|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Francis Collins and Theistic Evolution (Re: the book "The Language of God") | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
In principle I'm sure you'd agree that there can't be any contradiction between the Bible and Nature, ...
There is no such principle. The Bible is written by men. They may have been inspired, but they were fallible.
, but there IS contradiction on some points between the Bible and Science (evolution really, not any other areas of science).
Wrong. Genesis 1 quite clearly is in contradiction with physics. The flood story quite clearly is in contradiction with the observed flora and fauna of Australia. I emphasize these two, because they were what I noticed as a teenager, before I had ever heard of evolution. Those contradictions helped me recognize that the Bible was the work of men, and that it was written for the pre-scientific people of that time. It is not a problem for the Bible that there are such contradictions, but it is a problem for the assumptions of inerrancy that some make.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
GDR writes: 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. This is just like looking at a really good sunset. It's impressive and makes you aware of how wonderful the world can be, but to conclude that this equals a god is reaching.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
crashfrog writes: 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. Well that's that then. Crashfrog has decided it. There are no gods so we can close down this forum and all go back to worshipping the perfect lawn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
This is a very interesting discussion on a talk by Collins. It is particularly interesting when he talks about ID. I frankly always thought that ID was consistent with theistic evolution.
He argues that is not the case at least as it is supported by Behe. She writes, "Collins is concerned about the ID movement for a number ofreasons: First, it falsely insists that evolution is wrong. Collins instead predicts that ID will be discredited within a fairly short time, as scientists come up with more and more evolutionary mechanisms to explain the existence of “irreducibly complex” structures. In that event, Christianity, not science, is what will look stupid. Second, ID strikes him as a “defense” of God from Darwin’s theory, something Collins doesn’t think God needs. " Freeman, Louise Margaret
At Ted's request, I am posting an account of the Francis Collinspresentation yesterday in Staunton VA. Francis Collins Presentation on Christianity and Evolution: 10/23/05 Part 2 of the “Science and Christianity” Sunday School series organized byDr. Lundy Pentz (biology) and Dr. Jim Gilman (religion/philosophy) of Mary Baldwin College. Trinity Episcopal Church, Staunton, VA. Tal kwas given in the church sanctuary, which was filled to capacity. There were probably 700-800 in attendance, most of which were not regular Trinity attenders. (Background: Dr. Collins grew up in Staunton and attended Trinity as achild, where he was confirmed and sang in the choir. Although, during his talk he said that he didn’t really become a Christian until age 27, after considerable exploration, inclduing reading CS Lewis’s Mere Christianity.) Dr. Collins began his presentation stating that when scientists starttalking about God, colleagues tend to think they are either crazy or over the hill. However, he emphasized that for him, science and Christianity are not in conflict, but instead complement each other. He then listed three gifts God has given humanity. 1) the hunger to know Him, 2) the moral law as contained in scripture and 3) intelligent minds capable of interpreting data. His talk would focus evidence of evolution derived from the study of DNA and what that means for the believer. He described his role as the director of the human genome project and stated that we have now “read” the book of the human genome (in the sense that we know what all the letters are) though we are part from understanding what all the words mean. Understanding this book will lead to much improved methods for treating human diseases such as cancer. He added that an announcement of the major medical breakthrough on this front will be made this Wednesday (10/26/05). DNA shows that human beings are 99.9% alike as far as their genetic makeupgoes. Understanding the 0.1% difference is critical to understanding why some people are more vulnerable to certain diseases than others. Furthermore, the chimpanzee genome has also recently been sequenced and shows 98.8% homology to humans. Some of the differences between humans and chimps are very interesting, particularly differences in genes responsible for control of brain size. DNA analysis also shows a picture of human origins different from a literal reading of Genesis: namely, modern humans come from a common ancestor pool of about 10,000 individuals (not 2) that lived in Africa about 100,000 years ago. Collins went on to explain what Darwin’s theory of evolution stated: 1)species change over time 2) variations appear spontaneously; most are harmful and are weeded out 3) some are beneficial to survival and therefore get passed to offspring, resulting in a net change and adaptation over time. He emphasized that the term theory is not used by scientists the same way it is used colloquially (as an unsupported hunch or hypothesis) but is instead a unifying principle that explains a whole host of observations. Darwin’s theory is accepted by virtually all mainstream scientists, is not on the brink of collapse (despite what some Christians may say) but is instead supported by “rock solid” evidence from both the fossil record and DNA. Collins did not address the fossil record (that was apparently covered in the previous week’s session, which I did not attend) but focused instead on DNA, particularly homologies as evidence for common descent.. One reason intelligent design is an appealing alternative, according toCollins, is that it is also a plausible explanation for genetic similarities. The Designer works up a DNA template for a turtle, for instance, and with some minor changes can create an alligator. This may in fact seem more plausible to the believer than evolution, given the difficulty we have visualizing the process from single-celled organism to complex beings like humans. Part of this difficulty lies in the problems people have in conceiving of the enormity of the timescale; Collins illustrated this with the familiar model of condensing the history if earth into 24 hours. Collins then went on to explain