board77

Just because something is different doesn't mean it should be disseminated. The Christian think tank I posted a link to seems to consider Starlight and Time a dangerous piece of information to distribute, as revelations of its falsity can ultimately undermine belief in the unity of science and faith.

Edit - Right post. Wrong board.

Did you mean for that to be in this thread?

Or are you just spouting heresy?

Jude wrote:

So, what have you done to advance civilization lately?

He opened a comic book shop.

As a new twist to the ID and Creationism versus Evolution debate -

Instead of trying to force religion in the classrooms, Creationists (and IDers who are actually Creationists) have launched a lawsuit here in California on different grounds.

It seems some students went to a religious school, took religious biology that excluded the unifying theory of biology (you know which one I'm talking about), and tried to have those credits counted in trasfering credits to the University of California system.

Since the credits were denied as science credits, they sued for religious dsicrimination. They're trying to use the other half of the first amendments proscription about church and state.

Instead of running afoul of "no law respecting an establishment of religion" which happens every time they sneak Creationism into the classroom, they are arguing that denying the transfer credit violates "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/200 ... earns.html

For some reason, Behe will be testifying again. You'd think that after his spectacular performance at Dover they'd want to hide him in the attic like a crazy aunt.

I'm posting this on Manwe, too, mainly because I'm interested in hearing what Minardil and Tuor might have to say about it.

Anyway, I want to discuss Francis Collins' book, The Language of God. This will be difficult if no one has read it, though!

Anyone? Anyone?

The basic premise is theistic evolution, but I'd like to discuss the points he raises in the book specifically, rather than necessarily start down a broader discussion of theistic evolution. (If no one has read the book, then I have no choice.)


Lali

Would this book be of interest to nonbelievers? If so, I might give it a try (although I have a boatload of books to get through first )

I would think so; that's why I'm curious as to whether or not anyone else has read it.

Here are some reviews:

Quote:

From Publishers Weekly:

Collins, a pioneering medical geneticist who once headed the Human Genome Project, adapts his title from President Clinton's remarks announcing completion of the first phase of the project in 2000: "Today we are learning the language in which God created life." Collins explains that as a Christian believer, "the experience of sequencing the human genome, and uncovering this most remarkable of all texts, was both a stunning scientific achievement and an occasion of worship." This marvelous book combines a personal account of Collins's faith and experiences as a genetics researcher with discussions of more general topics of science and spirituality, especially centering around evolution. Following the lead of C.S. Lewis, whose Mere Christianity was influential in Collins's conversion from atheism, the book argues that belief in a transcendent, personal God—and even the possibility of an occasional miracle—can and should coexist with a scientific picture of the world that includes evolution. Addressing in turn fellow scientists and fellow believers, Collins insists that "science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced" and "God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible." Collins's credibility as a scientist and his sincerity as a believer make for an engaging combination, especially for those who, like him, resist being forced to choose between science and God. (July 17)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Quote:

From Scientific American
A devoutly Christian geneticist such as Francis S. Collins, author of The Language of God and leader of the Human Genome Project, can comfortably accept that "a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable" or that it may have been a mutation in the FOXP2 gene that led to the flowering of human language. The genetic code is, after all, "God’s instruction book." But what sounds like a harmless metaphor can restrict the intellectual bravado that is essential to science. "In my view," Collins goes on to say, "DNA sequence alone, even if accompanied by a vast trove of data on biological function, will never explain certain special human attributes, such as the knowledge of the Moral Law and the universal search for God." Evolutionary explanations have been proffered for both these phenomena. Whether they are right or wrong is not a matter of belief but a question to be approached scientifically. The idea of an apartheid of two separate but equal metaphysics may work as a psychological coping mechanism, a way for a believer to get through a day at the lab. But theism and materialism don’t stand on equal footings. The assumption of materialism is fundamental to science.

Actually, I liked the fact that Collins argued that evolution should not be used by atheists to promote their agenda, nor should it be used by believers to promote their faith. (So I take exception to some of what this reviewer from SA said. I think he misrepresents Collins.)


Lali

I think a lot of people misunderstand or misrepresent science and faith in general. It's nice to see someone trying to inject some sanity into the discussion.

Quote:

Collins argued that evolution should not be used by atheists to promote their agenda, nor should it be used by believers to promote their faith.

Not to pick nits or anything, but how does one square that quote of Collins's with this one:

Quote:

DNA sequence alone, even if accompanied by a vast trove of data on biological function, will never explain certain special human attributes, such as the knowledge of the Moral Law and the universal search for God.

Besides, as anyone who read the NYT yesterday knows, it's not just the sequence but the expression of the genes that causes knowledge of Moral Law.

Okay, so as I was reading this book, here are my thoughts, as amorphous as they may be right now.

First, I have been questioning creation science for a while now. No, no one here gets to take credit for that, though, of course, your opinions and posts have made an impression on me. I'm not sure what started making me uncomfortable about YEC (young earth creationism). I've been trying to figure that out for weeks now.

