|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Francis Collins and Theistic Evolution (Re: the book "The Language of God") | |||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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 SwinfordThe 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Faith writes: But isn't it the idea that species evolve AS adaptation to the environment? That is, new forms occur and if they enhance survival or fit the creature to a particular niche they get established and all it takes is a lot of that to make a new species. Do you think intervention is necessary for some reason; That is, you don't believe that species evolve naturally by chance plus selection?
I'm not saying that it is necessary. Cavediver says that for God to intervene somehow cheapens his creation. Personally I'm impressed either way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
deerbreh writes: The only way God intervenes in history is through the free will actions of humans. Without humans there is no intervention. Read Matthew 25. Natural selection is not intervention, it is natural selection according to the rules/laws of nature. The idea of whether we evolved from single celled creatures without any intervention by God is subjective. God may have designed it that way or He may have designed it in such a way that he intervened to cause macro evolution in the process. We can only observe what happened, not why it happened. I just go back to my question, which is how does it devalue the creative process by God's intervening in the process as it evolved. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I was just responding to cavediver's post when I talk about creation being devalued.
cavediver writes: Is God so crap that He has to? I see the universe as more of a Honda than a Ford I realize that an interventionist God makes life difficult for scientists but it doesn't mean that it ain't the truth. I'm certainly not going to argue about whether the idea has merit or not from a scientific standpoint. I'm just suggesting that when genetic mutations occur there may have been divine influence or there might not have been, and I figure that either way the evolutionary process is a pretty incredible invention. It seems to me that God intervened in the process at least once 2000 years ago. As far as God intervening through the hearts of the people of his creation, I couldn't agree more. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Collins believes that God's design was complete when He set in motion the evolutionary process. (Whether God intervened during the process or not is interesting but not really relevant.) I would also say that it is safe to say that he also believes in God being the creator of the universe.
If one accepts those two ideas then one has to believe in miracles. Why then do those who can accept that miracles happened in those two cases, have such a hard time believing that other miracles have happened throughout history? If we accept God in the role of father, (or parent if you wish), why would we expect him just to set things in motion then disappear. Hopefully as parents we don't do that. I can't see why it is so hard to believe that God intervenes supernaturally in the universe He supernaturally created. 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