, will parents be held responsible for the health of their offspring, and be blamed if they allow a child enduring "unnecessary" suffering to be born?
Collins: The disability community is understandably concerned about this issue. If I have achondroplasia and if science now has an understanding of that gene which makes it possible to identify all the fetuses that have achondroplasia and make sure they don't get born, does that diminish my value in the eyes of society? It's a very significant issue. At the same time, it's another one of those possible scenarios that should not lead to the sweeping statement, "and therefore we should not be doing this research," because then you have doomed all the people with achondroplasia who are looking for some potential answers to their current medical problems to a future without hope. It comes down to trying to both focus on the positives of genetics and trying to prepare to avoid some of the negatives. When Christ healed the lame and the blind, did those who didn't get healed complain that somehow they were now being considered as less contributory to society than before? I don't think so. I suspect they were amazed and hopeful.
S&S: Earlier you suggested that genetics and evolution not only fit with each other but that both can be affirmed by people of faith.
Collins: I wish more people would go back and read St. Augustine from 400 A.D. His view of the first book of the Bible sounds very compatible with what is currently called "theistic evolution," where God used the process of evolution to create man. Augustine, without the need to be defensive, felt this evolutionary view of how human beings came about is entirely consistent with Genesis 1. The current battle between evolutionism and creationism makes me sad at heart, because it is so unnecessary. It's hard enough getting through life when you have to deal with the real challenges and the real controversies and the real battles. This polarization of evolution and creation is a battle that we shouldn't have had to fight, and yet it continues to rage. Serious Christians often think they're being asked to reject compelling scientific data to prove their religious commitment; serious scientists often think they're being asked to reject their own faith to prove their intellectual rigor. And none of this is at all necessary. A harmonious synthesis of science and faith is not only possible, it is deeply satisfying. We must work to spread that word.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "(Re: the book "The Language of God")" to the topic title. Going to promote this topic to "The Book Nook" forum.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 06-13-2006 5:54 PM GDR has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 46 (321175)
06-13-2006 3:58 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Note: The is a previous Francis Collins topic in the "Links and Information" forum - Francis Collins on ID
Adminnemooseus
Other existing (more or less) theistic evolution topics include:
Theistic Evolution
Evolution for Dummies and Christians
Can Aliens be Christians?
Finding God Within Evolution
Christian Evolutionists: How does that work? A Q&A session
Theistic Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
Minnemooseus also wants to insert a plug for another "Book Nook" topic:
Kenneth R. Miller - Finding Darwin's God
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added "note".
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added links to other related topics.

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 3 of 46 (321206)
06-13-2006 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
06-13-2006 1:43 PM


Whats your point mate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 06-13-2006 1:43 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by GDR, posted 06-13-2006 6:07 PM Larni has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 4 of 46 (321214)
06-13-2006 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Larni
06-13-2006 5:54 PM


As I said in the opening post I don't have the knowledge to discuss this from anything more than a philosophical point of view. This forum is called evolution vs creationism. Here we have the individual in charge of mapping the human genome maintaining that he believes that evolution and creationism are compatible.
I am prepared to accept the concept that we are the product of an evolutionary process. I frankly don't have the knowledge to agree or to refute that fact, but the majority of those that are knowledgeable do accept it so I have to assume that it is largely correct. I am not able to substantiate my position with my own knowledge so I have presented the position of one who can, and possibly even the one who is in the best position to, support the position of Theistic Evolution.
I am simply hoping to promote a dialogue so that I can learn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 06-13-2006 5:54 PM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 06-13-2006 9:29 PM GDR has replied
 Message 7 by jar, posted 06-13-2006 10:47 PM GDR has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 5 of 46 (321267)
06-13-2006 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by GDR
06-13-2006 6:07 PM


