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 ...
Attacked by whom?
And what theories did he debunk?
DNA is formed of A, T, G, and C linked together. The order of these bases is unconstrained--you can have any imaginable DNA sequence. However, some sequences will produce transcripts and others will not. Each strand of DNA in everything but some viruses is duplexed with the complementary strand. (Genes occur on either side of the duplex, and usually if a gene occurs on one strand that stretch of DNA on the complementary strand will be noncoding.) So along the link of the chain the molecules of A, T, G, and C are bound together quite tightly by covalent bonds, but when each base binds to the complementary one in the opposite strand of the duplex (A to T, G to C) the bonds there are hydrogen bonds, which are more like an electrostatic interaction of positive charge adhering to negative charge. Because these hydrogen bonds are much weaker than covalent bonds, the two strands of the duplex can easily be peeled apart when needed to allow duplication or transcription.
The simplest explanation of a gene is what is called an open reading frame (orf), a DNA sequence beginning with the "start codon," the sequence ATG, and ending with a stop codon, which can be TGA, TAG, or TAA. When a ribosome reaches the ATG sequence and when the gene has been turned on by regulatory components, transcription begins. The ribosome copies the DNA strand carrying the start codon into RNA. It stops (in our ideal definition) when it reaches the stop codon. The RNA transcript is complementary to the DNA (where the DNA had T, RNA has A, etc.) except that in RNA the thymines are replaced with uracil.
After the RNA transcript (messenger RNA or mRNA) has been made, it needs to be translated into protein. Beginning at the start of the RNA transcript each set of three bases makes up a codon. Each codon corresponds to a particular amino acid. There is redundancy in the code so each amino acid is represented by two to four different codons. The translation is done by transfer RNA or tRNA, which bears an anticodon that is complementary to a particular codon, and the amino acid that corresponds to this codon. The anticodon hydrogen bonds with the codon. When the adjacent tRNA binds to the next codon, the two amino acids are linked and the first tRNA falls off. In this way the peptide chain is lengthened up to the end of the transcript. The peptide product is then modified in various ways to produce the final gene product.
Because of the way the coding works, it takes a DNA sequence 240 bp long to produce an 80 aa protein. Because of the redundancy of the code, swapping one base in the DNA for another does not necessarily change the output protein. Even if it does, protein tends to be pretty tolerant of amino acid changes--the 3-d structure of the protein often is unchanged. Bad things can happen, though, when this change occurs at an active site, where a chemical reaction of a substrate is triggered and where the locations of positive and negative charge and acidity and basicity need to be precise. If a protein has no catalytic activity often the sequence can vary pretty widely without affecting function.
This is ignoring all sorts of fun stuff like alternative splicing, genes continuing transcribing sometimes into other orfs, and viral DNA that is packed so tightly with information that often sequences complementary to a gene also contain genes as well.
"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."
The left despises God as we all know it. A scientists faith in the lord debunks all scientific theory that God did not play a role in the creation of man or animal. Evolution theory which has been forwarded by the lefts agenda aims to put down in all manners anyone with opposing theories as we are seeing now with Intelligent Design.
Just for the fact that this scientist has found the lord makes him a perfect foil for the left. Watch... Either this will get buried orby the MSM or this Scientist will be crucified(bad choice of words) in scientific journals.
There! sigh.....There's nothing quite as beautiful and refreshing as the truth.
You have a point when it comes to media exaggeration and bias. In the real world, however, there are not that many scientists who go about their discipline with intent to deceive or politicize, yet have little or no regard for the metaphysical. The few that are vocal in attacking the authority and accuracy of the biblical texts are speaking outside of their field of expertise.
"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."
I was not dishonest - I was responding to what you said in your post. I told you if I misunderstood you then why not clarify?
All you did was continue to insult.
You don't know anything about me - but you continue to insult.
So it is clear to me all you care to do is posture and show alot of attitude.
Again...job well done.
I'm not interested.
Thank you for the informative post.
Rule # 1, never apologize to a liar or his lying friends just because they lie more.
Collins wrote in that article that extremist scientists, (those who don't believe in God), have had a "shrill" voice on the subject, and have "dominated" the (anti-God) debate in science for 20 years. Those are his words, and those words prove my original allegation in spades, namely, that those scientists who do believe in God and say so, will be subjected to the "shrill" and "dominant" cat-calls of their peers.
No matter how you try to slice and dice it, the article conveys the notion that Collins is a recent, (or at least fairly recent), convert to faith; as the piece clearly relates. The title of the article is: "I Found God, says man who cracked genome". The very first sentence in the article says that Collines is publishing a book "explaining why he 'now' believes in the existence of God".
The article continues on to say he was an atheist till age 27, when he was given a C.S. Lewis book, but does NOT say that he became a believer then. IN FACT, it is not until two paragraphs later that the story says Collins had his "epiphamy" while hiking through the Cascade Mountians in Washington State. There is nothing specific written about how much time elapsed between his receiving the C.S. Lewis book and his actualy "epiphany". The only clues given in the story as to the age of his actual conversion are in the headlines and in the first sentence of the story.
If you're a scientist you had better rethink your profession, you're ability to research and reach sound conclusions from your 'study' really sucks. (Is "suck" an acceptable word in FR?)