why DNA evidence poses problems for ID. He showed a hypothetical stretch of human DNA three genes (A, B, & C) andspacer regions between them, then the same three genes in the mouse. First, the genes are in the same order, as you would predict if they had a common ancestor. But, that is also consistent with design: perhaps those three genes work best together, so the designer put them there, Second, the coding regions (genes) are more homologous than the non-coding regions: exactly what evolution predicts, since the genes would be expected to be more resistant to change than non-coding regions. But again, that poses no special problem for design. Third, there is evidence “jumping genes” (or transposable elements); genes which jump and “land” and “get stuck” in the non-coding areas, often damaging themselves in the process, so they apparently are not coding for anything. Human and mouse also share these elements. This is harder to explain with design, but not impossible; perhaps this gene has a purpose not understood yet and therefore the designer had a reason for putting it there. Finally, however, Collins pointed to a transposable element that was “hopelessly damaged” and therefore could not possibly code for anything due to a lost (or truncated) element. The exact same letter was truncated in human and mouse. It is hard to see any design for this type of genetic evidence. It is, however, the exact thing a designer would put in the genome if he wanted to plant false evidence for common descent, perhaps to test the faith of the scientist. But Collins expressed doubts about a “charlatan” God that intentionally seeks to confuse us. A more reasonable explanation is that the mutation occurred in a common ancestor to mice and humans, some 80 million years ago. If so, you would expect to see this same element in many other mammals, and you do. It is dangerous for Christians to maintain that evolution is a hoax in theface of such evidence; they are telling a “noble lie” and the damage will ultimately be to faith, not science. Collins described five possible “solutions” to the problem of science-faithcontroversies. The first option is to reject religion entirely in favor of atheism, and even use evolution as scientific proof that there is no God. This, in Collins’ view is logically unjustified, since, unless you’re a pantheist, God exists outside of nature. Scientists like Dawkins and Wilson are part of the problem here and are contributing to the polarization of our society. The second route, which Collins admits he took as a young man, isagnosticism, or throwing up your hands and saying “I don’t know” after considering the evidence for God’s existence. This differs from simply not considering the evidence, which Collins feels is the case for many self-proclaimed agnostics. He joked that any agnostics in the audience be cautious in carefully examining such questions, lest they “accidently covert themselves” as Collins did. The third option is creationism, which Collins defined as young earthcreationism. People with this viewpoint adopt the Bible as their science text and reject anything that conflicts with it. This extreme view, according to Collins, was fairly uncommon until 100 years ago and arose as a reaction to Darwin’s theory. He cited Augustine as an example of a great theologian who did not read Genesis as science and who concluded that exactly what God meant by the days in Genesis is difficult or impossible to conceive. Viewing God as existing outside of time helps those troubled by the apparent random or undirectedness of evolution, because, in that view, God would know how it would turn out. Intelligent design, a recent (< 15 year old) view that has “taken the US bystorm” and been “embraced by evangelicals.” is option #4. Collins presented the Behe/Dembski view of ID (old earth, common descent): life proceeding more or less by “natural” mechanisms but with the Designer occasionally stepping in to “fix things.” This view is certainly appealing to believers as an alternative to evolution; the problem, Collins feels, is that it’s likely wrong. He cited the exampled of ID’s “poster child,” the bacterial flagellum as described by Behe. As we study more and more bacteria, it becomes more and more obvious that many of the 32 proteins that make up this “irreducibly complex” motor were recruited from other cellular components. Collins is concerned about the ID movement for a number of reasons: First, it falsely insists that evolution is wrong. Collins instead predicts that ID will be discredited within a fairly short time, as scientists come up with more and more evolutionary mechanisms to explain the existence of “irreducibly complex” structures. In that event, Christianity, not science, is what will look stupid. Second, ID strikes him as a “defense” of God from Darwin’s theory, something Collins doesn’t think God needs. The fifth, and clearly Collins’ preferred alternative is theistic evolution:the position that God could have used evolution as his tool of creation. This is certainly compatible with what Collins called “lower case” intelligent design: the idea that God had a plan for his creation but differs from Intelligent Design the Theory, which states that evidence of supernatural action is found in science. Collins rejects the latter but accepts the former. Theistic evolution does not have to conflict with Genesis 1-2 if one takes an Augustinian, non-literal view of it. Collins reported the 2004 Gallup poll that showed that 38% of Americansbelieved humans came into existence long ago, with God guiding the process (a view consistent with either ID or theistic evolution) 13% believing they came into existence without God’s influence (atheism or possibly deism) and 45% believing they appeared in their present form 10,000 years ago (creationism). Collins stated that churches who insist on the latter view are forcing young people into the “terrible choice” of rejecting either God or their faith. He described his own exhilaration and sense of worship he gets from making scientific discoveries and called upon Christians to stop presenting science and faith as conflicting views. He closed by playing the guitar and leading the crowd in Thomas Troeger’s hymn “Praise the Source of Faith and Learning” (sung to the tune of “Come Thou Long Expected Jesus.”) Lyrics available here: Page not found – Plymouth Congregational Church. There was a brief question/answer session after the talk. The mostinteresting question came from a young person who asked “How much of the story of Adam and Eve do you believe?” Collins responded that he believed the story was meant to teach us the nature