I can't find any way to reconcile Evolution & Genesis
I think it's sad that people may come to a belief in the reality of God but feel constrained by their belief in evolution to conform Him to science and falsify the Bible, compromising their faith.
Certainly a belief in the gods or God of other religions may be compatible with evolution, but the God of the Bible isn't.
There is no reasonable way that I can see to reconcile Genesis with evolution. Just none. Even if you can shoehorn a few billion years in between the first few verses, there is still
no way human beings could be made in the image of God and have come up from animals;
no way one man and one woman could have been the sole representatives of the human race at that point, but the entire Bible rests on that revelation, all the genealogies, the New Testament reference to Adam as the head of the human race, everything;
no way to hold onto the Biblical explanation of death as the result of the sin of the first human beings, as death would have preceded them by millions of years;
no way to support a belief in the Bible as the word of God because so much of it has to be falsified or explained away to fit with evolution.
It must be that Augustine was still in thrall to the pagan ways of thinking he had come out of, and didn't think through all the implications of his view of Genesis.
They say that a belief in evolution doesn't compromise one's salvation but I'm not completely sure of that, since it fragments God's word to such an extent that some of the most wonderful mysterious depths of it are lost. I'd like to believe it true for the sake of those who are sincerely seeking, and maybe for them it is, maybe God will pardon on the basis of weak faith. But otherwise, when Jesus said that only those could be His disciples who hate father and mother and even their own lives, I think He made it plain that ANYTHING that is put ahead of His word has to be abandoned whether one can follow the arguments or not.
=================================================================
{Edit: To be clear I don't disagree with most of what Collins says. I see nothing threatening in studying the genome or anything else in the natural world, and curing diseases is always a fine aim.
As always, what's dangerous comes from the fact that human beings are fallen which means an impaired moral judgment. To save one human being many can't see the problem with killing another in the form of a fetus for instance.
I also appreciate this statement by Collins because he seems to be pretty much agreeing with what I've been trying to say in the Two Cultures argument:
quote:
Collins: It [the genome] tells us about the parts list. It tells us about some of the mechanics of human biology. It tells us what components are necessary to build an organism that has the biological properties of a human being from a single-celled embryo. But our "humanity" is much broader than that, incorporating other things such as our sense of right and wrong, our sense of community, our desire for a spiritual aspect to our lives, the capacity to love each other; and I don't think the genome project is going to tell us very much about those things. In my own perspective, science is highly appropriate for the exploration of issues that are based upon biological foundations, but the spiritual side of humanity may not necessarily yield all that easily to scientific exploration. We shouldn't fool ourselves about that. I reject completely the mechanistic view of humankind as nothing other than a marionette whose every move is controlled by invisible strings made of DNA.
Hear! hear!
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : to add quotes from OP and comments under double line.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by GDR, posted 06-13-2006 6:07 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 06-13-2006 10:11 PM Faith has replied
 Message 8 by GDR, posted 06-14-2006 1:33 AM Faith has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 6 of 46 (321274)
06-13-2006 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
06-13-2006 9:29 PM


Re: I can't find any way to reconcile Evolution & Genesis
no way human beings could be made in the image of God and have come up from animals;
But coming up from clay is somehow less insulting? Easier to swallow?
Tell me, Faith - how much of the human body is comprised of silicon?
It's the irony that never gets old - the constant refrain of "the conclusions of evolution are sooooo ridiculous. Obviously the more reasonable story is the one where people are made out of clay, women are men with an extra rib, and a talking snake makes the world suck."
Honestly, though? Collins' ideas aren't much less silly. I think a good discussion is happening here:
Page not found | ScienceBlogs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 06-13-2006 9:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by GDR, posted 06-14-2006 1:40 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 06-14-2006 3:40 AM crashfrog has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 46 (321281)
06-13-2006 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by GDR
06-13-2006 6:07 PM