Perhaps it's nothing more than just a niggling in the back of my mind about how it seems to be more about doctrines rather than science. And that has been bugging me.

I don't know. Not sure about all of that yet.

So I picked up Collins' book, not knowing what it was about, but having read an article on him in National Geographic and thinking, "Hmm, science, faith--sounds good to me."

As I got farther into the book, I realized that he believed in evolution, millions of year, etc. So then I was intrigued to hear how he reconciled all of that with his faith, which seemed to me to be quite sincere and all of that.

I wish that he had gone into more scientific detail, actually, when he began discussing DNA and how it provided strong evidence for a common ancestor, natural selection, etc. I felt it was just not detailed enough to convince me totally, but like it possibly could, if I could read the information for myself.

I jotted down several thoughts I had:

How does it reconcile with the nature of God to use death to create life? Does that conflict with the Bible?

What did St. Augustine say exactly about the non-literal translation of Genesis? (I want to read this for myself.)

What about God using "mistakes" to create life?

How do you account for an increase in information? Is there an actual increase in info?

Did human ancestors have souls? If not, when did they get them? Why? If you say that God stepped in to give them souls, doesn't that contradict His prior non-involvement in the development of life on earth?


Why do AREs (ancient repetitive elements) corroborate the common ancestor theory? (Rio, are you out there still?)

Why have some animals not evolved at all over millions of years? I don't buy the "they've got their niche and don't need to evolve" argument.

DNA found in samples that are millions of years old--that doesn't seem possible.

Religious questions specifically: Why do we need God then? What about Romans 1:20? Jesus refers to Adam and Eve. They must be real people.



So there you go. I've just barfed out all of my thoughts for you. If anyone wants to tackle even one question, that'd be great. I'd like to hear your thoughts, but, realize, two things. First, I am much more likely to listen to you if you take the time to be logical and, most importantly, NOT sarcastic or mean. Secondly, don't dismiss my faith. It's not going away, so if you don't have faith, you may not want to attempt to answer any of my faith-based questions. (Unless you can do so in a kindly manner.)

Of course, you all can say whatever you want. I have no control of that. I just said the above in case you were actually interested in getting me to listen to you.


Lali

LalaithUrwen wrote:

Why do AREs (ancient repetitive elements) corroborate the common ancestor theory? (Rio, are you out there still?)

Why have some animals not evolved at all over millions of years? I don't buy the "they've got their niche and don't need to evolve" argument.

DNA found in samples that are millions of years old--that doesn't seem possible.

I'm gonna do my best with these, but evolutionary biology isn't really my thing and there are techniques and principles I don't understand anywhere near as deeply as a guy like Collins. In fact, have you considered writing to him? He's probably inundated with mail, but it's worth a shot.

AREs corroborate the common ancestor theory because, when you look at the tree of life, you see the same ARE in different branches (such as mice and humans). This suggests that somewhere, further down the tree, the branches were joined, and the ARE was carried past the split. An alternative explanation is the same sequence arose independently twice, but the chances of that happening are around nil.

As for animals not evolving, well, there's a couple explanations for that. Maybe the animal has evolved, and we just aren't seeing it because we aren't looking hard enough. Or maybe, amazingly enough, the selective pressure just isn't there. Sponges are the simplest, most primitive animals on Earth - they don't even have organized tissues - yet they still exist simply because they can.

I don't think DNA from a sample that's millions of years old is possible either, but that's not how evolutionary biologists are taking their data. They take samples from living organisms, and look at regions of the DNA that are essential and common to all life. Typical targets are genes involved in sugar metabolism and ribosomal RNA genes. Somehow or other, they've established a rate of mutation in these genes, and by comparing the number of point mutations they see they can calculate how long ago the sequences diverged. At least, that's my understanding of what they do. I'll do some asking around - there're people at my university who work on this stuff. I'm sure you've already spotted some obvious questions about the technique, such as where the hell did they get the mutation rate from? Right now, I don't know. But I'll try to find out.

As far as Adam and Eve go, well, on one hand, Jesus undoubtedly learned some version of Genesis as He was growing up. For all we know, Adam and Eve are a legend, as real as, say, Paris and Helen. OTOH, ever heard of Eve? She had a counterpart named Adam.

There's a theory that mankind evolved in East Africa and migrated into the rest of the world. Perhaps the story of the Garden of Eden is some sort of mythologized version of a real event? But that's rampant speculation on my part.

ETA: With regards to souls, you must remember that science is strictly, even brutally, empirical. We deal only with what we can detect and measure through our five senses, which is fantastic for questions about the physical world, but not so hot for the non-physical. AFAIK, there is no empirical evidence that souls exist. However, you really can't interpret negative data, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (for some reason, even fully trained scientists have a hard time with that one). That's the great big wall science runs up against, but luckily for us there are other ways of thinking about things. The existence of souls, where they come from, and what happens to them remain matters of philosophy and faith. I for one believe that souls exist, and that our bodies are basically vessels for them. I believe this for reasons that would never pass muster before a thesis committee, but that's why I'm calling it a belief and not offering it up as a fact.