of our relationship to the creator God and the fall indicates the sinful nature of humanity and points us to the need for a redeemer in the form of Jesus. He did not think it was meant to teach that Adam and Eve were the literal genetic ancestors of all people and pointed out that there were other people inhabiting the world when Cain was sent away from home and that he and Seth found wives without any mention of inbreeding. I don't remember him stating explicitly whether he considered Adam and Eve historical or allegorical figures. Judging from the standing ovation at the end, the talk was well-received. The talk was covered fairly accurately in the Staunton News Leader(http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...), although please note the extremely misleading headline: the thesis of the talk was that evolution and Christianity are compatible, not evolution and intelligent design. Collins made it clear that evolution was good scientific theory, while ID was not. __Louise M. Freeman, PhD Psychology Dept Mary Baldwin College Staunton, VA 24401 Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shortened display form of 1 URL, to restore page width to normal. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
This is a very interesting discussion on a talk by Collins. It is particularly interesting when he talks about ID. I frankly always thought that ID was consistent with theistic evolution. ID as preached by Behe and other supporters like ICR and DI may be consistent with some kind of theistic model, but certainly not a Christian Theistic one. The God of ID is reduced to some incompetent bummbler who never can quite get it right and so is constantly tinkering with the process. It's pretty clear already that ID has been discredited as was seen in the Dover trial. Time after time all that the supporters of ID could provide in gefense of their position was either generalities so broad as to be useless or witnesses that flat out lied on the stand. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Dembski once stated that ID was "no friend" to Theistic Evolution. On the other hand he's since talked positively of "front loading" which looks awfully like Theistic Evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There are no gods so we can close down this forum and all go back to worshipping the perfect lawn. Well, I've only been telling people that for 12,000 posts, now...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Here are two points from the article that I quoted above.
Collins presented the Behe/Dembski view of ID (old earth, common descent): life proceeding more or less by “natural” mechanisms but with the Designer occasionally stepping in to “fix things.” The fifth, and clearly Collins’ preferred alternative is theistic evolution: the position that God could have used evolution as his tool of creation. In reading through this I have to admit that I can't see why his first example that he disagrees with, is contradictory to his second example that he is in agreement with. God intervening in the process would be one way, although not the only way of using evolution as a tool of creation. I have to assume however that Collins sees that God's design was complete when he set evolution in motion and new the eventual outcome at that time. I have to wonder why though he would have a problem with God intervening as necessary to tweak the process. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I have to wonder why though he would have a problem with God intervening as necessary to tweak the process. Is God so crap that He has to? I see the universe as more of a Honda than a Ford
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
cavediver writes: Is God so crap that He has to? I see the universe as more of a Honda than a Ford I'll let the drive by smear of the North American car go, but I do remember a Morris Minor I had as a kid that needed a plastic bag over the distributor because it quit every time it rained. I don't see it as being a criticism of the design to suggest that God was completing the construction of mankind over the planet's history or whether the design was complete at the start of evolution. Couldn't someone make the same comment by saying that the design was crap because God had to intervene supernaturally after the BB? Wouldn't you consider that God intervened supernaturally in the design by inserting himself into time 2000 years ago? Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I also think there would be something less... elegant, perhaps is the word, about God's correcting the physical design after the Creation. There is no hint in the Bible that He did, and in fact it suggests pretty clearly that He created all things in the steps laid out in the first verses of Genesis. Then He rested from His work, it says.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Then He rested from His work, it says That would be why he never picks up the phone. Thanks for answering that. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I still don't understand why evolution is any less impressive as a form of creation whether God intervenes during the process or if he just set it in motion.
I realize from a scientific point of view it is preferable not have God intervene. However what we really want is truth regardless of what the truth is, and I don't see why divine intervention in the evolutionary process indicates an inferior design. Frankly I'm not bothered one way or the other, but I don't understand why the idea that God intervened in the process should be ruled out unless it is simply because that answer rules out scientific discovery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I have trouble with the question. I don't know much about ID, so if they think God intervenes maybe an IDer could explain this. What sort of intervention is God supposed to have done? Sort of an "Oops can't let this creature evolve THAT way, gotta have it go THIS way" sort of thing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Let's assume that theistic evolution is fact. I think it is also safe to assume that micro evolution occurs naturally as a result of the original design. I know that many on this forum contend that there is no such thing as macro evolution as it is only a long series of incremental changes. That may be, but I think that it is also possible that God only designed the evolutionary process to allow species to adapt to the environment, and when He wanted a new species to evolve He caused the genetic mutations that brought about a new species.
Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024