There is no conflict between Evolution and Christianity.
I see absolutely no problem reconciling Creation and Evolution. All we learn in studying evolution is how GOD did it.
Most often the objections I see from Christians are either the result of turning the Bible into a goddlet to be worshipped or a wilfull ignorance of both the evidence of the record GOD left us directly (the universe) and the indirect record he left us (the bible). In both cases the Christian that opposes Evolution, the old earth and the Theory of Evolution simply wilfully denies the reality of the evidence.
They are consistent though, denying both the physical evidence and what is written in the Bible itself, performing amazing feats of mental gymnastics so that they can deny the consistency of the physical evidence and ignore the inconsistencies in the bible.
In my experience they usually arrive at their position simply because they do not want to belive reality. Usually the objections have nothing to do with reality other than the problem that reality refutes what they want to believe. I often see complaints like:
no way human beings could be made in the image of God and have come up from animals;
Why? First, who really thinks that GOD is some poorly designed primate with eys built backwards, a spine that is not designed to give us adequate support, no padding on shins and funny bones, subject to Male Pattern Baldness and shingles. that is just silly. Second, nowhere does it say HOW God made man. It is every bit as reasonable to believe it was through evolution from other critters as any other means.
Made in GODs image certainly doesn't refer to these piss poor bodies we have, and to think it does is to make a mockery of GOD.
no way one man and one woman could have been the sole representatives of the human race at that point, but the entire Bible rests on that revelation, all the genealogies, the New Testament reference to Adam as the head of the human race, everything;
Yup. But that is but another of the inconsistencies of the bible. to believe there actually was one man and one woman is to ignore the other creation myth found in Genesis 1. There was a reason the folk that compiled and edited the anthology included both of the creation myths, even though they were mutually exclusive. They were included because they show two different aspects of GOD, the transcendent God of Genesis 1 and the human, personal, intimate God of Genesis 2 & 3. Neither is GOD. The myths in Genesis are but maps, reflections, stories.
no way to hold onto the Biblical explanation of death as the result of the sin of the first human beings, as death would have preceded them by millions of years;
Yup. But that is not what the bible says anyway. If death was not already part of creation there would have been no reason for the Tree of Life. Death is not the result of sin, but of living.
no way to support a belief in the Bible as the word of God because so much of it has to be falsified or explained away to fit with evolution.
Why? The bible is a history of a peoples trying to learn about GOD, trying to define Her relationship with man, man's relationship with It and man's relationship with man and all other things.
The Bible is but the Map, not the Territory.
Often the problem stems from the belief that man is somehow fallen and that once everything was different and perfect. Even GOD never made that claim.
They say that a belief in young earth and Biblical Creation doesn't compromise one's salvation but I'm not completely sure of that, since it fragments God's word to such an extent that some of the most wonderful mysterious depths of it are lost.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by GDR, posted 06-13-2006 6:07 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 06-14-2006 1:45 AM jar has not replied
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 06-14-2006 3:27 AM jar has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 8 of 46 (321321)
06-14-2006 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
06-13-2006 9:29 PM


Re: I can't find any way to reconcile Evolution & Genesis
Faith writes:
I think it's sad that people may come to a belief in the reality of God but feel constrained by their belief in evolution to conform Him to science and falsify the Bible, compromising their faith.
Hi Faith
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Christian tradition has always for the most part followed the two scriptures. The Bible, and God's creation while being cognizant of the fact that he has given us a mind to reason with.
Science is simply the study of the second scripture.
We have no reason to believe that the Bible is to be read like a newspaper or a science text. Certainly it poses a problem as to what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken metaphorically, but that is why God does gift us with reason and discernment.
Here is a man in Collins who has searched, as deeply as anyone in his field, into what it is that makes and has made us what we are, and what he found at the end of the search was God.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 06-13-2006 9:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 06-14-2006 3:11 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 17 by Larni, posted 06-14-2006 9:11 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 9 of 46 (321322)
06-14-2006 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by crashfrog
06-13-2006 10:11 PM


Re: I can't find any way to reconcile Evolution & Genesis
crashfrog writes:
Honestly, though? Collins' ideas aren't much less silly.
Now there is reasoned debate. You label the ideas of a man, who is probably just slightly more knowledgeable than yourself, as silly.
You then link to a blog that says the same thing except with more words. Your argument is that anybody who doesn't agree with you must be silly. In my view, not much of an argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 06-13-2006 10:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 06-14-2006 8:20 AM GDR has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 10 of 46 (321324)
06-14-2006 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
06-13-2006 10:47 PM


Re: There is no conflict between Evolution and Christianity.
All we learn in studying evolution is how GOD did it.
So you think God consciously planned on creating through evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 06-13-2006 10:47 PM jar has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 11 of 46 (321340)
06-14-2006 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by GDR
06-14-2006 1:33 AM


