I’ve found God, says man who cracked the genome

Times Online ^ | June 11, 2006 | Steven Swinford

[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.

[orionblamblam]

> Why do you insist on not anwering my questions?

Because, due to your use of one of the oldest and hoariest of the lame Crevo strawmen, it's clear you're not interested in answers, just trolling.

[orionblamblam]

That's quite the non sequitur. You claims Collins has much to learn. If so... what?

[Domestic Church]

"Does he play dice?"

According to Einstein, No.

[Virginia-American]

I'd guess pretty much the opposite: humans are at the end of evolution because we have developed technologically far enough that genetic traits we have but don't want, now won't kill us; and genetic traits we want but don't have, we can aquire.

I agree. What are the things that lead to "Darwin Awards"? IMO, they're more social (like bad upbringing, raucous drunkeness,...) than biological.

There are a few biological things still shaping our genomes, but at a much slower rate than before modern medicine. I think one of them is a pressure to reduce the number of teeth we have. People occasionally still die from impacted wisdom teeth, sometimes before they reproduce. Q E D(arwin)

[Birmingham Rain]

Stands, like you, my faith also is in God. I think what Presently No Screen Name is trying to point out is that the Bible, apart from our intuitive knowing of Him, is our means of understanding creation. It is also our means to following His will and our Instruction Book from above. Without the Bible, it being God-inspired, how are we to learn of Him and the His path for the life He gave us and what we must do to be saved? I agree that any man can write what they want to, as you stated; however, I also believe that a man of God will have the deepest desire to write what God instructs him out of the man's love for God. And God’s instructions springing from His profound love for His most precious creation: man.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

if by persecuted you mean derided or mocked as idiots or religious zealots, then many Christian scientists (who are young Earth Creationists) in the United States are persecuted. if by persecuted you mean threatened with being killed, then these scientists probably are not being persecuted.

[Scotswife]

"Individual strands can have the nucleotides in any sequence but when proteins are formed the shape is dependent on the order of the nucleotides and how the AT, CG molecules fit together."

So it is a combination of the order on the individual strands and how the AT CG fits together?
Just making sure I understood you correctly.

[Scotswife]

"Because, due to your use of one of the oldest and hoariest of the lame Crevo strawmen, it's clear you're not interested in answers, just trolling."

Oh please.
It is clear all you want to do is be as insulting as possible. A job well done.
You have proven yourself to be full of hot air and not willing to add anything.
Adios.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Most deists would be atheists or agnostics today.

[Right Wing Professor]

if by persecuted you mean derided or mocked as idiots or religious zealots, then many Christian scientists (who are young Earth Creationists) in the United States are persecuted.

Martyrdom ain't what it used to be, is it?

Actually, YECcers are pretty much as you describe them.

[Scotswife]

"The majority of scientists understand and agree with what I am saying."

Well...it is possible to be in the minority and still be right...correct?

Anyways. I think it was my first post where I stated how some scientists can look at these complicated processes and consider the possibility of a creator (or coder).
Obviously, they are out there -like the scientist in the original article.

I guess what I was getting at is this tendency to automatically reject that notion.
Why is it necessary for so many scientists to feel they have no room in their theories for that possiblity?

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

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.

I inferred from the above excerpt and his citing of the influence of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity on his belief system that he is not a "deist".

And yes "deistic evolution is commonly thought of as a subset of "theistic evolution'. "Theistic Evolution", depending on the flavor, can be fairly incoherent at times.

The philosophical problem resides in man's concept of the "arrow of time" and it's implications vis a vis "creation ex nihilo". i.e. before space and time.

[hosepipe]

[ God is the master Artist - and who are we to say what colors He ought to have on His palette? ]

Lovely sentiment.. OR How "he" should apply the colors and shadows..

[orionblamblam]

> It is clear all you want to do is be as insulting as possible

Please. You started off by being dishonest (your "DNA falling together and creating a complete organism" diversionary tactic).I have been far politer with you than you deserve.

[presently no screen name]

there might be a different way to interpret "Evening and morning." Especially those first few days before there was a sun and a moon.

Why the need to interpret it a different way? God could not have made this any simpler to understand. We can change it or interpret it differently BUT then it's no longer God's Word but ours.

On the first day, light and darkness were created. Genesis 1 vs 1
And God called the light 'day' and the 'darkness' 'night'. And there was evening and then morning - the first day.

[hocndoc]

The reasons to consider a different meaning for "evening and morning" are many, as were the reasons to consider that the sun "stood still" or "moved back" in the sky didn't only mean that the sun revolved around the earth.

While we know that G_d created light and darkness that first day, we don't know the periodicity of evening and morning without the various stars or even the earth, revolving on its axis.

We do know that the apparent age of the universe is quite old (by measuring the speed of light, the rotation of planets and the degradation of elements, etc., as well as recorded history) and that the earth is slowing in its rate of turning about its axis, and the evening and morning are getting longer.

What we know is that our Lord is not the Father of lies. When we find repeatable, verifiable evidence that appears to contradict our previous belief, we still know that G_d is the Creator, that His "I am" *is* our existence, and now we may know a little more about His works. . .

Job 38:7 . . . when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

[presently no screen name]

we don't know the periodicity of evening and morning without the various stars or even the earth, revolving on its axis.

I'm sorry you don't know the periodicity of what evening and then morning, the first day; evening and morning, the second day is without stars to guide you. Genesis 1 vs 1-31 is not a hard read. Six days is still six day. if one wants to believe or interpret God's Word to his own liking to line us with their belief, that's different - that's not knowing, that's saying "I have a better way - I can understand my way better than God's".

Yes, we know God is not the Father of lies NOR is He the Father of confusion. Since there are lies and confusion, who is the Father of lies and confusion and deceit?

When we find repeatable, verifiable evidence that appears to contradict our previous belief, we still know that G_d is the Creator, that His "I am" *is* our existence, and now we may know a little more about His works. . .

Correction: when YOU find repeatable, verifiable evidence that appears to contradict YOUR previous belief - NOT mine.

Correction: YOU still know that G_d is the Creator, not we still - I don't appreciate being lumped into your confusion nor 'your' previous beliefs, nor into your 'still' comment that you did ever so gently but glaringly.

My God, the God of the Bible never changes. So your 'still' comment applies to you and your belief. The God of The Bible, The Almighty, is never changing - so 'still' is not applicable to The Creator.

He told us about His Works - but it's apparent not to your liking - it needs 'tweaking'. He made it simple, and man, as usual, prefers to complicate and confuse things. And where and from whom does confusion come from?

If one chooses not to believe the beginning of the Book when God says six days, He, The Creator, The All Knowing, All Seeing, means six days why bother with the rest of the Book. Implying there is some evidence to refute six days - is damning God's Word. Go follow 'your repeatable, verifiable evidence'. Either the whole Bible is correct or none of it is. You can't choose to take a little from this chapter, some from this chapter with a little tweaking and grab a few verses on the way. Either God's Word is infallible or your repeatable, verifiable evidence from 'man's research' is infallible. You can't have it both ways. It may comfort you to think you can, but deceit was designed to comfort for a season.

[JockoManning]

He cracked the REAL mystery of the ages when his eyes were opened and he said,

"Lord Jesus, Son of God, Savior of the world, have mercy on me, a sinner."

Hallelujah.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"This man is toast.
Why do you say that?"

Because anyone who debunks liberal theories are attacked unmercilessly.

[Ichneumon]

I don't think there's anything more repulsive than a liar

Then you find Ann Coulter repulsive, eh? Here's one of her lies for you, out of many.