Posted on 06/11/2006 9:51:12 PM PDT by Marius3188
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
that God is a rational possibility. The book transformed his life"
Transformed it ONLY to an extent - God is a possibility and faith may not be emotional. He's got much more 'transforming' to go. He may believe there is a God but not in the WORDS of God, The Creator.
Genesis 1 vs.1-31
... evening then morning - the first day.
... evening then morning - the second day
... evening then morning - the third day
... evening then morning - the fourth day
... evening then morning - the fifth day
... evening then morning - the sixth day
So has this guy refuted ToE?
I bet he hasn't.
Well sure it's more complex...that is what makes it different. Minerals have the same repetitive code because - like you said - in some cases certain atoms will be attracted to certain other atoms.
If what I've read is correct about DNA (and I am no scientist - although I took college level chemistry courses) this does not hold true for DNA sequences. Where one "letter" will always be attracted to the same "letter."
If I understand the process correctly, the letters are interchangeable according to whatever organism we are talking about.
Do you have a source for that?
> It is what the DNA does - building specific living organisms according to each organism's code.
No. "What DNA does" is to replicate itself. Building living organisms is just a means to that end, sort of a side effect.
I doubt it---he's still a scientist.
Tinkering implies God is not omniscient and screws up on occasion.
However, your question about an alien designer implies that the designer was/is biological to begin with. I do not believe this to be the case, nor would I theorize it to be the case. Thus, my position requires a belief in the supernatural to begin with, I do not dispute this.
That said, the Big Bang defies all the laws of physics as we currently understand them in the first fraction of a second of our universe's existence. No one believes that matter moved out across the universe within the constraints of E = mc(squared). It couldn't have. Thus, if one excepts the Big Bang, one must also except that there is some other force/entity in nature (or another branch of science we are completely unaware of) that is not constrained by our understanding of the physical realm via our understanding of physics.
I would therefore conclude that accepting Big Bang as true, also requires the belief in something supernatural. Just my opinion.
Thanks for taking the time to ask. How about you address whether SETI is legitimate given your original statement on naturally occuring sequences?
> he still has a lot to learn.
And what would compose this "lot?" Somethng *you* have already learned?
> I hate to argue with a fellow 'evilutionist' but our ability to modify the genome will not stop evolution.
I woudl argue that we have *already* defeated evolution even without gengineering. Modern non-genetic medicines along with and "every life is sacred no matter the cost" social philosophy allow long lives for those who would otherwise have died before reproducing.
Natural selection and Darwinian evolution are still lurking around in there, but we have taken a great big bite out of that.
No, I am suggesting that the probability of a certain evolutionary path cannot be calculated.
Are you suggesting that science is incapable of performing mathematical studies of probability for any and all aspects of evolution, micro or macro? Does this not seem preposterous to you?
Take two genes which have a 50 nucleotide difference and ask what is the probability of one evolving into the other. Consider all of possible pathways and that each stage of each pathway would have to be analyzed for its fitness, and that the fitness of a sequence is based on the environment it is in and it's interaction in the presense of other genes. There are far too many combinations involved to be able to calculate the probability of gene A evolving into gene B. There is no way that anyone can conclude that evolution of A to B is improbable. Noone has been able to do the calculations involved to show that.
"No. "What DNA does" is to replicate itself. Building living organisms is just a means to that end, sort of a side effect."
So...according to you...the sequence happened to collide together, and the living organism just sort of happened?
That's quite a coincidence.
Anyways...the point of my original post was addressing how some scientists are examining the "possibility" of a coder.
What is it about this possibility that irks people so much?
For some people it makes more sense than saying living organisms are side affects of accidental collisions of atoms.
> I bet he hasn't.
A bet you'd win.
From post 52:
"Creationism has done more harm to serious notions of belief than anything in modern history." He maintains that the evidence for natural selection is overwhelming, but that this need not stop anyone from believing that a creator God set the process in motion.
Maybe he don't put his faith in the men that wrote the Bible.
> .the sequence happened to collide together, and the living organism just sort of happened?
Wow. Just... wow.
There are still creationists out there using that incredibly dishonest strawman arguement?
> What is it about this possibility that irks people so much?
Well, the distortions, strawmen, ad hominems and outright lies coming out of the creationists is more than a little irksome.
Nah. I've got no crystal ball, but there's no way we have "defeated" evolution. There's no guarantee that we will survive with our current culture/society/sociology intact even past next week, let alone long term. Some as yet undiscovered disease, or some technology to support our all-too-human desire to wipe each other out, or some other unknown danger could come along any time to take down our fragile social construct. Once "civilization" goes, we're back in the evolving mode pretty darn fast.
I realize that such constructs are the realm of lots of popular fiction (Steven King, for instance), but that doesn't mean that it can't happen....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.