Re: I can't find any way to reconcile Evolution & Genesis
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Christian tradition has always for the most part followed the two scriptures. The Bible, and God's creation while being cognizant of the fact that he has given us a mind to reason with.
Science is simply the study of the second scripture.
Yes, that's a way to put it I can agree with: science is not the "second scripture" itself, it is the STUDY of the "second scripture," and as such it is fallible. Nature is scripture, science is not; science makes mistakes (evolution being one very big one ).
In principle I'm sure you'd agree that there can't be any contradiction between the Bible and Nature, but there IS contradiction on some points between the Bible and Science (evolution really, not any other areas of science).
And as some do, you then go on to make the Bible fit Science:
We have no reason to believe that the Bible is to be read like a newspaper or a science text.
No, it is to be read straight as written. It's obviously neither a newspaper nor a science text, far from both.
Certainly it poses a problem as to what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken metaphorically, but that is why God does gift us with reason and discernment.
It poses no problem to some of us GDR. Having visited many kinds of churches, I've never had a problem finding a church that preaches the Bible as true in the same way I read it as true, literal where I read it as literal and metaphorical where I read it as metaphorical, despite many differences in emphasis and interpretation. And there are many many pastors and theologians and inspirational writers who preach and teach from the very same perspective, many many books and so on. They have no trouble taking Genesis as straight history same as I do.
Here is a man in Collins who has searched, as deeply as anyone in his field, into what it is that makes and has made us what we are, and what he found at the end of the search was God.
That's good, I'm impressed. God chooses whomever He will. But can he find Christ from there? If he is stuck having to make the Bible fit evolution, how can he understand how Christ is the second Adam and what He came to do? Perhaps he is able to recognize Jesus in a way that God accepts, but it could only be by overlooking some fancy footwork he's obliged to do around Genesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by GDR, posted 06-14-2006 1:33 AM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 06-14-2006 9:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 12 of 46 (321342)
06-14-2006 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
06-13-2006 10:47 PM


There is only one Biblical Creation account
...that is but another of the inconsistencies of the bible. to believe there actually was one man and one woman is to ignore the other creation myth found in Genesis 1. There was a reason the folk that compiled and edited the anthology included both of the creation myths, even though they were mutually exclusive. They were included because they show two different aspects of GOD, the transcendent God of Genesis 1 and the human, personal, intimate God of Genesis 2 & 3. ...
According to the traditional reading, the first account is the chronology of Creation. The second account takes the Creation as already finished, and is simply a discussion of some specifics in relation to Adam.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 06-13-2006 10:47 PM jar has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 13 of 46 (321344)
06-14-2006 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by crashfrog
06-13-2006 10:11 PM


Francis Collins just needs to face down evolution completely
Skimming through the blog you linked does lead me to the conclusion that Collins is probably truly a Christian -- the degree of ridicule aimed at him makes that likely -- or at least on his way to becoming one -- but that he is hampered by his commitment to evolution and so far unable to shake it off completely. I can only hope that God will give him the insight and the courage to do so. His belief that human beings are no longer evolving despite having evolved to this point suggests the struggle he is in. I'm glad to know about his situation so I can pray for him.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 06-13-2006 10:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 06-14-2006 8:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 14 of 46 (321369)
06-14-2006 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by GDR
06-14-2006 1:40 AM


Re: I can't find any way to reconcile Evolution & Genesis
Now there is reasoned debate. You label the ideas of a man, who is probably just slightly more knowledgeable than yourself, as silly.
On the subject of biology, Collins certainly knows much, much more than I'm ever likely to know.
On the subject of God, there's a key fact that I'm aware of that Collins is not, so I will assert greater knowledge on that subject than he possesses. That key fact, of course, is that there are no gods.
But look, did you even read the article? You don't see the inherent contradicition in asserting, on one hand, that simply because we don't understand something, that's no proof of God; and then, almost in the next paragraph, asserting that because we don't understand the origin of something (human morality in his case), that's proof of God?
How could it get more contradictory than that? How else to describe that besides "silly"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by GDR, posted 06-14-2006 1:40 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 06-14-2006 11:14 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 46 (321370)
06-14-2006 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
06-14-2006 3:40 AM


Re: Francis Collins just needs to face down evolution completely
Skimming through the blog you linked does lead me to the conclusion that Collins is probably truly a Christian -- the degree of ridicule aimed at him makes that likely
Anyone who is ridiculed must be a Christian?
Wow. Just think, Faith, how many Christians you're responsible for creating, simply by your own efforts at this board! I should think that, by now, almost everyone you've ever chosen to respond to is probably a Christian at this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 06-14-2006 3:40 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024