Quote:

As for animals not evolving, well, there's a couple explanations for that. Maybe the animal has evolved, and we just aren't seeing it because we aren't looking hard enough. Or maybe, amazingly enough, the selective pressure just isn't there. Sponges are the simplest, most primitive animals on Earth - they don't even have organized tissues - yet they still exist simply because they can.

Lali, don't thin 'niche', think equilibrium. Optimum evolutionary point. Sometimes the end of a path of development must be reached, wherein any possible mutation can provide no benefit to an organism - or at least that's how I've always thought of it.

*~Pips~*

Quote:

AFAIK, there is no empirical evidence that souls exist.

For "empirical evidence" to exist, somebody would first have to define what "soul" means. To my knowledge, no such definition really exists.

My thoughts on evolution is that animals ect...(including humans) are still changing, but the changes take such a long time that it is not noticible to us in our life times. Humans are the one example I can think of at the moment, we are taller (because of better nutrition), less hairy, and our little fingers are becoming shorter. There are probably changes in every family that make the new generation stronger and slightly different from their parents, so the changes are very subtle and not noticed. And if we can't see them in ourselves, we probably can't really detect them in lower life forms.

Then again I believe that perhaps God is the force behind evolution. I have no problem thinking he/she put the whole process into motion at some point. If God is all powerfull, why couldn't he simply use evolution as a means to an end for creation? If I was God and I could do anything and a proven method was to simply set one cell into motion and let it grow, hey I'd do it, probably multiple times, especially if I was bored. God is a scientist.

Oh and as for the 'mistakes' and such God lets happen, he probably knows they are going to happen and are needed for the rest of the process to happen. Or maybe he values mistakes.

Lali -

I am going to be brief and to the point.

You have a science background, you have a biology background. You also have your faith.

Where does evolution contradict your faith? If there is an awesome creator out there, who put all of the wonders of our world and our solar system and our universe into place, and then some very early aged (Bronze age) people were inspired by that same GOd to record their take on things and interpret it, just as other peoples all over the world did the same thing, but then some true moral messages grew out of these recorded ancient thoughts, and some peoples got it a lot more right than the others did, but it still did not change the science. The basic operating principles that apply to not only life on this planet but EVERYWHERE in this whole universe are not something that ANYONE of those ancient peoples got right, because there was no way they could have even understood it at the time. Do you not think God would KNOW that, and would have been trying to explain it in ways that they MIGHT get a bit - in terms of the way to live bits, not the science bits?

I am NOT irreligious. I fully grant that there are things out there that I cannot ever comprehend, and maybe one of them is God. But, what is more majestic than looking at the miracles of the universe? At the night sky filled with stars millions of miles away? Knowing how marvelous the interdynamics of this planet are? I agree these things are stupendous, beyond human comprehension. But, why would science be the "bad guy"? God acts in ways that we cannot EVER comprehend, but God DID give us reason and intellect and a desire to do good. Animals are not only part and parcel of us, they are there to let us know where we come from. We are not ALL holy and good, there are lots of baser instincts left in us.

That is why I saw Collins arguments about moral authority somewhat compelling. You CAN be both religious AND scientific. There is nothing standing in the way of your faith except if you need to read the Bible as a LITERAL text instead of a pathway. Could a Bronze aged human being comprehend God in the same way that we do now? Why do you hold that one thing against any progress in your own path of developing and progressing faith?

Jesus proclaimed love and acceptance and forgiveness, he did NOT order complete submission nor did he order total blind obedience. "Follow Me" was to be a faith based objective, not a blind order stating that nothing else could ever enter the arena. God gave us free will, and that is a gift of creation, NOT some sort of bad deal of Satan or whatever bad attributes that so many Christians associate with it. Free will allows us to use what we are given and do good things with them. God does not want us to be ignorant or punitive or judgemental. We are only the sum of what we are, and we know FAR too little about the entire scheme of things to presume that we should know better. But, that is what FAR too many Christain sects proclaim - that they have an exclulsive right on the "truth". Doesn't your very heart see the very problem with such a stance?

God gave us DNA. God gave us microbes and butterflies and birds and daisies and coconut palms. The Earth is a wonder, but it still IS 4.5 billion years old. Humans are babes on this planet, and what God wanted us to do has long been lost in what HUMANS want to do. God is weeping, or hoping for us to do our best.

*pondering and ruminating on all that has been said*

Thank you for all of your responses. I will be back when I have had a chance to think a while.


Lali

http://xkcd.com/c154.html

yov wrote:

For "empirical evidence" to exist, somebody would first have to define what "soul" means. To my knowledge, no such definition really exists.

Think of it this way, yov:

There's no material evidence for any non-material thing.

In mere seconds you'll realize that you can also add "duh" at the end of that sentence.

How come no one teaches Socrates any more?

Even if you had means of proving that a soul exists, science couldn't study it.