Somebody pointed me towards C.S. Lewis's little book called Mere Christianity, which took all of my arguments that I thought were so airtight about the fact that faith is just irrational, and proved them totally full of holes. And in fact, turned them around the other way, and convinced me that the choice to believe is actually the most rational conclusion when you look at the evidence around you. That was a shocking sort of revelation, and one that I fought bitterly for about a year and then finally decided to accept.27 plus 1 = 28.
Now, apologize to Ichnueumon and stop trying to fake your way out of it, OK? Show us an alleged Christian can act like one.
His book isn't out yet, and I feel certain he doesn't walk around the laboratory quoting the "Sermon of the Mount" and teaching about how God made the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. After the book is on the shelves, then get back to me if he's not attacked by the media and some of his peers aren't mocking him. Don't forget, it was Collins himself who wrote that the anti-God voices in the science community have been "shrill" and have "dominated" the debate for 20 years.
If by chance Collins isn't attacked by the media and some in the science community after his book is out, it will only be due to the fact that he's proven he's brighter than most of them, and they do respect human intelligence. Still, I don't expect him to be let completely off the hook by the atheists that permeate his trade.
So far that examination has exclusively consisted of attempts to disprove evolutionary mechanisms. Disproving an evolutionary mechanism is quite appropriate for the study of evolution but it does not and can not say anything *for* ID. IDists have made unsubstantiated claims that an intelligent designer is the default fall back position if an evolutionary mechanism is shown to be incorrect. Without some evidence that ID is in fact the appropriate default, and/or some positive evidence for a designer, their work contributes nothing to ID and it remains a non-science. Simply put, falsification of a portion of the SToE is not evidence *for* ID.
"What is it about this possibility that irks people so much?"
It is not the possibility of discovery of a designer and of design in the genome, it is the parading of a 'yet to be science' non-science as science and their penchant for attempting to bypass the checks and balances of normal scientific methodology.
"So far that examination has exclusively consisted of attempts to disprove evolutionary mechanisms."
I have read of scientists who believe in evolution, but also believe in God. The scientist being discussed on this thread doesn't seem to be trying to disprove evolution.
As far as I understand it....evolution doesn't claim to explain the origin of life - just how life evolved.
"It is not the possibility of discovery of a designer and of design in the genome, it is the parading of a 'yet to be science' non-science as science and their penchant for attempting to bypass the checks and balances of normal scientific methodology"
How do they present non-science as science?
It appears that many scientists do have an antagonistic attitude towards the possibility of God being involved.
"Just making sure I understood you correctly.
It is the shape of the protein molecule that is important and that is determined by the order of the nucleotides. However, there are many 'substitutions' in amino acids that will result in related proteins that perform the same tasks so the sequence is not 'absolute' in all cases.
There is no direct correlation between human computer code and DNA.
> I was not dishonest
Evidence suggests otherwise. You use the tactics of The Enemy... you can be reliably assumed to be The Enemy.
> So it is clear to me all you care to do is posture and show alot of attitude.
Incorrect. It is not my fault that you entered into this bound and determiend to be deceitful. Had you been honest (i.e. not used the usual creationist lies), then you might have had a useful discussion.
> I'm not interested.
Indeed? Then why keep posting?
Place mark.
> In it, a man meets a character who is an "art critic"--critiquing universes. This one is considered very good.
As opposed to the *previous* one... the one this universe was "painted over," and which sometimes bleeds through. Neat idea.
> my definition of a scientist: one who studies a science.
Useful enough. However, when one considers the requirement for the scientific method, "God" ceases to be definable as a "scientist." "Artist," perhaps, "engineer," perhaps... but not "scientist." Or "politician." Maybe "lawyer."
> Here's an experiment for God's existence: Ask Him to contact you.
An experiment that billions have tried with no noticable response. Some claim success. However, asking "Allah," Buddha," "Shiva," "Odin," "Zeus," etc to contact you also has had successes.
" You use the tactics of The Enemy... you can be reliably assumed to be The Enemy. "
LOL.
That says alot right there.
Thanks for the giggles.
"Had you been honest (i.e. not used the usual creationist lies), then you might have had a useful discussion."
I am having a useful discussion...just not with you.
" Indeed? Then why keep posting?"
I'm wondering the same about you.
If you really thought I was a troll you would have quit harassing me a long time ago.
"It is the shape of the protein molecule that is important and that is determined by the order of the nucleotides."
Ok.
"However, there are many 'substitutions' in amino acids that will result in related proteins that perform the same tasks so the sequence is not 'absolute' in all cases"
"There is no direct correlation between human computer code and DNA."
I didn't say there was a direct correlation. I said they are similar...I made a comparison, because without the DNA - the instruction manual - the process would be nonexistant.
Have you read any of this thread, or even the whole article? This scientist has fully reconciled his faith with science. He has been a practicing Christian for 30 years, yet has no problem applying the principles of evolution in doing his work.
And incidentally, the theory of evolution is not a "leftist agenda". It's science. It's not political. The strawman that Creationists continually set up and knock down, that the "left" somehow has a huge conspiracy to block religion and morals by teaching science is dishonest, disingenuous, ignorant, and annoying as hell.
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.