Summations Only

Uh, Dawn...You do know that Francis Collins is opposed to the ID movement don't you?

quote:

---

Carlson {interviewer}: What do you think of this statement read to the Dover, Pennsylvania public school children that the theory is just a theory and explaining briefly intelligent design? Is that that be read to kids?

​

Collins: It sounds as if it's a good idea to suggest anybody listening to a discussion about science to keep your mind open and to be sure that facts are actually backed up by data. But, of course, that statement is full of a lot more than scientific facts and data and concerns about them. It is a statement that reflects a battle that's going on right now. And in my view, an unnecessary battle. So let me explain why I say that. As somebody who has watched our own D.N.A. sequence emerge, our own instruction book over the course of the last few years, all three billion letters of our code, and watched how it compares with that of other species, the evidence that comes out of that kind of analysis is overwhelmingly in favor of a single origin of life from which various forms were then derived by a process which seems entirely consistent with Darwin's view of natural selection. By saying that, some people listening to my words will immediately conclude that I must therefore be opposed to any role for god in the process that's not true. But I'm not an advocate of intelligent design, either.

​

Carlson: Why?

​

Collins: Intelligent design is a fairly recent arrival on the scene. Been around 15 years or so. It argues that there are certain constructs in biology, certain particular features that can't be explained by evolution because they have irreduceable complexity. Take the eye, for instance. How do you develop something as complicated as the eye by a process of natural selection. It doesn't seem like that would fit with the slow gradual process where small changes get selected for. You'd never get there. The problem with that argument is biology actually is identifying multiple intermediate steps from the simplest single light-sensitive cell to something as complicated as the eye which clearly could have evolution acting upon them and result in a complicated structure. I worry about intelligent design, though I admire its advocates for wishing to put forward something in the way of a rebuttal to the idea that evolution says there's no god. And we'll come back to why I think that's an unfortunate argument. I think intelligent design sets up a god of the gaps kind of scenario. Well, you know, we haven't yet explained this particular feature of evolution, so god must be right there. If science ultimately proves that those gaps aren't gaps, after all, then where is god? We really ought not to ask people to do that.

---

Source; faculty.fmcc.suny.edu/mcdarby/tucker_carlson_.htmCollins is sympathetic to the ID crowd but he is not an ID advocate. He is not in favour of ID in classrooms. He does not utilise ID in his work. He does not think that his work provides evidence for God;

quote:

---

Carlson: As a scientist, as a leading scientist, that's not an overstatement in your case, what evidence leads you to believe that?

​

Collins: Again, scientific evidence --

​

Carlson: Right.

​

Collins: I have none. But I do think there are rational arguments for the existence of god.

---

Collins does believe some wacky stuff, but he is no ally of yours, not to the extent of supporting the ID movement. You would do well to read up on his views before claiming him as a comrade.Mutate and Survive

Of course I do. He just doesn't think that there is a scientific way to prove the claim that God exists. In that he differs from the position you are advocating. That's why it is dishonest of you to cite Collins in support of your position. Nor does he claim that they exist. Or even mention them. He is responding to the ID movement as it actually is, not to your bastardised version thereof. Nor do you define what words mean. Since this is exactly what you are doing - redefining ID to suit your own personal delusions - you are arguing out of step with the ID movement as a whole.Collins has not addressed your personal version of ID because it is unique to you and, since you are merely a single anonymous internet lunatic, he is unlikely to ever think it worth addressing.Remember; world-renowned science professionals are not going to give a crap about you or the silly nonsense you make up as you go along.Mutate and Survive

Then you shouldn't try and claim renowned scientists for your position. Collins is not and never has been an ID advocate and he has never followed your insipidly stupid "methodology", which consists of nothing more than assuming the consequent and gibbering incoherently.Mutate and Survive

Well then, you make an obvious non-point.We all know that there are scientists who are also theists. We are also well aware that people are capable of holding mutually exclusive opinions, so this observation is worthless. Have you ever considered a remedial English class for adults? It might make you sound less like a drunk six year old.Collins' science does follow the scientific method precisely because he does not involve his loony religious views in his work.Disagree? Then show me exactly where Francis Collins utilises religion in his professional scientific work. That is a reason why it is not a scientific method. Well don't mention them then.Mutate and Survive

Again, if you had the level of articulacy that one might reasonably expect from a dyslexic eight year old, this might be possible. As it is, it's somewhat problematic divining what you mean, given that your posts are written in imbecilese.It's pretty simple; if Collins does not support your views, don't bring him up.Mutate and Survive